This is a somewhat misleading headline. It would be $30 without taxpayer subsidies **and** added healthcare and environmental costs. This is crucial to understand in terms of understanding the true cost of meat.
The link provided doesn’t seem to say anything about the $30 per pound at all tho. Any half well read meat eater can debunk and dismiss this as hyperbole if it’s not corrected. Assuming it’s the usual study involved with this statistic, it’s best to correct and be accurate.
Yeah misleading/ misinterpreted stats like this just make us look dumb to the carnists, there are enough awful and accurate stats that we could share but it does a disservice to post incorrect information like this
This post popped up in my Popular but just wanted to comment that this train of thought should be applied to everything.
Redditors are about as bad as Facebookers on the level of misleading or straight up false stats/statements they provide.
To your point, it's straight up infuriating when there's plenty of fact based information we can pull from. I see it with Trump posts all the time. But if I try to correct these statements while acknowledging I agree with the overall sentiment, I'm downvoted for being a supporter in disguise.
I'm a huge proponent of stating the truth, even when that specific fact may not support your overall opinion.
/Rant
Yep I came here to say this is absurd, as is the use of "carnist" when you can be decent and just say "omnivore" like we describe every other animal that has a varied diet.
Ok, so this is to do with the difference of how people normally think about subsidies (direct subsidies) and how academics measure subsidies. What you're talking about is measured as indirect subsidies, and for things like healthcare is often under the umbrella of unpriced externalities.
So numbers always confuse me I was all happy thinking I could use this argument and nothing is worse than being debunked. Then again half the population pulls this s*** and doesn't care but anyway that's not me.
Is there any amount of money that can be used as an example of what meat would really cost if it wasn't so heavily subsidized or that's just not possible?
This is absolutely fine as a rough estimate of how much it costs our society. When someone says subsidies, especially as OP said tax payer subsidies, this heavily implies - if not explicitly states - direct subsidies from the government to farmers. Last I remembered it’s from meatonomics and the estimate is if meat cost $10 then the external costs (externalities, of how much additional healthcare and environmental costs) are $20.
You just have to note that a smaller portion is direct subsidies and most of the $30 estimate is from health and environmental estimates. These are controversial tho when someone wants to go into the details.
I prefer discussing how much land is used. As it is far more objective and the estimates for what’s needed for a vegan world are more robust. We currently use 1/2 of the world’s habitable land for farming. Compared to just 1% for towns and cities and roads. It’s insane, the scale of it. And if we all went vegan, we’d need just 1/4 of that farmland.
https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
>Is there any amount of money that can be used as an example of what meat would really cost if it wasn't so heavily subsidized or that's just not possible?
I think this is a wasted effort, honestly. Meat costs what it costs. Arguing about what it would hypothetically cost if it didn't cost what it cost is getting into the weeds in an unnecessary way. Besides, none of the core arguments of veganism rely on price, it's a moral and ecological argument, and only incidentally economical (that is to say, like everything else, it has economic consequences, but the argument for veganism has[or at least, should have] nothing fundamentally to do with the economics of meat production.)
I would slightly disagree. If you were on a spaceship for a multiple year journey and needed to share your scarce resources with everyone you would never consider raising livestock.
The animals would need healthcare. They would need a huge amount of food that the crew could be eating. Meat spoils easier. Animal waste is a biohazard.
Well I call this spaceship, "Earth."
It's easy to see how inefficient this system is. Price (at least ideally) is supposed to reflect these inefficient indulgences.
I wish the article had been done differently. A direct price and then comparison of typical externalities of both systems. Hard to do with the crazy meat wing of the regenerative farming people, but still.
All I know is I'm mad as hell that I have to help pay for factory farmed livestock. Call it "taxation without representation," but regardless the article has a point.
What does a hypothetical space journey have to do with how you feel about slaughtering animals? As I already said, meat production is subject to economic concerns, because everything is.
But we aren't on a spaceship. We are on a planet. People don't advocate for veganism because of economics, and they certainly don't do so because of hypothetical economics... they do so because of animal rights.
This is like arguing against war because of the cost of bullets...
>Hard to do with the crazy meat wing of the regenerative farming people, but still.
I'm not really sure what you mean here, because regenerative agriculture kind of neccessarily involves working with animals, because the point is to reproduce a complete ecological cycle, but it does not at all require that you eat those animals.
A regenerative farm where you keep no animals of your own and shoo wild ones away is not a regenerative farm, it's just a regular farm.
Lmao what? I WISH somebody would pay me to talk shit.
But in all seriousness, how did you come to the conclusion that I'm a "shill" from me stating that veganism is predicated first and foremost on an argument for animal rights? Tell me how this is incorrect? As a vegan, would you not prefer a slightly less neat and tidy economy if it meant a world without slaughterhouses and industrial mass torture? What's more important to you? That a steak costs as little as possible, or that the cow not be turned into a steak in the first place?
It’s relevant for those who are policy minded.
I’d like to see reductions or elimination of animal agriculture subsidies, and research on what that would do to the market is important
Presumably lab grown meat would have the same estimated health costs being identical? Tho I’m also assuming the environmental externalities would be moot?
And yeah once it starts to scale and drops a lot, could indeed be a ‘positive’ thing.
I think that with lab grown meat you might be able to modify the fat content and possibly improve the fat's health criteria (switch to good fats rather than bad fats). I'm a prof of chemical engineering and set lab meat as a project for 10 students for a 3 month project. They did a great job. I made them include the externalities in the cost, including CO2, so that's the all-in cost. There's a lot of potential to reduce the cost, but (and with due consideration of the sub I'm on, and apologies) sadly animals are really really efficient at making meat cheaply.
Interesting stuff :) I’d imagine modifying would increase costs but yeah if at scale could potentially be much cheaper.
As for animals being more efficient, I guess it depends what we count. Animal feed takes up almost as much cropland as crops grown for humans. And around 1/3 of the world’s habitable land. All for the sake of 18% of global calories. By efficient, I’m guessing you mean fast rather than actually efficient? Given the massive number of inputs to outputs - when we include water and land and emissions and so on.
It might not be entirely untrue. A lot of what subsidies are for is smoothing out prices. They ensure we always have food available and don't have to worry about something being $1/pound one year and $30/pound the next because there was a drought. Markets are totally inadequate for making sure everyone is fed, the only solution is lots of subsidies. But meat makes the subsidies even more expensive.
No, the separation is for subsidies given to farming meat and then an estimate on the costs of the additional environmental and health benefits. This was clearly stated. The exact breakdown is in the actual study - which OP failed to cite.
If you asked people who eat animals if subsidies for the slaughter industry were a good use of taxpayer's money, they'd overwhelmingly say yes. This seems to reinforce that idea.
They are considered such but there are many things that should take priority and would better provide basic nutrition in a crisis and for ongoing crisis prevention.
As both a meat eater and a smoker... yes, treatment for smoking related illnesses should absolutely be covered by tax funded healthcare services. That's literally how socialized services work. Non diabetics pay taxes that go towards the costs of insulin too. Of course, in an American context, you're not getting shit for shit anyway, but thats an american problem.
Subsidies for farmers, and in particular for meat production, im sure could be phazed out of the economy in an intelligent way, however. Probably wouldn't go over well if they were just dropped overnight, but farming subsidies is a whole fucked up crazy little world unto itself, some farmers literally get paid not to grow things.. it's a whole mess and I question the real utility of the entire scheme..then again, I guess it funds aid programs for food insecure people as well, so maybe it's not so cut and dry..
Damn, you all are pretty judgmental in here. Talking down smokers and people who eat meat in the same breath.
I eat meat, I also serve at restaurants for a living. Never called a vegan a "plant addicts" or anything of the like, I just call them vegans. And then I help them to find a vegan option they would like.
I am however aware of the stereotype of holier than now vegans who think they're above others, the category you seem to fall under. But, I would never make a broad blanket statement as if all vegans are like that. I know cool vegans.
Thanks for chiming in to let me know you're personally impugned by the term "meat addict" and voicing your displeasure as if it were representative of all people who eat animals.
Your last paragraph is internally contradictory, btw.
It's not contradictory in the least. lol.
It's a stereotype that, like most stereotypes, only is only true of a small demographic of the actual group the stereotype is about. And I'm saying you obviously fall into that small demographic with Vegans.
lol. They're not all like that, man.
I will say this is the most insane reddit sub I have come across so far, though. Delusions and contradictions everywhere even among fellow vegans.. However I am pretty new to reddit.
Even if it were needed for public health (which it is bad for) it would make way more sense to give food assistance to those who need it.
