5 ms·
"but Eat Just said it would ultimately be cheaper" That would be amazing. Looking at the prices for vegetarian and vegan meat substitutes, I can't see it happe
by Tepix 6y ago
"but Eat Just said it would ultimately be cheaper"
That would be amazing. Looking at the prices for vegetarian and vegan meat substitutes, I can't see it happening.
: They are more expensive than meat. It appears that we need a lot more competition in these markets.
- mhh__ 6y agoIf the technology works and is safe, it would be a good point to gently start boiling the frog with taxes. Cattle farming is not good for the environment.
- galbar 6y agoAre you suggesting increasing the price for everyone? You'd remove the incentives to choose one over the other but less people will be able to eat. That's dangerous. More over, you'd remove the new tech's incentive to become cheaper. I think cheaper food is always better for everyone.
- mhh__ 6y agoThe point is to make the nu-meat more attractive, so that it gets a head start. The adoption rate will be dependant on its image i.e. how many people eat it. Ideally it should scale a lot better than the real stuff.
- ichbinwiederda 6y agoThat would be cruel and unethical because it would be very regressive.
- ryan_j_naughton 6y agoYou're ignoring that the externality of meat consumption is massive environmental harm, which disproportionately affects the poor (at least in the case of climate change). Pricing in the negative externalities of meat is the best way to address this, which has a started goal of reducing the consumption of environmentally harmful meat. It enables meat that is sustainable to be priced competitively and to shift consumption, but we should be very honest -- the goal of any pigouvian tax is to reduce the consumption of the harmful product. Thus, meat should become more of a luxury, which means yes, it would be less accessible to the poor. But with billions becoming richer and demanding more meat consumption, the path we are on is entirely unsustainable.
- mhh__ 6y agoOnly if the lab-grown meat had no prospect of becoming cheaper. Farming is expensive. The aim is only to nudge the scale rather than tax the farmed meat out of existence.
- wlesieutre 6y agoThe meat and dairy industries are heavily subsidized, so not even taxes. Take subsidies away and stop artificially underpricing it. If we want to make sure meat products stay available in large quantities to everyone so you can have bacon for breakfast, a sandwich with deli slices for lunch, and a burger for dinner every day, you can take that subsidy money and put it toward lab grown meat instead. Personally I'd like to see some of it redirected to vegetables though. Cheap meat and expensive vegetables isn't the ideal outcome even if it comes from the lab.
- wincy 6y agoI’d be fine with this if we eliminate corn, wheat, and soy subsidies. As far as I’m concerned these products are poison and responsible for the American obesity epidemic.
- mhh__ 6y ago[Citation needed]? For the soy at least. The issue is really eating processed crap off the shelves than the ingredients as per se, e.g. does any get obese from fresh pasta?
- wincy 6y agoHow do we know if it’s safe? What if in 20 years we realize we’ve given everyone mad cow disease or some other slow acting wasting disease because of lab grown meat? I would be extremely concerned about ingesting these products.