3 ms·
I assume the "no it doesn't" was targeted at > Meat production kills environment The link above is responding to the "no it doesn't" by providing evidence tha
by themk 2y ago
I assume the "no it doesn't" was targeted at
> Meat production kills environment
The link above is responding to the "no it doesn't" by providing evidence that it does.
But to answer your question (it's in the link, but I'll save you a click), the next biggest cause is "oil seeds", which includes a large hunk of soy. Most of the soy goes to animal feed, 13% goes to oil for human consumption, some goes to industrial uses, and about 7% goes to human consumption of what would usually be considered alternative to animal products (tofu, tempeh, soy milk, etc).
Yes, eating anything is going to contribute to resource depletion, but what we eat makes a huge difference!
- wordofx 2y agoAmerica feeds livestock soy. Most of the world doesn’t. Most land live stock is kept on can’t be used to grow crops.
- themk 2y agoHmm, I don't have numbers, but I'm pretty sure UK feeds soy to livestock (e.g. chickens). But, I was just answering the question. And 70% of soy grown globally goes to feeding animals. And while I agree that some (I doubt it's most, but happy to see numbers) cattle is raised on marginal lands, that isn't the point being made. Animal agriculture is still the leading cause of deforestation. Also, just because land can't grow crops doesn't mean it has to be cleared of it's native flora and fauna to grow meat. It's still deforestation.