Hacker News Reader

Comment by LeifCarrotson | Hacker News Reader

Attempts to cause huge changes to global industries, like changing meat production to use fewer antibiotics, can almost never be brought about by suggesting that 7 billion people make a personal choice to eat less meat. That message will never be heard by the meat industry decision makers who are deciding how and how much to medicate their animals. But regulations directly impact their decision-making process.

View on HN

The consumers ultimately will decide the fate of the mean industry. However, I doubt that consumers will change their habits in a way that will be in their best interest.

Consumers can choose to buy meat from local sources that are ethically raised and at a scale that doesn't negatively impact the local environment. Yes, that will probably cost more then what's at the grocery store. But do we need to eat meat every day, week, or month?

To put all the responsibility on the meat industry, policy, and the government is in my opinion the wrong approach. I think we should be educating consumers and influencing change through the scale of economics.

This needs a multipronged approach. Regulations, where regulations work, consumer advocacy where consumer advocacy works, plant-based meat emulations where emulations work, and so on. Honestly though, I'm quite pessimistic that this problem will be solved in the next 50 years. As China and India have become more affluent, their meat consumption has only increased, just the way it happened in the west. And I know from looking around that even educated people here don't care how their meat was farmed.

that's a very US-centric way of seeing things. Market forces have proven to be a very bad instrument to pursue the collective good (time and time again, really). when the situation gets dire enough draconian regulation on the meat industry is inevitable.

There are many examples where global industries seeing real change based on individual preferences. Organic food may only be 5% of the US market, but that’s still a noticeable and growing change based on personal preference.

The critical threshold is people having equivalent options. If meat substitutes become indistinguishable they are going to explode across the market, just look at the adoption of filler in many food segments.

It already has happened. Fast food chains have at least had to apply some humane standards to the meat producers they buy from thanks to pressure from the public. And many of them are also rolling out meat substitutes due to customer demand.

Most social change comes from the ground up, not the top down. Companies like Tyson aren’t inherently evil, they just prioritize profits. Tyson is investing in meat replacements right now because customers have said they want them.

Nothing moves consumer preference like price.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com