Mostly that subsidies are, despite the mainstream impression given by a very small number of sectors, quite heavily regulated. And that nobody is really buying the meat replacements - in my area, they’re 30%-50% more expensive than the actual meat products they imitate. The reality of humanity is that until we can make the ethical choice at least as easy as the unethical choice, there will be no widespread adoption of the ethical choice. Subsidizing the immitation-meat industry with even a fraction of what the real-meat industry receives would be a great way to start reaching that social tipping point.
I’m not so sure about that, what’s stopping the companies from just pocketing that sweet sweet cash when people are buying the alternatives anyways?
Mostly that subsidies are, despite the mainstream impression given by a very small number of sectors, quite heavily regulated. And that nobody is really buying the meat replacements - in my area, they’re 30%-50% more expensive than the actual meat products they imitate. The reality of humanity is that until we can make the ethical choice at least as easy as the unethical choice, there will be no widespread adoption of the ethical choice. Subsidizing the immitation-meat industry with even a fraction of what the real-meat industry receives would be a great way to start reaching that social tipping point.
If the subsidies actually make the meat alternatives cheaper, I’m all for it. I also think ending the subsidies for animal meat should be considered.
yes! competition! that’s what makes capitalism great!
They won’t if it’s more expensive? A small portion of people are buying it, but more would if tbe price was at least at parity.