At least in the U.S. taxation wouldn’t be needed for animal product prices to reflect their true costs.
Just remove the large government subsidies the animal product industry enjoys and let the free market raise the prices.
I doubt it would happen.
Those subsidies exist because the Nixon administration created them after Americans complained about high food prices. It would be political suicide to remove those subsidies, especially with inflation and price gouging disguised as inflation driving up food prices.
I agree with everything you said, but also it’d be super interesting to cancel the factory farming subsidies and see whole foods flourish. Theoretically this would raise the cost of burgers and lower the cost of vegetables and other healthy products.
I agree it’ll never happen, but it would probably move US closer to European diets.
European diet can be very much centered around meat too unfortunately, farmers also have a lot of power here. Guess it is still better than the US, but we are part of the problem too.
I agree that just stopping subsidies and let everything in the hands of market forces won’t do. We cannot juste expect things to work better in the current system, it would need many other forces and institutions to develop another type of agriculture and scale down meat production and consumption and make other products more affordable for everyone, it cannot come only from making meat a luxury good.
I don’t think produce would go down in price, just that their price would seems so much more appealing over non-subsidized meat.
Yah, it will never happen.
Kind of frustrating since you can see it fitting in with the “Tax me less, don’t use my tax money to subsidize someone else!” mentality.
That’s because the full version of that mentality is “Tax me less, don’t use my tax money to subsidize someone else, give that money to my company!” Instead
What’s aggrivating about addressing this problem is that the meat ans dairy industry’s propaganda has its tendrils so deep in the brains of most people that you can’t even broach the topic of addressing the impact of artificially cheap meat without triggering most people and causing them to shut down.
You can’t even suggest we should just eat less meat, let alone have a coherent conversation about changing the industry to make the price of meat properly reflect its real-world cost in resources.
In France, an ecological politician tried to talk about it recently, now she is receiving hundred of tweets of people taking pictures with huge pieces of meat, very proud of their own stupidity (including other politicians). I observe some changes around me though, in countries (home and host countries) where meat is still very important in the common diet, but far from being large and fast enough unfortunately…
It’s unfortunately become an identity thing, which is really sad because it means its one of those things that is just entrenched and nearly unreachable intellectually. That’s why people respond with dumb stuff like them eating an entire ham or whatever. In the US they’ve successfully tied the idea of eating meat to conservative concepts about masculinity, which is a pretty toxic combo.
Some of it is cultural by necessity. Where I grew up sugary drinks got taxed heavily, tap water isn’t safe to drink and bottled water is the main source of liquid. The only foods that we could realistically buy near the end of the month were on sale pastas and cuts of meat, which got used for 3-4 different things. Lower income-working class demographics represent a large population and these are people who are scraping together money to buy food.
It’s not propaganda for everyone, it’s intentional economic oppression. It very well may be the meat industry keeping the prices of plant alternatives artificially inflated and if so then has a lot more deep rooted tendrils of evil. I’ve always speculated that failure of plant based alternatives is primarily because it’s priced out of the main consumer demographic. Plant based alternatives are just not economically feasible for low income Americans - when a gallon of cow milk is consistently $1.35-$3.00 less than whatever soy/oat alternative, impoverished people have a harder time making the switch. The same goes for meats, in addition to lots of middle America’s cultural traditions for cooking techniques for meat and dairy that just doesn’t translate to the alternatives. I also imagine there’s a lot of unspoken ARFID in America, personally, supplementing oat milk in something as simple as mac n’ cheese just doesn’t work for me, though my partner doesn’t feel the same way. For milkshakes or cereal though it’s no problem. But overall I can definitely see how between actual industry propaganda that invaded its way into becoming part of American culture would turn people into picky eaters over time.
In any case, my position on the matter is more of every alternative to bring competition to the market to lower the price of everything overall. More lab grown meat more varied plant based alternatives so that less factory farmed meat is consumed. Our government needs to subsidize local farming much more heavily, my state has a program that gives x2 worth the cost of groceries purchased at a market where locals sell their produce. So if I had only $25 to spend, I can go here and get $50 worth of produce. If we want meaningful change to happen then it needs to be done in a way that appeals to what is considered the poverty line, because we are the people who are meticulously choosing what and how to spend our money. Many of us are forced to go with these unhealthy shit options out of necessity, not out of cultural mirth or industry propaganda.
