[nicoburns]

That's not entirely true. There is a whole movement around boycotting palm oil for example, just as there is with beef. It certainly could be more widely supported.

It's worth noting that a lot of the soy from deforested areas also goes towards feeding livestock. The soy that humans eat (or drink) tends to be more more ethical on average.

[tassl]

Not because of deforestation, but because threats to orangutans.

Most of the food animals eat is not human-grade, and a big part of it are by products of food for human consumption it would not be used anyways.

[nicoburns]

> Most of the food animals eat is not human-grade, and a big part of it are by products of food for human consumption it would not be used anyways.

Food grown in deforested rainforests often isn't human grade because, stripped of the natural forest ecosystem, the land often doesn't have the nutrients to support high-quality agriculture. Don't you think pretty awful that we destroy some of natures most important ecosystems to make room for poor quality agricultural land?

[setr]

It seems to me the scenario really would like

1. Deforest land, for some purpose at most tangentially related to agriculture (presumably to use the wood)

2. Land becomes fairly useless; find most productive usage possible

3. Animal agriculture / grazing fields

That is, I doubt land is being specifically destroyed for this purpose -- there's enough available land to simply use as-is... unless it's already been destroyed as a byproduct of other activity.