This is Fine Rule
EDIT: here's a source for that figure
Previous studies have estimated that 73% of all antimicrobials sold globally are used in animals raised for food
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7766021/pdf/antibiotics-09-00918.pdf
"Does it make us money right now? Then it's fine."
Nothing good comes from the meat industry. Nothing at all.
Except for delicious meat, of course /s
If you bang your knee every day, you might be so used to the pain eventually that it's like you don't feel it anymore.
Physically if you don't know what it feels like to not consume a damaging and inflammatory diet, it's easy to mistake feeling like shit all the time with normalcy. But it's not normal, it's killing you.
And emotionally if you only know what it's like to do something that causes so much trauma and suffering (both to the animals, and the people who do the slaughtering), you might be so used to a background noise of guilt that you're not even aware that you're carrying it. The only way to know the difference is to change and watch what happens in your mind when you stop running away from the violence you're complicit in.
Where does that figure come from? That's wild, if true
For global estimates (~73%)
Previous studies have estimated that 73% of all antimicrobials sold globally are used in animals raised for food
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7766021/pdf/antibiotics-09-00918.pdf
For US in particular (~80%)
Of all antibiotics sold in the United States, approximately 80% are sold for use in animal agriculture; about 70% of these are “medically important” (i.e., from classes important to human medicine).2 Antibiotics are administered to animals in feed to marginally improve growth rates and to prevent infections, a practice projected to increase dramatically worldwide over the next 15 years.3 There is growing evidence that antibiotic resistance in humans is promoted by the widespread use of nontherapeutic antibiotics in animals. Resistant bacteria are transmitted to humans through direct contact with animals, by exposure to animal manure, through consumption of undercooked meat, and through contact with uncooked meat or surfaces meat has touched.4
Jesus... But thanks for having your sources ready!
We'll feed them antibiotics by the shovelful but won't vaccinate chickens...
I dug in (thanks for linking sources) and there are some promising details. The ~80% figure for the US is from a 2011 report (even though the citation states 2014...), so it's very old. In 2019, the US began an initiative to increase awareness of this issue and address it, see the progress here (pdf link).
Not trying to counter the narrative, but at least we're talking about it on the federal level, so maybe that can provide some optimism to people.
In Germany 2015 1700 tons of antibiotics were used, thereof only 300 t for human use.
We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/pdf
what does this have to do with anything
what
Big Meat uses a lot of antibiotics, which causes bacteria populations to evolve and no longer be affected by antibiotics. When this happens, the now-used antibiotics become less effective, causing unnecessary deaths.
Tl;dr: go vegan
Also, a cause of 14.5% of human caused greenhouse gas emissions
Can someone explain why antibiotics are used in the meat industry? Are lots of animals dying to bacterial infections so they need antibiotics to aid the yield, or are antibiotics incidentally also growth hormones, or something else? Always been curious
Both of the two. The two main reasons are that it incidentally boost growth and there are lots of circulating diseases due to heavy overcrowding conditions. Note that the use is not on those who are sick, but to everyone even if they show no symptoms
Antibiotics are administered to animals in feed to marginally improve growth rates and to prevent infections, a practice projected to increase dramatically worldwide over the next 15 years.There is growing evidence that antibiotic resistance in humans is promoted by the widespread use of nontherapeutic antibiotics in animals.
Don't worry, it gets worse! Certain farmed animals are particularly susceptible to infections like shrimp and oysters. These animals are kept in open water pens and antibiotics are routinely DUMPED INTO THE OCEAN to protect the stock, naturally contaminating the ocean at large and giving bacteria in the wild just enough exposure to antibiotics to develop resistance.
If you want to support responsible antibiotic use, avoid all farmed shellfish, don't buy any meats from India or China, and only buy free range chicken; these are the biggest global offenders. If you're European, avoid meats from Greece or italy.
On top of the other answers, animals are more likely to get sick if they get cramped together in extremely tight spaces, facilitating the spread of diseases, and meat industries do systematically cramp animals together because it's economically efficient, at the detriment of both the animals and the quality of the meat.
Sorry I'm too lazy to look up a source, but the way I've heard it explained is that while they might occasionally give them to sick animals as a sort of panacea, they often just give all of them a low dose. Apparently it like, makes their immune system not have to work as hard so they gain weight faster. Which is basically textbook how to make resistant bacteria.
