468
Cigarette-style climate warnings on food could cut meat consumption, study suggests
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 01 Nov 2023
468 points (87.6% liked)
World News
38596 readers
2170 users here now
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
"how can we shift responsibility to the consumer today?"
Eh, in all fairness the meat & dairy industry is one thing that we as consumers really do need to take a bulk of responsibility for. I say that as a devout meat eater.
BUT, governments could go a long way by not subsidising dairy and meat and instead subsidising protein alternatives. It's fucking nuts to me that it costs more for me to buy plant protein.
(Before the die hard vegans come at me saying you don't need to eat pseudo (plant) proteins to eat less meat, please remember you're trying to convert people that are familiar and enjoy one diet to another. You're not going to encourage anyone by advocating a cold-turkey or 0% meat approach. I hate that I have to put this disclaimer here, but I'm fed up with arguing with puritanical vegans that overshadow pragmatism.)
United States federal government spends $38 billion every year subsidizing the meat and dairy industries
Apparently people consume a lot more meat than they need and even than it's healthy to consume (though it heavilly depends on the country and the eating habits of the population) so there is room for huge improvement in greenhouse gas emissions from the industry AND health-outcomes by campaigning to reduce meat consumption (rather than the absolutist and rather moralist idea that people should become vegetarians or even vegans).
Also I'm quite weary about any proposed solution involving moving some of the current meat consumption to processed and ultra-processed protein alternatives: we keep getting study after study associating processed and especially ultra-processed food to all kinds of health problems.
No, the capitalists that put profit before the well being of the planet, the consumer, and their products are to blame and should be held responsible, not the people just trying to live their lives under a system imposed on us for the benefit of a small few (and before the die hard vegans come at me - I am a vegan, I just don't think the problems we're facing are because other people eat meat, but because capitalism has made meat in to an industry).
Capitalism doesn't endlessly produce, it produces to meet demand. Sometimes the "demand" can consist of subsidies to the industry with the intention of lowering price to consumers, but with the consequence of potentially creating more waste. I've read about farmers dumping excess product out because subsidies "bought" too much product to fit on shelves (aka consumers didn't buy enough to satisfy the greed for profit). Heaven forbid that excess product help people in need, for that may hurt the bottom line.
You honestly said it best in the first thing you said. .."capitalists that put profit before".. everything else. Pure capitalists, while mostly if not entirely evil, do not pollute for the fun of it. They pollute because of greed. If they aren't profiting from polluting, they'll (try to) find another way to profit. It's all they know, a literal one track mind.
That is definitely not to say that their carelessness while chasing profit is okay. It's harmful and evil. But it is largely just that, carelessness. A pure capitalist cares of nothing other than personal gain. And a public corporation in capitalist society must put shareholder profits ahead of all else by law. The only things they must adhere to in pursuit of profit are other laws, and even then only if the penalty for breaking the law hurts profits more than ignoring the law. This is by design, however terrible that design may be. Examples of this are everywhere. Children illegally hired in packing plants, illegal union busting, etc.
Perhaps the most brazen examples are car manufacturers doing cost-benefit analysis on whether to issue a recall on defective cars. Literally teams of experts calculating whether it will be cheaper to recall and fix dangerous defects, or pay out lawsuits when people get hurt/die. Spoiler: they can, have, and do choose to eat the cost of lawsuits when it is calculated to be cheaper than a recall. And yes, if you live in a capitalist society your life has a dollar amount attached to it (roughly $7.5 million as of 2020 according to FEMA). Your social security number may as well be a barcode placed on product.
Sorry, I got a little sidetracked. What I'm ultimately trying to get at is, we as consumers will have to take responsibility for consuming less because industry will do its' best to meet demand as long as it is profitable to do so. I think switching subsidies to alternative, less polluting foods is a great solution because it (in theory) works on multiple fronts.
By not subsidizing the meat & dairy industry, industry will be forced to raise cost to consumers or lose money. A higher cost to consumers means consumers will be more open to alternative options. If the options that are better for the environment are then subsidized to lower cost to consumers they become an attractive option.
