plant lab meat substit

===

merri ok

for now includes lab grown (and bugs?) elitist BS

see vegan

wedge issue culture war BS GND tyranny

male macho?

---

tc an 7 26

The 2026 midterms are here, and negative campaign messaging is flooding screens across the U.S. In Texas’ Senate race, Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton’s comments about Democratic Texas Rep. James Talarico have gone viral.

Rather than simply suggesting Talarico is weak on border security or inflation economics, Paxton’s campaign has taken a different rhetorical approach. To quote, “The major factor in this race … is whether Tala-freak-o is a vegan.”

Though Talarico maintains he is not vegan, Paxton has referred to his opponent as “Tofu Talarico.”

Paxton and Watters aren’t the only ones making these dietary accusations.

Earlier this year, after Talarico ordered a potato, egg and cheese taco from a restaurant in Austin, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott posted to his campaign social platform X account: “Homie is not beating the vegetarian allegations.”

Texas Sen. Ted Cruz joked that if a soy latte could speak, “that would be Democrat James Talarico.” Even President Donald Trump has chimed in: “He’s a vegan in Texas, and you can’t get elected as a vegan in Texas.”

Again, Talarico denies being a secret vegetarian or vegan. “I’m an eighth-generation Texan,”. “I’ve been eating barbecue since before Ken Paxton’s first indictment.”

The accusations likely stem from a 2022 appearance with the Texas Humane Legislation Network when Talarico suggested Americans reduce their meat consumption for climate reasons. His girlfriend follows a plant-based diet. Nonetheless, Talarico says that his campaign “runs on barbecue.”

As communication scholars who study the symbolic roles of meat and meat-eating in political communication, we see the construction of “Tofu Talarico” not as a one-off political jab but as part of a more sophisticated rhetorical strategy by which politicians appeal to voters.

Attacks on Talarico show how, across American politics, what people eat is a metaphoric marker of who they are, from political affiliation to regional belonging and cultural values. Eating meat – or not – plays a huge role in the political process, and accusations of meat avoidance, regardless of whether they’re true, can be a potent rhetorical weapon.

From left, former President Barack Obama, Texas Democratic Senate candidate Rep. James Talarico and Texas Democratic gubernatorial candidate Gina Hinojosa visit the Taco Joint in Austin in May 2026. Talarico’s order – potato, egg and cheese tacos – drew ridicule from Republicans, feeding vegetarian and vegan attack lines that he denies. AP Photo/Joel Angel Juarez, Pool

Meat, metaphor and political communication

Communication scholarship shows that metaphors, when a word or phrase denoting one object or idea is used in place of another, are more than literary decoration; they shape the way we perceive reality, acting as part of a “conceptual system” that enables snap judgments and decision-making.

As mental shortcuts, or heuristic devices, metaphors are common in political communication. They’re a means to “see something in terms of something else.”

For example, in the case of Paxton and Talarico, allegations of vegetarianism and veganism are not about Talarico’s nutritional profile or even his environmental ethics. Here, “vegan” and its analogues metaphorically stand in for weakness and nonconformity, whereas “meat” and its affiliates stand in for strength, traditionalism and the stereotypical Texan way.

This usage is consistent with what food politics researchers call the “sexual politics” of meat, wherein meat imagery is often used in displays of traditional masculinity. This is evident in other jabs levied at Talarico. For example, Watters linked Talarico’s diet to his sexual orientation, joking on Fox News that Talarico was a “gay vegan” with a fake girlfriend.

Dietary demographics and election modeling

Dietary preference also links to key political demographics. For example, political scientists have explored whether the concept of a Republican vegan is an oxymoron due to the deep entrenchment of meat-eating and meat production in primarily conservative regions.

Overwhelmingly, vegans tend to be women, young and liberal. Across all political identifications, being male and white correlates with higher meat consumption.

Even the choice of where to purchase meat can be an electoral measure. Political journalist Dave Wasserman has suggested that the 2012 election was a contest between “well-educated, Democratic-trending Whole Foods markets and down-home, Republican-trending Cracker Barrel outposts.”

Meatless political appeals

The “meatless” have long been framed as social and political threats, levied in discussions of whether they should be politically elevated or subordinated. Historically, Western norms during the 19th and 20th centuries held that to not eat meat is odd at best, and suspicious at worst.

In the late 1800s, colonialism in Asia was partially justified on the grounds that Asian men were but “effeminate rice eaters” who, according to 19th-century neurologist James Leonard Corning, lacked “the intellectual vigor of flesh-eating men.”