One of the biggest reasons is because cattle growers (especially in North America) feed their cows corn instead of grass or other things that cows actually evolved to eat. They do this because long standing US government subsidies on corn production mean that it can be sold for less than the cost of production; the farms are literally paid to grow it. This is also why high fructose corn syrup is in everything you eat. The corn makes the cattle sick, so the farms pump them full of antibiotics, because that's cheaper than just feeding them properly.
Land use, even cropland use, is actually far lower on a plant-based diet
The research suggests that it’s possible to feed everyone in the world a nutritious diet on existing croplands, but only if we saw a widespread shift towards plant-based diets.
[...]
If everyone shifted to a plant-based diet we would reduce global land use for agriculture by 75%. This large reduction of agricultural land use would be possible thanks to a reduction in land used for grazing and a smaller need for land to grow crops.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
we show that plant-based replacements for each of the major animal categories in the United States (beef, pork, dairy, poultry, and eggs) can produce twofold to 20-fold more nutritionally similar food per unit cropland. Replacing all animal-based items with plant-based replacement diets can add enough food to feed 350 million additional people, more than the expected benefits of eliminating all supply chain food loss.
https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1713820115
Also wanted to point vast majority of people consuming animal products contain a number of deficiencies in vitamins and minerals that only or mostly occur in plants. For instance, only 5% of the US population gets enough fiber
It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that the public should consume adequate amounts of dietary fiber from a variety of plant foods. Dietary fiber is defined by the Institute of Medicine Food Nutrition Board as “nondigestible carbohydrates and lignin that are intrinsic and intact in plants.” Populations that consume more dietary fiber have less chronic disease. Higher intakes of dietary fiber reduce the risk of developing several chronic diseases, including cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes, and some cancers, and have been associated with lower body weights. The Adequate Intake for fiber is 14 g total fiber per 1,000 kcal, or 25 g for adult women and 38 g for adult men, based on research demonstrating protection against coronary heart disease. Properties of dietary fiber, such as fermentability and viscosity, are thought to be important parameters influencing the risk of disease. Plant components associated with dietary fiber may also contribute to reduced disease risk. The mean intake of dietary fiber in the United States is 17 g/day with only 5% of the population meeting the Adequate Intake. Healthy adults and children can achieve adequate dietary fiber intakes by increasing their intake of plant foods while concurrently decreasing energy from foods high in added sugar and fat, and low in fiber. Dietary messages to increase consumption of whole grains, legumes, vegetables, fruits, and nuts should be broadly supported by food and nutrition practitioners.
https://www.jandonline.org/article/S2212-2672(15)01386-6/fulltext
science around veganism is highly exaggerated. Nutrition science is in its infancy and the "best" studies on vegans rely on indisputably and fatally flawed food questionnaires that ask them what they eat once and then just assume they do it for several years:
Swiss Federal Commission for Nutrition https://www.blv.admin.ch/dam/blv/en/dokumente/das-blv/organisation/kommissionen/eek/vor-und-nachteile-vegane-ernaehrung/vegan-report-final.pdf.download.pdf/vegan-report-final.pdf - The positive effects of a vegan diet on health determinants cannot be proven, but there are relevant risks regarding nutritional deficiencies. Children and pregnant women are advised against adopting a vegan diet due to the risks described above. - There is still a lack of data whether the basic nutritional requirements are met and whether the development of children and adolescents fed on a vegan diet is secured on a long-term perspective. These data should be collected and analyzed more systematically. There is in our view up to now no evidence that a vegan diet can be recommended for these age groups - Based on these data, there is no evidence for the position stated in the previous report, that vegan diets are healthy diets. - The scientific evidence available to date is not sufficient to claim that vegan and vegetarian diets are associated with a significant reduction of total mortality - The reduction in IHD and all-cause mortality with vegetarian diet stems mainly from the Adventist studies, and there is much less convincing evidence from studies conducted in other populations. European Society for Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition (ESPGHAN) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28027215/ - Vegan diets should only be used under appropriate medical or dietetic supervision to ensure that the infant receives a sufficient supply of vitamin B12, vitamin D, iron, zinc, folate, n-3 LCPUFA, protein, and calcium, and that the diet is sufficiently