FAKE MEAT, FAKE NEWS: (Why) Would the media want plant-based meats to fail?
You would think that any civilized person with a choice between food from a slaughterhouse versus foods made from plants would choose the plant-based versions. You would think, but as yet, you’d be wrong.
KAREN DAVIS: It is my impression that mainstream media organizations may actively be sabotaging the effort to replace slaughter-based food products with plant-based, animal-free alternatives. But first: The good news is that, despite the gruesome display of animal carnage at every major food outlet, most now carry an impressive array of plant-based burgers, nuggets, cheeses, milks, and more, all free of animal ingredients.
You would think that any civilized person with a choice between food from a slaughterhouse versus foods made from plants would choose the plant-based versions. You’d think anyone with enough information to make an informed choice would embrace the opportunity to wash their hands of animal misery and be thankful to quit paying people to hurt and kill animals in one of the most dangerous, dehumanizing occupations on earth.
You would think, but as yet, you’d be wrong. A recent, glaring example of how the mainstream media seems bent on preventing society’s transition to plant-based food is an Opinion that was published on May 12th and again on May 15th by the Editorial Board of The Washington Post: “Fake meat failed. There’s a better way”…
They say: The taste, texture and smell of “fake meat” are terrible, and if the amount of salt and fat is reduced to make it “healthier,” it tastes even worse. “Fake meat” is too expensive – for example, “fake” chicken products cost more than “real” chicken… Then too, the Board fusses that focusing on climate change fuels “culture wars” and consumer backlash in conservative communities hostile to plant-based options in their restaurants. Finally, says the Board, “fake meat” doesn’t suit American culture because the U.S. “has been a carnivorous nation” since Colonial times…
They say: Those who care about climate change should “invest in ways to make real meat production more efficient and ethical.” If the Board members gave a thought to the coupling of “efficient” and “ethical” with respect to animal farming, they would know that these goals are mutually exclusive. The more “efficient” animal production is, the less ethical it can be. Treating hens and cows as “egg machines” and “milk machines,” breeding the modern “meat-type” chicken, turkey and Pekin duck to function as “steroidally-enhanced growth machines” – these ARE the efficiencies that produce the abundance of cheap animal products so dear to the Post’s “cost-conscious shoppers”…
Light years from “ethical” anything, we are entering the New Age of Agribusiness, the age of gene-edited animals who bear muscles specifically designed for consumption and who are genetically engineered to withstand “harsh” environments, all for the cost-conscious carnivore…
So why would the Post’s Editorial Board use its bully pulpit to try to get people to reject plant-based alternatives to animal products? I will speculate: the Post gets a lot of money from animal agribusiness through advertising and perhaps less conspicuous sources as well. Another reason is the notable lack of empathy for the animals they consume, and perhaps also a sublimated craving for sacrificial lambs and the human domination of Nature.
One thing is certain: No one who truly cares about animals as beings with feelings is working to undermine slaughter-free food. As for the animal-free products of Gardein, Beyond Meat, Morning Star Farms, Tofurky, Boca, and others: they cook, taste, broil, bake and fry, just fine. Don’t let confirmation bias and snarky opinionators spoil your appetite. SOURCE…
RELATED VIDEO: