Vegetarian Fake Meats

[lpetrich]

The backlash against Impossible and Beyond Meat burgers going mainstream - Vox

The backlash to plant-based meat, when you look at it closely, is a backlash against our food system in general — mistakenly directed at one of the more promising efforts to make it a little bit better.

There have been many critiques leveled at plant-based foods. They all boil down to four broad criticisms: 1) they are highly processed; 2) they contain GMOs; 3) they’re not that healthy — or even hazardous to your health; and 4) they’re aesthetically objectionable as “fake” food.

The article then addressed these criticisms. What counts as processing? Some kinds of processing are very good. To date, GMO's have not been dangerous.

Importantly, the environmental benefits of the Beyond and Impossible Burgers have held up under the flurry of new scrutiny. Plant-based meats really do emit much less CO2 and other greenhouse gases than meat does, use less water, and use less land. The fact is that lots of people want, well, a burger. So why not offer them a burger that’s good for the environment, good for animals, and positioned to address huge problems with our food system?

Then the curious objection that fake meat is fake.

Another component of the backlash isn’t about health at all. Instead, it’s about a vague sense that there’s something noble about eating dead animals that’s simply absent when eating plant-based, factory-assembled inventions.

In a Heated piece, Danielle LaPrise tells the story of how her community came together to slaughter a pig: “With every animal dispatched, every crop harvested,” she writes, “I realized that our time on earth is temporary, and everything on it is a gift. I could plant seeds or raise animals from birth, care for them, feed them, and then later I would depend on them to nourish and sustain me.” Of meatless meat, she writes, “these foods will never succeed in mimicking the humbling intimacy from meals where the animal’s death is deeply felt.”

Except that most people don't get very close to the animals that are killed for their meat - food animals are mostly factory farmed.

“I can’t help but notice,” Trembath wrote in an analysis of the plant-based meat backlash, “that when fake meat was the purview of food utopians and visionary chefs, thought leaders were enthusiastically in favor of it. But as soon as fake meat hit the plastic trays at Burger King, they were fretting about how over-processed it was.”

...
Food historian Rachel Laudan argues, “It is easy for ultra-processed to mean ‘industrially processed,’ ‘low class,’ or ‘not to my taste.’ Soft drinks are ultra-processed, wine not. Snack cakes are ultra-processed, home made cakes not.” And the Impossible Burger, for a time, was not considered ultra-processed, enjoying, we could say, the “wine exception.”

So it's objecting to fake meats when they become non-gourmand food.

 

[Politesse]

The backlash against Impossible and Beyond Meat burgers going mainstream - Vox

The article then addressed these criticisms. What counts as processing? Some kinds of processing are very good. To date, GMO's have not been dangerous.

Then the curious objection that fake meat is fake.

Another component of the backlash isn’t about health at all. Instead, it’s about a vague sense that there’s something noble about eating dead animals that’s simply absent when eating plant-based, factory-assembled inventions.

In a Heated piece, Danielle LaPrise tells the story of how her community came together to slaughter a pig: “With every animal dispatched, every crop harvested,” she writes, “I realized that our time on earth is temporary, and everything on it is a gift. I could plant seeds or raise animals from birth, care for them, feed them, and then later I would depend on them to nourish and sustain me.” Of meatless meat, she writes, “these foods will never succeed in mimicking the humbling intimacy from meals where the animal’s death is deeply felt.”

Except that most people don't get very close to the animals that are killed for their meat - food animals are mostly factory farmed.

“I can’t help but notice,” Trembath wrote in an analysis of the plant-based meat backlash, “that when fake meat was the purview of food utopians and visionary chefs, thought leaders were enthusiastically in favor of it. But as soon as fake meat hit the plastic trays at Burger King, they were fretting about how over-processed it was.”

...
Food historian Rachel Laudan argues, “It is easy for ultra-processed to mean ‘industrially processed,’ ‘low class,’ or ‘not to my taste.’ Soft drinks are ultra-processed, wine not. Snack cakes are ultra-processed, home made cakes not.” And the Impossible Burger, for a time, was not considered ultra-processed, enjoying, we could say, the “wine exception.”

So it's objecting to fake meats when they become non-gourmand food.

Wait, so farming animals is "intimate" but farming plants is not?

Is it just all the screaming at the end that makes it feel so emotionally heartwarming? I've slaughtered animals, and I do not recall any "humbling sense of intimacy" involved in the process.

