Forgive my cynical question, Fabbers. How much is driven by a desire to “do the right thing” and how much by seeing an opportunity to continue with the same business model of buying industrially and harmfully grown ingredients then adding greenwashing and packaging?
It feels a bit like the petrochemical companies seeing the demise of oil and pushing hydrogen as a replacement - slightly less damaging at first sight but still the same heavily marketed extractive business model at heart, still the unnecessary movement of tonne tin boxes at high speed, mostly carrying one passenger a couple of miles.
Even well intentioned it still relies on long supply chains, and industrialised agriculture.
And a lot of oil diesel for tractors, oil based fertilisers and pesticides that are required in arable only monocropping.
It's against nature.
It's not actually sustainable to have no animals in our agricultural systems
Yes, they need to be outside in their natural environment, eating natural foods and building soil.
Of course if some people don't want to eat meat or milk that's a personal choice, there will still be plenty of other things for them to eat.
Fwiw a lot of the 'vegans' who have worked or stayed here have ended up eating the eggs produced here because they see what a good life they have.
Personally I don't see industrialised plant based as 'the answer'
its another bit of marketing that extracts value, and nutrition even between the farm and the fork.
It's definitely a step up from 'industrialised' animal raising, in terms of welfare and pollution , but it doesn't give us the long term answer to better food and farming.
Integrated agroecology, with animals, biodiversity enhancing mixed farming systems, as is still practised by many farmers globally does that in my view.