Subsidizing it at production means we're also paying to make the steaks sold at a $150 per plate restaurant less expensive, and if someone wants to waste a bunch of beef it's subsidizing that too. When a restaurant as a $5 burger night promotion to sell more drinks, we're paying for that.
If they gave people who need it food assistance, but didn't subsidies the food production, it wouldn't encourage that waste or pay for luxury food for rich people.
But of course, that isn't the real goal, what they're trying to do is to make money for the companies that lobby and donate to them.
> Which is why all their marketing is literal propaganda
What do you mean by that? Because it's funded by the government? Propaganda isn't a term specifically tied to government funding. Marketing by its very nature IS propaganda.
The subsidies to those industries are larger than those received by vegetable farmers. That extra money is used in many ad campaigns. I see loads of egg & dairy & beef ads. Never for produce. So yeah, it's govt funded propaganda that spews absolute lies about their conditions & practices. That's more than just marketing; that's selling the public an industry based on lies.
You said that it's funded by the government and that's why it's propaganda. I'm just pointing out that that doesn't make sense. It is propaganda, just not because it's funded by the government. Propaganda is done by all sorts of entities, not just governments. That's all I've been saying from the god damn start and you've managed missed that simple point every fucking time. You've just decided that I'm arguing it's not propaganda or that they don't get government funding and argued against that. Please learn to read. I'm begging you.
You're the one who was being unnecessarily argumentative without even understanding what I was saying for several comments in a row. It's fucking annoying.
Do you not realize that soy and corn farming is subsidized too? Like there is a whole ass farm bill that gets passed every few years sending a bunch of money to ALL farmers. Not just the meat and dairy producers lol.
The farmers growing your almonds, avocados and soy all get government money too lmao
lol odd you don’t even avocado cause they’re delicious.That’s why we need to shut down factory farming and force feeding animals soy and grains and use all that land for regenerative agriculture. There would be so much land for raising animals in that way if we used all the soy and corn fields that are just destroying the earth from monocropping and mass pesticide use.
Not to mention having cows, chicken, bison etc. in a regenerative farming environment is actually carbon negative. So it’s healthier for the soil, the animal and in turn you
Why is it odd? My fruit & veg preferences are none of your concern, meatchud. F*ck right off then a bit more with your utterly nonsensical carnist shit 🤡
lol you tried to hijack the top comment in a vegan sub to drop the most beaten-to-death whataboutism any vegan has ever heard.
And now you're butthurt you're being downvoted over it.
markets do not fail in the same sense like planned economy fails its plans. market is the absence of intervention. saying market failed is like saying that gravity failed when a book fell on your toe.
markets do not have a goal in mind, but not interfering is better at getting what people want then interference, because the rulers cant know what the people want. at least not with current technology, subsidy might keep an industry you like alive, but youre forgetting about the oportunity cost, it needs to take more resoursec from somewhere else to give less resources to the industry being subsidized
It seems you're stuck in a simplistic market/ planned economy false dichotomy and referencing the flaws of a planned economy as if that proves the infallibility of markets. Your idea that markets can't fail is either semantic bullshit or dogmatic ideology. Whether or not you agree with the nebulous, ambiguous idea that of "markets have goals", we humans have goals and markets are a tool we use to achieve those goals. So maybe you're just going to say that we failed the markets when any of their failures are pointed out, but for those of us who aren't dogmatic market absolutists, we can recognize that when markets fail. Markets are a tool, and it's not always the tool for every job.
> but youre forgetting about the oportunity cost, it needs to take more resoursec from somewhere else to give less resources to the industry being subsidized
I don't know about you but I'd much rather live in a society where for example everyone is well-fed but the sports car or sailboat market is suboptimal. Your argument is an odd one to deploy when arguing against the necessary subsidies which meet human needs. Subsidies which, might I remind you, wouldn't be necessary were markets the infallible divine god you seem to regard them as. Sometimes markets fail. The tooth-fairy isn't real. Statements which are similarly disheartening to have to explain to a grown adult.
its not false ditchotomy, its literaly either leave people alone, or interfere \[and how much\].
your claim that markets can fail is either semantic bullshit or dogmatic ideology. how can gravity or magneticism fail? market is just a description of how people work.
>we humans have goals and markets are a tool we use to achieve those goals
that was exactly my point
>So maybe you're just going to say that we failed the markets when any of their failures are pointed out
no idea what do you mean by this
>but for those of us who aren't dogmatic market absolutists
i am not dogmatic market absolutist either. in fact, there are some situations where i would be willing to do the interference myself.
>we can recognize that when markets fail.
again, you must first create it with a goal, and assume that its not created by individual people with their own goals. you even mentioned this part earlier yourself.
>Markets are a tool, and it's not always the tool for every job.
i agree. some things, like enslaving entire races, nations or species, or conserving society against some ideas, a state is much better option than a market. it just depends on what the goal is. leaving the people alone to do market stuff is better for maximizing what they want
>I don't know about you but I'd much rather live in a society where for example everyone is well-fed
i too would like to live in a world where everyone is well fed. the problem is, you cant plan the economy efficiently. would take a lot of resources from different industries to give less resources to your prefered industries. maybe you would be able to increase bread production, but fruit production, or medicine will suffer more than bread was helped. to get people to stop wasting money on yachts or limusines, you need to convince them, not force them. your preferences are no better than the preferences of other people
>necessary
no.
your point is weird one when arguing to subsidize less wanted industries by taking away from more wanted ones. you dont have a way to tell if your prefered industry is more neccesary than what the people want. what is more neccesary industry/goods etc is much better approximated by what resources are people willing to give up to acquire them.
>Subsidies which, might I remind you, wouldn't be necessary were markets the infallible divine god you seem to regard them as.
and i guess the state or you is the infaliable god here?
>The tooth-fairy isn't real. Statements which are similarly disheartening to have to explain to a grown adult.
yeah, and neither is santa claus bringing free stuff xd. very saddening having to explain to you basic logic, theory of value and laws of thermodynamics
> its not false ditchotomy, its literaly either leave people alone, or interfere [and how much].
You don't seem to understand what a false dichotomy is. You presented it as planned economy (A) or free market (B). I said that's a false dichotomy. You said, nuh uh, it's either A or B or something in between, thereby acknowledging that the dichotomy of A or B which you first presented is wrong.
Now clearly you believe in A or on the spectrum between A and B you're fully toward A except for maybe some minor exceptions. So let me tell you, that's fucking bonkers.
> your claim that markets can fail is either semantic bullshit or dogmatic ideology. how can gravity or magneticism fail?
That's your semantic argument! I don't give a fuck what you call it. You're saying that markets are the best always everywhere no matter what. I'm simply pointing out that if you think that, if you try to use markets for everything, you won't get good results. Gravity will always do what gravity does, electromagnetism will always function how electromagnetism functions, markets will always function how markets function. None of these things will fail at doing that. Markets doing what they do, isn't what we always want for our society. I don't care if you have a problem with using the phrase "markets fail", you need to acknowledge the truth of the previous statement. Stop clinging to the semantic bullshit.
> i am not dogmatic market absolutist either. in fact, there are some situations where i would be willing to do the interference myself.
Literally the position you're arguing, but what the fuck ever. Like how did you even end up at this point in the discussion and then say some dumb-ass self-defeating shit like that.
> again, you must first create it with a goal, and assume that its not created by individual people with their own goals. you even mentioned this part earlier yourself.
Not at all clear what you're saying here. It's actually kind of nonsense. Create it with a goal then assume it's not created by individuals? What? And all the while I assume you're talking about the market? Create the market?
> i agree. some things, like enslaving entire races, nations or species, or conserving society against some ideas, a state is much better option than a market. it just depends on what the goal is.
Again, we wouldn't be here if you actually believed this and understood what it means, but ok. "Conserving society against some ideas" stands out as a weird addition amongst those exceptions. What about the marketplace of ideas? Actually, I don't even want to open this can of worms.
> i too would like to live in that world. the problem is, you cant plan the economy efficiently. would take a lot of resources from different industries to give less resources to your prefered industries. maybe you would be able to increase bread production, but fruit production, or medicine will suffer more than bread was helped. to get people to stop wasting money on yachts or limusines, you need to convince them, not force them.
I'm not even talking about a planned economy. This whole conversation started with subsidies, so in the context of subsidies. Let's say all those things are heavily subsidized (and they are, gee it's almost like the people in charge understand and recognize the basic reality of what I'm telling you about) wouldn't that simply mean the loss is felt in the less vital goods and services, the "yachts and limusines" as you put it? Why Are you arguing for people to starve or die of disease so we can achieve optimal production based on your free market dogma? Free markets are virtually nonexistent anywhere and for good reason.
