Here’s another way to summarize this: Wealthy ‘liberal’ elites want to make groceries even more expensive when food prices have been rising faster than the CPI.
Factory farms, as distasteful as they may be to many, keep food prices lower through economies of scale. Once you start shutting that down, food gets sharply more expensive, especially for the people that can least afford it. Energy would be better directed, IMO, towards improving conditions in industrial farming, rather than trying to eliminate it.
It’s theoretically possible to reduce cost of food and reduce factory farming if we convert feed fields to other human-consumable options. Additionally, water is conserved, and greenhouse gasses (methane) are further limited.
It’s my opinion that we should not stick with and try to iterate on a bad, unjust, and unfavorable system for the sake of keeping prices low with our current dietary preferences.
I am a current meat eater and former 6 year vegetarian.
It’s my opinion that we should not stick with and try to iterate on a bad, unjust, and unfavorable system for the sake of keeping prices low with our current dietary preferences.
My issue is that you’re trying to legislate changes to diet, and you’re doing it by eliminating options. Or by making it unaffordable to anyone without significant disposable income. If you change ‘preferences’, then the issue goes away on it’s own; factory farms exist because there’s a demand.
If it wasn’t for the unavoidable fact that eliminating farm subsidies would increase food insecurity, I’d say do that. But there’s no good way to do that in a way that won’t also increase risks of farms going bankrupt and poor people not being able to afford food.
If you’re finding that people don’t want to change their diets with the messaging that you’re using, then you need to change your messaging.
for individuals who pay retail price for all their food. people who get free meat or dairy or harvest their own are not a party of that study. it applies to almost none of the poor people in the world, including the UK and Europe
Here’s another way to summarize this: Wealthy ‘liberal’ elites want to make groceries even more expensive when food prices have been rising faster than the CPI.
Factory farms, as distasteful as they may be to many, keep food prices lower through economies of scale. Once you start shutting that down, food gets sharply more expensive, especially for the people that can least afford it. Energy would be better directed, IMO, towards improving conditions in industrial farming, rather than trying to eliminate it.
It’s theoretically possible to reduce cost of food and reduce factory farming if we convert feed fields to other human-consumable options. Additionally, water is conserved, and greenhouse gasses (methane) are further limited.
It’s my opinion that we should not stick with and try to iterate on a bad, unjust, and unfavorable system for the sake of keeping prices low with our current dietary preferences.
I am a current meat eater and former 6 year vegetarian.
My issue is that you’re trying to legislate changes to diet, and you’re doing it by eliminating options. Or by making it unaffordable to anyone without significant disposable income. If you change ‘preferences’, then the issue goes away on it’s own; factory farms exist because there’s a demand.
If it wasn’t for the unavoidable fact that eliminating farm subsidies would increase food insecurity, I’d say do that. But there’s no good way to do that in a way that won’t also increase risks of farms going bankrupt and poor people not being able to afford food.
If you’re finding that people don’t want to change their diets with the messaging that you’re using, then you need to change your messaging.
A whole foods plant-based diet is 30% cheaper and healthier.
for individuals who pay retail price for all their food. people who get free meat or dairy or harvest their own are not a party of that study. it applies to almost none of the poor people in the world, including the UK and Europe