Example: If the average meat eating, non-eco minded consumer has the choice between paying $50 for a pound of real meat, or $50 for a pound of meat alternative that tastes identical, they'll choose real meat nearly every time. Now give that same consumer an option of $10 for a pound of meat alternative (whether it tastes identical or not) and the mental math changes considerably. And honestly I doubt the price difference would have to be that drastic to have a noticeable impact on consumer buying habits. Especially when you take into account that people are trending towards being more eco aware.
I'm gonna end this here before I go on ranting all day. /Rant
Tldr; capitalism sucks. Subsidizing meat alternatives seems like a decent idea. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. I hope you all have a wonderful day, and achieve all of your dreams. Please leave me alone :)
industry creates its own demand
How so? Which industry produces without consumers involved? I'm honestly not trying to be condescending, if you can help me feel less bitter toward the world.. I don't even know what that would feel like anymore. I cannot express how grateful I would be.
I suppose it could be argued that an industry could (and I suppose maybe has) jumpstarted itself from nothing through clever/abusive advertising; the example that comes to mind is perhaps the diamond industry? I'm thinking of De Beers extensive marketing campaigns that implanted diamonds as the only 'real' choice to propose with. But it still takes consumers at the end of the chain for that/any industry to survive. Nobody holds guns to our heads forcing us to buy things. The only industry I can think of that is life or death and simultaneously our only feasible option of survival is the medical industry. But even then, barring external pressures, if people somehow stopped going to hospitals en masse the hospitals would shut down. If people stop buying manufactured medicine, they stop manufacturing medicine.
Just to clarify, I don't think it's right or "fair" for responsibility to fall on consumers. Ideally, elected officials would pass laws that make industries take responsibility for their actions. Even more ideally, greedy people wouldn't be in positions of power. But greedy people will always seek positions of power in their lust for power, and altruistic people will naturally gravitate away from positions of power in their quest to help empower others.
Like I've said though, if you or anyone has any examples to help me change my way of thought I honestly truly welcome it with an open heart. But as far as I can tell, in capitalism the only way meaningful, helpful change happens is when the consumers (the masses) are educated, well informed, and think critically about the choices they make at the checkout. Supply and demand economics is well known, and essentially a solved equation for businesses at this point. If there is demand and profit to be had, someone will supply that demand come hell or high water. I (unfortunately) literally cannot see any other way at this point.
capitalist get it wrong all the time. here's a good example: no one but iPhones in 2004. here's another good example no one buys fidget spinners in 2023.
wrong
If consumers don't take responsibility, who will? I for one will not be holding my breath for the legal system to take nor force responsibility. And certainly won't hold my breath waiting for capitalists to take responsibility. The only way I can see any current system to budge at all is at the behest of consumers, by force. I am not advocating violence, just simply stating that as far as I'm concerned, asking nicely for a capitalist to stop profiting, or even asking to not profit as much is a fallacy.
If you or anyone has convincing arguments saying otherwise I would really honestly love to hear them because frankly I don't like feeling/thinking this way. It's depressing and helpless feeling and I hate it. But it's what I've seen and grown up with my entire life.
We live in a World were techniques from modern psychology are user freely in Marketing to influence people via subconscious means (have you noticed how perfumes adverts are usually about sex, car adverts about freedom and fizzy drinks adverts about "fun with friends"?)
And we all are susceptible to it, no mater how intelligent and well informed (even if only because familiarity with something makes us naturally favor it, and that applies to brands too).
(This is actually one of the ways used by the food industry to create demand beyond natural human need for food, by the way and picking up on another discussion of yours - it's well worth it to read a book called "The Omnivore's Dilemma" on this as well as "Freakonomics" for an intro into all the "fun" ways in which humans aren't really rational as economic agents, including as consumers)
I don't think we can rely on "consumers" to change things exactly because humans as consumers are to a very large extent manipulated and even those who have a very high awareness of their purchase and consumption habits are but a minority that doesn't really has much impact in the big scheme of things.