 

[southernhybrid]

My Hgb is low again. Maybe I need to eat more meat. Seriously. Some of us don't absorb iron well from non heme sources of food. We are all different when it comes to what works.

southernhybrid, the Impossible Burger from Impossible Foods could be suitable for you. It uses a heme-containing protein much like what meat has. It's leghemoglobin made by genetically engineered yeast, using genes from legumes. Those plants express those genes in their root nodules, making leghemoglobin there. This protein is much like hemoglobin (in vertebrate blood) and myoglobin (in muscles).

I checked on Where to Buy Impossible and it's apparently available in all 50 US states and DC, but not in any other nation, not even in Canada.

I had my first Beyond Meat burger last week. It did taste like meat, but had a lot more calories and was far more expensive than the old veggie burgers that I've been eating for years. In fact, it was more expensive than making burgers from lean ground sirloin. Once again, something supposedly. healthy is too expensive for those with limited incomes. And, it really didn't agree with my GI tract. Just sayin'. So, I doubt I will ever eat one again, but I will continue to eat my favorite veggie burgers.

As long as high quality meat is available, and I can afford it, I will beef once a week, as well as organically raised pork and chicken and farm raised salmon. I prefer fish and vegan food. I'm just not the cook anymore. What is wrong with encouraging people to cut back on their meat consumption instead of going totally vegan? I have no problem with vegans, but I don't think we need to be absolutist about our diets.

I do wish that those who eat huge quantities of meat would consider cutting back. I have a friend who rarely eats vegetables or anything healthy. She's lower middle class and has four children who still live at home, so she buys cheap, fatty cuts of meat. She's very over weight but has told me she'd prefer to die in her 40s than to change her eating habits. I've given up trying to help her. The young women I used to work with were the same way. Their diets consisted of friend foods, sugary beverages and processed carbs. It's hard to get Americans to even consider changing their dietary habits.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I do wish that those who eat huge quantities of meat would consider cutting back. I have a friend who rarely eats vegetables or anything healthy. She's lower middle class and has four children who still live at home, so she buys cheap, fatty cuts of meat. She's very over weight but has told me she'd prefer to die in her 40s than to change her eating habits. I've given up trying to help her. The young women I used to work with were the same way. Their diets consisted of fried foods, sugary beverages and processed carbs. It's hard to get Americans to even consider changing their dietary habits.

It will have to become like smoking, get expensive. And I mean not only to buy meat but to correct the health problems. Americans only seem to notice when it hits them in the pocketbook.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Impossible Whopper - Well... I'd say it was almost impossible to taste the burger itself. With 400 or so calories of mayo on it, they could have put styrofoam with the tomato and lettuce and the experience would have been similar. Yes, there is a slight sensation of a smokey taste, but overall, I could hardly even tell there was a patty between the buns to start with, it being so thin and overpowered by the mayo. The texture was meatish, but really, I didn't feel like I was having a burger.

The Beyond Meat burger I had included condiments and cheese at home. That worked out, the closest to meat that I've had. Surely not a 1 to 1 replacement, but very good.

 

[lpetrich]

How Do the New Plant-Based Burgers Stack Up? We Taste-Tested Them - The New York Times

In just two years, food technology has moved consumers from browsing for wan “veggie patties” in the frozen aisle to selecting fresh “plant-based burgers” sold next to the ground beef.

Behind the scenes at the supermarket, giant battles are being waged: Meat producers are suing to have the words “meat” and “burger” restricted to their own products. Makers of meat alternatives like Beyond Meat and Impossible Foods are vying to capture the global fast-food market, as big players like Tyson and Perdue join the fray. Environmental and food scientists are insisting that we eat more plants and less processed food. Many vegetarians and vegans say the goal is to break the habit of eating meat, not feed it with surrogates.

“I would still prefer to eat something that’s not lab-grown,” said Isa Chandra Moskowitz, the chef at the vegan restaurant Modern Love in Omaha, where her own burger is the most popular dish on the menu. “But it’s better for people and for the planet to eat one of those burgers instead of meat every day, if that’s what they are going to do anyway.”

