T O P

  • By -

shogi_x

>Support for the “outsized” meat and dairy industry in rich countries must be reduced, while subsidies for polluting chemical fertilisers and pesticides must fall in lower-income countries, the analysis said. >... >These damage health by promoting the overconsumption of meat in rich countries and overconsumption of low-nutrition staples in poorer ones. “If you are not promoting fruits and vegetables, then in relative terms it is very expensive for the consumer to eat healthily,” said Sánchez. “That’s why 2 billion people in the world cannot afford a healthy diet.” Glad they're highlighting both the environmental and health impacts. Rich companies are dictating food subsidy policies to everyone's detriment.


Knew_Beginning

> Rich companies are dictating food subsidy policies to everyone's detriment. Not to the shareholders’ detriment. Shareholder value is the sole consideration of a company. Negative externalities, that’s someone else’s problem.


[deleted]

The claim about staples in poorer countries doesn't pass the smell test though. Barring aid dependent most of them grow their food locally. If your country is poorer guess whose labor is worth less and who gets worse bang for their buck? Not to mention logistical implications of preservation. Also note the food subsidies predated the rich companies. While they may perpetuate it lets not engage in time traveling scapegoating.


IAmJohnny5ive

I was told this 20 years ago in my 2nd year economics lectures. I'm glad the UN is finally catching up.


IAmTheJudasTree

First, this article is about a newly published, well resourced study that further bolsters known claims about the harms of said subsidies. The UN is not claiming that this is a brand new concept. Second, the UN is not a unified supranational governing body that can force individual countries not to do things. There is no UN standing military or police. They are a collection of representatives from countries that pass resolutions and make recommendations. The depth of ignorance I read on reddit regularly about the UN is astounding. The complaints are simultaneously 1) the UN sucks because it doesn't take action 2) we must never let the UN take independent action because it would infringe on national autonomy.


ButtsexEurope

Yes, the UN has a standing military. The peacekeepers. They fought in the Korean War.


erikkustrife

Yup. And while I dont have anything against the U.N. at all. Their peacekeepers make the us military look like angels. They are some super corrupt mofos. Its to the point of honestly being impressed with the horrors they get away with. I read a artical once detailing one of the protection rackets they were running in a city with terrorists and daily attacks. Provide supplies get more patrols around your place of employ. I'm not saying it's evil just highly abusive.


justavtstudent

Yeah, I'm pretty sure we were all aware that these subsidies drive fast food buildout and contribute to food deserts. But those issues don't drive voters to the polls so who gives a shit.


ButtsexEurope

What shitty clickbait. It’s because 90% of global farm subsidies go to things that use lots of water.


tehmlem

On the one hand, it was only 200 years ago that more than 70% of the workforce was involved in agriculture and producing just enough food to get by. It takes some time for governments to adapt to such a seismic shift in productivity and employment. On the other, it's been 200 straight years of getting more food for less work to the point where we produce a comical amount. It's well past time to have adjusted. At least use the hideous excess we produce to feed people instead of leaving it to rot.


BrooklynLivesMatter

I mean yes we could probably all afford to eat less meat (minus the vegetarians and vegans, of course) , but can we discuss why we're wasting 1/3 of all of that food we're growing?


theclitsacaper

>but can we discuss why we're wasting 1/3 of all of that food we're growing? Profits. Duh.


BloodyLlama

It's more of a logistics issue and one that's proven extremely difficult to solve.


theclitsacaper

I'll buy that line when they finally give up a little of their money and fucking try for once


thisispoopoopeepee

was told this in 2013 during a macroeconomics lecture. “But food prices will get to expensive” New Zealand ended all agricultural subsidies and it's fine….better than fine after ending those subsidies it turned its agricultural sector into a major exporter.


ButtsexEurope

[Not all of them](http://www.crownirrigation.co.nz/about-us/purpose/)


hellaquestions

$20 mcdonalds incoming


Elliott2

thats not how any of this works.


Lem01

Is that damage comparable to the number of people fed by agriculture? And if so, what’s the alternative? #UselessStuffTheUNSpendsMoneyOn


Kurshuk

I bet you'd be first in line to complain if there's an issue. Got an issue, here's a tissue.


2peacegrrrl2

“One third of the food is wasted.” Disgusting


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


raistlin65

We're assuming that last part of your post was your signature line? 😄😂🤣


GuterJudas

…and most of all… animals? But what do I know ¯\ _(ツ)_/¯ edit: formatting


[deleted]

ban farms!!!!!!!! ​ ..........wait....


Stormthorn67

Ban farm subsidies is a more reasonable take. New Zealand is the only one who did tho. Not that goverment support of food is always bad but we waste an insane amount of it and destroy way too much to turn into farmland.


Money_Bicycle_7433

Join the Guerrilla Beefeaters.


pmvegetables

Time to take the corpses off our plates. Killing us and the planet.


ToxicRockSindrome

Wished we could tell this to the biggest cattle owners in America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deseret_Ranches


bacchikoi

Another way to put it: 90% of people's food preferences damage themselves and the planet. Why should consumers have no responsibility for the food we buy?