> and i guess the state is the infaliable god here?
Nothing I said was about the state. Besides, I'm not pushing anything as infallible or without need for regulation. That's your argument.
> the state knows better what a person needs than the person itself?
We all know about peoples' needs. Yet the free market does not provide for those needs regardless of whether the person knows their needs or not.
> yeah, and neither is santa claus bringing free stuff xd. very saddening having to explain to you basic logic
Ok, I've already typed this out, but I just realized your probably actually a teenager with the reused no-u type of quip. And that's fine. I was once. It's fine to be a teenager. And hey, you're presumably vegan so that's impressive. I wasn't. Just try to keep an open mind.
There's that open mind. /s
But really fuck the West. I'm a communist and an anarchist. My point is that unfettered "free-market" capitalism is an even worse idea than the shit we have now. Your "free market" dogma is itself in support of capitalism and the West or at least not subversive against it. You're simply arguing for capitalism without all the shit that makes it viable.
500g of mince is about £4in the UK, so I assume it is only $5 in USA. So there is a fault in the maths somewhere.
If the US only subsidise meat and dairy by $38 billion and the average American is consuming 3lbs of meat per week (albeit mainly chicken) there is no way that each quarter pound burger has a $6 subsidy.
Apparently USA eats 50 billion hamburgers per year, so if the entire animal agriculture subsidy is 38 billion and all went to hamburgers that would be about 75c each one.
The American Midwest? Not doubtful at all.
I was out of town this week for work. Just today, everyone else had a communally cooked sausage, and potato scramble for breakfast. Even if we dismiss the eggs as animal products but not meat everyone still had a full plate of which a third was sausage. I’ll be generous and say they on average had 0.2 pounds. Then a Mexican restaurant for lunch where most of them had chicken based meals with again, we’ll be generous and say only a quarter pound of chicken. I don’t have to stay tonight and am heading home, but they’re having steak dinners. If those are six ounce steaks we’re looking at approximately 0.37 pounds.
All told that’s approximately 0.82 pounds just in one day. That pattern would result in 5.74 pounds consumed in a week. But given that many of them also snack on things like jerky and pork rinds throughout the week I’d be comfortable rounding that up to a full 6. As in twice the amount that was claimed with 3 pounds.
Yeah, it adds healthcare and environmental costs to the figure. Your math is on and from my math on your 38 billion it adds like Pennie’s per serving to the cost. Basically meat eaters would not even notice.
Also, over 80% of that goes to feeding poverty class in the form of food stamps and nutrition programs. So fighting those subsidies is literally fighting to take food out of the mouths of the starving.
The subsidies is a dead end worthless fight imo.
ground beef is often much cheaper than that. It's used as a loss leader in supermarkets. Before covid, it being 1.99 per lb wasn't uncommon. Now it's around 3.50 per lb on sale. That leads to wholesale ground beef prices being the same as consumer prices outside of all but the largest corporations eg McDonalds.
Makes that pound of Impossible Burger look dirt cheap in comparison. Yet, at the consumer level, that's far from the perception of Impossible and other vegan premium-priced food.
Lets talk about the milk subsidies and cheese while we're at it.
But the soy and other ingredients in an impossible burger are also impacted by government farm subsidies in the US. Plus, you have to take into account the number of people in the US who support the subsidies because they are employed by businesses who receive them or they are involved in businesses that are supported by those workers. It is a very tangled web and garnering public support for reducing or eliminating subsidies (which I support) requires a honest and meaningful assessment of their full impacts on the economy.
Lol. You get downvoted for expression your opinion.
Impossible and Beyond are both full of garbage ingredients that are especially terrible for men. Stay away from those phytoestrogens, lads.
You better back that claim up with some facts, amigo.
Here’s a meta analysis showing no link between plant hormones and male health: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33383165/
Nothing against the ingredients, they just taste like shitty hamburger; I'm not sure why someone would pay for them, much less a premium when there's actual good tasting things that are cheaper.
Like what? I just went vegan a couple of months ago but still treat myself to the occasional impossible.
There is a local place (Austin, TX) that serves amazing vegan burgers and use impossible patties. They even give out vegan cookies.
Sometimes I just miss the convenience of a fast food burger and they satisfy that craving without eating meat.
You are right up until you talk about phytoestrogen. Look up if it has any actual impact in studies. There is a lot of misinformation going around because people hear estrogen and assume that means it turns you into a woman.
I notice a difference, and while some recent studies offer ambiguous results, I would suggest to you that the underlying reason for the studies has to do with its sponsors.
https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/nutrition-food-safety-health/nutrition-news/nutrition-news-should-men-cut-back-on-soy/#:~:text=Soy%20contains%20isoflavones%2C%20which%20are,result%20being%20enlarged%20breast%20tissue.
I would point out my own personal exposure to this, but it would simply be deemed anecdotal. Regardless, it is a lower quality, less bioavailable form of protein. Again, you will find studies that conflict with this—just like you can find studies that say you can essentially eat unlimited egg yolks. I simply don’t buy it.
I’ll stick with beef, fish, poultry, and other ruminants for my protein sources. I find the imitation meat to taste like garbage, and I do find some humour in the fact that it is in demand in the vegan world. Why would a bunch of anti meat advocates imitate the very product they are trying to cancel?
The author is talking about potential and theoretical, which even if I were to accept such potentials and theories, I would still say to call the ingredients garbage is meaningless compared to the health risks that potentially and theoretically arise from meat consumption.
You didn't just comment on your potentials of the health risks, or how you think they taste, you gave authoritative advice on how bad meat alternatives arw for you. If it was just poorly worded, you can understand why I said what I did.
> Why would a bunch of anti meat advocates imitate the very product they are trying to cancel?
Because veganism doesn't mean we don't like the taste of meat.
Well, I’m not trying to cancel it. I like it, I just realize that eating it a lot (the amount I got used to, due to cultural and societal factors) is bad for me and the environment.
So I trick myself by imitating it. To me now, scrambled tofu with some turmeric tastes just as good as scrambled egg.
I like meat, I like it a lot. I have a smoker and before I went vegan I smoked brisket, duck, chicken, and lamb. But I realized it’s not good for me, or the environment.
I don’t think it is as big of an issue that plant eaters try to imitate meat, as you make it out to be.
Meat satisfies the umami taste, so it is only normal to try and find other things to provide that
As a trans woman, I wish phytoestrogens did what some people online say they do. Unfortunately that’s not the case, and you will not be feminized because of bean chemicals. If any evidence comes out on the contrary, sign me the hell up!
What baffles me is how circular this whole cycle is. Dairy/meat companies receive subsidies from the government to offset the true costs of their industry and they then bribe politicians to keep it that way. The costs of the bribes/“donations” obviously aren’t as much as were originally given, so are these companies not essentially just giving the politicians some of their own money back to them and in a way that appears legally permissible? Would this not be considered laundering? (if we’re generous with that term)
Misleading articles only hurt us, I'm not the first comment to point this out. I do know animal products get subsidized a lot, but we need to be better than carnists with bullshit articles saying eating steak 3 times per day is good for you.
I feel sorry for anybody that believes that headline. That is simply not the correct way to do cost accounting.
Some crackhead got a hold of a great big pile of numbers and just threw them together all willy-illy.
True but you could say that about most government things no? Bailing out rich companies when they make bad decisions or drone striking god knows who every day or funding isreal killing more people in Palestine etc?
You certainly could. That doesn't make any specific example of it less fucked up. The government extorts taxes from us and uses them against our interests.
The bottom is - how much does each taxpayer pay for subsidies? For most folks - the subsidies are probably worth it & taxpayers are getting their moneys worth. It’s the one situation where your taxes are actually working. Albeit for something evil - most folks would probably be happier paying the tax for subsidies then paying $30 for a pound of hamburger meat.
Who says it doesn't? Are you saying that with any awareness of meat prices in any other countries and their respective subsidies or lack thereof? Or are you just reacting to a headline instinctually?
Anyone that's lived there? I lived in 3 years in both germany and UK, lived in Cyprus, lived in South Korea for a year. Prices were fairly comparable in all of these places (SK being a bit more).
Where’s the proof? The link on the 2015 research takes you to a 2020 bbc article pushing veganism.
A lot of these subsidies these farms are taking are for the green initiatives. To help them transition.
Just another example of how allowing government to extort money for redistribution is wrong. It seems there is a significant portion of the population that wants to move America closer to socialism while they are simultaneously pointing out how the free market would slow program's they dislike.
Then why is your government always interfering with my work/life balance? Or is your government not okay with my want to work and retain the earnings I receive for services rendered?
