3 ms·

How strange, we massively subsidize meat production, we don't even consider letting meat producers pay for the externalities they cause, and then plant-based al

by hannob 4y ago

How strange, we massively subsidize meat production, we don't even consider letting meat producers pay for the externalities they cause, and then plant-based alternatives have a hard time competing. It's a real mystery.

LatteLazy 4y ago
We also massively subsidise plant based food production. And non-food production like tobacco...
- aradox66 4y ago
  Most subsidized plant agriculture is used to feed livestock
- csempecsacsi 4y ago
  It's about a 10:1 ratio in favor of livestock, last time I checked the EU CAP.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    Does that consider corn subsidies a beef subsidy? America would be subsidizing corn production whether or not beef existed. The corn belt is VERY politically powerful, and america values having a basic food industry that is impossible to blockade in wartime. If beef producers stop needing that corn, we will just find more corn syrup and ethanol in random places.
jhanschoo 4y ago
I don't see it purely as a policy problem. Plant-based meats are primarily focused on the US market, and so outside the US these brands can't compete in price either for price-conscious consumers, lacking supply chains that employ cheap domestic labor.
- KaiserPro 4y ago
  > Plant-based meats are primarily focused on the US market, [citation needed] fake meat is well established in the EU. Quorn & linda mcartney, have been in the market for many years(20+). Quorn mince is cheaper than beef mince(in the UK) where beef production is subsidised.
- theshrike79 4y ago
  Finland has a (relatively) huge industry making meat substitutes from barley, fava beans etc. Stuff that we produce locally.
jononomo 4y ago
The externalities of a plant-based diet are enormous, from the use of pesticides which then leads to the decimation of the bird population to the massive amount of fossil-fuel-based fertilizer, to the explosion in the rate of obesity and diabetes -- at least grazing cattle is good for the land and leads to carbon sequestration.
- TSiege 4y ago
  Most cattle you eat is probably are not grazing, and ironically grazed cattle are environmentally speaking the worst for the environment. https://grist.org/climate-energy/cattle-grazing-is-a-climate-disaster-and-youre-paying-for-it/ https://grist.org/climate-energy/cattle-grazing-is-a-climate...
- mint2 4y ago
  Most cattle doesn’t graze, and grazing being “good” for the land is contentious. Most cattle eats soy beans and stuff like that. Incidentally, crops grown for cattle are a big driver of Amazon rainforest destruction. This is all widely known at this point. Cattle also emits significant amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. So overall cattle is far far worse environmentally, having all the bad things your comment cited about an order of magnitude worse than the food your comment cited.
- aradox66 4y ago
  Most plant agriculture is used to feed livestock. Consider how eating higher up the food chain requires about an order of magnitude increase in inputs. If everyone ate plant based diets, the agricultural footprint would go down dramatically.
- mindcandy 4y ago
  You have this backwards to the point I thought you were being sarcastic. Cows and pigs require a huge multiplier of agriculture (and water) to feed them in order to produce an equivalent amount of food for humans. Thanks to subsidies targeting livestock feed, it is cheaper to buy feed shipped from the next state over than it is to grow it yourself. Thus, petroleum based fertilizer, transportation fuel, and dung reservoirs. Then there’s the whole issue of methane from cow farts being a serious source of greenhouse effects. It would be funny if only it wasn’t. And, the obesity/diabetes link is also tied to farm subsidies making starchy corn and wheat practically free while leaving actually healthy vegetables to compete against practically free. The only way out is to ramp farm subsidies down to zero. That would be political suicide because it will increase the price of food. Especially meat. But, the alternative is to continue to slowly eat our way into diabetes and global warming.

by hannob 4y ago

LatteLazy 4y ago

We also massively subsidise plant based food production. And non-food production like tobacco...

aradox66 4y ago
Most subsidized plant agriculture is used to feed livestock
csempecsacsi 4y ago
It's about a 10:1 ratio in favor of livestock, last time I checked the EU CAP.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Does that consider corn subsidies a beef subsidy? America would be subsidizing corn production whether or not beef existed. The corn belt is VERY politically powerful, and america values having a basic food industry that is impossible to blockade in wartime. If beef producers stop needing that corn, we will just find more corn syrup and ethanol in random places.

jhanschoo 4y ago

I don't see it purely as a policy problem. Plant-based meats are primarily focused on the US market, and so outside the US these brands can't compete in price either for price-conscious consumers, lacking supply chains that employ cheap domestic labor.

KaiserPro 4y ago
> Plant-based meats are primarily focused on the US market, [citation needed] fake meat is well established in the EU. Quorn & linda mcartney, have been in the market for many years(20+). Quorn mince is cheaper than beef mince(in the UK) where beef production is subsidised.
theshrike79 4y ago
Finland has a (relatively) huge industry making meat substitutes from barley, fava beans etc. Stuff that we produce locally.

jononomo 4y ago

The externalities of a plant-based diet are enormous, from the use of pesticides which then leads to the decimation of the bird population to the massive amount of fossil-fuel-based fertilizer, to the explosion in the rate of obesity and diabetes -- at least grazing cattle is good for the land and leads to carbon sequestration.

TSiege 4y ago
Most cattle you eat is probably are not grazing, and ironically grazed cattle are environmentally speaking the worst for the environment. https://grist.org/climate-energy/cattle-grazing-is-a-climate-disaster-and-youre-paying-for-it/ https://grist.org/climate-energy/cattle-grazing-is-a-climate...
mint2 4y ago
Most cattle doesn’t graze, and grazing being “good” for the land is contentious. Most cattle eats soy beans and stuff like that. Incidentally, crops grown for cattle are a big driver of Amazon rainforest destruction. This is all widely known at this point. Cattle also emits significant amounts of methane, a potent greenhouse gas. So overall cattle is far far worse environmentally, having all the bad things your comment cited about an order of magnitude worse than the food your comment cited.
aradox66 4y ago
Most plant agriculture is used to feed livestock. Consider how eating higher up the food chain requires about an order of magnitude increase in inputs. If everyone ate plant based diets, the agricultural footprint would go down dramatically.
mindcandy 4y ago
You have this backwards to the point I thought you were being sarcastic. Cows and pigs require a huge multiplier of agriculture (and water) to feed them in order to produce an equivalent amount of food for humans. Thanks to subsidies targeting livestock feed, it is cheaper to buy feed shipped from the next state over than it is to grow it yourself. Thus, petroleum based fertilizer, transportation fuel, and dung reservoirs. Then there’s the whole issue of methane from cow farts being a serious source of greenhouse effects. It would be funny if only it wasn’t. And, the obesity/diabetes link is also tied to farm subsidies making starchy corn and wheat practically free while leaving actually healthy vegetables to compete against practically free. The only way out is to ramp farm subsidies down to zero. That would be political suicide because it will increase the price of food. Especially meat. But, the alternative is to continue to slowly eat our way into diabetes and global warming.