> Mason-D’Croz said, “with substantial disruptions observed across the food system, particularly in the beef-value chain, which could contract substantially by as much as 45% under the 60%-replacement scenario – challenging the livelihoods of the more than 1.5 million people employed in these sectors.”
There's no way 60% of beef consumption will be replaced by plant-burgers without some kind of coercion.
60% seems like a lot, but it actually isn't: there are a lot of consumers (like myself) who would be more than happy to eat nothing but plant-based burgers, now that they're within spitting distance of meat in terms of taste and feel.
I'm not a vegan or even a vegetarian, but the only times I really eat hamburger anymore are when I need a convenient meal while traveling and a plant-based alternative is not available.
Steak and other "whole" cuts are harder, obviously. But 40-45% of beef consumed in the US is ground beef[1], so cutting that by even half would get us half way there. And that seems entirely possible, even conservative, without coercion based on current consumer trends.
> Steak and other "whole" cuts are harder, obviously. But 40-45% of beef consumed in the US is ground beef[1], so cutting that by even half would get us half way there.
Frustratingly it wouldn't, because the ground beef being consumed is largely an afterproduct of cows raised for those larger cuts. Burgers are cheap not because beef is cheap (it's not) but because they're being subsidized by brisket roasts and tenderloins cut from the same animal (there's surely some dairy cows in the mix too, but I'm led to believe that most older dairy animals get slaughtered for non-grocery products like animal feed).
We need to reduce steak/bbq consumption primarily, doing so will make burgers more expensive and reduce their consumption as a side effect.
Sure, but don't forget you can't have steak and other "whole" cuts without also creating an entire cow. There's always going to be random bits of it that are best suited to be hamburger. We can't really just stop eating hamburger and keep eating steak.
I do think that if McDonalds ends up selling a beef alternative burger at or below the cost of hamburger it'll be a huge shift. Their beef isn't great to begin with so the fake stuff might even be an improvement.
> 60% seems like a lot, but it actually isn't: there are a lot of consumers (like myself) who would be more than happy to eat nothing but plant-based burgers, now that they're within spitting distance of meat in terms of taste and feel.
Quantify "a lot."
> I'm not a vegan or even a vegetarian...
Maybe so, but your food choices seem to be similarly driven by some kind ideological motivation.
Which ones ended their partnerships? Burger King is expanding theirs, at least as of a month or so ago[1].
I'm not saying it isn't happening, but I'm skeptical of a macro trend away from meat substitutes here. Anecdotally, I've seen meat substitutes show up in more places around me (like Mexican-style fast food).
I've been vegan for a couple of decades now and during that period I've had that time to observe meat eating people get all upset about veganism at various dinner parties during even though I don't advertise it or even talk about it.
What I've concluded is there's just NO WAY the world is going to do the right thing until the entire Amazon rainforest (and forests in general) have been converted to food production for food animals, dusty fattening lots for slaughter stretch to the horizon and all fresh water sources are drained.
So sensitive is the subject of what one consumes!
Maybe once climate disasters become more common and the price of meat becomes far too expensive for value menus will we start to change course. But I doubt it, we'll probably build meat factories in space before that.
In the meantime, those precious ag jobs are probably more threatened by automation than impossible burgers.
This is no different than the complaint that coal miners will be put out of work by renewable energy. They sure will. We don't employ a lot of typewriter technicians these days either.
Anyone else exhausted by the hand wringing whenever obsolescence hits red states particularly hard? Nobody's writing op-eds when corporate realty staff or office front desk staff are laid off due to remote work.
i mean, i feel like there have been lots of articles about how major metro areas moving to remote work negatively impacted the service/hospitality industry in the area.
but also yeah, the red states need to realize that you can't freeze time.
Co2 is important but water is also a pressing issue:Today it takes 441 gallons of water to produce one pound of boneless beef[0]. There are a lot of numbers for this on the the web,and this may not include water for feed and processing/packaging but its a lot of water,when for example, lake Mead is about to become a deadpool.
[0]http://meatmythcrushers.com/myths/myth-it-takes-2400-gallons...
Readit News
There's no way 60% of beef consumption will be replaced by plant-burgers without some kind of coercion.
I'm not a vegan or even a vegetarian, but the only times I really eat hamburger anymore are when I need a convenient meal while traveling and a plant-based alternative is not available.
Steak and other "whole" cuts are harder, obviously. But 40-45% of beef consumed in the US is ground beef[1], so cutting that by even half would get us half way there. And that seems entirely possible, even conservative, without coercion based on current consumer trends.
[1]: https://beef2live.com/story-ground-beef-united-states-128-10...
Frustratingly it wouldn't, because the ground beef being consumed is largely an afterproduct of cows raised for those larger cuts. Burgers are cheap not because beef is cheap (it's not) but because they're being subsidized by brisket roasts and tenderloins cut from the same animal (there's surely some dairy cows in the mix too, but I'm led to believe that most older dairy animals get slaughtered for non-grocery products like animal feed).
We need to reduce steak/bbq consumption primarily, doing so will make burgers more expensive and reduce their consumption as a side effect.
I do think that if McDonalds ends up selling a beef alternative burger at or below the cost of hamburger it'll be a huge shift. Their beef isn't great to begin with so the fake stuff might even be an improvement.
Quantify "a lot."
> I'm not a vegan or even a vegetarian...
Maybe so, but your food choices seem to be similarly driven by some kind ideological motivation.
It remains to be seen if this is due to lackluster demand or they’re now developing their own plant proteins with the information they have.
I'm not saying it isn't happening, but I'm skeptical of a macro trend away from meat substitutes here. Anecdotally, I've seen meat substitutes show up in more places around me (like Mexican-style fast food).
[1]: https://www.foodandwine.com/news/burger-king-new-impossible-...
This is the same as saying "Solar might save the planet, but those 5 coal miners still working in west virginia might lose their job"
Deleted Comment
What I've concluded is there's just NO WAY the world is going to do the right thing until the entire Amazon rainforest (and forests in general) have been converted to food production for food animals, dusty fattening lots for slaughter stretch to the horizon and all fresh water sources are drained.
So sensitive is the subject of what one consumes!
Maybe once climate disasters become more common and the price of meat becomes far too expensive for value menus will we start to change course. But I doubt it, we'll probably build meat factories in space before that.
In the meantime, those precious ag jobs are probably more threatened by automation than impossible burgers.
but also yeah, the red states need to realize that you can't freeze time.