Animal Farm
The history of the human diet is deeply rooted in plant-based foraging, with early humans evolving primarily as gatherers and opportunistic scavengers rather than hunters. For millions of years, human ancestors subsisted on a diet dominated by plant foods, such as fruits, nuts, seeds, and roots, supplemented by small animals and occasional scavenged meat. Contrary to the popular image of early humans as skilled hunters, archaeological and anthropological evidence indicates that the majority of their diet came from gathered plant materials, making humans more reliant on the stable and reliable calories these foods provided.
Early humans were not apex predators. Instead, they were scavengers who exploited the remains left behind by larger carnivores. The incorporation of meat into their diet did not begin with active hunting but with scavenging from the kills of other animals. Over time, early humans developed simple tools, such as sharp stones, to cut meat from bones or access nutrient-rich bone marrow, but these practices were opportunistic rather than a central focus of their subsistence strategy. It was the shift to scavenging that likely sparked the gradual incorporation of animal products into their diets, with meat providing concentrated bursts of calories, which helped fuel brain growth and physical adaptation.
The anatomical and physiological features of early humans reflect this plant-based dietary foundation. Human teeth, particularly the flat molars used for grinding, are designed more for processing plant matter than for tearing flesh, a characteristic more common in carnivores. Likewise, the human digestive system is long and complex, better suited for digesting fibrous plant material rather than quickly processing large quantities of meat. Additionally, humans, like many herbivores, are unable to synthesize their own vitamin C and must rely on a diet rich in fruits and vegetables to avoid deficiencies, further underscoring the plant-based origins of the human diet.
For most of human history, gathering plant foods was the primary method of subsistence. Women, children, and men in early hunter-gatherer societies spent considerable time foraging for a wide variety of plant-based foods. These plants provided a steady and consistent source of calories, contributing to as much as 80% of the daily caloric intake. Hunting and scavenging, while important in certain circumstances, were far less reliable sources of food due to the unpredictability of large game animals and the risks involved in hunting or scavenging from dangerous predators. Hunting was often supplementary, and early humans were more likely to gather and scavenge to meet their nutritional needs.
Scavenging played a crucial role in human evolution as humans spread to new environments where traditional plant foods were less abundant or more difficult to find. Rather than relying on complex hunting strategies, early humans scavenged the remains of animals killed by larger predators, targeting accessible parts such as flesh, organs, and bone marrow. Evidence from archaeological sites shows that early humans developed basic tools to extract marrow from bones, a nutrient-dense food that provided essential fats and proteins. This behavior marked a significant step in human dietary evolution, allowing early humans to maximize caloric intake from scavenged resources.
The development of scavenging as a dietary strategy likely paved the way for the eventual shift to active hunting, but this transition took time. Early humans first had to refine their tool-making abilities, develop better hunting techniques, and coordinate group efforts to hunt more efficiently. The gradual shift from scavenging to hunting led to a greater reliance on meat as a consistent source of calories, but it still did not replace the central role of plant-based foods in the human diet.
It was only with the advent of agriculture, around 10,000 years ago, that the human diet underwent a more dramatic transformation. The Agricultural Revolution marked a shift from diverse foraging to a more sedentary lifestyle centered around cultivating staple crops such as wheat, barley, rice, and maize. These grains provided a reliable source of calories and could be stored for long periods, making them essential for supporting larger, more stable populations. However, the efficiency of grain cultivation came at a cost: the reduction in dietary diversity that had characterized the earlier hunter-gatherer diet.
The reliance on grains like wheat and maize led to nutritional deficiencies, as these crops lacked many of the vitamins, minerals, and proteins found in foraged plant foods and animal products. Despite their high caloric yield, staple crops were less nutritionally diverse, leading to increased rates of malnutrition in early agricultural societies. As agriculture spread, humans settled into permanent communities and became increasingly dependent on these domesticated crops, even as they migrated into regions where growing familiar grains was more challenging due to varying climates and soil conditions.
In regions where crop cultivation was difficult, raising livestock for meat and milk became a practical solution for caloric shortages. However, while livestock provided an effective source of calories, they did not entirely solve the broader issue of nutritional diversity. Animal products, although energy-dense, were still not nutritionally complete, leaving agricultural societies vulnerable to deficiencies in essential nutrients, such as vitamins and minerals, that had been more readily available in the foraging diets of their ancestors.