nutrient and energy dense. Parents should understand the serious consequences of failing to follow advice regarding supplementation of the diet. - Although theoretically a vegan diet can meet nutrient requirements when mother and infant follow medical and dietary advice regarding supplementation, the risks of failing to follow advice are severe, including irreversible cognitive damage from vitamin B12 deficiency, and death. German Nutrition Society (DGE) https://www.ernaehrungs-umschau.de/fileadmin/Ernaehrungs-Umschau/pdfs/pdf_2016/04_16/EU04_2016_Special_DGE_eng_final.pdf - Any diet that does not lead to the intake of adequate levels of essential nutrients and energy is unfavourable. The DGE recommends a diet that includes all groups of foods in the nutrition circle - including animal products. - Special care is needed for groups with special requirements for nutrient supply, e.g. pregnant women, lactating women, infants and toddlers. - On a vegan diet, it is difficult or impossible to ensure adequate supply of some nutrients. The most critical nutrient is vitamin B12. Other potentially critical nutrients on a vegan diet include protein resp. indispensable amino acids and long-chain n-3 fatty acids (EPA and DHA), other vitamins (riboflavin, vitamin D) and minerals (calcium, iron, iodine, zinc and selenium). - With some nutrients, a vegan diet without fortified foods or dietary supplements leads to inadequate intake, which may have considerable unfavourable consequences for health. - The risk of nutrient under-supply or a nutritional deficiency is greater in persons in sensitive phases of life, such as pregnancy, lactation and in infants, children and adolescents taking or being given a vegan diet, than in healthy adults on a vegan diet. - Since rejecting any animal foods increases the risk of nutrient deficiencies and thus of health disorders, a vegan diet is not recommended by the DGE during pregnancy or lactation, or for children or adolescents of any age. French Pediatric Hepatology/Gastroenterology/Nutrition Group https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31615715 - The current craze for vegan diets has an effect on the pediatric population. This type of diet, which does not provide all the micronutrient requirements, exposes children to nutritional deficiencies. These can have serious consequences, especially when this diet is introduced at an early age, a period of significant growth and neurological development. - Even if deficiencies have less impact on older children and adolescents, they are not uncommon and consequently should also be prevented. Regular dietary monitoring is essential, vitamin B12 and vitamin D supplementation is always necessary, while iron, calcium, docosahexaenoic acid, and zinc should be supplemented on a case-by-case basis. Sundhedsstyrelsen (Danish Health Authority) https://www.sst.dk/da/udgivelser/2018/~/media/2986643F11A44FA18595511799032F85.ashx - Exclusively vegan nutrition for infants and young children (under 2 years of age) is not recommended as it may be very difficult to meet the child's nutritional needs during the first years of life with this diet. Académie Royale de Médecine de Belgique (Royal Academy of Medicine of Belgium) https://updlf-asbl.be/assets/uploads/ARMB_-_Veganisme_AVIS_COMPLET.pdf - The committee considers that the vegan diet is inappropriate and therefore not recommended for unborn children, children and adolescents, as well as pregnant and lactating women. - Compulsory supplementation, metabolic imbalances and the obligation of medical follow-up, including blood sampling, are therefore not eligible. Spanish Paediatric Association https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31866234 - A vegetarian or a vegan diet, as in any other kind of diet, needs to be carefully designed. After reviewing current evidence, even though following a vegetarian diet at any age does not necessarily mean it is unsafe, it is advisable for infant and young children to follow an omnivorous diet or, at least, an ovo-lacto-vegetarian diet. Argentinian Hospital Nacional de Pediatría SAMIC https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31339288 - Vitamin B12 deficiency is one of the most serious complications of vegetarianism and its variants. Infants born to vegan mothers are at greater risk of serious deficiency, being more vulnerable to their effects. B12 deficiency is not usually suspected by the pediatrician in healthy infants with neurological symptoms The Dutch national nutritional institute, Stichting Voedingscentrum Nederland https://www.voedingscentrum.nl/Assets/Uploads/voedingscentrum/Documents/Ontwerp_Vegetarisch%20en%20veganistisch%20eten_defLR_2018.pdf - A vegan diet can be adequate but increases the risk for various deficiencies. The report then describes the various risks of deficiencies and how they can be circumvented. - A vegan diet for children can be adequate but is associated with an increased risk of: being smaller and lighter than their peers, worse psycho-motor development and reduced bone density. Help from a professional is advisable. - The literature on the effects of a vegan diet on pregnant women is limited, but the available research indicates that a healthy pregnancy in combination with a vegan diet is possible, under the precondition that the women pay special attention to maintaining a balanced diet.
