665
Plant Milk Is Better For Us and the Climate. So Why Do We Subsidize Dairy?
(www.motherjones.com)
this post was submitted on 02 Oct 2023
665 points (88.2% liked)
politics
19104 readers
3042 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Subsidies only benefit the big "farms" (industrial operations) and encourage producing the subsidized crop regardless of its value. The incentives are so perverse that farms end up dumping their milk because there is no market for the amount produced.
Personally am in favor of eliminating all food subsidies. Making food valuable could eliminate so many of our other societal problems - poor health, destruction of natural resources, overpopulation.
There are very obvious negative side effects to making food more expensive.
I can come up with my own, but what are some of the side effects you're thinking of? Right now food is so cheap that most people's only metric is price, with no consideration for quality, nutrition, environmental impact, etc. Most of what we are eating isn't really food, just an engineered combination of four or five heavily subsidized crops.
This makes no sense to me - people can choose healthy or unhealthy options because food is so cheap generally. Do you think that if food becomes expensive people will buy more healthy food for... reasons?
This is pure bullshit.
Maybe you don't live in the US. At least here, people spend a smaller portion of their income on food than any society at any time in history, but the most on health care. Not getting into the many reasons health care is so expensive, the fact that food is an afterthought has clearly led to major health issues. So what I am suggesting is that if we had to give more weight to decisions around food it could lead to better choices for our health. My bias is that I'm against the direction our society is heading tech-wise, so in my scenario people would be spending more time with their families and communities and less time and money rampantly consuming products.
Regarding your second comment, how would you describe the majority of products in grocery stores if not what I claimed they are?
You think making food more expensive is going to make people make better choices about what food they buy? I don't think you live in the US, I think you live in fantasy land.
🙄
"Food".
It's not exactly a mystery that when something costs more people do it less. If subsidies went away, the price of processed "foods" made up of highly subsidized ingredients would rise. Most fresh fruits and vegetables are not subsidized so they would not. Do you not think it's possible that if the price of poptarts, frozen waffles, and white bread surpassed fresh ingredients, some amount of people would choose to make their own breakfast? Similarly, big dairy and meat operations recieve the majority of subsidies in their industry. During COVID as prices rose, many people began buying meat and dairy locally.
If you consider boxed meals, canned goods with chemical additives, and shelf stable bread to be real food then I won't argue with you.
Then we're done.
you can just subsidize food generally if that's the worry
You can... But we've chosen to subsidize farming since that tends to be the raw ingredients. So in a way all food is kinda subsidized.