@geogramatt: I think you're probably right that gambling is the main attraction, but that doesn't make it the main thing to worry about (although real gambling addiction and those who profit from it also reveal a serious socio-psychological problem in class societies (i.e., most societies)), as when a species disappears, it is pretty much gone forever.

Read the article, dolphin: not credible. Usefully, this guy points out the popularity of dinosaur parks etc., thanks largely to Hollywood, and that there is apparently this nonsense-profit-making company in Sichuan that produces fakes. But he claims that NO dinosaur fossils have ever been discovered. Obviously, tens of thousands of geologists and paleontologists disagree (and it's interesting that the article is categorized as 'archeology'' and 'history', neither of which disciplines deal with dinosaurs or any other prehistoric fossils), but he just says they can't be trusted and Ross apparently has no resources to argue with them, except to point out that people sometimes fake things. No mention of any good reason why so many trained people might all be considered either liars or dupes. And how the hell does he claim to have any expertise in the matter himself?
You've got to do better than this - strongly suggest that you read more widely. Are you sure you're not simply believing what you want to believe, without evidence? This is where conspiracy theories come from.
If lufengosaurus is a fake or a mistake, that's not impossible, but he doesn't even mention the creature.

phys.org/news/2018-03-million-year-old-infected-predator.html

Well, I tried, dolphin, but my VPN is out and my computer is running slow and all I could see was about how triceratops may have been faked and some others about how past fakes have occurred in China, mostly, apparently, by farmers or somebody wanting to make a quick dollar in other areas of China. I tried lufengosaurus hoax and saw no mention of a hoax. I did get the above.
Anyway, what website are you referring to?

Now this seems to be very good idea. As to the cost of production and the cost to the consumer, etc.,, it should be obvious that the cost of food by what she calls 'big capital' don't begin to be calculated accurately by ordinary economic measurements, which seem to be based on 'common sense' but which in fact leave out of calculation things like effects on health and the environment, which are compensated for in the eyes of profit-takers by the larger profits they themselves get out of the overall process.
Best wishes to this effort. It deserves to grow, but it will not be an easy road, and will be a hard sell for people with low incomes who have to eat bad cheap food, a phenomenon that smacks of, well, larger and more fundamental concerns that need to be dealt with.

@dolphin: Doesn't help anybody much just to be told what you're sure of - try telling us why since it was discovered 80 years ago.