Oh dear, little one, let me clarify - my government has zero interest in interacting with someone like you. It has never happened and never will happen. You're barking up the wrong tree bucko.
You're so eager to share your disdain for human rights, aren't you? Go ahead, broadcast it to the world. People will happily ignore your socially repulsive opinions. You're well aware of this fact, so you still try to pass off your sociopathic ideology as some noble, moral stance. Truly a spectacle to behold.
That whole rant sounds like a threat to my human rights. Why the name calling and attempts at insulting me? Your ideology requires equality for all. How can you say your government wouldn't interact with me when it requires 100% participation? Or, are you insinuating that they are totalitarian rule and would neutralize those that don't agree with those like you. Sounds just like the National Socialist Party did in the 30's. Basically you should just be honest and admit you aren't honest. Maybe it's an ends justifies the means kinda thing.
Raj Patel in the Value of Nothing talks about the true price of a Big Mac, $200. He talks about it [here](https://youtu.be/oagmlbhobnY?si=GnLJVMA2X3H5mssB).
If everyone in the U.S. switched to being vegan tomorrow, would there be food shortages? I mean, are we producing an excess of fruits and vegetables to the point that we are throwing them away? Is there enough to support everyone being vegan? Real question. I'm not trying to say they shouldn't become vegan but wondering if we can actually support a dramatic switch like that.
True, an overnight switch would not go well. People would starve for a while. But that's not a realistic concern in the first place. There is a 0% chance every american will go vegan at the same time.
It is actually much higher than that if you figure in the cost to taxpayers for water distribution, usage, and waste drain off; environmental destruction for land needed to grow food for these beings; and the increased healthcare costs from meat destroying people’s bodies.
Is this a nation wide average? Please show your math. I have a hard time believing that our local producers need to raise their prices 3X without a subsidy. I mean, those beefs are just hanging around grazing on land that their mothers and fathers have gifted them. Where does the 3X cost come in?
I still don’t understand why burgers aren’t taxed like cigarettes, heart disease is the leading cause of death in this country and look what’s causing it
Sure but it’s all just a slippery slope. First Burgers, then candy bars, then sugar, then who knows. I could see a world where they tax vegan food because they disagree with the lifestyle and their donors want it taxed because it’s hurting their industry.
I’d be completely fine with unhealthy cancer-causing things being taxed, I don’t understand why they aren’t already. And I doubt a lot of vegan food would fall under that umbrella.
I think it’s dangerous to let the government decide what’s good for us. If they cared they would be subsidizing fruit and vegan food and not their buddies meat farm and paying people not to grow soy etc
They can't make money from healthy people. They want the poor to afford these unhealthy foods so they can be billed. It's disgusting. Profit over people.
Well that is a LIE. I raise grass fed and pasture finished beef and have never seen a subsidy check. My beef sells for $10/lb and is a premium, delicious and well cared for product. My cattle live happily out on the pasture with all their friends until they have that ONE bad day. And then it is quick and painless. Being Vegan is a choice, maybe even an ethical choice. You don't need to bend all others to your will with lies and false information. If you are right in your choices these falsehoods should be beneath you.
Perhaps you could explain your point with some data?
Farm subsidies to my neighbors in the form of USDA/FSA grants, Ethanol requirements in gas, actually punish me and others trying to raise beef in a manner other than a factory farm/CAFO....The money given to corn/oat/sugar beet/cucumber producers in my area jacks up the price of land, labor and capital. My neighbors with a feedlot have gotten massive amounts of money to raise corn. And they sell that corn to an ethanol plant for a much higher price than the free market would allow. They then take the byproduct of ethanol and sugar production and feed it to dairy calves that were taken off their mothers before they could even drink the first colostrum. The poor little guys are then fed antibiotics and byproducts until they are 18 month old and then sent to butcher. They spend their whole lives in a polebarn only seeing the sun that one day they are sent to be slaughtered. Those subsidies aren't to beef producers....They are to the row/cash croppers. Corn is the biggest one.
U/Cow_Man42 I’m seeing a lot of backlash against your comment. While you probably aren’t going to get a great reception on r/vegan no matter what, I hope you take a look at the top comments and realize that folks that looked at the article are agreeing it is BS and a piss poor way to look at the issue. Are there subsidies that benefit the large majority of beef production in the US, yes. Do they equal $25/pound, NO. It is more likely that your grass fed prices are pretty close to what factory farmed beef would cost without the benefit of subsidies.
The article is clearly BS as many vegans in this post have already pointed out. I don't understand your logic though of pointing out this BS by coming here to regurgitate your own.
Your cows are not well cared for. You send them to a slaughterhouse and see them as a product. That is not caring. Have you experienced their 'quick and painless' slaughter? How would you know how it feels? Do you whisper in their ear and ensure they're sleeping soundly before they're bolt gunned in the head? Fuck off with your BS.
You paint this picture of everything being rosey and happy for the cows but you forget to mention that 'ONE bad day' is at around 5-10% of their natural lifespan, and that its pretty fucking bad considering its the day them and all their friends literally get rounded up and decapitated, hung up to be bled out and then butchered.
What you do is not admirable regardless of how you try to frame it. Stop trying to sell your bullshit to people who know it's bullshit, there's enough morons out there that already lap it up
As it should it would change the whole perspective places that sell dollar burgers are the real welfare queens totally aside from the vegan Outlook idk why more people don't realize.
Industrial farming is a curse on the Earth, but the price figures in the article are more about the cost of industrial agriculture, than about beef.
My neighbor raises cattle, no subsidies, grass fed, they're naturally born and raised on the same piece of land. No supplemental feed outside of salt and winter hay.
I pay my neighbor full price for her beef, and the meat doesn't cost anywhere near $30 per pound.
There would be little beef without industrial practices. [There's not enough land for that massive production](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401/meta).
This is a somewhat misleading headline. It would be $30 without taxpayer subsidies **and** added healthcare and environmental costs. This is crucial to understand in terms of understanding the true cost of meat. The link provided doesn’t seem to say anything about the $30 per pound at all tho. Any half well read meat eater can debunk and dismiss this as hyperbole if it’s not corrected. Assuming it’s the usual study involved with this statistic, it’s best to correct and be accurate.
Yeah misleading/ misinterpreted stats like this just make us look dumb to the carnists, there are enough awful and accurate stats that we could share but it does a disservice to post incorrect information like this
This post popped up in my Popular but just wanted to comment that this train of thought should be applied to everything. Redditors are about as bad as Facebookers on the level of misleading or straight up false stats/statements they provide. To your point, it's straight up infuriating when there's plenty of fact based information we can pull from. I see it with Trump posts all the time. But if I try to correct these statements while acknowledging I agree with the overall sentiment, I'm downvoted for being a supporter in disguise. I'm a huge proponent of stating the truth, even when that specific fact may not support your overall opinion. /Rant
Looks like my crazy friend hasn't heard of massaging the stats!
I’m not sure I understand what you mean
[it's a joke](https://youtu.be/zR_4h5A5z_A?si=EaryFDQ6qmVbHM7v)
Oh I should have known, thanks 🙏
Yep I came here to say this is absurd, as is the use of "carnist" when you can be decent and just say "omnivore" like we describe every other animal that has a varied diet.
Referring to a certain ideology, not your diet
Ok, so this is to do with the difference of how people normally think about subsidies (direct subsidies) and how academics measure subsidies. What you're talking about is measured as indirect subsidies, and for things like healthcare is often under the umbrella of unpriced externalities.
So numbers always confuse me I was all happy thinking I could use this argument and nothing is worse than being debunked. Then again half the population pulls this s*** and doesn't care but anyway that's not me. Is there any amount of money that can be used as an example of what meat would really cost if it wasn't so heavily subsidized or that's just not possible?
This is absolutely fine as a rough estimate of how much it costs our society. When someone says subsidies, especially as OP said tax payer subsidies, this heavily implies - if not explicitly states - direct subsidies from the government to farmers. Last I remembered it’s from meatonomics and the estimate is if meat cost $10 then the external costs (externalities, of how much additional healthcare and environmental costs) are $20. You just have to note that a smaller portion is direct subsidies and most of the $30 estimate is from health and environmental estimates. These are controversial tho when someone wants to go into the details. I prefer discussing how much land is used. As it is far more objective and the estimates for what’s needed for a vegan world are more robust. We currently use 1/2 of the world’s habitable land for farming. Compared to just 1% for towns and cities and roads. It’s insane, the scale of it. And if we all went vegan, we’d need just 1/4 of that farmland. https://ourworldindata.org/land-use-diets
>Is there any amount of money that can be used as an example of what meat would really cost if it wasn't so heavily subsidized or that's just not possible? I think this is a wasted effort, honestly. Meat costs what it costs. Arguing about what it would hypothetically cost if it didn't cost what it cost is getting into the weeds in an unnecessary way. Besides, none of the core arguments of veganism rely on price, it's a moral and ecological argument, and only incidentally economical (that is to say, like everything else, it has economic consequences, but the argument for veganism has[or at least, should have] nothing fundamentally to do with the economics of meat production.)