I agree with you almost entirely. There are definitely deceptive advertising practices all over by every industry. And subliminal messaging is in use everywhere. Both are getting worse all the time as people trade privacy for convenience, myself included. A quick search will reveal many results of people talking about how they've talked about something for the first time that they have no interest in and being shown ads for it later. Advertising has reached the point where companies can tell when a woman is pregnant before she does and start advertising accordingly.
I also agree that for most of this, consumers are the virtually powerless underdogs. The only way to truly stop it, if there even is a way to stop something like subliminal advertising, is legislation.
All that said, I do think that consumers can do more than we are. In the current world it seems like waiting for politicians that are bought and paid for by these companies to pass legislation that these companies don't want is the wrong course of action if the goal is to decrease consumption. Nations want you to consume because that makes the economy look better.
However, educating ourselves, and more importantly each other, on these deceptive advertising practices, and taking an active stance to consciously combat said practices can make an immediate impact while we wait/hope for meaningful legislation. If we're watching a movie or TV show with friends and see some subtle product placement, call it out. When we're at the store take a moment to consciously think about whether we need some product, and what the consequences of buying said product are. How much energy is used, what kind of waste does it make both during production and after consumption. If it's recyclable, how? And how much energy is used in doing so? We should all demand to know what our local recycling policies are. Not just what they accept as "recyclable" but whether they actually recycle or just send it to a dump anyway. And wherever possible opt for options that are better for our world and better yet, going without when possible. I see a lot of "keeping up with the Joneses" in the modern world, and so much waste that seems reasonable avoidable.
I think I got a bit sidetracked. I definitely don't think we as consumers can do everything, and I think pretty much the full responsibility should fall on corporations and those in power, but currently that's largely not the case. And I don't think we have time to wait for that to change.
Ultimately I definitely think we largely agree; maybe slight differences in the how, but the end goal seems the same. As far as I can tell we are allies. We can and should help each other and others to advocate for personal changes and policy/legislative changes to combat the rampant over-consumption and over-production in the world today. I don't have children but I still want a livable Earth for future generations so so much.
Can't say I disagree with most (almost all, even) of that and would even say "educating" people to those things (well, mainly pointing it out to them and letting people think about it for themselves) is my main approach nowadays.
I do disagree on one point: I think that by the point we are alert and alerting others to the subtle manipulation going on, we're not acting as "consumers" but more like "citizens" or just "people", since that goes beyond merelly adjusting our purchasing choices and into actually examining and challenging the framework shaping people's choices in general.
Maybe it's just me, but my understanding of a "consumer" is just somebody that purchases things and people who are activelly trying to reduce the effectiveness of the mechanisms shapping people's purchasing choices not just on themselves but also on others, are acting at a level which is more than a mere "purchaser of things".
Hence I don't think such observation of and alerting others about mechanisms used to shape people's "consumer choices" is "acting as consumers to improve things" but is rather a more political level of "acting", more like "citizens".
That probably makes our "disagreement" mainly grammatical :)
I think direct action is much more effective than consumer activism. actually I don't believe consumer activism is effective at all. do you own a pair of bolt cutters?
I think I agree with direct action being more effective. The question is at what cost? In modern society, at least in the US, theft and other direct actions are crimes seemingly punishable by death on sight. The sheer number of news articles involving thieves being shot, especially if they're running, deeply saddens me. To me, non-violent crimes warrant non-violent solutions. But then to me it's arguable whether stealing groceries should even be a crime. Desperation will drive people to a life of crime 9 times out of 10 and who can blame them if there are no other resources available? I honestly don't know what the solution to any of this is if there even is a perfect or near perfect solution. I'm all for not letting perfection get in the way of progress (in theory at least. In practice I'm personally a bit of a neurotic perfectionist and it prevents me from getting anything done), but I hate loss of life. And unfortunately even peaceful protest seems to turn violent when a few people do something to "justify" the use of weapons banned in warfare (tear gas) and worse, deadly force. I recognize that this is likely the cost of progress, but it doesn't mean I have to like it.