Many, if not all, of the institutions that agree with the AND either just echo their position, don't cite any sources at all, or have heavy conflicts of interest. E.g. the Dietitians of Canada wrote their statement with the AND, the USDA has the Adventist reviewer in their guidelines committee, the British Dietetic Association works with the Vegan Society, the Australian Guidelines cite the AND paper as their source and Kaiser Permanente has an author that works for an Adventist university.
The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics was founded by Seventh-day Adventists, which are an evangelistic vegan religion that owns meat replacement companies. Every author of their position paper is a career vegan, one of them is selling diet books that are cited in the paper. One author and one reviewer are Adventists who work for universities that publicly state to have a religious agenda. Another author went vegan for ethical reasons. They explicitly report "no potential conflict of interest". Their claims about infants and athletes are based on complete speculation (they cite no study following vegan infants from birth to childhood) and they don't even mention potentially problematic nutrients like Vitamin K or Carnitine.
that is no longer the position of the academy
Here is the full text, I originally planned to paste sections of it that I felt applicable to rebuke you in multiple comments as lemmy does have a comment character limit and won't let me paste the entire text
I beleive I may have also unkowingly cut out relevant parts of the text
I belive you misinterpreted the way I originally posted it as "gish gallop"
I beleive it is a good compilation of sources
I know the original text may also be a bit negative towards vegans but I still beleive the scientific sources contained within it and its explanations of those sources are valuable excluding the negativity and I removed the negativity in my comments containing sections of the text, I did not write the text compiling the sources but I use it as it is a good compilation of sources
what is this Frankenstein's meme
Vegan products still use land and farm equipment won't stop for any mouse or insect in the way
Farmers also shoot pests that eat their crops
A vegan diet is not sustainable for the average person. Ex-vegans vastly outnumber current vegans, of which the majority have only been vegan for a short time. Common reasons for quitting are: concerns about health (23%), cravings (37%), social problems (63%), not seeing veganism as part of their identity (58%). 29% had health problems such as nutrient deficiencies, depression or thyroid issues, of which 82% improved after reintroducing meat.
Many environmental studies that vegans use are heavily flawed because they were made by people who have no clue about agriculture, e.g. by the SDA church. A common mistake is that they use irrational theoretical models that assume we grow crops for animals because most of the plant weight is used as feed, The reality is that 86% of livestock feed is inedible by humans. They consume forage, food-waste and crop residues that could otherwise become an environmental burden. 13% of animal feed consists of potentially edible low-quality grains, which make up a third of global cereal (not total crop) production. All US beef cattle spend the majority of their life on pasture and upcycle protein even when grain-finished (0.6 to 1). Hence, UN FAO considers livestock crucial for food security and does not endorse veganism at all.
Vegans have never been able to define or measure that their diet causes less deaths/suffering than an omnivorous one. They are ignorantly contributing to an absolute bloodbath of trillions of zooplankton, mites, worms, crickets, grasshoppers, snails, frogs, turtles, rats, squirrels, possum, raccoons, moles, rabbits, boars, deer, 75% of insect biomass, half of all bird species and 20,000 humans per year. Two grass-fed cows are enough to feed someone for a year and, if managed properly, can restore biodiversity. The textbook vegan excuse where they try to blame plant agriculture on animals and use only mice deaths, fabricated feed conversion ratios of 20:1 and a coincidentally favourable per-calorie metric is nonsense because:
The majority of animal feed is either low-maintenance forage or a by-product that only exists because of human food harvest.
It literally shows that grass-fed beef kills fewer animals.
