Agricultural crop production is the largest contributer to tropical deforestation. Soy and palm oil.
This is a very good argument. I also think that continued deforestation has a bad impact. In my opinion, we should preserve the natural diversity and it is especially abundant in rain forests. Apparently that is a point that meat eaters and vegetarians can easily agree on.
So how can we improve this with our nutrition? It seems that you meant to imply that eating meat instead of soy products like tofu would be a good means here. I can see why you would think that. When I go to the shops in Germany and see "soy" printed on a product, it is usually a product that is offered as an alternative for traditional animal products. Could be different in East Asia, I don't know.
@Zoo50 challenged the idea by pointing out that most of the soy production is used as animal feed – or in other words,
meat is often processed soy, too. I see that you do not trust Zoo50's sources. I could add additional sources such as by the Food and Agricultural association of the United Nations, but instead …
I'd like to encourage you to research this for yourself. I think that you have the motivation in you to check this, if you do care about the rain forest, if you are serious about your own argument.
So, what if soy indeed goes into both meat and tofu production? Does it matter for the rain forest, which of both products we choose? Well, if we need to feed more soy to the animal to produce enough meat than we would need if we ate the soy ourselves, then eating tofu is better for the rain forest than eating meat. And indeed, this is often the case. Anyone can research this and it shouldn't really be a surprise when one applies one's knowledge about thermodynamics: Energy is not magically created in the animal. We can only take from it what has gone in. But the animal also loses some of its intake in form of body heat, for movement and so on. If the animal only ate stuff that our human bodies can't process*, then that energy loss in the animal wouldn't matter so much. But in case of soy, which we can process ourselves, it does matter.
The energy balance isn't the same for every animal. Cows are quite bad in that respect, whereas chicken preserve more of the energy input in their flesh. Eating human-consumable plants is in principle more efficient than feeding the plants to animals and eating the animals.
I think we are so close ⇥ ⇤ to this thread having an actual positive impact on tropical forests due to your argument.
It would be sad to see it go down the gutter because of some mistrust.
Both you and
@SamSmith have hinted at buying local reducing negative impact. I think that is a valid point, but be aware that your local animals may still be fed with imported soy. So buying local alone isn't a guarantee. You can choose to buy products from farmers who are committed to the local concept and other things like the well-being of the animals while they live though. It is possible, but let us not be satisfied with the possibility as an argument in a discussion. Let's actually do this! I pledge to pay more attention to where my dog's animal food comes from than I have in the past.
___
*My village is located at the rim of a valley where some, though not much, cattle is grazing. I could not eat the grass that they eat. Growing crops there would not be good for the environment either there, as it would reduce diversity in this protected area. The cattle is there to keep the meadows open for white storks and many other birds, insects and plants that need open areas. If the cows would not keep the valley open, it would grow a forest like in surrounding areas, reducing diversity. This is eco-friendly cattle-farming, but this is
not how most meat is produced. The amount of meat that can be made this way is small and the meat is going to be expensive.