1. Impossible Burger - 4.5
2. Beyond Burger - 4
3. Lightlife Burger - 3
4. Uncut Burger - 3
5. FieldBurger - 2.5
6. Sweet Earth Fresh Veggie Burger - 2.5

The New Makers of Plant-Based Meat? Big Meat Companies - The New York Times - "Tyson, Smithfield, Perdue and Hormel have all rolled out meat alternatives, filling supermarket shelves with an array of plant-based burgers, meatballs and chicken nuggets."

Veggie burgers have been on store shelves for decades, but companies are only now developing vegetarian products that try to match the experience of eating actual meat, using ingredients such as pea proteins and genetically engineered soy.

Pat Brown, the chief executive of Impossible Foods, has long described the project of creating faux meat as an environmental imperative. “Every aspect of the animal-based food industry is vastly more environmentally disruptive and resource-inefficient than any plant-based system,” he said. Mr. Brown has even set a deadline: Eliminate animal products from the global food supply by 2035.

 

[lpetrich]

Is the New Meat Any Better Than the Old Meat? - The New York Times

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, livestock accounts for 14.5 percent of annual worldwide greenhouse gas emissions produced by human activity. Cattle (raised for beef and milk) alone produce 65 percent of livestock emissions.

This happens because carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming, is released into the atmosphere when forests are cleared to make room for animal feed production and livestock grazing. Animals also release methane, another powerful greenhouse gas, through burps and flatulence when digesting their food. Animal manure and rice paddies are also huge sources of methane.

Agriculture’s contribution to greenhouse gases varies by country, depending on how animals are bred, herded and fed, but some experts say the overall number is much higher than 14.5 percent. Jeff Anhang, environmental and social specialist with the World Bank Group’s International Finance Corporation, estimates that livestock production accounts for at least half of human-caused greenhouse gases.

This reminds me of a leaked version of AOC's "Green New Deal" resolution. One bit of it expressed concern about "farting cows", though that is absent from the final version: Text - H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal. | Congress.gov | Library of Congress - AOC = Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

When AOC was asked about it, she speculated on feeding cows different sorts of foods, so that their internal fermentation won't release as much methane. Interesting idea, but I suspect that it's impractical.

Vegetarian fake meats, milks, cheeses, creams, etc. are a better alternative, IMO.

Paul Shapiro, chief executive of the Better Meat Company, which makes plant-based ingredients for companies to add to their poultry or meat, said it was the success of soy milk that pushed the plant-based meat movement into the mainstream.

“Plant-based milk has grown from 1 percent of the fluid dairy market to 13 percent in the United States, whether that be soy, almond or coconut,” he said. Plant-based meat, which is about 1 percent of the meat market now, is following the same pattern, he added.

 

[bilby]

It's a rarely mentioned fact that people (particularly rich people) don't really eat many fully grown animals. We prefer to eat babies - particularly lamb, but most beef and pork comes from relatively young animals too.

Dairy cows live much longer lives than those raised for meat, even when the meat is beef rather than veal.

Some people find this disturbing; But of course if they weren't raised for meat, milk, or eggs, most domesticated animals wouldn't exist at all.

If everyone became a vegetarian, livestock species would rapidly become extinct (or at least endangered).

It seems unlikely that widespread vegetarianism would be only positive for our environment, though it would probably be a net positive. The negative effects are certainly something we should consider, in the unlikely event that such a behavioural shift became plausible.

 

[Politesse]

It's a rarely mentioned fact that people (particularly rich people) don't really eat many fully grown animals. We prefer to eat babies - particularly lamb, but most beef and pork comes from relatively young animals too.

Dairy cows live much longer lives than those raised for meat, even when the meat is beef rather than veal.

Some people find this disturbing; But of course if they weren't raised for meat, milk, or eggs, most domesticated animals wouldn't exist at all.

If everyone became a vegetarian, livestock species would rapidly become extinct (or at least endangered).

It seems unlikely that widespread vegetarianism would be only positive for our environment, though it would probably be a net positive. The negative effects are certainly something we should consider, in the unlikely event that such a behavioural shift became plausible.

No one sensible believes that Impossible burgers will somehow convert the entire planet to vegetarianism...

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Ran across a program yesterday where someone said out loud something that logic has always suggested to me.

The claim that meat uses huge resources in production is based on intensive factory farming methods. Livestock that is grass fed in paddocks - not so much.

 

[Politesse]

Ran across a program yesterday where someone said out loud something that logic has always suggested to me.

