3 ms·
I think one point of the article is that there are few structural incentives for adoption of these sorts of technologies. It's let up to the good will of the co
by shmageggy 6y ago
I think one point of the article is that there are few structural incentives for adoption of these sorts of technologies. It's let up to the good will of the consumer, who in almost all cases has to spend a lot more for what is an external benefit.
For another example, I subscribe to Ethical Consumer magazine [1], who rate products and companies on everything from carbon impact to animal use/abuse to tax avoidance. Invariably, the most ethical products are the most expensive. It simply costs more when you don't externalize negative effects. So the products are there, but they're only purchased by the small cross section of folks who can afford to and choose to essentially double their cost of living. What we need is (at the very least) societal, structural incentives towards more ethical capitalism.
[1] https://www.ethicalconsumer.org https://www.ethicalconsumer.org
- adrianN 6y agoThere is also the aspect that "responsible" companies know that they cater to affluent consumers and simply can afford to charge more. Vegetarian products for example shouldn't be more expensive than meat, because the raw materials are quite cheap compared to raising animals, yet they usually cost more.
- beagle3 6y agoIt’s really hard to compare, as everything related to food is subsidized and distorted to some degree today. HFCS is more expensive to make than sugar, but it is cheaper in the US (and through exports this bleeds to other places) due to corn subsidies. Similarly, there are a lot of meat subsidies and oil subsidies - to the point that market pricing only matter within small sectors, but not replacement sectors that aren’t the same commodity.
- Aunche 6y agoOat milk may be inherently cheap, but building an oat milk factory is still expensive. Beyond meat factories and their supply chains are even more expensive to develop. Buying them now means you're subsidizing them for the future. Obviously, vegan companies still want profit, but regular food always makes more money than niche luxury food.
- moneytide1 6y agoAn oat milk factory would be importing bulk quantities of oats and flavoring agents like cinnamon, vanilla, maple syrup (which maybe be processed by expensive factories). I would just be going out and buying these things separately and tossing it in a blender with random measurements until it tasted the way I like. No factory required for me. T'would be even better to grow the ingredients myself, but I do not think a vanilla bean vine tolerates low temperatures. Same with cinnamon. Oats would be easiest to grow, and I'd imagine there would be some threshing and winnowing involved (manual labor opportunity). Might as well let the combines and tractors harvest millions of bushels and I just spend my nations currency to acquire a 50 lb bag every few months (storage in cool/dry place). I suppose purchasing a colorful carton adorned by lots of writing in the "Vegan Isle" of a grocery store could be an easier way because the aforementioned steps may be far too time consuming for most people who want everything pre-prepared for them by a favorite brand and stored in plastic/cardboard/glass individual packaging. Meat is a different story, because coordinating the grazing routines, herding (some canine breeds are helpful for this), winter hay feeding stockpile, veterinary treatments, calf birthing, nutrition feed deficiency compensation, slaughter (bolt-gun to forehead is most humane), blood drain (good composting material), and butchering into desired cuts would be consuming much more time than available in a highly specialized life.