Negative appeals to veganism again flourished in 2019 after Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal,” a resolution proposing to combat climate change. Conservative senators like Joni Ernst and Marsha Blackburn attacked the environmentally progressive initiative as a “war on meat,” posing an existential threat to meat eaters and cattle farmers. Notably, the Green New Deal did not contain meat mandates. In the Green New Deal discussion, though, this hypothetical meat ban effectively functioned as metaphorical shortcut for progressive political overreach.

This demarcation is not confined to one political party. In a Democratic primary debate in 2019, New Jersey Senator Cory Booker – a vegan since 2014 – was asked by a debate moderator if, as president, he would demand Americans follow his diet. Booker, surprised by the personal question, said no. He did not win the nomination.

More meat, less elite

Meat, or lack thereof, has gathered more significance in the second Trump presidency via Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s Make America Healthy Again initiative. Kennedy, who touts his “carnivore diet,” says he “only (eats) meat or fermented foods.” He has even modified the food pyramid – the Department of Agriculture’s visual nutrition guide – shifting red meat from a food to be consumed sparingly to a high dietary priority.

Meanwhile, multiple Republican-leaning states have banned cell-cultured meat, or meat produced in a lab, for not being “real” and, so, being dangerous. After signing a ban on cultured meat, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis declared that the bill represented a battle against the global elite and its “authoritarian goals.”

Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins speaks at a Department of Health and Human Services event in January 2026. The Trump administration announced new dietary guidelines emphasizing proteins. Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

2026 and beyond

While the beef between Paxton and Talarico will likely resolve after the 2026 midterms, appeals to meat, meat eaters and meat-eating in U.S. political communication will not.

As available meat substitutes increase, economic burdens on ranchers rise and debates over the meat industry’s impact on climate change intensify, we expect meat’s culture war cachet to surge too.

“Tofu Talarico” is just one of what will be numerous examples of meat symbolizing what the future of the country, its leaders and its citizens should be.

S. Marek Muller, Associate Professor of Communication Studies, Texas State University and David Rooney, Associate Professor of Practice, University of Wyoming

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

---

===

desantis-signs-floridas-ban-on-lab-grown-meat

// on May 1, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis announced that he had signed into law a bill that prohibits the production or sale of lab-grown meat in the state. DeSantis noted that Florida was the first state to enact such a ban, declaring, "Our administration will continue to focus on investing in our local farmers and ranchers, and we will save our beef."

Liberal economist Paul Krugman is vehemently critical of DeSantis' move in his May 7 column for the New York Times. The ban, Krugman argues, is not only against freedom of choice — it also underscores the modern Republican Party's ability to turn anything and everything into a "culture-war" battle.

"It's possible to grow meat in a lab — to cultivate animal cells without an animal and turn them into something people can eat," Krugman explains. "However, that process is difficult and expensive. And at the moment, lab-grown meat isn't commercially available and probably won't be for a long time, if ever."

But DeSantis, Krugman adds, is "cracking down" on an "industry that doesn't even exist yet."

"The new Florida law is a perfect illustration of how crony capitalism, culture war, conspiracy theorizing and rejection of science have been merged — ground together, you might say — in a way that largely defines American conservatism today," Krugman observes. "First, it puts the lie to any claim that the right is the side standing firm for limited government; government doesn't get much more intrusive than having politicians tell you what you can and can't eat."

The fact that "meat consumption, like almost everything else, has been caught up in the culture wars," Krugman laments, shows how intellectually bankrupt and devoid of substance the modern GOP has become in the age of Donald Trump.

"Look, I'm not an admirer of Ronald Reagan, who I believe did a lot of harm as president," Krugman argues. "But at least Reaganism was about real policy issues like tax rates and regulation. The people who cast themselves as Reagan's successors, however, seem uninterested in serious policymaking."

The Times columnist continues, "For a lot of them, politics is a form of live-action role play. It's not even about 'owning' those they term the elites; it's about perpetually jousting with a fantasy version of what elites supposedly want."

*Paul Krugman's full New York Times column is available at this link (subscription required).

---

===

https://usrtk.org/bill-gates/radical-menu/

no lnx many

Bill Gates’ radical menu for food systems: ultra-processed foods, patents, monocrops

Posted: May 26, 2021 by Stacy Malkan

If Bill Gates has his way, the food in our future will little resemble what’s on our plates today. Gates and his agribusiness industry partners are proposing to transform our food and how it is produced.