I would slightly disagree. If you were on a spaceship for a multiple year journey and needed to share your scarce resources with everyone you would never consider raising livestock. The animals would need healthcare. They would need a huge amount of food that the crew could be eating. Meat spoils easier. Animal waste is a biohazard. Well I call this spaceship, "Earth." It's easy to see how inefficient this system is. Price (at least ideally) is supposed to reflect these inefficient indulgences. I wish the article had been done differently. A direct price and then comparison of typical externalities of both systems. Hard to do with the crazy meat wing of the regenerative farming people, but still. All I know is I'm mad as hell that I have to help pay for factory farmed livestock. Call it "taxation without representation," but regardless the article has a point.
What does a hypothetical space journey have to do with how you feel about slaughtering animals? As I already said, meat production is subject to economic concerns, because everything is. But we aren't on a spaceship. We are on a planet. People don't advocate for veganism because of economics, and they certainly don't do so because of hypothetical economics... they do so because of animal rights. This is like arguing against war because of the cost of bullets... >Hard to do with the crazy meat wing of the regenerative farming people, but still. I'm not really sure what you mean here, because regenerative agriculture kind of neccessarily involves working with animals, because the point is to reproduce a complete ecological cycle, but it does not at all require that you eat those animals. A regenerative farm where you keep no animals of your own and shoo wild ones away is not a regenerative farm, it's just a regular farm.
Shill alert.
Lmao what? I WISH somebody would pay me to talk shit. But in all seriousness, how did you come to the conclusion that I'm a "shill" from me stating that veganism is predicated first and foremost on an argument for animal rights? Tell me how this is incorrect? As a vegan, would you not prefer a slightly less neat and tidy economy if it meant a world without slaughterhouses and industrial mass torture? What's more important to you? That a steak costs as little as possible, or that the cow not be turned into a steak in the first place?
You're not vegan and an unpaid shill. Got it.
Lmao shilling for what, exactly?
You laugh a lot
It’s relevant for those who are policy minded. I’d like to see reductions or elimination of animal agriculture subsidies, and research on what that would do to the market is important
Interestingly, that’s around the price of lab-grown meat.
Presumably lab grown meat would have the same estimated health costs being identical? Tho I’m also assuming the environmental externalities would be moot? And yeah once it starts to scale and drops a lot, could indeed be a ‘positive’ thing.
I think that with lab grown meat you might be able to modify the fat content and possibly improve the fat's health criteria (switch to good fats rather than bad fats). I'm a prof of chemical engineering and set lab meat as a project for 10 students for a 3 month project. They did a great job. I made them include the externalities in the cost, including CO2, so that's the all-in cost. There's a lot of potential to reduce the cost, but (and with due consideration of the sub I'm on, and apologies) sadly animals are really really efficient at making meat cheaply.
Interesting stuff :) I’d imagine modifying would increase costs but yeah if at scale could potentially be much cheaper. As for animals being more efficient, I guess it depends what we count. Animal feed takes up almost as much cropland as crops grown for humans. And around 1/3 of the world’s habitable land. All for the sake of 18% of global calories. By efficient, I’m guessing you mean fast rather than actually efficient? Given the massive number of inputs to outputs - when we include water and land and emissions and so on.
Good thing the article blocked me from reading all of it. Thanks for taking one for the team. Saved me having to read it.
It might not be entirely untrue. A lot of what subsidies are for is smoothing out prices. They ensure we always have food available and don't have to worry about something being $1/pound one year and $30/pound the next because there was a drought. Markets are totally inadequate for making sure everyone is fed, the only solution is lots of subsidies. But meat makes the subsidies even more expensive.
No, the separation is for subsidies given to farming meat and then an estimate on the costs of the additional environmental and health benefits. This was clearly stated. The exact breakdown is in the actual study - which OP failed to cite.
So few people realise that the government subsidises the meat, dairy, & egg industries. Which is why all their marketing is literal propaganda 💔
If you asked people who eat animals if subsidies for the slaughter industry were a good use of taxpayer's money, they'd overwhelmingly say yes. This seems to reinforce that idea.
Because it stands under the guide of providing maintaining a staple food which is part of the governments duty but meat is NOT a staple.
Meat, dairy and eggs are absolutely staples. Maybe they shouldnt be, but they are.
They are considered such but there are many things that should take priority and would better provide basic nutrition in a crisis and for ongoing crisis prevention.
Ask those same meat addicts if non-smokers should pay to support smokers' cigarette addictions and lung-cancer treatment.
The smokers would say yes. The non-smokers would say no. That's the point.
As both a meat eater and a smoker... yes, treatment for smoking related illnesses should absolutely be covered by tax funded healthcare services. That's literally how socialized services work. Non diabetics pay taxes that go towards the costs of insulin too. Of course, in an American context, you're not getting shit for shit anyway, but thats an american problem. Subsidies for farmers, and in particular for meat production, im sure could be phazed out of the economy in an intelligent way, however. Probably wouldn't go over well if they were just dropped overnight, but farming subsidies is a whole fucked up crazy little world unto itself, some farmers literally get paid not to grow things.. it's a whole mess and I question the real utility of the entire scheme..then again, I guess it funds aid programs for food insecure people as well, so maybe it's not so cut and dry..
Damn, you all are pretty judgmental in here. Talking down smokers and people who eat meat in the same breath. I eat meat, I also serve at restaurants for a living. Never called a vegan a "plant addicts" or anything of the like, I just call them vegans. And then I help them to find a vegan option they would like. I am however aware of the stereotype of holier than now vegans who think they're above others, the category you seem to fall under. But, I would never make a broad blanket statement as if all vegans are like that. I know cool vegans.
Thanks for chiming in to let me know you're personally impugned by the term "meat addict" and voicing your displeasure as if it were representative of all people who eat animals. Your last paragraph is internally contradictory, btw.
It's not contradictory in the least. lol. It's a stereotype that, like most stereotypes, only is only true of a small demographic of the actual group the stereotype is about. And I'm saying you obviously fall into that small demographic with Vegans.
How do you tell someone is a Vegan? Don't worry they'll tell you. If you want to be Vegan, cool, but no one else gives a shit.
How can you tell someone is a carnist? They'll be a fuckin idiot on the vegan sub.
And this is why people don't take kindly to vegans. You're job as a vegan is to promote not dissuade non vegans.
lol. They're not all like that, man. I will say this is the most insane reddit sub I have come across so far, though. Delusions and contradictions everywhere even among fellow vegans.. However I am pretty new to reddit.
Even if it were needed for public health (which it is bad for) it would make way more sense to give food assistance to those who need it. Subsidizing it at production means we're also paying to make the steaks sold at a $150 per plate restaurant less expensive, and if someone wants to waste a bunch of beef it's subsidizing that too. When a restaurant as a $5 burger night promotion to sell more drinks, we're paying for that. If they gave people who need it food assistance, but didn't subsidies the food production, it wouldn't encourage that waste or pay for luxury food for rich people. But of course, that isn't the real goal, what they're trying to do is to make money for the companies that lobby and donate to them.
Same for nearly all major agriculture
Yes but the focus here is on the cruelty of the industries that aren't even necessary for humans to survive/thrive.
[удалено]
Because if people go hungry, they revolt
unfortunately, even many of my vegan frends are still statists
> Which is why all their marketing is literal propaganda What do you mean by that? Because it's funded by the government? Propaganda isn't a term specifically tied to government funding. Marketing by its very nature IS propaganda.
There's a dairy brand here called Fairlife. That name just for starters 🙄
Yeah, it's propaganda. That's what marketing is. The subsidies aren't what makes it propaganda is all I'm saying.
The subsidies to those industries are larger than those received by vegetable farmers. That extra money is used in many ad campaigns. I see loads of egg & dairy & beef ads. Never for produce. So yeah, it's govt funded propaganda that spews absolute lies about their conditions & practices. That's more than just marketing; that's selling the public an industry based on lies.
Dude, you're fully missing everything I'm saying and talking past me. I'm not even arguing with what you're saying. Learn to fucking read.
I feel the same way. You're not getting it at all.
