
Lawyer Explains How Meat and Dairy Industries Cost U.S. Taxpayer $414B a Year - elorant
https://www.plantbasednews.org/lifestyle/animal-food-industry-taxpayer-414-billion-year
======
jacknews
If you roll all the 'external costs' into almost anything, it ends up
'subsidized'.

I agree meat and dairy are actually subsidized by various farm programs and
other factors, but I'm not sure the figures here make sense.

For one thing, meat production uses almost 2/3 of agricultural land, either as
pasture, or feedstock production. I think if you realistically accounted for
habitat loss, etc, you'd arrive at a figure far above what the article claims.

On the other hand, you can't really blame the industry entirely for people's
poor health, so lumping those costs into a 'subsidy' doesn't make sense.

And finally, I am not convinced by veganism. My family and I switched to a
"much more vegetarian" diet over a year ago; at least half meals are meat-
free, the rest with reduced meat or switched to less environmentally damaging
meats (beef->chicken, etc).

It's worked well, but I'm reluctant to go even completely vegetarian, because
of health concerns, especially for the kids, and certainly not vegan, until
there is good proof otherwise.

~~~
ablerman
Is the China study adequate evidence for you? It was a 20 year study about the
link between consuming animal products and chronic illness.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_China_Study)

~~~
jacknews
No, it's a book, 'loosely based' on research dating to the 70's.

There's clear evidence that processed meats, too much meat etc (aka not enough
greens?) is bad for you.

There's also very clear evidence that a vegan diet without supplements is bad
for you, and who knows what supplements and micronutrients are really required
over the long term, especially for child development?

------
HumblyTossed
Corn is in nearly everything on the shelf at grocery stores. How much does
that cost the U.S. Taxpayer every year once you factor in subsidies,
healthcare, etc?

------
kesor
Ehh... so many false assumptions in this article, and probably in the book by
the distinguished vegan advocate.

> "According to Simon, animal ag is not the only industry that externalizes
> costs. He cites the oil and tobacco industries - but says 'the animal food
> industry, in my estimate, has been better at it than any other industry in
> this country'."

What about the plant agriculture industry? No subsidies? No price reduction
and messaging to eat more plant based processed foods? How much plant based
garbage do Americans eat? Specifically bread and corn.

> "Those low prices are driving us to eat much more of these products than we
> would otherwise and that is why Americans have among the highest rates in
> the world of cancer, diabetes, and heart disease," he says.

> "We have about almost three times the rate of cancer as the rest of the
> world in this country, almost directly related to the consumption of meat.
> Yes, you can pay a little less for a hamburger but in a few decades, you're
> gonna have cancer. Is it really worth it?"

But is it meat that is responsible for these illnesses? Or maybe it is the
hamburger bun that is made of wheat, and the syrup that contains a bunch of
corn based sugar? Where is the evidence that purely eating meat, vs. eating
processed food is bad for health?

As far as I know (everyone can make claims these days, including me) most
research points the blame finger on processed food. And "processed food" means
food that usually wouldn't include plant based toxic additives, but since its
cheap-er (subsidies?) it does. So good luck finding a sausage in your super
market that has no corn based sugar added to it. Or good luck solving your
health problems by drinking fruit juice every day.

~~~
Tarrosion
> What about the plant agriculture industry?

Animals eat plants. So in much the same way that a subsidy on meat is a
subsidy on hamburgers - which require meat to produce - a subsidy on plants is
also a subsidy on meat.

We should also keep in mind that it takes many calories of plants fed to
animals to produce one calorie of meat. Thus plant agriculture subsidies
consumed per calorie of meat are likely much higher than plant agriculture
subsidies consumed per calorie of plant.

------
0-_-0
Is it really true that eating meat causes cancer? The argument is vague but
this seems to be an important part of it.

~~~
kesor
No, it is not true.

