"Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism, characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy"
Nothing is truly fascist with a dictatorship, but you were the one to start throwing around that term. That said, regimentation of one's diet and control over the agricultural industry, likely with the supression of opposition in the name of what's good for society, would reasonably fit the rest of that definition.
The linked article talks about global adoption of dietary habits, mainly refraining from meat consumption or switching to other meat types. The only reasonable assumption for that happening is that some level of force would end up being applied.
On top of all this, the article linked (and your comments) fail to address the question in my comment about sustainably supporting an increasing population. The article you linked promotes intensive alternative such as farmed poultry, fish, and shrimp. To do those sustainably, we would have to look at massive changes in the crowding, low nutrient feed, and pharmaceutical use rampant in those. It also doesn't address the potential demand for land for other uses such as industrial or residential, nor for the anticipated increase in industrial use of crops for things like plant based plastics, nor does it seem to account for land classification and suitability, such as what could be grown on specific pieces of land and the economic labor models of the crops.
It's easy to say theoretically how we can just adopt another nation's food practices (not preferences). It's another to determine the geopolitical feasibility of it. I point out preferences here because we see that many nation's have a high demand for animal products as they develop.
You are reading way too much into my comments. All I was saying that it's a common ecofascist talking point to say that the problem is the number of people, and used the link as a source to how wasteful our food production is.
Now you are trying to bend this into the most uncharitable interpretation you can think of. In addition you're also just completely making up what I think. Sorry but I'm not gonna start defending your strawmans.
It seems a little uncharitable to say that I'm bending things to be uncharitable when you look at what was said (or not said).
If you wanted to talk about how wasteful our food production is, then why not say that and actually talk about that. Talking about land use that produces animal products and then calling it wasteful is a stretch when many people use those products, including n-order products like organic fertilizers or white sugar. It's not wasteful to fulfill the wants of the people. It could be inefficient or excessive, but those aren't the same as actual waste.
Also, by the same logic seatbelt laws would be "resorting to fascism" because it's forcing all people to use seatbelts. It's not fascism to have laws.