Something that’s stuck with me is the idea that if we look at the relative poverty threshold as basic necessities required to live at different costs, we see drastically different percentages of people who are stuck in a position where they can’t truly choose what to spend their money on. For example, in my state at some point has had an average poverty threshold of $12,380. Divide that by 365 for our year and we get to live on $33.91 a day. So, if to meet our basic necessities it’s only $5 a day then a very small percentage of people would be living under the poverty line, as that would leave people with an extra $28ish. However if it’s $20 a day to meet these needs then it’s estimated to be at 78% of people living at the poverty line, and at $45 a day to meet your basic necessities then 92% of that population is living under the poverty line.
It wasn’t until I went to college where I actually saw plant based alternatives that were considered affordable by other people. Because these people were in an entirely different economic class who grew up in areas that didn’t push bills on specific communities. All these people seemed to have a similar opinion - “why doesn’t everyone just switch to these alternatives it’s so much healthier and better for the environment and if you have to even give anything up it’s so minor that it’s worth it!”. I’d love to, but my budget for the week is the entire cost of a 16oz oat milk, I did not get here the same way that you did… It was definitely culture shock for me.
Obviously it’s not all Americans who are like me or in my position, as the stereotype of our redneck eating meat only isn’t totally untrue for some areas, but it also fails to consider 1) the class of these rednecks i.e. dirt fucking poor farmers and 2) the rest of the lower and in some cases middle class who simply can’t afford plant based alternatives. There’s also a very wide range of where people get their meat from, where a higher percentage of those rednecks are buying local farmed meats compared to us city-dwellers who may only have the option for store bought.
So ultimately, while some dweebs have taken full-send to the idea of American=red meat+trucks, it feels disingenuous to presume that even a large portion of Americans are happy with our societies consumption, or that portions of them even see it as a problem. Clearly some Americans are not as we’ve been making documentaries about it for decades, the issue is that we have very little power as a people and when strides do finally get made for some plant based alternatives, they get pushed so heavily into low-income only to go to waste and limit the amount of actual food we can buy. And clearly others do not have this view, completely unrelated to stereotypical American culture - thinking specifically about my cultural upbringing in a predominantly Black/Hispanic area where we have the same 3-5 staple foods which have slowly been eroding away due to rising costs.
During the pandemic we had half the store totally empty and the other half barely touched. People bought all the milk, wheat, and meat, but the next aisle over had rows of shelf stable oat milk. Whether it’s because they couldn’t afford it or are just weirded out or thinking they won’t know how to cook with something different I don’t know, but I do know that gone unchecked plant based alternatives is just like every other greenwashing fad that’s come along - raising prices on basic necessities in the name of environmental health at the cost of poor peoples health and livelihood.
Don’t get me wrong from any of this - I am 100% in full support of all plant based alternatives being widely available, primarily used, and I want as minimal factory farming done as humanely as possible if not entirely eliminated with the advent of lab-grown meat, and that I dearly value our environment and want more protections for it against corporations. However, I think it’s important to think about the people who have been affected by greenwashing, many of whom are the very same who have to resort to supporting this messed up industrial complex.
deleted by creator
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summary
The “gigantic” power of the meat and dairy industries in the EU and US is blocking the development of the greener alternatives needed to tackle the climate crisis, a study has found.
Cutting meat and dairy consumption also slashes pollution, land and water use, and the destruction of forests, with scientists saying it is the single biggest way for people to reduce their impact on the planet.
“The power of the animal farming sector, both in the US and in Europe, and the political influence they have is just gigantic,” said Prof Eric Lambin, who conducted the study with Dr Simona Vallone, both at Stanford University, US.
The researchers concluded that “powerful vested interests exerted their political influence to maintain the system unchanged and to obstruct competition created by technological innovations”.
Lambin said: “We found that the amazing obstacles to the upscaling of the alternative technologies relates to public policies that still massively fund the incumbent system, when we know it’s really part of the problem in terms of climate change, biodiversity loss and some health issues.”
Alex Holst, at the Good Food Institute Europe, said: “While European investment in sustainable proteins has increased in recent years, this study shows the sector is still only picking the crumbs off the EU’s table.
Saved 72% of original text.