As societies grew, so did the complexity of agricultural practices. In Mesopotamia, ancient Egypt, and the Indus Valley, irrigation systems were developed to control water supply, enhancing crop yields. The use of plows and other tools improved efficiency, and crop rotation and soil management techniques were introduced to maintain soil fertility. The Greeks and Romans further advanced agriculture with innovations such as the heavy plow, which was capable of turning over the dense soils of Northern Europe. They also practiced selective breeding of animals and plants, laying the groundwork for future agricultural advancements. During the Middle Ages, agriculture remained the backbone of the economy. The three-field system, introduced in Europe, allowed for better crop rotation and soil recovery. The period also saw the spread of new crops, such as legumes, which helped replenish soil nitrogen levels. The Renaissance brought a renewed interest in scientific inquiry, leading to the Agricultural Revolution in the 17th and 18th centuries. Innovations such as the seed drill, invented by Jethro Tull, and improved livestock breeding techniques by Robert Bakewell increased productivity. The enclosure movement in England consolidated small farms into larger, more efficient ones, setting the stage for modern agricultural practices.
The Industrial Revolution in the 18th and 19th centuries had a profound impact on agriculture. Mechanization replaced manual labor, with machines like the mechanical reaper, invented by Cyrus McCormick, revolutionizing harvesting. The introduction of chemical fertilizers and pesticides boosted crop yields, while advancements in transportation, such as railroads, allowed for the distribution of agricultural products over long distances. The rise of industrial agriculture led to the specialization of farms, with some focusing on crops and others on livestock. This period also saw the beginnings of large-scale commercial farming, as demand for food grew with urbanization and population growth. But, still, in the early 20th century, the global human diet was still heavily reliant on staple crops, with a significant majority of the world's population consuming primarily plant-based diets. It is estimated that around 70-80% of the global population, particularly in regions like Asia, Africa, and Latin America, relied heavily on staple foods such as rice, wheat, maize, potatoes, and beans as their primary sources of nutrition. At the time, staple foods made up a significant portion of the American diet, with estimates suggesting that around 60-70% of the average American's diet consisted of staple foods like grains (especially wheat and corn), potatoes, and beans. At that time, meals were largely based on simple, home-cooked ingredients, and processed foods were not yet as widespread. Wheat bread, cornmeal, oats, and potatoes were common, especially in rural areas, while meat, dairy, and vegetables were typically consumed in smaller amounts, often depending on regional availability.
However, the Great Depression and World War II had profound impacts on the American diet, leading to significant changes in food choices and government policies around nutrition. During the Great Depression, widespread poverty and food scarcity forced many Americans to rely on cheaper, calorie-dense foods such as bread, potatoes, beans, and canned goods. The U.S. government began to take a more active role in managing the nation's food supply, not just to feed civilians but also to ensure that soldiers were adequately nourished. The federal government initiated programs like food stamps and school lunch programs to ensure that the general population could access basic calories, and with it, began to subsidize the production of milk and meat more heavily. These subsidies were part of a larger strategy to "fatten up" the American population, ensuring that both civilians and soldiers had the energy needed to work in factories or fight on the front lines. Milk, in particular, was promoted as a highly nutritious and affordable food. Programs like the National School Lunch Act of 1946, passed in the post-war years, emphasized milk consumption as an essential part of a child's diet. The government’s involvement in agriculture extended beyond milk. Meat subsidies were also implemented, aiming to ensure a steady supply of protein-rich foods to the population. These subsidies supported both large-scale livestock farmers and small-scale producers, helping them scale up their operations to meet increasing demand. By artificially lowering the cost of meat, the government encouraged its consumption, which soon became synonymous with the ideal of a prosperous, well-nourished society. In post-war America, eating meat regularly came to signify success and economic progress, a trend that only intensified as the country’s wealth grew during the 1950s and 1960s.
Farmers and corporations quickly seized the opportunity presented by government subsidies. With financial backing, they expanded their operations, adopting new technologies and modern farming methods that significantly improved the efficiency of meat and dairy production. This marked the rise of industrial agriculture, commonly known as factory farming, which enabled producers to increase output while cutting costs. By the 1950s and 1960s, the American agricultural landscape had undergone a dramatic transformation, with large-scale animal farming becoming the backbone of the food production system. Even companies that had previously focused on crop cultivation began shifting toward livestock production, spurred by government support and the rising demand for animal products.