What is true, and shown in a lot of research, is that eating a lot of sugar
and processed food causes a plethora of health issues. That might include
processed meat products, or in other words meat that has fat removed from it
(making it taste awful) and sugar added (to make it taste okay again). And
most sugar is produced (in the US) from corn syrup, which is also heavily
subsidized and thus very cheap, making processed meat much cheaper than
selling proper meat.

~~~
EForEndeavour
What makes you so confidently dismiss the link between (red) meat and cancer?

Prominent scientific and nutritional voices on this topic disagree, and it's
frankly confusing and frustrating to me as a non-scientist. But what I can
confidently say about the healthfulness-of-red-meat debate is that it's by no
means as settled as your "no, it is not true" statement implies.

This Feb 2020 article sums up the scientific debate well:
[https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/whats-the-
bee...](https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/whats-the-beef-with-
red-meat)

Takeaways copied from the article:

Red and processed meats _do_ increase health risks.

You don't need to eat red meat. "You can get the same amounts — and in some
cases even more — from poultry, fish, eggs, and nuts, and as well as by
following a plant-based diet."

~~~
kesor
I have read my fair share of studies, in none of them "purely red meat" was
the cause of the hypothetical health problems. I have yet found a study that
directly links red meat with any health problem. You are welcome to share one
if you found it. It is always the processed food that is present in the
studies, and most studies are "questionnaire studies", where they ask people
if they eat red meat, which usually means they ate burgers, and then they ask
if these same people have health problems. Bullshit studies with bullshit
results. Please do find a study that can show the contrary (not an article).

~~~
EForEndeavour
Can you please produce a link to any of the "fair share" of studies you allude
to? And can you please refute the points in the link I shared above, the ones
implicating red meat with health problems?

------
donkeyd
This is what I hate every time there's a big discussion about subsidies for
electric cars and how they shouldn't exist if they can't be sold without
subsidies. There are so many things we use every day that get (or got) massive
subsidies so that we get them. Even the fossil fuel industry is still getting
massive subsidies [0]. And the bailout of US automakers cost taxpayers an
estimated 10B [1], which is pretty much a subsidy.

0:
[https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesellsmoor/2019/06/15/united-
states-spend-ten-times-more-on-fossil-fuel-subsidies-than-
education/#1573c46d4473)

1: [https://www.thebalance.com/auto-industry-bailout-gm-ford-
chr...](https://www.thebalance.com/auto-industry-bailout-gm-ford-
chrysler-3305670)

------
LanceH
This "article" is mere assertion and reference to his book where it will all
be explained (another assertion).

Sure, we can discuss agriculture or not eating meat or single payer, but this
article offers nothing.

------
telesilla
I will never forget the first time I stepped into a U.S. supermarket and saw
that a dozen eggs could be bought for $1 or so. Where I come from, that would
be $5 at least. I was shocked and told my friends: "Who is not getting paid so
that we can buy eggs that cheap"? Which was before I realised: subsidies.

~~~
kesor
Most countries have subsidized "basic food products" such as eggs, bread and
milk.

------
oxymoran
Strike 1- “Lawyer explains” Strike 2-plant based news Strike 3-meat causes
cancer

------
asimpletune
Sometimes I wonder if we could price things to reflect their true costs, would
many of the complex, interconnected problems of the present just naturally
start to untangle.

For example, I pay ~$60/mo for Recology to drive to our house and take our
trash, recycling and compost away. I always think, it can’t cost so little.
Yet so many products come with excessive amounts of packaging, which adds to
those costs, but no one seems to be overtly paying for it. If it were
literally more expensive to buy a product with wasteful and excessive
packaging, then maybe company’s would be motivated to invent more creative and
effective packaging that wastes less, to compete on price.

Another is how most of our internet experiences are subsidized. It’s not like
that doesn’t cost us more somewhere else? Advertisers have to cough up the
dough for their ads and they’re going to build those costs into their price.
However, if we lived in a different world where paying for apps and our online
experience in general, then I feel like there’s a much more direct and
efficient mechanism to connect the costs of the internet with supporting what
you actually like about it.

Paying for stuff could probably save the world, and it wouldn’t even require
invoking the scary words like “socialism”. Just an old fashioned simple
solution.