I do still have some vague hope in democracy, and wish more good-hearted people could be elected. But I also recognize that those that most deserve positions of power are the least likely to seek positions of power. Let alone what their chances would be to actually be granted said positions by those already in power. To be honest I feel the cards are heavily stacked against the people, and have been for some time. And all of the ways I can envision getting out of the situation, quite frankly, suck ass for one reason or another. But ultimately the answer will likely have to suck, will probably involve violence (which I hate), and will take some time. But it may be better in the long run I guess, but I don't particularly want to be the one to pull the metaphorical trigger. And I definitely don't want to be the one to pull the not-so-metaphorical trigger..
Direct action to make WHAT happen? Any sane direct action concerning animal rights or climate change would NECESSARILY reduce the amount of meat available and/or increase the price. In the end, there is no alternative to eating far less meat. And you're delusional if you believe the very privileged western consumer base would accept those consequences.
That is exactly why consumers must realize their consumption habits are unsustainable, and unethical.
these two statements are in conflict, whereas i've been perfectly consistent.
right...
The thing is, you don't have to eat as much meat. If people cut their meat intake by 25%, we would cut GHG emissions from the food industry by 25%.
i doubt it. but do you have a plan to get there?
No, we don't.
Good point, you've convinced me.
wrong.
Nice, well-supported argument.
i presented exactly as much evidence as they did.
Do you need evidence to support the popular theory that no one has a gun to your head at the grocery store saying "buy that ground beef"?
whether i buy beef or not does not change whether the industry continues.
If no one buys beef, there would be no beef industry, they don't produce stuff for fun.
do you have a plan to get everyone to stop buying beef?
Well, isn't this post specifically about a plan to help with that? Also maybe by not spreading shit takes like yours and try to show the value of decreasing consumption.
you are the one that proposed the solution required everyone to stop buying beef. if you don't have a plan, it's not a very good solution
beef was produced long before anyone bought it. there is no reason to think it will ever stop.
There won't be industrial style cattle farms if no one will buy their products, that surely can't be hard to comprehend. If it doesn't make any money, it's not gonna be done.
there were industrial iPhone manufacturing facilities before anyone ever bought an iPhone.
Sure, just like the egg must have come before the chicken - you have to build the first iPhone factory before you sell the first iPhone.
How many Blackberry factories still operate? Palm pilot factories?
Capitalists market goods and create demand for them. But that demand requires people to buy their products.
Sheep production in the US peaked at 51 million head, back in 1884. Today, there's only 5 million head of sheep. Consumer preferences absolutely impacts what farmers grow.
i think, given the choice, many people would prefer wool over sythetics, but the price difference is incredible. look at any american made textile from that era.
i'm afraid you've fallen for the "post hoc ergo propter hoc".
When was the last time you had mutton for dinner?
In 1884, how often would you be eating mutton?
if you have something to say, say it. i don't see the point in your rhetorical questions.
which one?
Business execs are cloaked reapers. It's pretty interesting that these people continue to reproduce though, while still fully railing against any chance at a decent world to live in. I guess I'm not surprised they wouldn't care or have the foresight to worry about even their own blood's future - it's exactly what led us here.
Some upstanding citizen with a terminal illness should use the opportunity to make an example out of these worthless parasites.
Whose responsibility is it what to consume, if not the consumer's?
consumption doesn't emit greenhous gasses: production does. who is responsible for production?
What method of producing meat that doesn't emit greenhouse gases do you propose?
"Consumption doesn't emit greenhouse gases, production does", that doesn't really make sense. If no one consumed meat one year, much less meat would be produced the next year, leading to less greenhouse gases.
it seems like you understand that all the emissions are in the production but you're incredulous and proposing and impossible hypothetical to support your position.