The claim that meat uses huge resources in production is based on intensive factory farming methods. Livestock that is grass fed in paddocks - not so much.

Which is why we should greatly reduce meat consumption. If it were all being raised sustainably, there'd be no ecological issue. But it obviously is not, and volume of demand has a lot to do with that.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's a rarely mentioned fact that people (particularly rich people) don't really eat many fully grown animals. We prefer to eat babies - particularly lamb, but most beef and pork comes from relatively young animals too.

Dairy cows live much longer lives than those raised for meat, even when the meat is beef rather than veal.

Some people find this disturbing; But of course if they weren't raised for meat, milk, or eggs, most domesticated animals wouldn't exist at all.

If everyone became a vegetarian, livestock species would rapidly become extinct (or at least endangered).

It seems unlikely that widespread vegetarianism would be only positive for our environment, though it would probably be a net positive. The negative effects are certainly something we should consider, in the unlikely event that such a behavioural shift became plausible.

I’m a bit more worried about the global impact on antibiotic resistance due to the huge amounts used to grow meat. That’ll likely have a bigger effect than any large switch to vegetarianism.

 

[TSwizzle]

Ran across a program yesterday where someone said out loud something that logic has always suggested to me.

The claim that meat uses huge resources in production is based on intensive factory farming methods. Livestock that is grass fed in paddocks - not so much.

Which is why we should greatly reduce meat consumption.

You could go some way to achieving that by also reducing the number of consumers in general.

 

[lpetrich]

Almonds are out. Dairy is a disaster. So what milk should we drink? | Environment | The Guardian noting Reducing food’s environmental impacts through producers and consumers | Science

From The Guardian (Grauniad):

All milk alternatives are far better for the planet than dairy. A 2018 study by researchers at the University of Oxford showed that producing a glass of dairy milk results in almost three times more greenhouse gas emissions than any plant-based milk and it consumes nine times more land than any of the milk alternatives. (Land is required to pasture the cows and grow their feed, which the animals belch out in the form of methane.)

Coconut: ‘An absolute tragedy’

Because coconut trees only grow in tropical climates, the pressure to meet global demand is causing exploitation of workers and destruction of rainforests. “Coconut is an absolute tragedy and it makes me really sad,” Isaac Emery, a food sustainability consultant. “I love cooking with coconut milk but I don’t feel good about buying coconut products. Farmers in Indonesia should be growing food to feed their families instead of meeting international demands.”

Almond: bad for bees

Almonds require more water than any other dairy alternative, consuming 130 pints of water to produce a single glass of almond milk, according to the Oxford study. Satisfying continual demands for larger almond crops is also placing unsustainable pressures on US commercial beekeepers. Nearly 70% of commercial bees in the US are drafted every spring to pollinate almonds. Last year, a record number –over one-third of them– died by season’s end as a result of these pressures and other environmental threats.

Rice: a water-guzzler

Rice is a water hog, according to the Oxford study, plus it produces more greenhouse gas emissions than any other plant milk. Bacteria breeding in rice paddies pump methane into the atmosphere and large amounts of fertilizer pollute waterways.

Hazelnut: on the up

For consumers who want the nutritiousness and tastiness of a nut milk but without the environmental impacts of almond farming, the hazelnut is a rising star. ... Hazelnuts are environmentally superior to almonds in that they are pollinated by the wind rather than commercial honeybees and they grow in moist climates, such as the Pacific north-west, where water is less of an issue.

Hemp and flax: niche contenders

They are grown in relatively small quantities in the northern hemisphere, which makes them more environmentally friendly compared with a monoculture operation.

Soy: back in favor

According to the Oxford study, soy milk is the joint winner on the sustainability scale. Plus, soy is the only plant milk that comes close to offering a protein content comparable to dairy.

Oat: a humble hero

Meet the winner: the unassuming oat.

“I’m excited about the surge in oat milk popularity,” says Liz Specht, associate director of science and technology for the Good Food Institute, a not-for-profit that promotes plant-based diets. “Oat milk performs very well on all sustainability metrics.” Also: “I highly doubt there will be unintended environmental consequences that might emerge when the scale of oat milk use gets larger.”

The bottom line: as long as it’s not dairy

Both Emery and Specht emphasize that whether it’s coconut, soy or oat, consumers should drink whatever plant milk is most appealing to them and not fret over sustainability shortcomings, which are chump change compared with the environmental harms from dairy.

