In India, majority people in rural area eat traditional food free from fast food, meat, etc. But a significant number, majority may not be, in urban areas used to eat bread, fast food, chicken, meat, etc. Reasons are:

1. Income of urban people is more

2. Such food is more in access to urban people

3. Due to more busyness, find less time for cooking, etc.

4. Urban people are more open than rural people

5. For urban people, it may be a status symbol

6. Deviating from Indian value set and accepting western values

7. Bread use is also increasing in India and rest of the Asian countries

8. Etc. .. .

My comments - Not from scientific evidence - but general observations in Malaysian cities. - The people still eat rice (at least twice if not 3X per day) or noodles. As many people spend long times commuting to and from work each day, they no longer cook the rice themselves at home. However, there are many small roadside stalls at which one can buy local take away food, particularly breakfast on the way to work.  Then there are many 'food courts' where these people eat lunch and/or dinner. So in general is seems as if there is not such a large shift to bread as a staple to replace rice.  Of course bread is available in supermarkets and corner shops, but still rather expensive, so people prefer to eat from the food stalls where the food is similar to home made.    

1. Income;

2. Education;

3. Time;

4. Nutrition;

5. New generation.

Most of the time, urban cultures do not have enough time to dedicate to meals preparation, and, generally, it corresponds to a higher income. Urbanized people (big tendency to be the largest portion of the global population) likes to utilize their time to do other things than cooking. So, bread with a cooked portion of meat is very nutritious and may be easily available (fast food is clear example).

Practicability, availability, access, lesser time consume, satiety sensation, low price, are characteristics in favor of its use. People that, once, has been victim of food privation (involuntary starvation) tend to eat most of those foods that once they have imagine in their dreams. “Bread and meat” is the more adjusted recipe to perception of “non-starved” condition.

It could in time have worse implications on farmed animal welfare, and human health (to move away from beans/lentils/rice to meat/bread).

Dear colleagues

many thanks for numerous and varied responses. I asked the same question in the Food Security group in LinkedIn, and got good inputs as well. Have a look if you are on Linked-in.

The main reason for asking the question is that USDA predicts a big increase in beef consumption in China, which I am rather sceptical about... but it's just my opinion. This is why my original questions is about the *mechanisms*. If it's the same thing as fashions (in addition to the economic factors that have been listed), then this remains rather mysterious, actually (as in the case of tipping points - see the Malcolm Gladwell book!).

On Linked-in, someone mentioned "Bennet's law" (which may actually be "Bennett's law") which explain diet changes with urbanization, but I haven't found anything specific yet.

Best regards, and thanks again to everyone!

A topic to access the idiosyncratic willingness to promote the consumption of meat can lie in historical and moral reasons. Some religions classify the use of meat as a sin! "The sin of the flesh." And the forbidden fruit is always the most coveted

Thanks Bernardo...

I wouldn't like to venture into the minefield of religions and philosophical attitudes... but it's clear that eating plants is more efficient (ecologically) than eating animals. I don't know enough about nutrition to know if eating more meat makes much sense for the mostly sedentary people in cities; I guess not, actually. It also seems pretty obvious that in many places meat consumption must eventually go down if we want to have enough food. Possible exceptions are semi-arid areas where cattle actually concentrate sparse grass biomass for us, just like bees collect and process widely dispersed nectar from flowers and marine animals concentrate plankton.

By the way, did anyone ever come across "Bennet's law" about dietary changes in cities?

Found this: http://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=8&ved=0CFEQFjAH&url=http%3A%2F%2Fecagdev.agecon.vt.edu%2Fpp03.ppt&ei=PKvcVPmbJKmxsASRkIHwCQ&usg=AFQjCNF-hNY5dLiOJ_w9gsYrBRwUC4FzdQ&sig2=XzlYj_HbtsipAA9EjQoFXQ

So, if antimicrobial resistance leads to loss of ability to farm intensively leads to higher meat prices leads to people purchasing less meat less often and protein alternatives more often ... hopefully... I am not a scholar, just my two cents' worth, but this concerns me very much. I am an ecologist by training.

