4 ms·
That US subsidy, $114 per person, if removed and offset by higher prices at the supermarket, would amount to under $10 more a month per person in grocery costs.
by friend_and_foe 4y ago
That US subsidy, $114 per person, if removed and offset by higher prices at the supermarket, would amount to under $10 more a month per person in grocery costs. I can see there being a reduction of consumption at the scale of the industry in the US, but generally speaking I don't think the industry would notice it all that much. The subsidies are almost certainly not the reason that meat is cheaper than beyond burgers.
- cerved 4y agoThe apparent source, AIER a think tank, claims it's a difference between a $5 and $13 big mac. If true, that would be noticed
- pclmulqdq 4y agoI'm sure that if the subsidy went away, McDonalds would reformulate the big mac so that it's only $5.50. It's gross, but that's what fast food companies do.
- friend_and_foe 4y agoThat math doesn't add up though. $10 a person is naive math, sure, there would be reduced demand which means that some of that cost would be bourne by other purchasers to keep industry revenue stable, and there would be a reduction in production which further compounds this. But it's not a doubling in cost, I think the true number would be between 20 and 30 dollars per person (10-20% of their monthly food budget) that continues eating as much meat, per month, and close to that percentage in production decline. A big deal, but not a complete upheaval in the meat industry. The subsidies aren't really about keeping meat costs down for consumers so that meat producers can remain profitable. They're more about manipulating the global meat market to compete against other producers and ensure domestic food security.
- cerved 4y agoI didn't do the math so can't comment on that. Just noting the claims of the apparent source, without any sort of agreement or disagreement.