Chicken prices at U.S. grocery stores have hit record highs and should stay elevated as Tyson Foods and other companies dial back poultry production to boost margins while inflation-weary shoppers buy chicken instead of beef and pork.
Higher chicken prices should improve earnings at top producers Tyson (TSN.N) and Pilgrim's Pride (PPC.O), but will pinch consumers' pockets as they try to save money by turning away from higher-end proteins. One index shows chicken producer profit margins at their highest in a year.
U.S. consumption of chicken is expected to exceed 100 pounds per person this year for the first time ever, data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture shows.
Beef consumption is forecast to drop to its lowest since 2018, as prices climb due to dwindling cattle supplies. Meanwhile, consumer spending cuts have knocked pork consumption to the lowest since 2015.
Arkansas-based Tyson, which sells all three types of meat, had to deal with a glut of chicken after earning massive profits when meat prices soared during the COVID-19 pandemic.
I have no idea who those people are. But if you think people cant be healthy eating grains, legumes, fruits and vegetables you know literally nothing about health and fitness. Do you get your diet advice from roided out "carnivores" like liver king who take steroids and fistfulls of vitamin pills to survive their bacon and butter only diets?
Lol that's ridiculous. Humans have been eating meat since…before they were humans. I don't need to listen to any snake-oil selling influencer to know that lol.
And while it's possible to have a healthy diet without meat, pretty much everywhere in the US that is a much more expensive diet than meat. Sure you can get cheap carbs. But those legumes, fruits, and vegetables are either impossible to find it much more expensive than the caloric equivalent of meat. Whole neighborhoods are reliant on stores like Dollar General or Family Dollar for their food. "Just don't eat meat" is an incredibly out-of-touch and privileged thing to say
Also Graham was the first Westerner to popularize vegetarianism. Kellogg was influenced by him and is responsible for a ton of pseudoscience food myths that still persist today. If you don't know who they are… you might want to learn because they are probably the founders of what you believe today, and a lot of their ideas were rooted in pseudoscience, religion, and racism. Unless your vegetarianism comes from Asian religious practices of course. But this whole thread is relating an article on US prices. The history of Vegetarianism in the US has more people and complexity of course, but those are two of the most popular and historically influential figures.
Humans also raped each other and died in childbirth for just as long so i guess we should let those happen too. appeal to nature is a logical fallacy One of my biggest pet peeves when people talk about veganism is theyre inability to debate without their entire argument being nothing but fallacies. Its not different then arguing with a flat earther or a trump supporter.
The other thing that boils my blood is people invoking privilege as if they actually care about whatever community theyre hiding behind. Low meat diets are what most people throughout all of time and history have eaten. The meat heavy diets of the modern western world is an immense privilege. Go to a rural community in South America shoving whoppers in your mouth and see if thats how theyre eating. Meat is massively MASSIVELY subsidized.
Not to mention its the largest cause of environmental destruction on the planet. The number one cause of deforestation .and the cause of suffering for billions intelligent animals.
Do some actual research beyond googling "why is veganism bad" and then finding YouTube videos that support the ideas you already have. WatchDomion.org
You claim to have your "blood boiled" by people referring to history you think is irrelevant, but also use that same argument yourself? I'm not saying that every single custom on human history is perfect and needs to be maintained, but I'm not talking about something as fickle as human behavior. I'm talking about human biology. It's possible that within my lifetime I might see genetic modification lead to a humanity that can survive on different nutrition. More realistically, I hope to see the development of lab-grown meat or other protein sources. But the reality is that for most Americans, a healthy and nutritious meat-free diet is incredibly expensive. Even then, some people (including my own partner) have medical conditions that necessitate eating animal protein.
It's hilarious that you claim that I'm using fallacies similar to cults, when that's the exact roots of vegetarianism. The founders advocated for celibacy and genital mutilation. Kellogg was hugely into eugenics.
It's also hilarious that you're accusing me of having a Western-centric view. Firstly, because I was very clear that I'm talking about the US because that's the scope of the article. And funny you mention South America because Brazil is the 2nd largest producer of beef in the world behind the US. China is 3rd. Thinking Americans shove whoppers in their mouths is… incredibly strange. Whoppers haven't been relevant in decades and fast food has been on the decline in America. Is that how you imagine "the poors" behave?
"Environmental destruction" is kind of vague, but you're right that industrial agriculture is one of the larger causes of deforestation. That's bad and we need to stop doing that. That means better practices and moving away from more environmentally damaging animals. Cows are pretty terribly inefficient and should probably be reduced to luxury beef products, and dairy can probably be reduced. The article this thread is discussing is relating to Chicken prices: a much more efficient and effective option that requires far less land and water use, produces great natural fertilizer as waste, and has far fewer emissions.
Which brings me to my last point: you mention the suffering of billions of intelligent animals. I'll admit I really don't care about your moral arguments. There's billions of (allegedly) intelligent humans suffering right now. There's billions of animals experiencing suffering at the hands of other animals. To exist is to suffer and induce suffering in others. So where do we draw lines? Do the plants we eat not suffer? The fungi? Microrganisms? Some day my own flesh will be consumed by something else: I am merely borrowing this carbon for a short while. I agree that most of the industrial-scale animal production induces far more suffering than it should in the pursuit of providing more profit to shareholders, but I am under no delusion that anything I eat will not experience any sort of suffering.
You ended youre "argument" admitting tou dont give a shit about suffering or morality. I dont really know how to continue a debate with an actual psychopath… arguing with meat eaters always ends up with them saying insane stuff like they dont care about suffering or torture , the quotes around intelligent makes you sound like the kind of person who drown cats as a kid. I know literally no amount of logic or facts can change your mind because you just want to be right (you know …like a cult) it was a mistake saying anything. Proud ignorance just frustrates me
Ah I see you just want to feel morally superior to people. Conveniently ignoring other areas where you are yourself inflicting suffering to other organisms and the environment. Arbitrarily deciding which life forms you care about or dont. But you're able to go to your local vegan Cafe and get a $30 impossible burger, and that makes you better than the rest of us.