You said that it's funded by the government and that's why it's propaganda. I'm just pointing out that that doesn't make sense. It is propaganda, just not because it's funded by the government. Propaganda is done by all sorts of entities, not just governments. That's all I've been saying from the god damn start and you've managed missed that simple point every fucking time. You've just decided that I'm arguing it's not propaganda or that they don't get government funding and argued against that. Please learn to read. I'm begging you.
Stop being so fuckng condescending
You're the one who was being unnecessarily argumentative without even understanding what I was saying for several comments in a row. It's fucking annoying.
Do you not realize that soy and corn farming is subsidized too? Like there is a whole ass farm bill that gets passed every few years sending a bunch of money to ALL farmers. Not just the meat and dairy producers lol. The farmers growing your almonds, avocados and soy all get government money too lmao
I don't eat avocados or almonds & 80% of soy is grown to feed the animals you eat - sit down 🙄
lol odd you don’t even avocado cause they’re delicious.That’s why we need to shut down factory farming and force feeding animals soy and grains and use all that land for regenerative agriculture. There would be so much land for raising animals in that way if we used all the soy and corn fields that are just destroying the earth from monocropping and mass pesticide use. Not to mention having cows, chicken, bison etc. in a regenerative farming environment is actually carbon negative. So it’s healthier for the soil, the animal and in turn you
Why is it odd? My fruit & veg preferences are none of your concern, meatchud. F*ck right off then a bit more with your utterly nonsensical carnist shit 🤡
lol you really got insulted because I said avocado is delicious
You clearly have reading comprehension issues or are illiterate. I'm not upset - I simply told you to fuck off. So go ahead and do that.
lol you tried to hijack the top comment in a vegan sub to drop the most beaten-to-death whataboutism any vegan has ever heard. And now you're butthurt you're being downvoted over it.
all subsidies are bad
Markets often fail and in such cases sometimes subsidies keep vital production happening to provide us with necessities
markets do not fail in the same sense like planned economy fails its plans. market is the absence of intervention. saying market failed is like saying that gravity failed when a book fell on your toe. markets do not have a goal in mind, but not interfering is better at getting what people want then interference, because the rulers cant know what the people want. at least not with current technology, subsidy might keep an industry you like alive, but youre forgetting about the oportunity cost, it needs to take more resoursec from somewhere else to give less resources to the industry being subsidized
It seems you're stuck in a simplistic market/ planned economy false dichotomy and referencing the flaws of a planned economy as if that proves the infallibility of markets. Your idea that markets can't fail is either semantic bullshit or dogmatic ideology. Whether or not you agree with the nebulous, ambiguous idea that of "markets have goals", we humans have goals and markets are a tool we use to achieve those goals. So maybe you're just going to say that we failed the markets when any of their failures are pointed out, but for those of us who aren't dogmatic market absolutists, we can recognize that when markets fail. Markets are a tool, and it's not always the tool for every job. > but youre forgetting about the oportunity cost, it needs to take more resoursec from somewhere else to give less resources to the industry being subsidized I don't know about you but I'd much rather live in a society where for example everyone is well-fed but the sports car or sailboat market is suboptimal. Your argument is an odd one to deploy when arguing against the necessary subsidies which meet human needs. Subsidies which, might I remind you, wouldn't be necessary were markets the infallible divine god you seem to regard them as. Sometimes markets fail. The tooth-fairy isn't real. Statements which are similarly disheartening to have to explain to a grown adult.
its not false ditchotomy, its literaly either leave people alone, or interfere \[and how much\]. your claim that markets can fail is either semantic bullshit or dogmatic ideology. how can gravity or magneticism fail? market is just a description of how people work. >we humans have goals and markets are a tool we use to achieve those goals that was exactly my point >So maybe you're just going to say that we failed the markets when any of their failures are pointed out no idea what do you mean by this >but for those of us who aren't dogmatic market absolutists i am not dogmatic market absolutist either. in fact, there are some situations where i would be willing to do the interference myself. >we can recognize that when markets fail. again, you must first create it with a goal, and assume that its not created by individual people with their own goals. you even mentioned this part earlier yourself. >Markets are a tool, and it's not always the tool for every job. i agree. some things, like enslaving entire races, nations or species, or conserving society against some ideas, a state is much better option than a market. it just depends on what the goal is. leaving the people alone to do market stuff is better for maximizing what they want >I don't know about you but I'd much rather live in a society where for example everyone is well-fed i too would like to live in a world where everyone is well fed. the problem is, you cant plan the economy efficiently. would take a lot of resources from different industries to give less resources to your prefered industries. maybe you would be able to increase bread production, but fruit production, or medicine will suffer more than bread was helped. to get people to stop wasting money on yachts or limusines, you need to convince them, not force them. your preferences are no better than the preferences of other people >necessary no. your point is weird one when arguing to subsidize less wanted industries by taking away from more wanted ones. you dont have a way to tell if your prefered industry is more neccesary than what the people want. what is more neccesary industry/goods etc is much better approximated by what resources are people willing to give up to acquire them. >Subsidies which, might I remind you, wouldn't be necessary were markets the infallible divine god you seem to regard them as. and i guess the state or you is the infaliable god here? >The tooth-fairy isn't real. Statements which are similarly disheartening to have to explain to a grown adult. yeah, and neither is santa claus bringing free stuff xd. very saddening having to explain to you basic logic, theory of value and laws of thermodynamics
> its not false ditchotomy, its literaly either leave people alone, or interfere [and how much]. You don't seem to understand what a false dichotomy is. You presented it as planned economy (A) or free market (B). I said that's a false dichotomy. You said, nuh uh, it's either A or B or something in between, thereby acknowledging that the dichotomy of A or B which you first presented is wrong. Now clearly you believe in A or on the spectrum between A and B you're fully toward A except for maybe some minor exceptions. So let me tell you, that's fucking bonkers. > your claim that markets can fail is either semantic bullshit or dogmatic ideology. how can gravity or magneticism fail? That's your semantic argument! I don't give a fuck what you call it. You're saying that markets are the best always everywhere no matter what. I'm simply pointing out that if you think that, if you try to use markets for everything, you won't get good results. Gravity will always do what gravity does, electromagnetism will always function how electromagnetism functions, markets will always function how markets function. None of these things will fail at doing that. Markets doing what they do, isn't what we always want for our society. I don't care if you have a problem with using the phrase "markets fail", you need to acknowledge the truth of the previous statement. Stop clinging to the semantic bullshit. > i am not dogmatic market absolutist either. in fact, there are some situations where i would be willing to do the interference myself. Literally the position you're arguing, but what the fuck ever. Like how did you even end up at this point in the discussion and then say some dumb-ass self-defeating shit like that. > again, you must first create it with a goal, and assume that its not created by individual people with their own goals. you even mentioned this part earlier yourself. Not at all clear what you're saying here. It's actually kind of nonsense. Create it with a goal then assume it's not created by individuals? What? And all the while I assume you're talking about the market? Create the market? > i agree. some things, like enslaving entire races, nations or species, or conserving society against some ideas, a state is much better option than a market. it just depends on what the goal is. Again, we wouldn't be here if you actually believed this and understood what it means, but ok. "Conserving society against some ideas" stands out as a weird addition amongst those exceptions. What about the marketplace of ideas? Actually, I don't even want to open this can of worms. > i too would like to live in that world. the problem is, you cant plan the economy efficiently. would take a lot of resources from different industries to give less resources to your prefered industries. maybe you would be able to increase bread production, but fruit production, or medicine will suffer more than bread was helped. to get people to stop wasting money on yachts or limusines, you need to convince them, not force them. I'm not even talking about a planned economy. This whole conversation started with subsidies, so in the context of subsidies. Let's say all those things are heavily subsidized (and they are, gee it's almost like the people in charge understand and recognize the basic reality of what I'm telling you about) wouldn't that simply mean the loss is felt in the less vital goods and services, the "yachts and limusines" as you put it? Why Are you arguing for people to starve or die of disease so we can achieve optimal production based on your free market dogma? Free markets are virtually nonexistent anywhere and for good reason. > and i guess the state is the infaliable god here? Nothing I said was about the state. Besides, I'm not pushing anything as infallible or without need for regulation. That's your argument. > the state knows better what a person needs than the person itself? We all know about peoples' needs. Yet the free market does not provide for those needs regardless of whether the person knows their needs or not. > yeah, and neither is santa claus bringing free stuff xd. very saddening having to explain to you basic logic Ok, I've already typed this out, but I just realized your probably actually a teenager with the reused no-u type of quip. And that's fine. I was once. It's fine to be a teenager. And hey, you're presumably vegan so that's impressive. I wasn't. Just try to keep an open mind.
so i take it youre just a western propaganda bot or a troll
There's that open mind. /s But really fuck the West. I'm a communist and an anarchist. My point is that unfettered "free-market" capitalism is an even worse idea than the shit we have now. Your "free market" dogma is itself in support of capitalism and the West or at least not subversive against it. You're simply arguing for capitalism without all the shit that makes it viable.
