Maybe we're having different things, but the vegan mayo brands I've had taste exactly like what I remember animal-based mayo tasting like and my friends and family (who aren't vegan) say it's indistinguishable for them too

So in other words Tyson's claiming an obligation to get rid of animal agriculture

People doing that at all =/= doing it at the same level and frequency. It'd be better if people were not eating it at all of course, but it's still an improvement at the minimum

It's a false equivalency to claim there's nothing we can do here. Emissions are significantly less large for eating plants directly compared to raising farm animals

Transitioning to plant-based diets (PBDs) has the potential to reduce diet-related land use by 76%, diet-related greenhouse gas emissions by 49%, eutrophication by 49%, and green and blue water use by 21% and 14%, respectively, whilst garnering substantial health co-benefits

[...]

Plant-based foods have a significantly smaller footprint on the environment than animal-based foods. Even the least sustainable vegetables and cereals cause less environmental harm than the lowest impact meat and dairy products [9].

https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/14/8/1614/html least

Shipping is generally a lot more efficient per kg than you would think. For instance the article looked at 9000 km boat transportation for beef

Transporting food by boat emits 23 grams of CO2eq per tonne of product per kilometer. Transporting the 9000 kilometers from Central America to the UK, therefore, emits 0.207 kilograms CO2eq [9000km * 23g per tonne-kilometer / 1000 / 1000 = 0.207 kg CO2eq per kg]. This is equivalent to 0.35% of the total footprint of 60 kilograms of CO2eq per kilogram of beef.

We could change that to be New Zealand to Iceland (on the complete top of the globe and far away laterally too), but we'd still find it's a small portion of emissions. We'd bump up our distance to 15900 km or so meaning ~1.76x more distance than what they did the math on, putting it at ~0.6-0.7% of total beef emissions. Still not a significant driver compare to eating beef in the first place

Transportation is a tiny portion of any agricultural emissions, it's really producing it in the first place that matters. If global consumption levels don't reduce, then this is just an accounting shell game with emissions happening elsewhere

Transport is a small contributor to emissions. For most food products, it accounts for less than 10%, and it’s much smaller for the largest GHG emitters. In beef from beef herds, it’s 0.5%.

Not just transport, but all processes in the supply chain after the food left the farm – processing, transport, retail and packaging – mostly account for a small share of emissions.

This data shows that this is the case when we look at individual food products. But studies also shows that this holds true for actual diets; here we show the results of a study which looked at the footprint of diets across the EU. Food transport was responsible for only 6% of emissions, whilst dairy, meat and eggs accounted for 83%.

https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local

New Zealand needs larger reduction in cattle sizes than just a 10x in many areas for other environmental impacts. For instance, the dairy production in Canterbury is so high that there needs to be a 12x reduction in size to keep water at safe drinking levels because of its nitrate pollution

The large footprint for milk in Canterbury indicates just how far the capacity of the environment has been overshot. To maintain that level of production and have healthy water would require either 12 times more rainfall in the region or a 12-fold reduction in cows.

https://theconversation.com/11-000-litres-of-water-to-make-one-litre-of-milk-new-questions-about-the-freshwater-impact-of-nz-dairy-farming-183806

Safer in so far as it gives them little room to say no and make bigger resistance attempts. Neither method exactly is exactly great, to be clear, but neither has to happen. It's something we're choosing to make happen by making this an industry in the first place

I meant constantly as in the second dictionary definition of happening super frequently

2 : with regular occurrence

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/constantly

The broader point was impregnated many times. Having a few months "off" does not make much of a difference to that point

There's of course a lot like that, but it's worth sharing that I did run into an industry funded study once that actually found the opposite anyway despite that donor pressure

Substituting red meat with high-quality plant protein sources, but not with fish or low-quality carbohydrates, leads to more favorable changes in blood lipids and lipoproteins.

(one of the authors received support from the beef checkoff program, pork checkoff program, national dairy council, and American egg board)

https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.118.035225#d3646671e1

First, states have ban on bestiality. Industry somewhat neutral at first, but then the industry start to want to artificially insemination. For several reasons. Farm animals can be resistant of their attempts to force them to mate and artificial insemination makes it harder for them to avoid. Animal farmers want to have fewer male farm animals since it's cheaper to kill them than to pay to raise them. Farmers also want to be able to better artificially select genes meaning more "productivity" (higher slaughter weight, more milk production, more egg production, etc.) even if at the expense of their health. The dairy industry especially wants this because they have to keep a cow pregnant constantly to produce milk

Process to collect semen for artificial insemination requires restraining farm animal and then forcibly jerking them off, electrically simulating, or similar. Process to inseminate requires restraining cow and then putting hand up their genitals to keep them pregnant.

No way to collect semen for artificial insemination without removing ban on bestiality since both ends of it break those law. So they lobby hard to add an exemption for themselves

I know you're joking, but the literal part of me wants to answer with: Only in that it's not technically from the onion. It is a satire article which I presume are banned on not the onion

This an industry that does not really care all that much about workers or farm animals. If it "works", there's little incentives for the industry to switch