Because monsanto says so.
Alas! The long-awaited part 2! Ok, it's entirely possible that I was the only one anxiously waiting but regardless, here's my follow up to the question;
Can the planet support a global shift toward an animal-based diet?
To keep this short and to the point (shorter than a book and pointier than it could easily become given the scope of impact this conversation has! haha), I'm going to stay really big-picture in order to help us all more clearly understand thewhy behind certain things that are said (such as why we NEEDGMO crops, and even animals, to feed us).
So let's jump in head-long.
If there's moneyto be had then...
Selling crops is more lucrative than selling meat. Why? Because our food system is built on valuing volume over nutritional value. You can grow more volume per acre with crops than you can with livestock under like growing models which equates to more gross income.
Secondly, patented agricultural inputs such as seeds, fertilizers, and chemical crop treatments are one of the most lucrative industries in the world, ranking up there with pharmaceuticals (hence one reason Bayer, the pharma giant, bought Monsanto).
Combine the volume equation with the patents and the demand of food necessity and you have a recipe for a lot of money (and power, but we'll leave that part for another day).
Now, setting the financial incentives aside, the reality of the world's population byinlarge consuming a regeneratively-raised, animal-based diet is potentially too politically charged to realistically happen, BUT, under a global regenerative model, the world would thrive and the planet's production capacity is able to support it.
The main logistical hurdle (besides money) that stands between the broken, malnourishing industrial food production systems of today and a resilient, nourishing global regenerative model is human nature... Human tendency is to want control, predictability, and simplicity... Those tendencies equate to less nature, less resiliency, and more technology. Forced outcomes essentially because we humans are control freaks (in addition to themassive amount of financial incentive to monopolize our food system). Regenerative requires amassiveamount of faith, patience, and humility; something humans aren't naturally inclined toward.
Now, for those interested in the numbers, under a regenerative model, we (humans) could globally supply enough animal based byproducts to easily feed a population of nearly 15 billion (current population is under 8 billion).
Using an estimate of 600 lbs of regeneratively raised food (meat, dairy, fruits, veggies) produced per acre annually from all habitable land (almost 41 million square miles globally) in the world equates to 15 trillion lbs of food.
15 trillion/8 billion people = 1875 lbs of nutrient dense food, per person, per year (or 5.14 lbs per day)
For perspective on these numbers, a regeneratively managed acre of land can produce up to an astonishing 60,000 lbs of nutrient-dense food per acre, annually. If "only" 30,000 lbs of food were grown regeneratively per acre annually, that would equate to 257 lbs of food per person, per day, at our current global population.
*For production volume reference, GMO corn, one of the highest, if not the highest, yielding crop, when grown on the most fertile parts of the country, yields at most 12,000 lbs per acre, average being more like 9,500 lbs per acre. Regenerative production has a significantlyhigher ceiling of yield potential, let alone nutrient density.
Clearly, there is zero basis for the argument that we need GMOs to feed the world. It's simply a marketing façade by some of the most wealthy organizations in the world
but it's killing life on our planet one bite at a time.
To get a stunning (and heart-warming!) visual of the contrast between industrial/GMO ag vs regenerative, I'd highlyrecommend watching the newly-releasedthe Biggest little Farm: The Return on Disney+.
Imagine the shift in our food supply volume and value, let alone the environmental impacts, if our global food production systems were regenerative?!!
It's hard to fathom the impacts. In fact, I don't think we even have the cognitive capacity to truly quantify the total impact, it's that massive.