A Pound of Hamburger Meat Would Cost $30 Without Tax Payer Subsidies - eviltoast

The United States federal government allocates a staggering $38 billion annually to prop up the meat and dairy industries. These subsidies significantly reduce the price of meat products, including hamburgers. Research from 2015 reveals that these subsidies slash the price of a pound of hamburger meat from $30 to the $5 we see today

  • RustyEarthfire@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    7 months ago

    I oppose beef subsidies, but the unsubsidized price seems entirely fabricated. How can $38 billion across 80 billion pounds of meat and 25 billion gallons of milk make hamburger $25 cheaper per pound?

  • aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    7 months ago

    Farm subsidies are a thing in general. Is there a comparison to subsidies for crops? Not vegan but I support cutting beef & dairy subsidies for sure.

    • halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      You don’t want to even start to look into subsidies for things like grain and corn. The subsidies for those are higher than the beef and dairy industry.

          • capital@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            7 months ago

            More overall to feed it to cattle since that will always have us growing more plants than we would otherwise.

          • delirious_owl@discuss.online
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            7 months ago

            Zero.

            The natives that cultivated corn never used petrochemicals. They planted beans with the corn, which provides all the nitrogen needed.

            • Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              7 months ago

              Yes planting the three sisters is a great way to farm in the arid west. It also requires the crops to be hand planted, weeded and harvested. There is no way that this could be done on a large enough scale to feed the current population or even the population 50 years ago.

              There is a reason monocroping and petrochemical fertilizer exists. It is the most harmful form of farming, but is also the one way that enough food can be grown.

              I dislike the current farming system, but to go back 100+ years to a time. When the only way to have the labor needed to farm was sharecropping or worse doesn’t seem like a solution to me.

              • delirious_owl@discuss.online
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                7 months ago

                The reason it exists is because less people contribute to the growing process.

                Its entirely false to think that we cannot feed our existing population without mechanized monocropping. We just need every able bodied person to contribute a few weeks out of the year to the fields. It is a shift, bit its not asking much.

                Stop spreading misinformation. We don’t need oil. We van easily feed everyone with sustainable methods. What we can’t do is keep burning fossil fuels.

                • Everythingispenguins@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  7 months ago

                  Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. I can’t even. Dude you have no idea what you are talking about. Do you even know where we got nitrogen fertilizer before petrochemical? We were scraping bird poop off rookies and digging up bat caves. Destroying those populations as we did.

                  If you really believe this I would suggest you go try to pick veggies for a day. And not just a few in your back yard. Go out and spend 12 hours in the hot sun bent over as you get paid by the pound. Then come back here and say it is easy.

        • Classy@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          7 months ago

          Let’s ignore the absolute devastation to our ecosystem for the untold millions of acres of monoculture

  • JoshuaFalken@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Paywalls are a nuisance.

    Article text

    The True Cost of a Hamburger: Unveiling Hidden Subsidies

    Hamburgers, those quintessential fast-food delights, have become a staple in many diets around the world. But what if I told you that the price you pay for that juicy patty doesn’t reflect its true cost? Buckle up as we explore why a pound of hamburger meat could cost a whopping $30 without taxpayer subsidies. The Subsidization Game

    The United States federal government allocates a staggering $38 billion annually to prop up the meat and dairy industries. These subsidies significantly reduce the price of meat products, including hamburgers. Research from 2015 reveals that these subsidies slash the price of a pound of hamburger meat from $30 to the $5 we see today

    However, here’s the catch: subsidies merely lower the market price of meat. They don’t account for the total cost of meat production. Instead, they shift part of these costs onto non-meat consumers. In a truly free market, consumers should bear the full costs of production. But with subsidized meat, those who neither consume meat nor benefit from its production end up footing part of the bill. Environmental Impact

    Beyond economics, let’s consider the environmental toll. Industrialized agriculture, including meat production, plays a significant role in climate change and resource depletion. Here’s how:

    Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Agricultural land use contributes to 13% of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Half of these emissions stem from livestock production. Going vegan would significantly reduce this impact
    Amazon Rainforest Destruction: Meat subsidies inadvertently incentivize the destruction of the Amazon rainforest. Brazil, a major beef producer, received substantial government investments in the beef industry. Unfortunately, this led to illegal rainforest burning to make room for cattle ranching, endangering thousands of species
    

    Why Beans are the Best Protein in the World:

    Beans, those humble legumes, hold a secret superpower: they’re super sustainable! Let’s dive into why beans are the unsung heroes of the protein world:

    Climate Champion:

    Meat production contributes to 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, beans emit 90% less harmful greenhouse gases per 100 grams of protein compared to beef.
    Beans even benefit the environment by converting atmospheric nitrogen into usable soil nutrients. They’re like tiny nitrogen-fixing wizards!
    

