Claim: If we end the meat subsidy, then people will suffer


The claim here is that subsidizing the dying industries of animal products is important because people will suffer from malnutrition as a result

Problems With This Argument

1. There's no free lunch

These products only look cheaper because they already took your money out of your paycheck to pay for it.

2. Animal agriculture subsidies actually promote malnutrition

The quantity of animal agriculture subsidies is on the order of tens of billions a year, which could easily be used for food stamps and other similar nutrition programs (which incidentally are being cut as animal agriculture handouts expand). Just take that money and use it to actually feed children nutritious food and quit handing it out to farmers to make Big Macs cheaper.

In addition, because animal products are so resource intensive, we are unable to feed our whole population because it's equivalent to throwing at least three-quarters of your meal away and eating only the last quarter when you eat meat. We could feed our own population 2-3 times over if we didn't waste it by feeding it to livestock and making the price of meat reflect this true reality would be a major step towards ending hunger in the United States.

Markdown - (copy 📋)
Rich Text
[Claim: If we end the meat subsidy, then people will suffer](