REMOVING THE MEAT SUBSIDY: OUR COGNITIVE DISSONANCE AROUND ANIMAL AGRICULTURE.

• Author: Sewell, Christina
• Position: GLOBAL PUBLIC POLICY NETWORK STUDENT ESSAY CONTEST

THE DISTRACTING NOTION OF MEAT'S IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT

At this fall's "Climate Crisis" town hall forum on CNN, Democratic front-runner Senator Elizabeth Warren dismissed the idea of reduced meat consumption as a simple distraction: "This is exactly what the fossil fuel industry hopes we're all talking about... [They want to make this] your problem. They want to be able to stir up a lot of controversy around your lightbulbs, straws, and cheeseburgers." (1)

Senator Cory Booker, the only vegan running for office, did not wish to draw more attention to his dinner plate: "Freedom is one of our most sacred values. Whatever you want to eat, go ahead and eat it." (2)

When asked if she would support dietary guideline changes that would lower greenhouse gas emissions caused by meat heavy diets, Senator Kamala Harris responded that she loves cheeseburgers: "I mean I--I just do." (3)

These presidential candidates were eager to discount the impact of our food system in a time of plentiful scientific research illustrating that current trends in meat consumption will soon exceed planetary boundaries for human life, after which Earth's ecosystems will become unstable. (4) It's why a research team from the University of Oxford recently reported that a vegan diet is the single biggest way to reduce one's impact on the planet--far larger than cutting down on flights or buying an electric car. (5) Yet rather than seize an opportunity to accurately address Americans about the negative environmental impacts of the meat industry, our elected leaders used the moment to suggest...cheeseburgers for everyone.

Meanwhile, every candidate participating in the evening's town hall passionately explained their plans to levy carbon taxes on the fossil fuel industry. This is crucial to combating climate change--but why behave as if we cannot and should not address another principal factor driving the emergency? Perhaps it shouldn't come as a surprise that such a question regarding our food system, which reflects an uncomfortable cognitive dissonance within the vast majority of American voters, failed to receive an appropriately sober response on this Democratic Primary stage. After all, the long discussed idea of carbon taxes on oil and gas companies, which points to a clear external villain, continues to draw indecisive figures from economists and wide-ranging inaction from the policymakers they advise.

Despite the harrowing scientific reports, we see policy suggestions such as a meat tax that would lower consumption of animal-derived products often met with raised eyebrows and jokes about the intensity of vegans. Rather than discomfort with the implication that eating meat is unethical, we might consider this reaction a simple rebuttal to higher taxes, for which history proves there will always be objections. In this case, we are in luck, because no tax is necessary, only a removal of the billions of dollars in subsidies Americans already provide animal agriculture every year.

A SUBSIDY REMOVAL BY ANY OTHER NAME WOULD SMELL AS FREE OF MANURE

Is it possible that our political leaders shy away from addressing animal-derived products' impact on the environment for reasons more complex and insidious than a lack of understanding the magnitude of the problem?

According to recent studies, the U.S. government spends up to $38 billion each year to subsidize the meat and dairy industries, with less than one percent of that sum allocated to aiding the production of fruits and vegetables. (6) Most agricultural subsidies go to farmers of livestock and a handful of major crops, including corn, soybeans, wheat, rice, and cotton, with payments skewed toward the largest producers. Corn and soy inputs, in particular, are heavily subsidized crops for the production of meat and processed food by some of the world's largest meat and dairy corporations. These farm subsidy programs supplement adverse fluctuations in revenues and production, and purchase farmers' insurance coverage, product marketing, export sales, and research and development. (7) This means that while shoppers pay lower immediate prices at the checkout counter, their tax dollars fund major meat operations and advertising. Meanwhile, meat and dairy producers accrue yearly retail sales to the tune of 250 billion dollars. (8)

In addition to subsidies, Americans pay for meat consumption through healthcare costs and climate disruption. As David Simon illustrates in his book Meatonomics, consumers foot an estimated $2 in external costs for every $ 1 of product the meat and dairy industry sells. (9) In other words, a $4 Big Mac actually costs society $11.

The impact of meat consumption isn't limited to America's borders. Take for instance the findings of a recent report by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN (FAO), which states that agricultural subsidies in economically advanced countries such as the U.S. artificially depress international market prices, so much that they induce poorer nations to import food that local farmers could otherwise produce more efficiently. (10) These farmers are then forced to exit the market because they can't afford to grow local crops, much less put food on the table for their families. The FAO reports that eliminating agricultural subsidies in the U.S. alone would lift millions of people out of poverty around the world. In contrast, American meat subsidies have spurred the average U.S. citizen to consume about 200 pounds of meat a year, more than twice the global average and nearly twice as much as Americans ate in 1961. (11)

We can't limit the consideration of meat consumption's impacts to land, either. Should humans continue fishing at current levels, research published in Science points to the global collapse of all targeted fish species by the year 2048. (12) Already, more than half of the ocean's surface is being impacted by industrial fishing, an area four times the landmass covered by agriculture, with billions of dollars in government subsidies creating the fitting conditions. (13) Countries that provide the largest subsidies to their fishing fleets are Japan, Spain, China, South Korea, and the United States, (14) with an aggregate cost far exceeding net economic benefits. Without these subsidies, the industry would not remain profitable.

And so the multi-billion dollar question looms like a floating pink elephant in an increasingly overcrowded room: when will Americans acknowledge our cognitive dissonance around meat consumption and end subsidy programs benefiting animal agriculture in favor of public programs that promote fruits, vegetables, and...