These transformations are tied to the changing American diet. Since the early 1980s, America’s per-person cheese consumption has doubled, largely in the form of mozzarella-covered pizza pies. And last year, for the first time, the average American ate 100 pounds of chicken, twice the amount 40 years ago.

    • TurboDiesel@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      We need to take a whole-cloth look at how agribusiness operates. Why is there so much outrage over resources we’re using to farm chicken, which as you pointed out are lower calorie-for-calorie than beef, but crickets for the resources we’re wasting on growing alfalfa in Arizona.

        • prole@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          In b4 the pushback from the Fox News crowd…

          Oh. No, wait. It appears as though I’m too late.

          • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            It is valid, it’s just not realistic. Bugs are incredible nutritious, but people also don’t like the idea of eating them. Not to mention vegetarians, who likely won’t eat bugs either.

            The real messaging here should be on reducing meat consumption, which will also improve health generally.

            • Zron@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              And I’m sure in a hundred years there will be an article about some vital resource that is being wasted by mass farming crickets.

              It’s almost like the ecosystem is not capable of sustaining 8 billion people over any serious time spans.

              Our plant based foods are less nutritious than before because we’re leeching nutrients out of the soil we grow them in. Our meat products are also going to be less nutritious because the meat is grown on animals that eat plants we farm. And the meat requires vast amounts of fresh water.

              The earth never had the resources to sustain our society. We just never stopped to think about it.

              • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                A lot of our problems lie with food distribution, not production, and poor use of water. We could support a larger population if we fix both.

                plant based foods are less nutritious

                That’s only somewhat true. We’ve basically prioritized quantity (and pest resistance) over quality, and foods are still quite nutritious. If you eat a varied diet, you should get plenty of nutrition even with the worst of it.

                meat products… less nutritious

                Maybe in ways that don’t really matter. Beef, for example, is produced from non-nutritious source foods, like grass, cows are just good at extracting what little nutrition they have. We don’t eat meat for the micronutrients, we eat it for proteins and fats, and fill in the rest with plant based foods. Chicken and pork will have a bigger impact since they actually eat foods we grow, but even then we don’t generally expect micronutrients from meats.

                Meat requiring large amounts of water is the real problem here. If we significantly reduce the amount of meat we produce, we’ll have lots of water to allocate toward more nutritious plant based foods.

                The earth never had the resources

                That’s some BS the eco people spread to scare people into being more eco friendly. The Earth absolutely has the resources to sustain our population and beyond, we just really suck at managing it. If we can switch energy and food production to be more efficient and convert business and residential areas to use less water and electricity, we’ll have plenty for even higher population numbers. But we need to make the step.

        • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No: chicken eats about 2 calories for each calorie of bird you get. With beef, the cow eats 10x. Cheese is similar.

        • library_napper@monyet.cc
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Why would you possibly think that? When you eat the thing that eats the thing instead of just eating the first thing, obviously its less efficient. In this case, its around 90% less wasted energy to just eat plants than to eat the thing that ate the plants

        • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          No because you have to feed every calorie to an animal to get animal proteins. So maybe you’re grazing animals on land that can’t produce human edible plants, but most of the grain and soy grown in America is grown as feed. We could be using the corn fields of the Midwest to grow human food

          • Sybil@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            most of the grain and soy grown in America is grown as feed.

            almost all of the soy grown everywhere (including america) is pressed for oil. the byproduct of that process is called “soymeal” or “soycake” and that is the vast majority of the soy fed to animals. they are eating parts of the plant that people don’t want to.

        • burgersc12@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          It takes 10x as much energy to move one chain up the food chain iirc so it takes 10 calories of plants for one calorie of animal protein. So in the long run feeding us plants would be better

    • derf82@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Produce less people. Reducing the per person carbon production is meaningless when we keep adding people. In 1950, there way 1/3rd less people and less than half the number of Americans.

      We have eaten animal protein for millennia. It was instrumental to our evolution. It’s only a problem now that we have way too many people

      • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        We’re already reducing population. In order to stave off disaster without atrocity we will need to accept lifestyle changes. Groundwater issues are a problem now, not in a generation. And there have been vegans and vegetarians for millennia too.

    • silence7@slrpnk.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Actually cut beef consumption sharply. That frees up a huge amount of land and water

      • StunningGoggles@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good. Most people aren’t going to stop eating meat, that’s an unrealistic expectation. If you’re telling people that eating chicken over beef isn’t good enough they will shrug their shoulders and go right back to beef.

  • PowerCrazy
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    29
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    I don’t think reducing human culinary culture down to only what is the most efficient per calorie per acre food is a laudable goal. If there is a ground water crisis, maybe the solution is to produce food in sustainable locations, ban food exports, and profit from food.

  • reddig33@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    This is a farming/regulation problem. Not a consumption problem. Almonds are a similar food grown where they shouldn’t be.

    • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah chicken consumption is going up because it’s almost always the cheapest option in the shelves (here anyway). People aren’t magically all deciding to eat it. It’s what they can afford.

    • WetBeardHairs
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I think the problem with almonds in california is more of a problem of water rights which were granted generations ago. They have to use the water so they literally just flood fields. Almonds can and are grown with much less wasteful techniques all over the world.