Brazil’s Deforestation Is Their Business: Why Should We Care?
The Amazon rainforest is vanishing at a rate of several million hectares a year.
Over the first two decades of the 21st century, deforestation across Brazil’s Amazon region totalled 44 million hectares—larger than China’s Yunnan Province. Livestock expansion is the primary driver of illegal deforestation: low-cost pastureland and feed have cemented the competitive pricing of Brazil’s beef industry. Industry giants led by JBS have routinely sourced livestock from illegally cleared pastures, profiting from ecological destruction.
In January this year, a report funded by Foodthink’s Lianhe Initiative, “‘Fake Meat’ Ousts the Real: Dining Tables, Herders, and the Amazon”, found that JBS meat products have reached the dinner tables of herders on the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Since 2022, mainland China has imported over one million tonnes of Brazilian beef annually, accounting for more than 40 per cent of the country’s total beef imports. Furthermore, Europe and Hong Kong are also major importers of Brazilian meat products.
Some dismiss any link between beef consumption and deforestation as complete nonsense, labelling it a typical case of “China-guilt”. Others champion environmental protection, arguing that importing Brazilian beef eases pressure on domestic grasslands and constitutes a “necessary evil”. And those prioritising food security warn that over-reliance on imports will inevitably leave us vulnerable to external strangleholds.
Then there are readers attempting to grasp the complexity the article sets out to convey. They recognise the destructive nature and negative externalities of industrial production systems, appreciate the multiple values of traditional pastoralism, and personally feel how biodiversity loss, intensifying climate change, and injustices within the food and agricultural system impact our shared human destiny.
Where do you stand? Which end of the spectrum do your views lean towards? Cast your vote at the end of the article and leave a comment to share your thoughts.
Viewpoint 1: It’s just a ploy to raise prices!
A baffling piece. It’s simply an attempt to hike prices based on the meagre amount of meat herders sell. Well-off people can afford it, but ordinary folk? Forget it!
The core issue is protecting their own interests. Imported meat has significantly undercut the previously sky-high prices of beef and mutton, so they’re resorting to a “real vs fake meat” narrative to prop up those old prices.
Cheaper meat just means their interests have been bumped. Ordinary people run their households by buying whoever offers the best price.
What’s interesting is that cattle herders all believe their own livestock is superior and commands a higher price. Yet most consumers don’t accept that pricing. In fact, some herders themselves don’t buy into it—when buying meat for their own tables, they’ll opt for cheaper imported cuts. No one denies that grass-fed beef is better than grain-fed, but few point out that grass-fed caters to the wealthy, while grain-fed allows ordinary people to afford beef at all. Stop harping on how Tibetan yaks are rich in omega-3s and good for cardiovascular health. For ordinary people, simply being able to eat beef, and more of it, is already a marked improvement in living standards. Domestic yak herders seem to contribute little to this reality yet expect to earn more. Put simply: if you think your cattle are superior and deserve a higher price, sell them to the wealthy or export them globally.
I sympathise with herders being disrupted and detest how profit-driven capital damages ecosystems. On the other hand, cheaper beef means more people can eat more meat, and China’s per capita meat consumption is already quite low.
Objectively, I understand and sympathise with the herders, but on a salary of 3,000 yuan, I still want a taste of beef.
As ordinary consumers, it’s hardly surprising that people bow to price when it comes to the essentials of daily life. The old adage runs: “When granaries are full, people know propriety; when food and clothing are plentiful, they understand honour and disgrace.” Confronted with such grand issues, most will still prioritise their most basic survival needs. Genuine change is extremely difficult to achieve relying on individuals alone.
Perspective Three: Small-scale operations simply cannot compete with industrial farming
Extensive grazing can never outcompete intensive large-scale farming; that is the reality of business.
They have better pasture and superior technology. Rather than focusing on improving their own production methods, some just resort to vitriol.
This is merely a snapshot of modernisation—a byproduct of technological advancement and specialisation in human society. One might call it progress; others might call it a step back. But it is an inevitable trend of keeping pace with the times. It cannot be resisted, nor is it clear why anyone would want to.
