A Brief Note on Beef
Allow me a vegetarian outburst.
When I read that young people voted for Trump because they want to say slurs and that “meat is making a comeback”1 after years of supposed vegan rule, I felt like I lived on another planet. And that’s the point: The right needs to pretend to be victimized while they victimize. They need to say they stand for “free speech” (a constitutional right that refers to a legal relationship between citizens and the state, not the ways in which people decide to talk to each other) but ensure that the National Endowment of the Arts won’t give grants to anyone whose work promotes “gender ideology.” It is all a crock of shit.
If you wonder why I consider attitudes toward meat to be part of this right-wing victimization upswing meant to confuse everyone about who’s actually in power, it’s because… they are, and a lack of honesty and literacy on that will not do anyone any good. Trump calling for the return of plastic straws and a “hot girls for red meat”–type narrative are part of the same consumerist baby ideology that ignores (1) 99 percent of plastic is derived from fossil fuels2 and (2) meat and dairy account for 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions.
I know some people will argue that they’re a conscientious omnivore who sources well. No doubt there are many of you! But it’s not nearly enough, and the U.S. is responsible globally, per capita, for much higher than average beef consumption.3
This doesn’t sound like a country whose food choice behaviors have been swayed at all by vegan propaganda. But part of the false idea that everything is gonna be fine with regards to eating animals—especially cows—and the effects of this behavior on climate change is this notion of trendy, popular veganism.
Veganism, though, was never “trendy”: To be trendy, it would’ve had to at one time been popular. It never has been: maybe 1 to 3 percent of the global population identifies as such, depending on the poll you’re looking at (22 percent might be vegetarian). What people confuse for “trendy” is simply the availability of plant-based food products. The latter has never been synonymous with veganism or vegetarianism; it’s synonymous with the cynical beliefs of market-driven business bros (gender-neutral) who don’t believe collective or political change will ever drive down meat and dairy consumption, so they might as well make a buck off some green-washing.
Yet the people who want to tell you it’s so passé now, that finally—like the Trump youth who are so relieved to say the R-word—they’re free to have their steaks in peace are liars creating a fake sense of security that actually spells doom. There is no way for “grass-fed,” “regenerative,” or “[insert your buzzword here]” animal farming practices to produce the amount of meat people are accustomed to: decreased consumption is absolutely necessary. Not even the ranchers can argue with that, if they’re being honest. (They often prefer to mince words by suggesting there can be nuance in the argument… this is the United States of America and the president for a second time is Donald J. Trump. Strong messaging is necessary.)
The subject of “political psychology on meat politics,” as this 2023 study puts it, is a tense one. People’s responses to food are emotional and nostalgic, and in a country like the United States, where meat represents affluence, nourishment, and well-being, the issues get muddled. Generally, those who lean right respond poorly to the idea of political interventions that might decrease meat consumption for better environmental impacts, but people who lean left also aren’t quite clear on the issues. Studying vegan and vegetarian history, as well as attitudes toward these choices, gives me a good understanding of the machinations at work when people pretend the powerless or marginalized hold all the material resources and cultural capital. The truth, too, is that neither the Democrats nor the Republicans want to do anything to fuck with people’s burgers. It’s something that will only change through collective will.
As I’ve written before, food itself is only as political as the meaning being projected onto it: There are ecofascist vegans and anarcho-punk butchers. In India, vegetarianism is used “as a tool for punishment and surveillance,” as Sharanya Deepak writes in The Baffler.
But eating beef without care for its effects on the environment in the U.S. in 2025 is functionally climate denialism. Reality is and has been quite clear: Affluent people in the U.S. need to cut back on meat and dairy because they’re bad for the planet, the animals, and the workers. If this cuts into your fun times, re-consider your fun.
Because I wrote an entire book on this subject, I don’t feel compelled to put caveats here about economics, time-resources, or individual nutritional needs—but I suppose here they are. I understand that on individual levels, things will be different. I’m talking about the big, broad collective level, which is where the problems are to be found.
News
Today at 3 p.m. EST, we have the weekly chat Salon. Join fellow subscribers to discuss what we’re reading, watching, and working on.
This month, the Desk Book Club is reading The Hunger of Women by Marioso Castaldi. We will have the Zoom discussion on Sunday, February 23, at 1 p.m. EST. I will send the link and my reading notes on this Friday, February 21. You can buy all the 2025 Desk Book Club picks at this year’s partner bookstore, D.C.’s Bold Fork Books, for 20% off with the code in the header (or email me).
Join me for the third installment of the Desk Salon Series on Sunday, March 9, featuring writer and New York Times Magazine contributor Carina del Valle Schorske: paid subscribers have free access with the code in the header (or email me) and anyone else can buy a ticket for $10. There will be ten of these over the course of the year.
There are workshops happening on food writing and food media, and you can find them at my website. Paid subscribers have 25% off to each, using the code in the header. (Or, once again, email me.)
Reading
The Hunger of Women by Marioso Castaldi!
This is from a British paper, but it uses many American celebrities and companies among its examples. It’s not a unique perspective and I think this piece is a very pointed demonstration of a pervasive line of thinking.
“The fossil fuel industry went on to donate $96 million directly to Trump’s campaign; spend $80 million on political advertising; and pour God-knows-how-much cash into dark money groups that don’t have to reveal their donors.” (HEATED)
An earlier version cited a 2016 study rather than newer numbers. Beef consumption has been trending downward since 1970 but has been replaced with chicken rather than with more sustainable protein.
I’m officially breaking up with a therapist who I’ve always been a little hesitant about but increasingly got the sense she was a trumper. The past few months our sessions have turned into her promoting not just keto, not just paleo, but a carnivore diet to help with my stress. 🙃🙃🙃🙃 she used to share research studies from her psych program/text books (one reason i stuck with her is that she was so research minded), now she shares studies from bro podcasts. It’s everywhere.
“I know some people will argue that they’re a conscientious omnivore who sources well. No doubt there are many of you!”
I read this with perhaps unintentional sarcasm, as many of the people who I’ve encountered who claim to “conscientiously” source their meat and dairy are referring to the one or two things they buy a month while discounting the 95% of the other factory farmed things they eat.