 

[lpetrich]

We’re Very Close to Disrupting the Cow - Fast Company - Medium - "By 2030, these scientists estimate the number of cows in the U.S. will have fallen by 50% and the beef and dairy industries will have collapsed as animal-derived foods are replaced by modern equivalents"

An unstoppable trifecta of fast-improving technology, new business models, and fast-falling costs is creating the deepest, most consequential disruption of food and agriculture in ten thousand years. We face the end of the cattle industry as we know it, and the exponential market growth of inexpensive, high-quality, tasty modern food designed using food-as-software technology based on precise consumer specifications.

Then talked about how "precision fermentation" is becoming cheaper and cheaper, to the point where it can easily compete with animal proteins.

Today, 90% of American-made cheese uses PF proteins. (This is not genetic modification of foods. Proteins have no genetic material so they can’t be genetically modified.) The cost of PF is falling exponentially, from $1 million per kilogram in 2000 to about $100 today. Assuming existing technologies, we project these costs will fall to $10 per kilogram by 2023 to 25. PF proteins will be five times cheaper than animal proteins by 2030 and 10 times cheaper by 2035.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Impossible Whopper - Well... I'd say it was almost impossible to taste the burger itself. With 400 or so calories of mayo on it, they could have put styrofoam with the tomato and lettuce and the experience would have been similar. Yes, there is a slight sensation of a smokey taste, but overall, I could hardly even tell there was a patty between the buns to start with, it being so thin and overpowered by the mayo. The texture was meatish, but really, I didn't feel like I was having a burger.

The Beyond Meat burger I had included condiments and cheese at home. That worked out, the closest to meat that I've had. Surely not a 1 to 1 replacement, but very good.

A comment on the Beyond Meat burger. Having two of them with buns really does fill the belly up. Having two morningstar or Boca burgers does not have the same effect. I could eat two Beyond Meat burgers and that'd be it for a meal. Nothing else required.

 

[Angry Floof]

Avoiding meat and dairy is ‘single biggest way’ to reduce your impact on Earth | Environment | The Guardian

Avoiding meat and dairy products is the single biggest way to reduce your environmental impact on the planet, according to the scientists behind the most comprehensive analysis to date of the damage farming does to the planet.

The new research shows that without meat and dairy consumption, global farmland use could be reduced by more than 75% – an area equivalent to the US, China, European Union and Australia combined – and still feed the world. Loss of wild areas to agriculture is the leading cause of the current mass extinction of wildlife.

The new analysis shows that while meat and dairy provide just 18% of calories and 37% of protein, it uses the vast majority – 83% – of farmland and produces 60% of agriculture’s greenhouse gas emissions. Other recent research shows 86% of all land mammals are now livestock or humans. The scientists also found that even the very lowest impact meat and dairy products still cause much more environmental harm than the least sustainable vegetable and cereal growing.

So we ought to become vegetarians if not vegans. Vegan vs Vegetarian - What's The Difference?

Vegetarianism in the broad sense forbids the eating of animal flesh, though it does allow the eating of animal products like milk, eggs, and derivatives like cheese. Veganism is a strict version of vegetarianism that does not allow the eating of animal products. There are lots of further variations, like Pythagoras forbidding the eating of beans, but I won't get into that.

What can meat lovers do? There is now a thriving industry of fake meats, and some of them are surprisingly good. There are also fake milks, fake cheeses, and even fake eggs.  Meat analogue

These companies make very convincing fake meats:

Home - Impossible Foods - makes the "Impossible Burger":
About Impossible Burger

• Protein: soy
• Flavor: heme
• Fat: coconut, sunflower oils
• Binders: Methylcellulose (a culinary binder commonly found in ice cream, sauces, and jams)

We started by extracting heme from the root nodules of soybean plants, but we knew there was a better way. So we took the DNA from these soy plants and inserted it into a genetically engineered yeast. We ferment this yeast (very similar to the way Belgian beer is made) to produce heme.

Beyond Meat - The Future of Protein™ - fake ground beef and fake pork sausage

Morningstar Farms - lots of fake meats: fake beef, fake pork, fake chicken

The plant-based meats like Impossible Burger might be more unhealthy than meat because of the sodium and other things.

Morningstar fake meats are delicious. I just bought some original grillers last night.

 

[J842P]

Ran across a program yesterday where someone said out loud something that logic has always suggested to me.

