3 ms·
> In terms of resources used in their production, a $6 burger expends more resources than a $3 burger. The meat/dairy industry in the US is subsidized to the t
by wlesieutre 8y ago
> In terms of resources used in their production, a $6 burger expends more resources than a $3 burger.
The meat/dairy industry in the US is subsidized to the tune of $38 billion, there's a little more to it than "Costs more at the store so it must cost more resources to make."
- Scoundreller 8y agoSounds like you’ve identified the real problem. Though the other plant inputs in this burger are probably subsidized too. Either we need to subsidize the impossible burger, or properly tax/desubsidize agriculture.
- wlesieutre 8y agoThere's not a lot of hard data I can find on where the money goes, but the table on Wikipedia (2004) indicates that we mostly subsidize livestock feed grains, then cotton, wheat, and rice. Those four added up to 64%. Soybeans and products come in 5th at 7.6%. Fruits and vegetables, pretty much zero. Health-wise, it makes all the wrong things cheaper.
- Scoundreller 8y agoWhat I want to see is what the pricing would be without the subsidies. My guess is that the retail price impact would be tiny. Kinda like the calculations where Walmart could double associate salaries by raising prices by 6%. Are we talking about a $5 steak becoming $5.09 or becoming $10?
- seppel 8y ago$38 billion sounds like a big number, but there are a couple of sources online that claim that Americans eat about 50 billion burgers per year: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/the-hidden-costs-of-hamburgers https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/the-hidden-costs-of-ham... So even if all of the $38 billion went into burgers, it would not be much per burger.