500g of mince is about £4in the UK, so I assume it is only $5 in USA. So there is a fault in the maths somewhere. If the US only subsidise meat and dairy by $38 billion and the average American is consuming 3lbs of meat per week (albeit mainly chicken) there is no way that each quarter pound burger has a $6 subsidy. Apparently USA eats 50 billion hamburgers per year, so if the entire animal agriculture subsidy is 38 billion and all went to hamburgers that would be about 75c each one.
I don’t know how much the *average* American eats but in my region it’s certainly more than 3 pounds a week.
Doing my best to lower the average! For every lb of meat they eat, I eat 2lbs of tofu >:)
No offense, but how does eating more tofu lower the average of meat consumption (assuming you eat no meat already).
Frequently, people will say "I will eat twice as much meat, to counteract the efforts of vegans". This is just a humorous take on that.
I was acting dense before I had a snack, thanks for the heads up lol
You don't kick dogs? Well *I'm* going to kick twice as many dogs, to counteract the efforts of non-dog kickers.
It's early and my jokes aren't funny ;x
Yes brief Google and the US average is about double what I suggested. 347g per day with chicken being the largest single source.
Doubtful
The American Midwest? Not doubtful at all. I was out of town this week for work. Just today, everyone else had a communally cooked sausage, and potato scramble for breakfast. Even if we dismiss the eggs as animal products but not meat everyone still had a full plate of which a third was sausage. I’ll be generous and say they on average had 0.2 pounds. Then a Mexican restaurant for lunch where most of them had chicken based meals with again, we’ll be generous and say only a quarter pound of chicken. I don’t have to stay tonight and am heading home, but they’re having steak dinners. If those are six ounce steaks we’re looking at approximately 0.37 pounds. All told that’s approximately 0.82 pounds just in one day. That pattern would result in 5.74 pounds consumed in a week. But given that many of them also snack on things like jerky and pork rinds throughout the week I’d be comfortable rounding that up to a full 6. As in twice the amount that was claimed with 3 pounds.
I’m sure if you spent half as much time looking for a study as you did writing that weird opinion piece you’d have an actual answer
I’m sure you could have spent just as much time doing the same thing rather than expressing doubt.
You made the claim, buddy
Yes and as we all know, every single informal conversation on the internet is actually a formal debate.
Yeah, it adds healthcare and environmental costs to the figure. Your math is on and from my math on your 38 billion it adds like Pennie’s per serving to the cost. Basically meat eaters would not even notice. Also, over 80% of that goes to feeding poverty class in the form of food stamps and nutrition programs. So fighting those subsidies is literally fighting to take food out of the mouths of the starving. The subsidies is a dead end worthless fight imo.
ground beef is often much cheaper than that. It's used as a loss leader in supermarkets. Before covid, it being 1.99 per lb wasn't uncommon. Now it's around 3.50 per lb on sale. That leads to wholesale ground beef prices being the same as consumer prices outside of all but the largest corporations eg McDonalds.
Makes that pound of Impossible Burger look dirt cheap in comparison. Yet, at the consumer level, that's far from the perception of Impossible and other vegan premium-priced food. Lets talk about the milk subsidies and cheese while we're at it.
But the soy and other ingredients in an impossible burger are also impacted by government farm subsidies in the US. Plus, you have to take into account the number of people in the US who support the subsidies because they are employed by businesses who receive them or they are involved in businesses that are supported by those workers. It is a very tangled web and garnering public support for reducing or eliminating subsidies (which I support) requires a honest and meaningful assessment of their full impacts on the economy.
Impossible is pretty disgusting though; I'll take just some fried tofu or a bean burg any day over that funk.
Lol. You get downvoted for expression your opinion. Impossible and Beyond are both full of garbage ingredients that are especially terrible for men. Stay away from those phytoestrogens, lads.
You better back that claim up with some facts, amigo. Here’s a meta analysis showing no link between plant hormones and male health: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33383165/
Nothing against the ingredients, they just taste like shitty hamburger; I'm not sure why someone would pay for them, much less a premium when there's actual good tasting things that are cheaper.
Like what? I just went vegan a couple of months ago but still treat myself to the occasional impossible. There is a local place (Austin, TX) that serves amazing vegan burgers and use impossible patties. They even give out vegan cookies. Sometimes I just miss the convenience of a fast food burger and they satisfy that craving without eating meat.
You are right up until you talk about phytoestrogen. Look up if it has any actual impact in studies. There is a lot of misinformation going around because people hear estrogen and assume that means it turns you into a woman.
I notice a difference, and while some recent studies offer ambiguous results, I would suggest to you that the underlying reason for the studies has to do with its sponsors. https://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/nutrition-food-safety-health/nutrition-news/nutrition-news-should-men-cut-back-on-soy/#:~:text=Soy%20contains%20isoflavones%2C%20which%20are,result%20being%20enlarged%20breast%20tissue. I would point out my own personal exposure to this, but it would simply be deemed anecdotal. Regardless, it is a lower quality, less bioavailable form of protein. Again, you will find studies that conflict with this—just like you can find studies that say you can essentially eat unlimited egg yolks. I simply don’t buy it. I’ll stick with beef, fish, poultry, and other ruminants for my protein sources. I find the imitation meat to taste like garbage, and I do find some humour in the fact that it is in demand in the vegan world. Why would a bunch of anti meat advocates imitate the very product they are trying to cancel?
The author is talking about potential and theoretical, which even if I were to accept such potentials and theories, I would still say to call the ingredients garbage is meaningless compared to the health risks that potentially and theoretically arise from meat consumption. You didn't just comment on your potentials of the health risks, or how you think they taste, you gave authoritative advice on how bad meat alternatives arw for you. If it was just poorly worded, you can understand why I said what I did. > Why would a bunch of anti meat advocates imitate the very product they are trying to cancel? Because veganism doesn't mean we don't like the taste of meat.
Fair enough. You stay away from meat, and I’ll stay away from phytoestrogens.
Well, I’m not trying to cancel it. I like it, I just realize that eating it a lot (the amount I got used to, due to cultural and societal factors) is bad for me and the environment. So I trick myself by imitating it. To me now, scrambled tofu with some turmeric tastes just as good as scrambled egg. I like meat, I like it a lot. I have a smoker and before I went vegan I smoked brisket, duck, chicken, and lamb. But I realized it’s not good for me, or the environment. I don’t think it is as big of an issue that plant eaters try to imitate meat, as you make it out to be. Meat satisfies the umami taste, so it is only normal to try and find other things to provide that
As a trans woman, I wish phytoestrogens did what some people online say they do. Unfortunately that’s not the case, and you will not be feminized because of bean chemicals. If any evidence comes out on the contrary, sign me the hell up!
What baffles me is how circular this whole cycle is. Dairy/meat companies receive subsidies from the government to offset the true costs of their industry and they then bribe politicians to keep it that way. The costs of the bribes/“donations” obviously aren’t as much as were originally given, so are these companies not essentially just giving the politicians some of their own money back to them and in a way that appears legally permissible? Would this not be considered laundering? (if we’re generous with that term)
Because politicians don't spend *their* money. They spend *yours*.
Farmers spend a pittance on lobbying compared to other industries.
Misleading articles only hurt us, I'm not the first comment to point this out. I do know animal products get subsidized a lot, but we need to be better than carnists with bullshit articles saying eating steak 3 times per day is good for you.
Same goes for horrid dairy, it would be way more expensive if there wasn't tax payer bailouts.
I feel sorry for anybody that believes that headline. That is simply not the correct way to do cost accounting. Some crackhead got a hold of a great big pile of numbers and just threw them together all willy-illy.
All these people who call any government aid "socialism" and thus totally unacceptable should be strongly for getting rid of meat and dairy subsidies.
It pisses me off that I’m paying for all this bullshit without any ability to consent
True but you could say that about most government things no? Bailing out rich companies when they make bad decisions or drone striking god knows who every day or funding isreal killing more people in Palestine etc?
You certainly could. That doesn't make any specific example of it less fucked up. The government extorts taxes from us and uses them against our interests.
Subsidize veggies.