The claim that meat uses huge resources in production is based on intensive factory farming methods. Livestock that is grass fed in paddocks - not so much.

Which is why we should greatly reduce meat consumption. If it were all being raised sustainably, there'd be no ecological issue. But it obviously is not, and volume of demand has a lot to do with that.

I've been reading a little lately about regenerative animal husbandry. Essentially, the claim is that using these techniques, which essentially mimic ruminant wild behavior, the overall effect is actually an increase in carbon sequestration through the prevention and reversal of desertification and land erosion, which is caused by agriculture and by the large-scale removal of ruminants from the ecosystem (e.g. bison in the American Great Plains).

If this were true, this would leave room for animal products in a climate friendly approach to agriculture.

It would probably render meat more expensive, but that would overall be a good thing, since it seems that the consumption of animal products is linked to all sorts of long-term, negative health outcomes.

 

[J842P]

My Hgb is low again. Maybe I need to eat more meat. Seriously. Some of us don't absorb iron well from non heme sources of food. We are all different when it comes to what works.

southernhybrid, the Impossible Burger from Impossible Foods could be suitable for you. It uses a heme-containing protein much like what meat has. It's leghemoglobin made by genetically engineered yeast, using genes from legumes. Those plants express those genes in their root nodules, making leghemoglobin there. This protein is much like hemoglobin (in vertebrate blood) and myoglobin (in muscles).

I checked on Where to Buy Impossible and it's apparently available in all 50 US states and DC, but not in any other nation, not even in Canada.

I had my first Beyond Meat burger last week. It did taste like meat, but had a lot more calories and was far more expensive than the old veggie burgers that I've been eating for years. In fact, it was more expensive than making burgers from lean ground sirloin. Once again, something supposedly. healthy is too expensive for those with limited incomes. And, it really didn't agree with my GI tract. Just sayin'. So, I doubt I will ever eat one again, but I will continue to eat my favorite veggie burgers.

As long as high quality meat is available, and I can afford it, I will beef once a week, as well as organically raised pork and chicken and farm raised salmon. I prefer fish and vegan food. I'm just not the cook anymore. What is wrong with encouraging people to cut back on their meat consumption instead of going totally vegan? I have no problem with vegans, but I don't think we need to be absolutist about our diets.

I do wish that those who eat huge quantities of meat would consider cutting back. I have a friend who rarely eats vegetables or anything healthy. She's lower middle class and has four children who still live at home, so she buys cheap, fatty cuts of meat. She's very over weight but has told me she'd prefer to die in her 40s than to change her eating habits. I've given up trying to help her. The young women I used to work with were the same way. Their diets consisted of friend foods, sugary beverages and processed carbs. It's hard to get Americans to even consider changing their dietary habits.

There is a distinction between people who are vegan and those who are merely following a plant-based diet.

Veganism is the ethical opposition to using any animal products.

Someone who promotes a plant-based diet for health probably has no problem with, say, leather products or say, animal gelatin in some capsule. Vegans would be opposed to both in principle.

Saying to a vegan, "what's wrong with merely cutting back on meat consumption" is the same as saying to an abolitionist "what's wrong with merely reducing the amount of slaves?"

The vegan would probably say, while that is better it is still fundamentally an unacceptable circumstance.

 

[J842P]

It's a rarely mentioned fact that people (particularly rich people) don't really eat many fully grown animals. We prefer to eat babies - particularly lamb, but most beef and pork comes from relatively young animals too.

Dairy cows live much longer lives than those raised for meat, even when the meat is beef rather than veal.

Some people find this disturbing; But of course if they weren't raised for meat, milk, or eggs, most domesticated animals wouldn't exist at all.

If everyone became a vegetarian, livestock species would rapidly become extinct (or at least endangered).

It seems unlikely that widespread vegetarianism would be only positive for our environment, though it would probably be a net positive. The negative effects are certainly something we should consider, in the unlikely event that such a behavioural shift became plausible.

I’m a bit more worried about the global impact on antibiotic resistance due to the huge amounts used to grow meat. That’ll likely have a bigger effect than any large switch to vegetarianism.

Yes, the widespread use of antibiotics in intensive farming is insane.

It is practically what one would come up with as a sort of super-villain plot to create an insurmountable pathogen to release upon the world in some terrible action movie.

Totally insane.