Many thanks, Wendy. The ppt has a lot of interesting material for us non-economists... Personally, I am convinced that we will eventually be forced out of meat, as I mentioned above. I have just asked a group of students in a Belgian University to do some science-fiction work trying to guess what the world would be like if America did not exist: no maize and no potatoes, and no emigration of Europeans to the New World... all other things being equal, as the saying goes. We would have reached the limits of our capacity to feed ourselves long ago. I am curious to see how many students will realise that their SciFi exercise about the past is, in reality, a projection about our future. 

Soybeans, or other beans, are not alternative to meat. Mankind is omnivorous. Protein extraction from proteigenous beans are a very health threading process. Acidic extraction generates 3-monochloro- propano-diol, a carcinogenic compound for humans (a very serious safety problem) . Thermal treatments applied to vegetal proteins generate glycate endproducts from some aminated acids (AA) (also carcinogenic). Proteins coming from vegetal do not have all the indispensable AA (nine of them are missing) (need from the human body growth). Meat as also others bioactive compounds that are crucial for Humans (taurine, natural anti-oxidant like ubiquinone and many other, essential vitamins and micronutrients like Fe, Md, I). So, the replacement of all the meat of our natural diet by vegetables will be a disaster for human development. Under this scenario people will not resist to any infectious disease due to the lack of won antibodies (lack of indispensable AA) : "Meat is for feeding the body, vegetables are the food for the spirit".        

Fernando, thanks!

My suggestion is that we should eat less meat - not more. Are you familiar with the many flavours or non-meat-eating in India? There are people who eat fish but no meat, the ones who eat eggs and drink milk, the milk-and no-eggs people etc. Is there no no-animal-product-at-all group?

I remember the irritation of my colleagues of the Animal production division of FAO when the president of IPCC (Pachauri, a "vegetarian" Indian) said in public that one of the steps to reduce greenhouse gases was to reduce meat consumption.  He was right, of course.

All this takes us away from the original question: why do city people eat more meat? Is it just because they have more money? Would they eat less meat if meat would cost the same as carots?

 Dear Rene,

This subject is a very fracturing issue in our modern urban societies. Obvious that, there are many pre-conceptual believes. Pure vegans, once in their life (in early beginning), have drunk their mother milk. Without that they would not survive.

Concerning to food regime in India, that I know very well because of personal familial relationships with Goa, many aspects must be put in perspective. Once again, is the religious pre-concept that commands the consumption behavior: Fanatic Indus do not eat any kind of food of animal origin (except cow milk and honey); More progressive Indus eat eggs, milk and some fish; Muslims eat meat with the exception of pork and Catholics (2% of India population) eat all kinds of meats and fish and shellfish, and eggs.

Has I have said before, meat is the adequate food for body growth, muscular system development, muscular power (athletes, soldiers) and natural human defenses (immunitary tools). During the period of our physical development (childhood, youngness) meat is crucial, unless someone intends that people must be rickety and weak, and condemn them to that.

As we age, meat becomes progressively less important in our diet. And when we are very old meat is not necessary at all.

If, in an urban society (cybernetic), youngness are guided by idolatry references, big athletes, great sportive performances. So it is absolutely comprehensible that they do copy their food behaviors (eating a lot of meat and eggs). Nowadays, access to meat (price) is not more expensive than “tofu”.

Concerning to “greenhouse gas” released by ruminants, in fact I think that “Lavoisier principles” are still true. In fact, a cow releases methane in the atmosphere, but for that, something had to happen before. Nitrogen and carbon have been incorporated previously in plants (soya beans, peanuts, cotton…all beans) captured from the atmosphere, by via of nitrogen of carbon cycles. Those plants and beans are eaten by herbivorous, and their gas and feaces are used as organic fertilizer of soils. So, those cycles are perpetual

Some interesting points about Chinese agriculture: http://chine-analyse.com/assets/download/AgroCHCORP2015.pdf

R

Also about recent changes in India:

http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/03/30/india-beef-slaughter-idINKBN0MQ0LG20150330

Guess, it is about lifestyle changes, viz., no time for self, husband / wife both working etc. Since no much of cooking is required it is easier and convenient to use and eat at any place be it at home, while commuting, in the office - working food type. My own experience and observations.