×
Responding to my call for costlier meats, Tyro writes:
Every additional dollar that meat costs is one dollar less you have to save. It's bad enough that chicken is more expensive than beef in relative terms. It would be even worse if both were more expensive, even if their cost per pound were closer.But this assumes a static demand for meat. My argument is based on the opposite presumption: That demand for meat is mutable, and that pricier meat will make it fall, and that this will be good. It is not cheaper to feed your kids beef than to feed them pasta, as any broke college student knows. Similarly, a pound of chicken is quite a bit costlier than a pound of tofu. Vegetable broth isn't generally pricier than chicken broth. Sweet potatoes cost less than pork. And on, and on, and on.Indeed, insofar as meat seems to be a cheap way to eat, I'm arguing that this is, in fact, deceptive. It's a result of fairly massive subsidies that accrue to both the direct raising of livestock and the production of corn, which is then processed into cheap feed. It's similarly helped along by the fact that a lot of the environmental externalities -- see here for more on those -- aren't factored into the price. And that's to say nothing of the total inattention to animal welfare. If more of those costs were included, and the subsidies were eliminated, meat would be more expensive. But other things would be cheaper. And other dietary decisions would be made. There's no reason our diets have to be as meat-centric as they are. In fact, it would probably be far better for our health and for the environment if meat were more of a side dish, or an occasional inclusion. Our dietary patterns are, in part, shaped by the economics of the meat industry. Reshape the economics, and we'll reshape the dietary patterns.