To the techno-food industrialists, hunger and climate change are problems to be solved with data and engineering. The core ingredients of their revolutionary plan: genetic engineering — and patenting — of everything from seeds and food animals, to microbes in the soil, to the processes we use to make food. Local food cultures and traditional diets could fade away as food production moves indoors to labs that cultivate fake meat and ultra-processed foods.

Gates says rich countries should shift entirely to synthetic beef.And he has the intellectual property rights to sell them. As a food that can help fix the climate, Gates touts the Impossible Burger, a plant-based patty made from genetically engineered soy and textured with engineered yeast. Its manufacturer, the Gates-funded Impossible Foods, has two dozen patents and more than 100 patents pending to artificially replicate cheese, beef and chicken and permeate these products with manufactured flavors, scents and textures.

Ginkgo Bioworks, a Gates-backed start-up that makes “custom organisms,” just went public in a $17.5 billion deal. The company uses its “cell programming” technology to genetically engineer flavors and scents into commercial strains of engineered yeast and bacteria to create “natural” ingredients, including vitamins, amino acids, enzymes and flavors for ultra-processed foods. According to its investor presentation, Ginkgo plans to create up to 20,000 engineered “cell programs” (it now has five) for food products and many other uses. Axios reports that the company plans to charge customers to use its “biological platform” like Amazon charges for its data center, and will take royalties like apps in the Apple Store. Ginkgo’s customers, the investor pitch makes clear, are not consumers or farmers, but rather the world’s largest chemical, food and pharmaceutical companies.

If techno-food products are not high on most consumers’ shopping lists, this is a menu investors can get behind. The market for genetically engineered products has the potential to reach $2-4 trillion in the next 20 years. And Bill and Melinda Gates are positioned to reap the rewards. The Gates back “a multitude of agrifood tech startups,” reports AgFunder News, either through private investment vehicles or through the Gates Foundation Trust, which funds the foundation’s charitable activities.

Gates and the tech start-ups pitch their products as solutions for our most challenging environmental and social issues. But are they really?

Doubling down on monocultures

Gates’ “winning strategy for food and farming,” according to a Fortune magazine article by Shawn Tully, “is finding ways for farmers to produce more corn and soybeans on every acre … while substantially lowering carbon emissions.” Gates believes that “genetically modified seeds and chemical herbicides, in the right doses – and not land-intensive organic farming – are crucial to curbing carbon emissions.”

Since 2006, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has spent over $5 billion on efforts totransform African agriculture; its flagship program, the Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa, works totransition farmers to high-input industrial agriculture and scale up markets for commercial seeds and agrichemicals. Gates says these methods can boost production and lift farmers out of poverty.

Many critics, including African faith leaders and hundreds of civil society groups around the world, say the foundation’s agricultural development strategies are failing to deliver on promises and benefitting multinational corporations over small farmers and communities in Africa. The foundation did not respond to our requests for comment.

“Gates has influenced the direction of agriculture to benefit the corporates,” said Million Belay, coordinator of Alliance for Food Sovereignty in Africa (AFSA), a coalition of 50 Africa-based groups. “His foundation has contributed hugely in weakening our seed, biosafety and agrochemical related regulations … it will take years to undo what they have done.”

Gates also influences how governments and academic institutions think about the future of agriculture in Africa, Belay said. “The narrative now is you need to use agrichemicals, high-yield varieties, GMOs and a host of other farm management techniques to feed yourself,” he said. “It will also take years to convince our elites the future is agroecology. As one of the most rich and powerful people on the planet, the doors of our governments are open (to Gates) while it is ajar for African citizens. He has to be called out and has to change direction.”

Leading experts in food security and nutrition are calling for a paradigm shift away from green revolution-style industrial agriculture and toward agroecology, which promotes biodiversity instead of monocultures, integrates animals to rebuild soils, and advocates for political and economic reforms to address inequities and social divisions. Diversified agroecological systems are more resilient, they say, and have a greater capacity to recover from disturbances including extreme weather events, pests and disease.

Recent science suggests that chemical-intensive industrial agriculture is a key driver of climate change, soil erosion and the worldwide decline of insects.Corn and soy monocultures are especially problematic; they deplete the soil and rely on synthetic fertilizers that emit nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas 300 times more powerful than carbon dioxide at warming the atmosphere. These are problems Bill Gates is hoping technology can fix.

A climate solution?