    Land Saver:

    Livestock grazing consumes a whopping 26% of the world’s terrestrial surface. Cattle require 20 times more land per unit of protein than beans.
    Imagine if we swapped beef for beans: over 40% of US cropland would be freed up! That’s a green revolution waiting to happen.
    

    Soil Health:

    Even after harvest, beans leave some nitrogen in the soil. This boosts soil quality and reduces the need for excess fertilizers.
    Rotating beans with other crops enhances future yields and keeps diseases at bay. It’s like a natural soil spa day.
    

    Water Warrior:

    Producing a kilogram of beef guzzles 43 times more water than beans. Bean cultivation requires fewer fertilizers, preserving water quality.
    Beans sip water like eco-conscious tea drinkers.
    

    Biodiversity Booster:

    Beans promote biodiversity by fixing nitrogen in the ground. They’re like the life coaches of ecosystems.
    Plus, they’re a crucial component of natural functioning ecosystems.
    

    Why Going Vegan Is Best

    Now, let’s shift gears and explore why embracing a vegan lifestyle is not only better for the planet but also for our health:

    Heart Health: Research involving 48,000 people over 18 years found that vegans and vegetarians have a lower risk of heart disease compared to meat-eaters. However, they do face a slightly higher risk of stroke due to potential vitamin B12 deficiency. But fear not — nutritional yeast or fortified foods can easily provide this essential vitamin
    Reduced Environmental Footprint: Going vegan significantly shrinks our environmental impact. It conserves water, reduces deforestation, and minimizes greenhouse gas emissions. It’s like a green superhero cape for your plate!
    Healthier Diet: A well-planned vegan diet is rich in fiber, vitamins, and minerals. It allows room for health-promoting options like whole grains, fruits, nuts, seeds, and vegetables. Plus, it’s kinder to animals and supports biodiversity.
    

    So, next time you sink your teeth into a burger, remember that its true cost extends beyond the price tag. And perhaps consider swapping that beef patty for a plant-based alternative — it’s not just good for your health but also for the planet.

    They wrote this seemingly on the back of 2015 subsidy research that they link to but instead it’s a different article by the BBC that has no information about these subsidies. So it’s not clear what the article is predicated on. Though some good points are made, I like to see more of the data presented in articles like this.

    • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      7 months ago

      he gets zero federal subsidies!

      How do you know? These subsidies need not be direct. For example, cattle feed could be subsidised. Not even the farmer might know that he’s actually getting a subsidy.

      Having said that, I know that at least in the EU, farmers are given very generous direct subsidies, propping up an unsustainable and ecologically destructive industry.

    • ZMonster@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’d eat my hat if they weren’t taking subsidies and charging full price anyway.

      • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        7 months ago

        Commodities markets can’t really do that unless the distributor controls everything. The chicken industry gets close to that, but since they’re out to screw both the consumers that buy their chickens and the farmers who raise them (chicken processors usually have hatcheries in the same complex as where they slaughter the grown ones, while Tyson and Perdue also being the some of the biggest feed suppliers), they tend to want to just grow the market as much as they can so they can continue to shave their margin off of every poor fucker they come in contact with

  • DAMunzy@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    7 months ago

    Sounds like the same math that business owners used when they said the California $20 minimum wage for fast food workers would drive them out of business.

  • kaffiene@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    ·
    7 months ago

    I find that very hard to believe. I live in New Zealand where there are no subsidies on beef and a pound - roughly 500grams - of minced beef would cost you under NZ $10 - less than $6 US. $30 US sounds utterly unbelievable

  • lqdrchrd@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    I had no idea it was that bad, thanks for sharing. Do you have a way of viewing the full article without signing up for an account?

  • Hotmailer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    7 months ago

    Right, why is that not the case in other countries? If this were true, most of the world would be vegetarian

    • labsin@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      7 months ago

      Most of the world does indeed eats little to no meat, especially red meat. In the EU, these kind of subsidies also exist.

      • kaffiene@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        7 months ago

        Plenty of the rest of the world eats lot of meat. All of the Western world, all of south America.

        • labsin@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Most isn’t the right word. In countries where the government doesn’t or can’t keep the cost is meat down, a lot of people don’t east meet daily as it’s more expensive than other food sources. Gigantic subsidies for meat and diary exist in the US, EU, China, Brasil,…