Many simply cannot afford high-priced beef and lamb, given the reality of their incomes. Importing meat helps bring prices down, meaning more people can afford to eat it. Is there anything wrong with that? As for herders’ livelihoods, industrial transition takes time, and growing pains are inevitable. Consider the hardship faced by laid-off factory workers in the past; the whole nation went through it together.
Why are production costs for beef cattle so low abroad, while they remain high domestically? Is it not because traditional grazing methods are inefficient and costly? Does the issue not lie in the fact that imported meat is simply cheaper, rather than domestic prices being exorbitant? What is there to debate when small-scale operations cannot match industrial farming?
Traditional production models face an inevitable reckoning in the era of a market economy. Reform is essential, and adaptation to the times is unavoidable.
This is a superbly written and highly realistic piece. As a native of Gannan, I appreciate that it tackles subjects local people rarely broach. Situated on the fringes of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau, livestock husbandry once formed the economic backbone of our three counties: L, M, and X. Yet our traditional, household-based herding—hampered by natural constraints such as fragmented pastures—remains deeply localised and traditional. It simply cannot compete in the open market with large-scale, capital-backed, industrial livestock operations. Much like pitting the ranches of the American West against the beef factories of the Pampas, decline in the face of globalised capital and trade is inevitable. South America is not defined solely by Brazilian beef, nor is Argentine meat a recent novelty in China. Where something takes root in the market, there is reason for it. For most consumers, purchasing habits ultimately mirror market demand. The market sets the terms, and capital absorbs the sunk costs. Nevertheless, for those of us with deep roots here, it is disheartening to watch a foundational industry shrunk to the point of existential uncertainty. I believe the immediate priority must be the sustainable development and modernisation of our local livestock sector. Most locals buying meat for their own kitchens still opt for regional grass-fed beef and seldom choose imports. Even local eateries proudly serve premium cuts of domestic grass-fed meat. Yet, relying on such a modest traditional market, coupled with the younger generation’s fading connection to it, will never suffice to weather the impact of capital-driven industrial farming.
Why is meat that strictly adheres to food safety standards, passes quarantine and inspection in more than one country, and is legally traded across many parts of the world dismissed as “fake meat”? Why is meat produced through traditional methods that are clearly unhealthy, unhygienic and unsustainable automatically elevated to “real meat”, simply because it stems from a traditional way of life? Why cling to and romanticise an inefficient, unhealthy and unhygienic system of production? Why is a safe, healthy and efficient model—one that enables more people, including those who previously could not afford it, to access meat at lower prices—almost a priori deemed wrong or bad, even when it fully meets legal and regulatory requirements?
(Replying to the above) You have completely conflated these concepts. 1. Safety and health are two entirely different things—go ahead, try drinking cola like water every day. 2. Health and flavour are invariably compromised when chasing safety and profit.
In reality, imported meat often surpasses most domestic produce in both quality and safety; it is simply that freezing alters the flavour and texture.
The quality of beef and lamb from Brazil, Argentina and Australia is not bad either. The main issue is that it must be frozen for transport to China, and frozen meat will naturally differ in taste from fresh meat.
Profit is just profit; the claim of “strictly adhering to food safety” has long been an empty slogan! Look at the current state of food across China—strict compliance with food safety standards has already been hollowed out by profit motives and so-called modernisation! Let me ask you: do you believe home-cooked meals are healthier, or those so-called “food-safety-compliant” pre-prepared dishes?
Dairy production places very high demands on both raw materials and processing techniques. Most of the milk we consume today, sometimes dubbed “antibiotic milk”, contains excessive antibiotic levels—it is an unavoidable reality. It is much like how many prescription drugs contain hormones; cattle rearing follows the same logic. Add to that the stringent requirements for processing techniques and production environments, and it becomes quite a complex affair.
I work as a stockman at a feedlot. You have no idea how filthy it gets. I would not touch the meat myself. The animals are injected every few days. I will not mention the rest—I cannot even name what those injections are. If you have the means, it is far better to eat properly raised meat.
Intensive fattening completely ruins the authentic texture and flavour of the meat. Honestly, since feedlot beef and lamb became commonplace, I have hardly eaten any. It just carries too strong a smell. Feedlot meat might be tender, but it turns the natural flavour into a rancid, off-putting odour. Lamb is especially pungent. Grassland beef and lamb used to boast distinctive regional characteristics, but now they all smell the same; only the geographic labels differ.
