~~For the planet? Doubt it, the amount of primary forests being razed to grow soy, displacing local wildlife be it flora or fauna, and especially with locals, usually already living in difficult situations before being forced to move, is horrid.~~

I am glad college gave me the habit of fact checking myself, turns out I was wrong as fuck. True, soy is a water intensive but not as water intensive as many other crops or meat. And a lot of companies buy cheap land, raze what was there, "poison" the soil with specific fertilizers that change the properties of said land so the soy can prosper, while also alienating the local plants, however most companies that do this, do it to feed livestock, since soy is very efficient and resilient when compared to most livestock feed.

Plus, only about 6% of soy is destined for human consumption, about 90% of it is used as a cheap livestock feed. I still oppose to veganism from a moral standpoint, and consider that buying local would make a far greater impact, but now I can go back to buying tofu without feeling guilty.

[–] passepartout@feddit.de 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago)

It is great that you could bring up the curiosity to bust the soy myth.

There is no moral consumption of animal products. Many people a lot smarter than both of us (or at least mor dedicated / funded / in their jobs) have made the research and come to this conslusion as well.

The most people who oppose this fact feel attacked at first because it can't coexist with their own behaviour. It is the same as with every debate where emotion gets brought up as a reasoning though (e.g. refugees, climate change, homeopathy, etc.).