Fortune describes Gates’ plans to intensify corn and soy production as a “pivotal campaign in the war against global warming.” How so? Syngenta, the world’s second largest agrichemical company, is “deploying big data, gene editing, DNA analysis, and other groundbreaking technologies in pursuit of growing bumper harvests while lowering CO2.”Bayer, the leading chemical and seed firm, is making a similar pitch, and claims its new sustainability technologies will “empower 100 million smallholder farmers around the world.”

For 30 years, agrichemical companies promised GMOs could feed the poor and help small farmers, but it hasn’t yet worked out that way.Most GMO crops in the ground today areengineered to survive weed-killing chemicals or kill insects. While these crops provided short-term benefits to farmers, they provided no benefits to consumers, nor did they deliver on promises to boost yields, but they did increase herbicide use. Evidence now indicates the crops are failing as weeds and bugs evolve around the technology.

As a solution to meet the climate crisis, and enable “sustainable intensification” of industrial agriculture, Gates and Bayer point to experimental projects to genetically engineer microbes to fix nitrogen to plants. “If these approaches work,” Gates writes in his climate book, “they’ll dramatically reduce the need for fertilizer and all the emissions it’s responsible for.” In 2017, Ginkgo Bioworks teamed up with Bayer to launch JoynBio, a microbe company that is working to create self-fertilizing plants.

This, too, is a promise Bayer has made before.As far back as 1897, Bayer promoted a product that could reportedly assimilate atmospheric nitrogen, according to Mark Finlay, a history professor at Armstrong Atlantic State University. Bayer said its product could “conceivably make all agricultural lands permanently fertile,” Finlay wrote in a 2015 book about the history of agriculture. “Although early results were disappointing, many popular press writers hailed the potential of this discovery.”

GMO 2.0: genome-editing

Gates is an evangelist for genetically engineered foods. He predicts that “GMOs will end starvation in Africa” and GMOs can “end world hunger by 2030.” If the first generation of GMO crops failed to deliver on these hopes, Gates believes new genetic engineering methods will get us there.

With CRISPR-Cas9 and other “genome-editing” techniques, scientists can nowadd or delete strands of DNA, or turn genes on or off, to produce specific traits in plants or animals — as if writing computer code. Examples include mushrooms that are “edited” to resist browning, “terminator cattle” bred to father only male offspring, or harmless strains of E Coli converted to antioxidant factories....

===

pix of bug burger net zero watch

[big tech censor trap to get addy?

morano gmail

no lnx vid

Global elites want to destroy current energy system and institute ‘green transition’: Marc Morano

'The World Economic Forum, the United Nations, the World Health Organization, players like Bill Gates, George Soros, it's a very simple vision. Their stated goal...is to intentionally collapse our energy system to create a transition to what they're seeking — solar, wind, green energy, and limited resources,' said ClimateDepot founder Marc Morano.

By Rebel News | May 04, 2023 | News Analysis

On last night's episode of The Ezra Levant Show, ClimateDepot founder Marc Morano joined the show to discuss how global elites are intentionally destroying crucial sectors of economies to set the conditions for a societal shift towards a "green transition."

As stated by Mr. Morano, "They're trying to collapse our current agriculture and food system, and they're doing that in so many different ways. But all under the umbrella, pretty much, of the net-zero agenda. And the net-zero agenda...deals with theNetherlands as the first test case where the idea is 'you can't have nitrogen because nitrogen creates nitrous oxide, it's a greenhouse gas, we've got to go after these farmers."

He went on to say, "They issued a report in 2007 — the United Nations — saying that cow emissions, i.e methane, were more damaging to the earth than the entire transportation sector — planes, trains, automobiles — combined. So they've had cows and meat-eating in their target for decades."

"We've had UK climate advisors say that 'we want to make meat rare and expensive,'" added Mr. Morano.

"What Bill Gates, as you mentioned, stated goal is to get Europe, the United States, New Zealand, Australia, Canada and all of Western nations off of eating livestock-grown animal meat. His stated goal is to have us eat synthetic, fake meat," said Mr. Morano.

This is just an excerpt from last night's episode of The Ezra Levant Show. To watch full episodes of The Ezra Levant Show andmore exclusive content, subscribe to RebelNews+.

CANADA CLIMATE CHANGE ENERGY UNITED NATIONS OIL AND GAS BILL GATES NEWS ANALYSIS WORLD ECONOMIC FORUM

Remove ads [--> $?]