I visited Inner Mongolia previously, and they consume yellow-fat beef there. It is genuinely delicious and incredibly filling. We once dined at a barbecue joint where meat is sold by weight, and two of us struggled through just one and a half jin (about 750g) without ordering any side dishes—we were absolutely stuffed. In Shanghai, we would easily finish two jin and would need to pair it with sides… In 2021, I bought a bone-in cut there and kept it frozen in my freezer. I cooked it in 2024. When blanched, there was barely any scum, and it smelled wonderful. No gamey undertones whatsoever. No need for spring onions, ginger or star anise; a pinch of salt was plenty. It was deeply savoury, with a subtle milky aroma.
Free-range beef and lamb from the Tibetan highlands are the healthiest.
To be honest, I grew up in a pastoral region and have always loved meat—really, I love it particularly. Now, when I eat out, I won’t touch the beef or mutton if it’s 100% imported. It’s not that imported meat is bad, but I simply don’t fancy a single bite.
Viewpoint 7: “Someone’s always out to get me!”
The classic “China is guilty” narrative. China, which couldn’t feed its own people before the 1980s, somehow ends up bearing the blame for the destruction of the Brazilian rainforest.
Ah yes, indeed. So Chinese people eating meat is the root cause of the Amazon rainforest’s destruction, while Americans eating meat is perfectly justified. Classic take from a spineless so-called ‘public intellectual’.
You can’t simply embrace free trade when you’re the one dumping goods elsewhere. Besides, whether the Brazilians destroy the rainforest or not is their business; what does it have to do with us?
Mate, you’ve got a point. Today they’ll say eating meat harms the rainforest; tomorrow it’s seafood damaging the oceans; the day after, industrial development ruining the atmosphere. The moral condemnation and guilt-tripping never cease. Eventually, you’ll be told even breathing is wrong. It’s like now that we’re banned from burning crop residue, pests and diseases are multiplying.
Although ordinary folk are eating standard imported meat, it indirectly protects our own pastures and drives down beef prices. In today’s economic climate, people can finally afford to eat beef throughout the year. Why isn’t this mentioned? Is there anything wrong with sacrificing individual interest for the greater good? Do beef prices have to stay high to be acceptable? Choose the lesser of two evils. It’s no easy job looking after a country as large as China’s.
Also, don’t pin the blame for deforestation on yourselves. It has nothing to do with us. Doing our own environmental protection properly is our greatest contribution to the world.
If we must draw a connection, and say something politically incorrect from a globalised perspective: it is precisely through globalisation and extensive imports—where our primary beef consumption relies on imported soybeans to feed cattle and direct meat imports—that China’s pastoral regions and grassland ecosystems are relieved of the duty to ensure national food security. This allows us to preserve the ‘Water Tower of China’ and the ecological barrier of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau… Therefore, many people domestically are working to promote initiatives around ‘zero-deforestation soybeans’. Although it’s only just beginning, it warrants attention. Any effort to link local matters with a broader perspective is commendable, yet it must be handled with caution, as the complexities involved may far exceed our imagination. —《Regardless, Yaks Should Be More Than Just Beef》
Do you know why the state keeps purchasing imported meat? Do you know how much is invested annually in pasture restoration and conservation? Do you know how much subsidy is given to herders for buying farming equipment each year? I hope you can research this comprehensively and in line with the state’s long-term strategic vision. Try engaging more with agricultural and pastoral officials. I used to think similarly, but after learning about national policies through repeated contacts, I realise the state is thinking long-term. However much imported meat Chinese people eat has absolutely nothing to do with rainforest destruction. Don’t slap arbitrary labels on us out of nowhere. They could entirely pursue other approaches. Our Chinese pastures need protection too. Focus on your own affairs first.
Mate, if you don’t eat it, plenty of others will. But you need to understand that the soybean incident didn’t happen overnight. Many of us here have stopped raising cattle and sheep. You lose money every day you keep them. When the vast majority of Chinese people stop livestock farming, will imported cattle and sheep suddenly get cheaper?
Perspective 10: Deforestation on the other side of the globe concerns every living being on Earth
From a herder’s perspective, the term “fake meat” is highly accurate, perfectly capturing their definition of “meat”. Viewed in the context of global food security, meat raised and fattened through modern feed-processing technologies is a quintessential example of “fake meat”, offering crucial guidance on food safety and health.
