Foods destroying rainforests, in one simple chart | Hacker News Reader

Foods destroying rainforests, in one simple chart

vox.com

27 pointsstared33 comments

Open articleView on HN

It's also worth keeping in mind whilst soy is the 3rd highest, 80% goes to livestock.

Chart is buggy for some. Original here, Vox just added the countries up. Notice beef is off-scale high.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-026-01305-4/figures/5

It’s beef.

> Beef caused at least 4 times more deforestation than any other food in the last two decades

This is what we need tariffs for. And it could probably get broad support for both supporting domestic cattle production AND environmental concern.

American beef imports are heavily driven by how US beef production and consumption is structured. Basically, the US focuses beef production on creating high quality cuts (ie, steaks and other cuts with high marbling/fat), because that's what a large portion of domestic consumption is (and it's highest value). This leaves the US with a very large amount of high fat off cuts that aren't very marketable on their own. Imports are typically ultra lean cuts (which are also not very usable), and these two sources are then combined into ground beef.

Here's one source, but there are plenty of others you can find: https://tscra.org/we-have-94-million-cows-why-do-we-import-b...

Basically, classic value chain optimization.

Yes, imports and tariffs reshape markets

My beef doesn’t come from cattle in a rainforest - or even out of state.

If yours does: do something about it.

> do something about it.

On a scale of ease of saying vs ease of doing, this one is off the charts. The beef lobby is very powerful, and for 99% of people literally all they can do is to reduce their own consumption and annoy their friends and family. These things do almost nothing to move the needle.

Going to push back on this one until the cows literally come home:

what economy are you in that you’re shipping in your meat from overseas (e.g. former rainforest)?

An economy that offers fast food restaurants.

Localize more food production.

Through whatever means necessary.

People when talking about plant based/better-for-the-planet alternatives often don’t discuss the fact that they’re usually more expensive per unit

Perhaps for highly processed items. But peas and beans are cheaper than beef.

Externalities.

Don't eat "alternatives". Eat real food that doesn't have meat. I'm not even a vegetarian. Just clear-eyed about diets, cuisines, and culture.

Did my ad blocker somehow block the “one simple chart”? Because I don’t see a chart in TFA.

Running uBO here and I see a chart.

Yep, I use just vanilla no-script. No chart. unblocked half a dozen domains or more and never found the chart. No idea where the content is actually loaded from.

I get a square with "This content isn't visible due to your cookie preferences. To load this content, click the Allow button below to opt in to "Social Media & Embedded Content" cookies. These cookies are set and controlled by the third party sources from which the embedded content originates." and the button of course.

It's in an <iframe>, commonly used for social media stuff:

https://datawrapper.dwcdn.net/H3XKt/3/

This is the chart I couldn’t see, thanks. And holee shit, quit eating beef. :-)

what happened to beyond meat, impossible foods and all those other companies that a few years ago were planning to replace beef with plant friendly alternatives? why dont we hear about them anymore?

After a surge in popularity sales have declined steeply based on consumer demand.

Some people want hyper-realistic fake ground beef, etc. but not everyone, not all that many it turns out.

People who want to be vegetarian are also people who don't want to eat ultraprocessed food.

Authenticity is big with people. If I were to go vegetarian I'd want to eat... vegetables.

It is extremely difficult to justify fake beef that costs more than real beef. Maybe for a niche group who care about the ethics of it, but they aren’t enough to support a market. Once fake beef costs 80% or less than real beef, it could get some traction

I have a feeling you'd start into see costs start to align if the subsidies that go towards beef producers were reallocated in the direction of more sustainable alternatives.

since folks are lukewarm on no-meat options, they are working on blends which in aggregate would reduce meat consumption without the tough odds of converting meat-eaters

not a single chart in sight on that site.

Found the chart - not disappointed:

This content isn't visible due to your cookie preferences. To load this content, click the Allow button below to opt in to "Social Media & Embedded Content" cookies. These cookies are set and controlled by the third party sources from which the embedded content originates. Allow View and Manage all cookie consent preferences

Everything on the chart except maybe beef and bananas can be done without (and probably should).

You want people to give up corn and rice before beef and bananas?

Moreover beef appears on that chart twice: once as beef and again as soybeans, which are grown to feed livestock.

I don’t want anything, here.

Just a drive-by comment on what foods humans can (easily) do without, nutritionally.

Soybeans are up there.

> Just a drive-by comment on what foods humans can (easily) do without, nutritionally.

And I'm telling you that economically, not to mention thermodynamically, you're completely wrong.

50% of all calories all humans consume come from wheat, rice, and maize. Add in tubers and that rises to 90%. If you* want to do without something, then beef is the only rational choice. There are many, many cheaper nutritional substitutes for beef. Such substitutes don't exist for rice or corn.

* not "you" specifically, you may be able to afford a 100% beef diet. But it's literally impossible for everyone to swing it.

The americas didn't have cattle or bananas until the spanish though. That's 10s of millions of people who were living completely without those foods.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com