New research shows consumers are not only lackadaisical about reading food labels, but when they do they’re not coming away with highly accurate information.
One aspect of our global ecosystem that’s consistently, ignored, abused and neglected is the Earth’s rangelands. For the sake of animal agriculture — and the health of the planet — that needs to change.
Cornell economists conducted a survey to determine how regulating the use of the word ‘meat’ would affect consumers’ understanding of ingredients, nutritional content and food choices.
How do I debate thee? Let me count the ways — and they’re numerous, because a recent op-ed hit job by the editors at Bloomberg got it totally wrong in their attack on animal agriculture.
Used to be that GMOs ranked right up there with child porn as a blight on society no one should ever consume — until alt-meat foods started using GE ingredients. GMOs now? Not a problem!
As animal agriculture fast forwards toward a future in which we’ll all be subsisting on shamburgers and soybeans, the leading cheerleaders won’t be activists, but ‘enlightened’ investors.
The entrepreneurs behind the current wave of alt-meat products are not only skilled in formulation science, they’re proving to be adept at telling consumers what they want to hear.
Why the ‘boom’ in consumer trial of alt-meat shamburgers and chicken? A new market analysis IDs the real reason: It’s all about the urge to try something new and different, if not better.
It’s time to address the issue that hangs over all of animal agriculture: Would it defuse activist opposition if livestock production were structured differently from the system(s) now in place?