This is just one example of how industrialisation and globalisation have impacted life on Earth. For the issue with yaks goes far beyond what kind of meat we eat… it encompasses shifting lifestyles, ecological degradation, and the reshaping of culture and history.
Should we eat cheap “fake meat”, or pricey “real meat”? Consume more of the former, or less of the latter? In reality, there are many choices. Yet as herders, decisions must weigh the sustainability of their livelihoods. As consumers, we might need to consider the sustainability of overall well-being—encompassing dimensions beyond material wealth, such as health, education, social ties, the environment, and mental state. — “Fake Meat” or “Real Meat”? Perhaps What We Should Focus on and Reflect Upon is Food Security
I fail to see why you should view this through the lens of a consumer, only to then make excuses for that consumption. The incursion of imported beef into traditional herder livelihoods is a complex issue, one created jointly by consumers and national policymakers. Why should it not be criticised?
Those raised in pastoral areas eating meat have fundamentally different dietary habits and palates compared to farming communities. This is not a matter of inferiority or lashing out in anger; it is about a community of ordinary people—herders, whose daily lives and production spaces you may not understand—having their livelihoods disrupted and being powerless to resist.
As a practitioner in the agricultural and rural sectors, I believe the provincial government departments mentioned in this article should consider standardising pastoral management for herders. This could include, but not be limited to, providing quality inspections and establishing pastoral alliances. Though it is an arduous task, smallholders are numerous and scattered; they are the bedrock of national food security and should not be abandoned.
I say this with full responsibility: the value of yaks in the Tibetan regions has not vanished; rather, it needs to be re-evaluated and reassessed in the context of the new era. We should comprehensively consider economic, ecological, and cultural factors to promote the sustainable development of the yak industry.
Only by following the laws of nature and living in harmony with the natural world can people maintain good health! Traditional nomadic pastoralism is the true way of survival. We must be grateful to nature and hold it in reverence.
I work in the agricultural sector. The author has written brilliantly and analysed the situation with real insight. But I am convinced that all things follow their own course. The consequences of short-sighted, resource-sapping policies in countries like Brazil and Argentina will soon catch up with them.
Emotionally, I deeply sympathise with the herders, and the climate crisis is incredibly urgent. Land in some countries is disappearing at a pace that can no longer be described as ‘slow’. Even if we look past foreign affairs, the frequency of extreme weather events at home is rising; this year alone, Liaoning province suffered crop losses due to drought. Deforestation on the other side of the world concerns every living creature on Earth. Purchasing “fake meat” not only harms local herders but also jeopardises our own environment. How can we possibly claim it has nothing to do with us?
Taking livestock farming as an example, is intensification the only way forward? The negative impacts of intensive production are substantial. Under the old logic of prioritising economic metrics, numerous environmental harms and overlooked health risks were simply left unaddressed. Conversely, it becomes clear that traditional pastoralism is sustainable and environmentally friendly. If our market mechanisms and policy support fail to adapt in time, causing products that better align with our modern health, environmental, economic, and social needs to disappear while harming producers, that is a failure of the system, not merely a matter of differing values.
The core issue with cheap meat lies in negative externalities—profound environmental and social damage inflicted during production, the costs of which are never factored into the price tag. While tradition should certainly not be treated as an immutable relic, it is inherently shaped and reshaped throughout history. To respect tradition is to recognise how it evolves alongside contemporary needs. By contrast, climate change and ecological imbalance carry irreversible costs, and ultimately, we will all have to foot the bill. Low prices are merely an illusion, sustained by environmental and social costs that have yet to be internalised.
This is an excellent piece. It portrays the complexities of life under the pressures of corporate consolidation and globalisation, uncovering hidden interconnections that remind us how individual choices, when accumulated, can become an overwhelming force. These connections are real, and we cannot afford to pretend they do not exist. Anthropology is not about romanticising the past or rejecting the new; at its core, it is fundamentally concerned with the human condition. Regardless of whether one adopts a ‘grand historical’ perspective, we must direct our attention and empathy towards the vulnerable in our everyday world, rather than turning a blind eye to others’ suffering.