This shift to an economy centered on animal agriculture had wide-ranging effects. The increased production of meat and dairy resulted in an overabundance of these products in the marketplace, driving down prices and making them more accessible to the average consumer. What were once considered luxury items—like steaks and dairy—became everyday staples in American households. The rise of processed foods further accelerated this trend, as companies developed shelf-stable products incorporating meat and dairy, which appealed to the growing suburban population. Frozen dinners, sliced cheese, and canned meats became standard fare, reinforcing the dominance of animal-based products in the American diet and solidifying the influence of “Big Meat and Dairy.”
The meat and dairy industries soon wielded substantial influence in Washington, lobbying for continued government support and favorable policies. Government programs expanded to include price supports, marketing assistance, and research grants aimed at boosting animal agriculture. This created a feedback loop: subsidies and industry lobbying reinforced one another, promoting the prioritization of meat and dairy production over other agricultural sectors like fruits, vegetables, and grains. This focus not only shaped national eating habits but also had global repercussions, as the U.S. began exporting surplus meat and dairy products to other nations.
By the 1970s, the impact of government subsidies on the American diet was unmistakable. Per capita meat and dairy consumption had skyrocketed compared to the early 20th century, with Americans eating more red meat and dairy than ever before. This surge wasn't solely due to increased productivity; it was also a reflection of the political and economic clout that Big Meat and Dairy had amassed through decades of lobbying and influence. These industries played a pivotal role in shaping government policies and even dietary guidelines that encouraged higher consumption of their products.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), tasked with developing the nation’s dietary guidelines, became a key player in this process. By the 1950s and 1960s, Big Meat and Dairy had embedded themselves in American nutritional advice. The "4 food groups" model, introduced in the 1950s and promoted throughout the 1970s, positioned meat and dairy at the center of recommended daily nutrition, emphasizing them as crucial sources of protein and calcium. This occurred despite emerging scientific evidence linking high consumption of animal products to health risks like heart disease.
The influence of Big Meat and Dairy was pervasive. These industries worked closely with government agencies to secure subsidies and favorable policies that kept their products affordable and widely available. Extensive marketing campaigns reinforced the idea that meat and dairy were not just beneficial but essential for good health. Iconic campaigns like the dairy industry's "Got Milk?" ads promoted milk as a vital part of the American diet, while the meat industry pushed beef and pork as irreplaceable sources of nutrition.
Meanwhile, the USDA’s dietary guidelines reflected the interests of these industries. They consistently recommended higher levels of animal-based protein and calcium than necessary, further cementing meat and dairy as dominant components of the American diet. This close relationship between industry and government not only shaped eating habits but also created a cultural association between meat and dairy consumption and health, prosperity, and even national identity.
Beyond nutrition policy, the meat and dairy lobbies also worked to secure price supports, marketing aid, and research funding, all aimed at increasing production and consumption of their products. This system incentivized farmers to produce more meat and dairy, while consumers were encouraged to eat more. As a result, Big Meat and Dairy thrived, despite growing concerns about the health and environmental consequences of large-scale animal farming.
By the 1980s, the far-reaching impact of these industries on American agriculture and public policy was undeniable. Their lobbying efforts ensured the continued prominence of meat and dairy in the national diet, but they also contributed to rising public health issues. The overconsumption of animal products was linked to increasing rates of heart disease, obesity, and other diet-related conditions, sparking debates about the role of Big Meat and Dairy in shaping public health.
Despite these growing concerns, the industries’ political power remained strong. They adapted their messaging, promoting leaner meats and low-fat dairy as healthier options, but the emphasis on animal-based foods persisted. This reflected their continued dominance in shaping both the American diet and government policies.
In summary, the post-World War II era saw the rise of a powerful alliance between Big Meat and Dairy and the U.S. government, resulting in a food system that heavily favored animal agriculture. Through subsidies, strategic lobbying, and influential marketing, these industries embedded themselves deeply into the American economy and daily consumption habits. Even as scientific evidence highlighted the health and environmental costs of this system, the political and economic power of Big Meat and Dairy ensured their continued dominance.
However, this increased consumption of meat and dairy came at a cost. By the 1980s, concerns about the health impacts of animal-based diets—particularly heart disease and obesity—were mounting. The environmental toll of industrial farming was also becoming clear, as factory farming contributed to deforestation, water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. Despite these challenges, Big Meat and Dairy remained entrenched in American agriculture, protected by decades of government support and policies that prioritized their production over more sustainable practices.
