3 ms·

It’s expensive to eat less meat. And I done mean in an abstract way about the time it takes to prepare meals, etc. On a per weight basis, chicken is half the p

It’s expensive to eat less meat. And I done mean in an abstract way about the time it takes to prepare meals, etc. On a per weight basis, chicken is half the price of peanut butter or cheese at the local grocery store. A whole cooked chicken is even cheaper at Costco. Not everyone can afford to eat less meat and replace it with plant protein.

midoridensha 3y ago
Fair, but you can probably help save both money and the environment by cutting back on beef, and replacing it with chicken. Chicken is FAR more resource-efficient than beef. It's too bad they haven't figured out how to make it taste similar (of course, chicken doesn't taste bad, it's just really different, just like vanilla and chocolate ice cream taste different but one is not better than the other except in terms of personal preference).
vlz 3y ago
True, but I would like to add: 1. If you can afford it, you should still reduce. 2. The meat and dairy industries are heavily subsidized especially in developed countries. These prices are artificially low.[1] The subsidies could of course be shifted to human edible plants (instead of feeding corn/maize) making plant-based diets more affordable. At the moment however few politician want to be connected to rising meat prices. If they were to get clear signals from their voters for shifting preferences of course that could also change. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/14/global-farm-subsidies-damage-people-planet-un-climate-crisis-nature-inequality https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/14/global-f...
elevaet 3y ago
Chicken is a really green choice for getting your protein: - Chicken produces around 1/6 the CO2 of beef, and less than cheese. - Chicken uses around 1/10 the water than beef does. - Beef produces lots of methane and chicken doesn't. Chicken consumption isn't really a problem. When we say "reduce meat consumption" we should be saying reduce beef consumption.

midoridensha 3y ago

Fair, but you can probably help save both money and the environment by cutting back on beef, and replacing it with chicken. Chicken is FAR more resource-efficient than beef. It's too bad they haven't figured out how to make it taste similar (of course, chicken doesn't taste bad, it's just really different, just like vanilla and chocolate ice cream taste different but one is not better than the other except in terms of personal preference).

vlz 3y ago

True, but I would like to add: 1. If you can afford it, you should still reduce. 2. The meat and dairy industries are heavily subsidized especially in developed countries. These prices are artificially low.[1] The subsidies could of course be shifted to human edible plants (instead of feeding corn/maize) making plant-based diets more affordable. At the moment however few politician want to be connected to rising meat prices. If they were to get clear signals from their voters for shifting preferences of course that could also change. [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/14/global-farm-subsidies-damage-people-planet-un-climate-crisis-nature-inequality https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/sep/14/global-f...

elevaet 3y ago

Chicken is a really green choice for getting your protein: - Chicken produces around 1/6 the CO2 of beef, and less than cheese. - Chicken uses around 1/10 the water than beef does. - Beef produces lots of methane and chicken doesn't. Chicken consumption isn't really a problem. When we say "reduce meat consumption" we should be saying reduce beef consumption.