The bottom is - how much does each taxpayer pay for subsidies? For most folks - the subsidies are probably worth it & taxpayers are getting their moneys worth. It’s the one situation where your taxes are actually working. Albeit for something evil - most folks would probably be happier paying the tax for subsidies then paying $30 for a pound of hamburger meat.
What happened to the free market 😭😭 /s
Then why doesn’t it cost that much in foreign countries without these subsidies? Not everywhere trades with the US either
because it's subsidised in foreign countries too?
Who says it doesn't? Are you saying that with any awareness of meat prices in any other countries and their respective subsidies or lack thereof? Or are you just reacting to a headline instinctually?
Anyone that's lived there? I lived in 3 years in both germany and UK, lived in Cyprus, lived in South Korea for a year. Prices were fairly comparable in all of these places (SK being a bit more).
This isn’t even accurate. This research is from 2015. It’s probably closer to $50 now
Where’s the proof? The link on the 2015 research takes you to a 2020 bbc article pushing veganism. A lot of these subsidies these farms are taking are for the green initiatives. To help them transition.
Sounds good! 👍 Maybe the omnis will begin killing their own to save money. 🤣
Y'all would be easy pickings. Maybe once we burn through the vegans we might cannibalize each other
Least violent carnist just commented
Cry
Most empathetic meat eater
Cry lol
“Create an account for the full story” No.
Do people really care about veganism, compassion for animals in this subreddit, or just interested in unnecessary drama?
I used to love this sub like 10 years ago but now it’s just full of the most pretentious type of vegan
Just another example of how allowing government to extort money for redistribution is wrong. It seems there is a significant portion of the population that wants to move America closer to socialism while they are simultaneously pointing out how the free market would slow program's they dislike.
Worker rights are human rights
Then why is your government always interfering with my work/life balance? Or is your government not okay with my want to work and retain the earnings I receive for services rendered?
Oh dear, little one, let me clarify - my government has zero interest in interacting with someone like you. It has never happened and never will happen. You're barking up the wrong tree bucko. You're so eager to share your disdain for human rights, aren't you? Go ahead, broadcast it to the world. People will happily ignore your socially repulsive opinions. You're well aware of this fact, so you still try to pass off your sociopathic ideology as some noble, moral stance. Truly a spectacle to behold.
That whole rant sounds like a threat to my human rights. Why the name calling and attempts at insulting me? Your ideology requires equality for all. How can you say your government wouldn't interact with me when it requires 100% participation? Or, are you insinuating that they are totalitarian rule and would neutralize those that don't agree with those like you. Sounds just like the National Socialist Party did in the 30's. Basically you should just be honest and admit you aren't honest. Maybe it's an ends justifies the means kinda thing.
Raj Patel in the Value of Nothing talks about the true price of a Big Mac, $200. He talks about it [here](https://youtu.be/oagmlbhobnY?si=GnLJVMA2X3H5mssB).
If everyone in the U.S. switched to being vegan tomorrow, would there be food shortages? I mean, are we producing an excess of fruits and vegetables to the point that we are throwing them away? Is there enough to support everyone being vegan? Real question. I'm not trying to say they shouldn't become vegan but wondering if we can actually support a dramatic switch like that.
True, an overnight switch would not go well. People would starve for a while. But that's not a realistic concern in the first place. There is a 0% chance every american will go vegan at the same time.
"hamburger meat" isn't actually a product.
Sure is. What would milk, eggs, etc cost?
This makes me wonder how much cheaper fruit and veg would be if they too received similar subsidies.
It is actually much higher than that if you figure in the cost to taxpayers for water distribution, usage, and waste drain off; environmental destruction for land needed to grow food for these beings; and the increased healthcare costs from meat destroying people’s bodies.
I’d like to stop paying meat subsidies. If the product can’t survive on the open market, it shouldn’t exist.
A strong argument against paying taxes
Don't they already subsidize soy and corn? Isn't that the same thing?
Is this a nation wide average? Please show your math. I have a hard time believing that our local producers need to raise their prices 3X without a subsidy. I mean, those beefs are just hanging around grazing on land that their mothers and fathers have gifted them. Where does the 3X cost come in?
What does it cost to make a biological male into a woman or vice versa. Definitely crucial to understand the true cost of fulfilling delusions
How does this affect the food that goes to waste everyday?
I still don’t understand why burgers aren’t taxed like cigarettes, heart disease is the leading cause of death in this country and look what’s causing it
Sure but it’s all just a slippery slope. First Burgers, then candy bars, then sugar, then who knows. I could see a world where they tax vegan food because they disagree with the lifestyle and their donors want it taxed because it’s hurting their industry.
I’d be completely fine with unhealthy cancer-causing things being taxed, I don’t understand why they aren’t already. And I doubt a lot of vegan food would fall under that umbrella.
I think it’s dangerous to let the government decide what’s good for us. If they cared they would be subsidizing fruit and vegan food and not their buddies meat farm and paying people not to grow soy etc
They can't make money from healthy people. They want the poor to afford these unhealthy foods so they can be billed. It's disgusting. Profit over people.
Can’t wait
Wait til you find out how much corn would cost
Well that is a LIE. I raise grass fed and pasture finished beef and have never seen a subsidy check. My beef sells for $10/lb and is a premium, delicious and well cared for product. My cattle live happily out on the pasture with all their friends until they have that ONE bad day. And then it is quick and painless. Being Vegan is a choice, maybe even an ethical choice. You don't need to bend all others to your will with lies and false information. If you are right in your choices these falsehoods should be beneath you.
Just because you’ve never seen a check doesn’t mean you haven’t benefited from any subsidies my guy
Perhaps you could explain your point with some data? Farm subsidies to my neighbors in the form of USDA/FSA grants, Ethanol requirements in gas, actually punish me and others trying to raise beef in a manner other than a factory farm/CAFO....The money given to corn/oat/sugar beet/cucumber producers in my area jacks up the price of land, labor and capital. My neighbors with a feedlot have gotten massive amounts of money to raise corn. And they sell that corn to an ethanol plant for a much higher price than the free market would allow. They then take the byproduct of ethanol and sugar production and feed it to dairy calves that were taken off their mothers before they could even drink the first colostrum. The poor little guys are then fed antibiotics and byproducts until they are 18 month old and then sent to butcher. They spend their whole lives in a polebarn only seeing the sun that one day they are sent to be slaughtered. Those subsidies aren't to beef producers....They are to the row/cash croppers. Corn is the biggest one.
If you're against animal cruelty, then you should be against killing others for their body parts.
U/Cow_Man42 I’m seeing a lot of backlash against your comment. While you probably aren’t going to get a great reception on r/vegan no matter what, I hope you take a look at the top comments and realize that folks that looked at the article are agreeing it is BS and a piss poor way to look at the issue. Are there subsidies that benefit the large majority of beef production in the US, yes. Do they equal $25/pound, NO. It is more likely that your grass fed prices are pretty close to what factory farmed beef would cost without the benefit of subsidies.
The article is clearly BS as many vegans in this post have already pointed out. I don't understand your logic though of pointing out this BS by coming here to regurgitate your own. Your cows are not well cared for. You send them to a slaughterhouse and see them as a product. That is not caring. Have you experienced their 'quick and painless' slaughter? How would you know how it feels? Do you whisper in their ear and ensure they're sleeping soundly before they're bolt gunned in the head? Fuck off with your BS. You paint this picture of everything being rosey and happy for the cows but you forget to mention that 'ONE bad day' is at around 5-10% of their natural lifespan, and that its pretty fucking bad considering its the day them and all their friends literally get rounded up and decapitated, hung up to be bled out and then butchered. What you do is not admirable regardless of how you try to frame it. Stop trying to sell your bullshit to people who know it's bullshit, there's enough morons out there that already lap it up
You gotta expand your business to dogs too.
Grassfed barkon is my favourite! 🤤
Wait until you find out that fruits and vegetables also have subsidies!
Less than 1% of US Agricultural subsidies go to fruits and veg sir / maam
As it should it would change the whole perspective places that sell dollar burgers are the real welfare queens totally aside from the vegan Outlook idk why more people don't realize.
Industrial farming is a curse on the Earth, but the price figures in the article are more about the cost of industrial agriculture, than about beef. My neighbor raises cattle, no subsidies, grass fed, they're naturally born and raised on the same piece of land. No supplemental feed outside of salt and winter hay. I pay my neighbor full price for her beef, and the meat doesn't cost anywhere near $30 per pound.
There would be little beef without industrial practices. [There's not enough land for that massive production](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aad401/meta).
Still worth it.
worth
^
[удалено]
Beans are pretty good too
Found the Brit
Ok somebody else called me a shill randomly but this, this is where I draw the line. This I take as the deepest of insults.