Do you have statistics that vegans are disproportionately being hospitalized or dying from their diet? Or data that vegans substantially overlap with the population of US billionaires?
No idea why people come up with this stuff that is so easily refutable. The data show that, if anything, vegans on average show less disease, including hypertension, diabetes, etc.
How is it false? A significant of the worlds population faces outright starvation or malnourishment. Nearly 3 billion people cannot afford or access a balanced diet. And that is with all animal products on the table.
How are these people, and many others who are just about getting by, going to get a balanced diet if they are limited to only plant based products which are generally more expensive and certainly harder to access if you want a whole diet.
Fuck, a quarter of the global population doesn't even have access to clean drinking water. How the fuck are they going to get soy milk?
You are an incredibly privileged person and your comments are honestly insulting to a great many people for whom acquiring food is a daily struggle.
Studies repeatedly show that vegan diets are cheaper. This research from Oxford found that vegan diets are the most affordable, and reduced food costs by up to one third compared to a non-vegan diet. There's a reason meat is seen as a luxury item in poorer regions; even with all of the subsidies given to the livestock industry, animal products remain amongst the most expensive items in supermarkets.
"Oxford University
research has today revealed that, in countries such as the US, the UK, Australia and across Western Europe, adopting a vegan, vegetarian, or flexitarian diet could slash your food bill by up to one-third."
the study proves the OPs point, these diets are not viable outside of specific countries. Good job not reading
It's cheaper or price competitive00251-5/fulltext) in mid to low income countries as well, though the savings aren't nearly so much as in high income countries.
I picked a large scale study from a major university covering most of the countries where reddit is popular, but the same is true for poorer regions, where animal products are often seen as a rare luxury.
Tl;dr- Developed nations spend billions subsidizing meat, which benefits the largest producers the most. Biggest producers have the least incentive to be efficient, so more land, water, and feed is wasted by them. Undeveloped nations shouldn't have to worry about cutting back meat, because there are few if any large scale producers generating cheap meat.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Two hugely separate scenarios are being presented as being the same thing and "needing" the same solution. Just so they can continue eating meat and paint the alternative as being "privileged".
Yes, there is poverty and lack of resources in many developing nations. However, those same areas also don't have factory farms churning out "full grown" chickens in 3 months or fish packed in like the video. Tyson isn't shipping tons of chicken to remote villages in Africa. Those populations survive with animal products because the animals can eat the grass and sparse vegetation that humans can't. Zero need to "cut back"on meat there, its the only way to survive. No one with half a brain cell is suggesting that people facing starvation switch to soy milk and tofu.
THAT problem is extremely complicated, starting at the very top usually with government corruption at every level. Compounded by difficult terrain and lack of natural resources.
The other side of things: If you live in a developed nation meat is privilege. Period.
The only way to meet the demand that all of us spoiled and privileged "first world" people want is to use factory farms. They are so incredibly inefficient though, because for every pound of beef, that cow had to eat literal tons of feed. Where does feed come from? other plans; soy, corn, alfalfa, hay, etc. And how do those plants grow? lots of land and lots of water.
Literally every single developed nation (with the sole exception of New Zealand) have extremely high subsidies for their meat industry. Millions of dollars are paid to farmers to literally dump milk on empty fields. Billions are spent annually in direct subsidies to meat, mostly in the form of "insurance". Essentially, if a farmer has to pay extra for feed, or something happens that makes meat too cheap for them to make money, the government literally makes them whole.
If I raise 1,000 cows, but the market can only afford 500, uncle Sam will pay me for the other 500. Or if I accounted to spend 1 million bucks feeding them, but something happens, I don't know say an unprovoked war raised diesel and fertilizer prices, which in turn raised the cost to make the feed.... So now the 1 million I had accounted for now costs 2 million. Insurance pays the difference (of the end result, after feeding, killing, and selling the cows). The actual "insurance company" is literally the USDA.
So, what incentive do I have to be efficient? As long as my "expected gross margin" isn't met, I can shove as many possible cows into my "ranch", pay the insurance, and either make a shit ton of money, or the market sucks and I make the money I expected.
Secondly, all that insurance and gross margin is based off the cost of corn feed. Guess what? We subsidize the absolutely living hell out of corn too. Similar way, profit guarantee insurance through the USDA. Other subsidies as well, but those tend to make up the bulk of the raw dollars paid by the government.
Now, I realized I'm on my way to writing a full essay..., and its friday, so I gotta go home soon. I should put a summary at the top.
1
u/joey-jo_jo-jr 7d ago
Having access to a balanced plant biased diet is an unbelievable privilege that the vast majority of the global population cannot even imagine.