It still take more human-edible feed than it produces out. From the same study that produced the cited figure:
1 kg of meat requires 2.8 kg of human-edible feed for ruminants and 3.2 for monogastrics
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211912416300013
For the claims about sequestration
There’s not been a single study to say that we can have carbon-neutral beef
[...]
We also have to ask how much of the sequestered carbon in these systems is actually due to the cattle. What would happen to the land if it were simply left fallow?
The answer is, depending on the land, and on the kind of grazing, it might sequester even more carbon
https://www.washingtonpost.com/food/2022/10/03/beef-soil-carbon-sequestration/
And good luck scaling up grass-fed production even if it did sequester more
We model a nationwide transition [in the US] from grain- to grass-finishing systems using demographics of present-day beef cattle. In order to produce the same quantity of beef as the present-day system, we find that a nationwide shift to exclusively grass-fed beef would require increasing the national cattle herd from 77 to 100 million cattle, an increase of 30%. We also find that the current pastureland grass resource can support only 27% of the current beef supply (27 million cattle), an amount 30% smaller than prior estimates
[…]
If beef consumption is not reduced and is instead satisfied by greater imports of grass-fed beef, a switch to purely grass-fed systems would likely result in higher environmental costs, including higher overall methane emissions. Thus, only reductions in beef consumption can guarantee reductions in the environmental impact of US food systems.
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401
And it is perfectly healthy
It is the position of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics that appropriately planned vegetarian, including vegan, diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits for the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. These diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, adolescence, older adulthood, and for athletes. Plant-based diets are more environmentally sustainable than diets rich in animal products because they use fewer natural resources and are associated with much less environmental damage. Vegetarians and vegans are at reduced risk of certain health conditions, including ischemic heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, certain types of cancer, and obesity. Low intake of saturated fat and high intakes of vegetables, fruits, whole grains, legumes, soy products, nuts, and seeds (all rich in fiber and phytochemicals) are characteristics of vegetarian and vegan diets that produce lower total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and better serum glucose control. These factors contribute to reduction of chronic disease
that is not the position of the academy and hasn't been for years
What are you going on about bruh??? Did you read the study? It was about antibiotics. Triggered much?
This link simply shows what rubbish you are talking. https://ourworldindata.org/wild-mammals-birds-biomass
Sorry ya'll, but if you are still shoveling these idiots money for most of your meals, then you personally are the problem. You should feel guilty every time you do it. You are hurting yourself. You are hurting your children. Tou are hurting your granchildren and future generations. You are hurting strangers. You are hurting everyone you care about. You are doing this all out of addiction and laziness. Not to mention the extreme torture that you are inflicting on the animals. It is time to grow up and take responsibility. You are not innocent because "other people do it too." You are guilty. Please admit this very clear fact to yourself and do better.
Not the person you are replying to, but want to counter that part specifically. The cost is actually usually the other way around. It's much more of a privilege to consume large amounts of meat and dairy
From a modeling study looking at healthy plant-based diets:
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2021-11-11-sustainable-eating-cheaper-and-healthier-oxford-study
From some real world spending data
https://agrifoodecon.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186/s40100-022-00224-9
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0921800915301488?via%3Dihub ---(looking at the US)
And yet rice, beans/lentils, pasta, vegetables, and spices are all vegan, and are all the staples for low-cost meals in grocery stores the world over. Where do you live where that isn't the case?
You know you can't actually argue against it, so you point to a small hypothetical edgecase as if that will excuse your behavior. You are the one who lacks perspective and demonstrates extreme entitlement. You think because there may be some people forced between starvation and factory meat that it somehow gives you moral superiority and permission to destroy the lives of others. I go out of my way to make things better, you desperately search for anything you can to distract from all the harm you selfishly cause.
You don't even have the strength to let other people do the work. You feel like you need to go out of your way to attack and intimidate them because it makes you feel so inferior. Lucky for you, there are people on the planet to take care of things for you while you just sit by and moan and complain. We work for a better world despite you while you complain about our efforts, you entitled little brat.
Other people have handled you naivety well. Now, please do your part and fix your diet for the sake of everyone on the planet. You want to stand up for people, so stand up for them by showing some self-control.
I totally get you, but if you want really convince other people of doing the right thing you need to change your tone. This kind of approach is terrible, no one wants to be called evil or dumb for something they never had the time to think about it. You have to do better than that otherwise you are just preaching to people who agree with you.