Ironically, despite the support of farming by the U.S. government, in an effort to cut costs and maximize profits, large meat and dairy producers in the United States have increasingly turned to outsourcing, importing meat from countries like China and Brazil. This shift has allowed these corporations to bypass the higher labor and regulatory costs associated with domestic production, taking advantage of cheaper markets abroad. For example, the U.S. imported over 3.3 billion pounds of beef in 2021, with Brazil becoming one of the largest suppliers. Similarly, chicken imports from China have risen, despite concerns about food safety standards in these countries. By relying on cheaper foreign imports, these corporations have sidelined American farmers, particularly small, rural producers, who struggle to compete with the lower prices of imported meat.
This move to outsource meat production has been devastating for many small-scale farmers across the U.S., who have long been the backbone of rural communities. Family-owned farms, once thriving off local and national meat production, now face an uphill battle as large corporations undercut them by sourcing cheaper products from abroad. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the number of small cattle farms has been steadily declining, with nearly 50% of small cattle operations disappearing between 1980 and 2020. By outsourcing meat production, big meat companies are not only squeezing out these small farmers but also eroding rural economies that depend on locally produced agriculture.
Moreover, the decision to import meat from countries like Brazil and China is concerning from a regulatory and ethical standpoint. Brazil has been criticized for its weak environmental regulations, with cattle ranching being a significant driver of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest. Meanwhile, China's food safety record has been questioned, with repeated scandals involving contamination and the use of banned substances in food production. By importing meat from these countries, large U.S. corporations prioritize profit over the environment and public health, while continuing to market their products under the guise of American tradition and quality.
These practices reveal the inherent greed of big meat and dairy producers, who put profits ahead of their responsibility to both consumers and American farmers. Instead of investing in sustainable, local farming practices that could support domestic agriculture and rural communities, they seek the cheapest possible means of production. This approach not only diminishes the quality and safety of the products sold to American consumers but also betrays the very people who built the nation’s agricultural system. It's a clear example of how corporate greed undermines both small-scale farmers and the long-term sustainability of the agricultural economy.
However, America seems unwilling to confront these issues head-on because of the deep cultural association between meat consumption and strength. The myth that meat is essential to power, virility, and manliness continues to drive demand, even as the quality and origins of that meat become increasingly questionable. Large corporations, capitalizing on this cultural narrative, push cheaper, imported meat while still marketing it as the foundation of a strong, healthy body. As a result, the public turns a blind eye to the broader implications—environmental damage, loss of rural livelihoods, and food safety concerns—all in the name of maintaining the illusion of strength tied to meat consumption.
The pervasive belief that meat is a symbol of American toughness allows big meat companies to continue their exploitative practices with little accountability. Consumers, bombarded by decades of marketing and propaganda, are more concerned with accessing affordable meat than questioning where it comes from or how it's produced. This cultural fixation on meat as a marker of strength blinds people to the reality that their consumption habits are supporting a system that devastates local farmers, exploits workers in foreign countries, and compromises environmental and public health standards.
Meanwhile, the government and regulatory bodies, often influenced by powerful meat industry lobbies, do little to curb these harmful practices. As long as the demand for cheap meat remains high and corporations can profit from outsourced production, the cycle continues unchecked. The enduring myth that America needs meat to stay strong not only sustains these destructive patterns but also perpetuates a false sense of patriotism and self-sufficiency, even as the nation grows increasingly dependent on foreign imports to satisfy its appetite for meat.
After World War II, the American ideal of strength and masculinity underwent a profound shift, largely influenced by the rise of propaganda that equated meat and dairy consumption with power, virility, and manliness. In the post-war era, as the United States emerged as a global superpower, the image of the "strong American man" became central to national identity. This archetype was built around physical strength, dominance, and the ability to provide for a growing family—a vision heavily reinforced by government policies, advertising campaigns, and cultural institutions like Hollywood. At the heart of this ideal was the consumption of meat and dairy, products promoted as essential to building muscle, health, and a powerful body.
Government subsidies for meat and dairy production after the war, coupled with the growing industrialization of agriculture, led to a surplus of these products. To absorb this excess, industries needed to create a strong cultural demand, and one of the most effective strategies was linking these foods to masculinity and strength. Advertising campaigns soon flooded the American media landscape, portraying meat and dairy as the cornerstones of a strong, capable man. The beef and dairy industries were particularly aggressive, using slogans like "Beef. It’s What’s for Dinner" and "Got Milk?" to cement their products in the minds of Americans as essential for a healthy, powerful body. These campaigns played into gender stereotypes, portraying men who consumed large quantities of these products as strong, virile, and in control, while casting plant-based diets as weak or insufficient.