===

gmail 2 23

marked as yahoo news in header but fox, singapore; bill gates china buying farmland, control policy addison; well own nothing be happy; stem cell cow blood; print at home; eat bugs

https://news.yahoo.com/could-lab-grown-meat-become-125346059.html

biggest fear FDA approved WEF cow chicken fart fillet mignon elite

https://www.oann.com/video/in-focus-video/lab-grown-meat-on-the-rise-could-hit-restaurants-this-year/

===

https://www.alternet.org/2022/07/marjorie-taylor-greene-krabby-patties/

navy eat bugs

===

ggl

no lnx

INSANE: NYT Essay Praised Sky-High Inflation Because It’ll Make Our Diets Climate-Conscious

Joseph Vazquez

June 9th, 2022

The New York Times had the gall to publish an essay that tried to paint skyrocketing consumer prices as a good thing because it will make Americans’ diets more eco-friendly.

Journalist Annaliese Griffin praised in a June 2 write-up for The Times how “Inflation has the potential to drive welcome change for the planet if Americans think differently about the way they eat.”Griffin spun the skyrocketing prices of meat, poultry, fish and eggs as a positive because they’re allegedly pushing Americans into vegan and vegetarian diets.

While ironically admitting that “hunger and food insecurity are a very real problem in the United States and globally,” she still spun that “middle- and upper-class Americans still have more choices at the grocery store than perhaps any food shoppers in history.” This is what happens when the left attempts a hot take: babbling nonsense.

Griffin even mourned that climate change in itself wasn’t doing enough to spur change in people’s eating habits. “Climate change has motivated some to eat less resource-intensive meat and more vegetables, grains and legumes, but this movement has not reached the scale necessary to bring needed change — yet.” Looks like inflation, according to Griffin’s bizarre logic, may do the trick and bring the “needed change” she clamored for in her essay.

But it got worse.

Griffin continued fawning over how “[i]nflation resulting from the cost of fuel and feed, coupled with supply chain slowdowns, may make meat substitutes more affordable relative to traditional, factory-farmed meats.”

But Griffin couldn’t stop. She went as far as spinning the atrocious 1970s stagflation era as a case study on the benefits of an inflation-plagued economy: “The 1970s brought us brown rice, granola, exciting vegetables like eggplant and zucchini, and every conceivable way to prepare a lentil.”

Climate Depot founder Marc Morano slammed Griffin’s absurd argument in exclusive comments to MRC Business: “The New York Times seems bent on updating Gordon Gekko's phrase from the 1987 film Wall Street: Chaos, for lack of a better word, is GOOD,” Morano wrote “Climate activists in academia, the Biden admin. and the media seem tothink the more humans suffer, the more the planet will benefit.”

Morano noted Griffin’s argument “is more evidence that economic calamity, debt, inflation, supply chain issues, and skyrocketing meat and energy costs are not the unintended consequences of the climate agenda.” In Morano’s view, the skyrocketing costs of necessities such as meat are “the INTENDED consequences,” as he noted, “Chaos conditions the public to accept more centralized control of their lives.”

Morano was on point.

Griffin continued, trying to convince readers to set their eyes on the “culinary legacy” the near-40-year-high inflation crisis will bring to America's dietary habits: “Freed from having meat in every meal and with a world of recipes at our fingertips, what will the delicious culinary legacy of this inflationary period be?”

Conservatives are under attack. Contact The New York Times at 1-800-698-4637 and demand it quit publishing content that tries to spin the 40-year-high inflation crisis as a positive development.

Joe Biden

Marc Morano

Business

New York Times

Global Warming

Pollution

Environment

===

1 22

Meat and masculinity: Why some men just can’t stomach plant-based food

selective focus photography of man holding eaten burger

Photo by Oliver Sjöström on Unsplash

The Conversation January 27, 2022

Meat alternatives are suddenly everywhere, from burger joints to supermarket shelves to restaurant-grade food.

One problem? For men, in particular, there is often a visceral attachment to slaughter-derived meat. This could pose a stumbling block for an industry worth an estimated $A9.4 billion globally in 2020 and seeing significant growth, with grocery sales in Australia up by 46% in 2020.

Our new research is based on interviews with 36 men who recently went to vegan restaurants in Sydney and tried a plant-based burger. We found none of these men, who usually eat animal meat four to five times a week or more, were likely to include plant-based alternatives in their diets permanently.

