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.
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.