Context was the idea of a government banning certain popular foods

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    246 days ago

    There’s a big difference between food safety and not eating meat. One is about companies putting dangerous stuff in food that can potentially harm people, the other is about something which humans have been eating ever since they existed. I understand that there are some arguments to be given about why we shouldn’t eat meat, but those are definitely not as widely supported as disallowing the companies to inject “poison” into our food. In my opinion banning meat definitely would go way too far, the cost of banning meat far exceeds the benefits for public wellbeing.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      76 days ago

      And if you wanted to stop people eating meat, you would subsidize plant based food so by virtue of economics every person would eat at least 70% government funded plant food.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          36 days ago

          Oh, that is already happening now. The average person in the west eats about 70% plant based foods, mostly ultra processed. In the US specifically corn subsidies mean corn is in every processed food, hence the ubiquity of HFCS (The C is for Corn).

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            36 days ago

            True, it can be a double edged sword. But if there was a broader scope of what could be planted and subsidized, issues like that with corn wouldn’t be as prevalent I would think. Since so few are subsidized, corn gets a ton of attention.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        26 days ago

        Also lab-grown meat. If we could replace meat from animals with meat grown in a lab, I think a lot of meat-eaters would make the switch. Currently lab-grown is pretty expensive from what I understand, but over time it should get cheaper as the technology becomes more widespread.