But why? That’s the interesting part. Many of our interviewees made a strong link between animal meat and their own masculinity. “I don’t want to end up with my friends laughing at me over a plant-based burger,” one said. Another told us plant-based burgers were “ruining [his] reputation as a man”. A third said he felt guilty choosing plant-based burgers: “I was feeling I was sacrificing my manhood, my masculinity. It’s even worse when you are kind of forced to do it as everyone around is doing it. There is no other option.”

Why do some men react so strongly to meat alternatives?

We interviewed men aged 18-40, as these are the generations most likely to embrace flexitarianism (meat-reduction) and include more plant-based foods. That’s why it was surprising to see the strength of their negativity.

We believe two psychological responses are at work:

The men we interviewed saw the idea of a vegan-only menu as a blow to their freedom to choose, regardless of whether they enjoyed the burger. They were determined to restore their freedom. This is in line with the idea of psychological reactance, which suggests people will react very strongly to perceived loss of freedoms

on the other hand, the men we interviewed wanted to impress or please their girlfriends or partners who had taken them to the restaurant. This is linked to impression management theory, which describes how we strive to be in control of how others see us. Earlier research has shown men, in particular, can buy into eating larger and unhealthy meals as part of impression management. Our interviewees had to juggle how their partner saw them as well as how their friends and other men would see their choices.

Plant-based burgers are hitting the mainstream – but are they meaty enough for some men?

What happens when these two theories collide? You get themes emerging like these:

focusing on the novelty of a vegan restaurant. One 18 year old told us: “You don’t need to be a vegan to go and try a veggie burger. I am not a vegan, but everyone is talking about [these burgers]. I am not even kidding, they are so popular.” A 29 year old said: “We used to go out and eat steaks and burgers in pubs and steakhouses […] now we are mingling with the veggie burger eaters. Strange world!”

protecting masculinity through food choice. A 22 year old told us: “Friends nowadays can trace you everywhere. I don’t want to end up with my friends laughing at me over a plant-based burger,” while a 19 year old said he had to “guard what [my girlfriend] is saying in front of my male friends. I think she is smart enough and understands the implications of this. We do have a vegan friend, and everybody is constantly fooling him and it’s very annoying to think that I can get in his place with my vegetarian burger”

scepticism over the taste of the plant-based burgers. One 32 year old told us it was “tasteless for me […] not even close to real meat. You could have it once but that’s it”

concerns over the health of plant-based burgers. A 21 year old told us plant-based burgers were not better for health compared to meat. “They are ultra-processed imitations,” he said.

Why does this matter?

The emergence of this new industry is a clear response to urgent calls to change our current food systems due to the heavy environmental footprint of animals bred for meat, destruction of pristine habitat to create more fields, as well as animal welfare concerns. Our reliance on meat also affects our health, both on an individual and population level. New alternatives to animal-sourced meat represent the start of the transition to more sustainable food choices.

Clearing land for meat animals is a major source of biodiversity and wilderness loss.

Unfortunately, plant-based alternatives can only help us tackle our overlapping environmental crises of climate change, extinctions, wilderness loss and pollution if people actually want to eat them in preference to animal muscle. This may mean improving the ingredients used in some alternative products and reducing the processing to boost how healthy they are.

Forcing people to abandon animal meat is a non-starter, given how strongly we react to perceived loss of freedoms. That means we need to go after the psychological reasons some men, in particular, have such a strong attachment to animal meat.

How can we do that? Social marketing would be a good start, given the successes of previous common-good campaigns around making tobacco use less popular, uptake of sunscreen and COVID vaccinations.

Our study shows any marketing messages to encourage men to take up plant-based alternatives will need to be tailored very carefully. These could include:

describing plant-based foods as a deliberate choice to make to improve nutrition, reduce health risks and improve the environment. This approach would be likely to suppress the reactance backlash

presenting new forms of male identity focused on food to describe a masculinity centred around caring for themselves and for wilderness to create a positive impression management.

Even with reluctant or avoidant eaters, the plant-based sector is still expected to grow strongly, adding $3 billion to the Australian economy by 2030.

Just imagine if we could bring everyone along – even self-described carnivores.The Conversation

Dora Marinova, Professor of Sustainability, Curtin University; Christopher Bryant, Research associate, University of Bath, and Diana Bogueva, Team Manager/ Adjunct Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Sydney

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

===

2030 peak

https://www.ecowatch.com/peak-meat-2030-2641590357.html

Hormel, Kellogg’s Getting Into the Plant-Based Meat Business

===

Remember 'Pink Slime'? It Can Now Be Marketed as 'Ground Beef'

===

ew 818

Missouri Becomes First State to Regulate the Word 'Meat'

===