Yeah, absolutely, you're totally right. That's definitely the most common way to go about it, and maybe the most effective, I really don't know. There is a bunch of gentle nudging going on, though, and everyone responds to different things. For some people, no amount of loving hints will get them to do anything. Some people just need the genuine blunt truth to get them to actually think about something. Honestly, it's like any other addiction, the desire needs to come from within, nobody can force them to get better.
I dont buy that many people are unaware or never thought about it before. It's brought up all the time. The issue isn't a lack of information, it is that most people just have almost no personal moral compass, they just rely on the behavior of the masses to dictate to them what is right/wrong. The more people remind them that what they are doing is disgusting, the more likely they will be to eventually change. I figure just machine gun 'em with all various forms of reminders, and we'll get through to some. Eventually, we will hit a critical mass, and the sheep will follow. The most pathetic will cling to their cruelty addiction until they are dead, but that's the same as what happened to the racists, rapists, child abusers or anything else that used to be more accepted.
There is no point in talking reasonably. This is our planet they are destroying.
Oh yeah! Love my burgers from the Stockyard restaurant in Brighton. Occasionally, I'll get the filet. Oh my!!
It is NOT my fault the Earth is fucked.
Corporate and politicians can eat the shit out of the ass of every meat eater.
GFY for trying to blame the "little guy". You're a prick stain.
You can try to pass the blame onto them all you want, but the obvious reality is that the billionaires can't sell disgusting over-drugged factory farm meat to billions of people if billions of people don't buy it. They only have power if you willingly give it to them.
The game is over, YOU are the problem, and only YOU can stop your own disgusting habits. No more blaming everyone else for your own complete and utter lack of self-control. Live in your guilt. You are screwing us all over because you are unable to admit responsibility. You are an abusive husband who beats his wife and then blames her for it. Nobody with any amout of common sense is still believing your tired old excuses.
Future generations will know what you did, and you will disgust them. They won't even be able to comprehend how you could be so vile and uncaring. Get used to it, Grandpa. That's your future.
If you will buy it, they will sell it.
Corperations are not people. They have no moral compass. They do what their customers will pay for.
Customers are people. Customers can choose based on any criteria. Convenience, morals, pleasure, whatever they value.
You are the customer. By buying from animal agriculture, you are saying you value what they are selling.
Yes, the thousands, millions, billions of customers matter. YOU are a customer. YOU MATTER. And if you choose to value something that is pure evil for all involved except your taste buds and their bottom line, then yes. You share in the blame. Especially now that you know what it causes.
Ever wonder why those old racist people who are stuck in the past are how they are? It's because they think the same as you do. Unable to learn from those around them, obsessed with never growing, and utterly self-centered. You'll be tolerated, not respected. As increasingly more and more people point this out to you, the more likely you will be to change.
That's why I avoid eating meat and only stick to eating vegans.
Love plants, eat vegans
Honestly most meat tastes like shit anyways. And vegan alternatives taste amazing, are often prepared and ready to go into a meal and you don't have to worry about it being undercooked.
not really? farming meat doesn't necessarily have to involve so much antibiotics
sure you can reduce the amount of antibiotics used by reducing the throughput of meat but you can also just put in tighter regulations
We already have tightened regulations. In the USA you can no longer buy antibiotics off the shelf. You have to now get an RX. We here in the US aren't really the main driver of this. It's been mainly foreign beef production in countries where there is little regulation.
it's not just the antibiotics that are the issue. animal agriculture is a giant contributor to pollution of water, lands, and air as well as being a major cause for the destruction of rain forrests. the level of meat consumption in rich countries can not be scaled to the rest of the world.
thats ofc is ignoring that all animal agriculture is extremely fucking immoral and cruel and honestly unconscionable.
I bet you're the life of the party.
Maybe someday you'll get invited to the party so you can stop speculating about what's going on at it.
If you don't stop I'll eat my dam grandchildren, how would you feel about that bucko
I would be unsurprised by the natural progression of your selfish depravity. Hopefully, you take it far enough that you just eat yourself to death, and we can get to work fixing the selfish shitshow that you leave in your wake.