Hollywood also played a significant role in reinforcing this message. Films of the 1950s and 1960s often featured hyper-masculine heroes—cowboys, soldiers, and adventurers—whose toughness and strength were associated with their consumption of hearty, meat-heavy meals. Characters played by stars like John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, and Steve McQueen embodied this rugged masculinity, often seen eating steaks or burgers, reinforcing the cultural association between meat and male strength. The message was clear: to be a real man, one needed to consume large amounts of animal products. This imagery became deeply ingrained in the American psyche, helping to define the nation’s ideal of a strong man as one who not only provided for his family but also exhibited physical prowess, a characteristic reinforced by his diet.
This emphasis on meat and dairy as drivers of strength and manliness, however, was not simply a cultural phenomenon—it was a calculated marketing strategy designed to fuel consumer demand and profit from an oversupply of animal products. As the American agricultural system became increasingly dependent on large-scale meat and dairy production, these industries had a vested interest in ensuring that their products remained central to the American diet. To do this, they leaned into the cultural ideal of masculinity, crafting a narrative that consuming these products was not only good for health but also essential for achieving the highest form of manhood.
The problem with this narrative is that it perpetuates a toxic form of masculinity, one that equates strength with physical power, dominance, and the suppression of emotional expression. By promoting the idea that real men must eat meat to be strong, these campaigns reinforced harmful stereotypes about gender and strength. This version of masculinity discourages men from showing vulnerability or embracing more nurturing traits, suggesting instead that toughness and self-reliance are the ultimate goals. It reduces the concept of strength to a purely physical attribute, ignoring the importance of emotional intelligence, empathy, and mental resilience.
Moreover, this propaganda overlooks the significant health risks associated with excessive consumption of meat and dairy, further tying manhood to habits that are detrimental in the long term. While the advertising campaigns suggested that a diet rich in animal products would lead to a strong, healthy body, scientific research has increasingly shown the opposite: high meat and dairy consumption is linked to a range of health problems, including heart disease, high cholesterol, and obesity. Despite these findings, the cultural association between meat, dairy, and masculinity has proven difficult to break, as it taps into deep-seated ideals about what it means to be strong, capable, and male.
As plant-based diets gain popularity and awareness of the environmental and health impacts of industrial agriculture grows, the image of the meat-eating man as the pinnacle of strength is slowly being challenged. However, the propaganda from decades of marketing still holds sway, with many men feeling pressured to adhere to a diet that aligns with traditional notions of masculinity. In many circles, plant-based eating is still stigmatized as "unmanly," and terms like "soy boy" have been weaponized to mock men who choose not to consume animal products. This language, rooted in toxic masculinity, perpetuates the harmful idea that a man’s worth is tied to his physical strength and dietary choices, reinforcing the false connection between animal products and power.
The link between meat consumption and masculinity has also had environmental consequences, as the industrial production of meat and dairy is one of the largest contributors to climate change, deforestation, and water pollution. Yet, in the face of these global challenges, the meat industry continues to market its products as essential to manhood, banking on the fact that many consumers still associate meat with strength and dominance. This marketing is not just about selling products; it's about upholding a cultural system that prioritizes profit over both human and environmental health, while reinforcing harmful gender stereotypes.
Ultimately, the idea that meat and dairy are essential to a strong, healthy man is a myth perpetuated by decades of corporate propaganda and toxic masculinity. It is a narrative designed to serve the interests of industries looking to profit from overproduction, rather than one grounded in what is actually best for health, well-being, or the environment. To move beyond this harmful ideal, it is critical to redefine strength in broader terms, valuing emotional and mental resilience alongside physical health, and recognizing that strength can come from making choices that are compassionate, sustainable, and informed by science.
As society evolves and begins to challenge traditional gender roles, there is an opportunity to dismantle the harmful messages that have long associated meat and dairy consumption with manliness. A truly strong person, after all, is one who is capable of empathy, who cares for both their own well-being and the well-being of others, and who makes choices that benefit the planet, rather than succumbing to a narrow, outdated ideal of strength rooted in toxic masculinity and corporate greed. In this way, rejecting the old myths about meat and dairy isn’t just about better health—it’s about embracing a more inclusive, compassionate, and sustainable vision of strength.
