meat alternatives need to be subsidized to be adopted and generate demand, to then saying they are already eaten
I’m point at cheap food and saying “We already eat this as a meat alternative” and then pointing at your list of alt-meats and saying “They need to be cheaper and more heavily distributed if you want market saturation”.
The core of my original thesis is that people who can currently afford to purchase and eat animal meat, do not choose to forgo it
If that were true, alt-meats wouldn’t exist. Clearly there’s a market for alternatives. Clearly it is popular enough to be profitable for manufacturers.
But the need to make these alternatives profitable when real meat can receive subsidies and excess meat waste can be sold at a material loss while still netting people downstream a big chunk of revenue continues to hold back how far and fast alternatives can spread. Meat in American under the current agricultural model is effectively a luxury amenity provided by the state. The reason tofu costs as much as turkey is because of domestic agricultural policies.
Until you change those policies, alt-meats will be fighting the economic gravity of cheap, accessible traditional meals.
I’m point at cheap food and saying “We already eat this as a meat alternative”
That wasn’t my argument though. My point was that for people who can afford meat, they can already also afford the really REALLY similar plant meat, but still won’t switch for cultural or taste reasons.
If that were true, alt-meats wouldn’t exist.
They exist, but the demand is very low because few people will actually give up animal meat for plant meat. That is my point.
Until you change those policies, alt-meats will be fighting the economic gravity of cheap, accessible traditional meals.
I believe it is far more difficult or even impossible in our current political system to change the policy to make meat more expensive. Under that reality, the only realistic option we have to is to circumvent the corporate captured political system by collectively ceasing purchasing animal meat in favor of any plant alternative (whatever is their preference).
It is much easier in theory to simply pick a different product at a store, than it is to convince politicians to pass legislation that will make meat more expensive, which will be perceived as simply making animal meat a luxury food for the rich (there is no political will to make that happen, and too much lobbying money from big agra).
My point was that for people who can afford meat, they can already also afford the really REALLY similar plant meat
If they don’t have a grocery store that carries it, they’re facing a time-cost that exceeds any value add. If they are unaware its on the shelf, that won’t matter. Hence the need for expanded marketing and counter-programming and public grocery stores that carry meatless alternatives front-and-center in the aisles normally reserved for giant hunks of dead animal.
the demand is very low because few people will actually give up animal meat
Plenty of people have given up animal meat. That’s obviously not the problem. You point to India like its a small thing. That’s 1/6th of the world’s population.
The demand for rice and beans isn’t low. The demand for tofu isn’t low. It’s a $500M market that’s slated to hit $800M in the next five years. When the economic incentives are there, people take them. So long as we subsidize meat, they won’t bother.
It is much easier in theory to simply pick a different product at a store
Not under the deluge of agricultural propaganda or the pride of place certain foods take relative to others. Hell - and I can’t believe this continues to bare mentioning - not all grocery stores carry the same foods. Not all communities have grocery stores. Addressing this deficit goes a long way towards shifting dietary habits.
One big reason why India doesn’t have a big consumption habit with meat is that Indian groceries don’t stock meat. Pretending there’s a choice to have beef in a Hindu society or bacon in an orthodox Muslim one is delusional.
I’m point at cheap food and saying “We already eat this as a meat alternative” and then pointing at your list of alt-meats and saying “They need to be cheaper and more heavily distributed if you want market saturation”.
If that were true, alt-meats wouldn’t exist. Clearly there’s a market for alternatives. Clearly it is popular enough to be profitable for manufacturers.
But the need to make these alternatives profitable when real meat can receive subsidies and excess meat waste can be sold at a material loss while still netting people downstream a big chunk of revenue continues to hold back how far and fast alternatives can spread. Meat in American under the current agricultural model is effectively a luxury amenity provided by the state. The reason tofu costs as much as turkey is because of domestic agricultural policies.
Until you change those policies, alt-meats will be fighting the economic gravity of cheap, accessible traditional meals.
That wasn’t my argument though. My point was that for people who can afford meat, they can already also afford the really REALLY similar plant meat, but still won’t switch for cultural or taste reasons.
They exist, but the demand is very low because few people will actually give up animal meat for plant meat. That is my point.
I believe it is far more difficult or even impossible in our current political system to change the policy to make meat more expensive. Under that reality, the only realistic option we have to is to circumvent the corporate captured political system by collectively ceasing purchasing animal meat in favor of any plant alternative (whatever is their preference).
It is much easier in theory to simply pick a different product at a store, than it is to convince politicians to pass legislation that will make meat more expensive, which will be perceived as simply making animal meat a luxury food for the rich (there is no political will to make that happen, and too much lobbying money from big agra).
If they don’t have a grocery store that carries it, they’re facing a time-cost that exceeds any value add. If they are unaware its on the shelf, that won’t matter. Hence the need for expanded marketing and counter-programming and public grocery stores that carry meatless alternatives front-and-center in the aisles normally reserved for giant hunks of dead animal.
Plenty of people have given up animal meat. That’s obviously not the problem. You point to India like its a small thing. That’s 1/6th of the world’s population.
The demand for rice and beans isn’t low. The demand for tofu isn’t low. It’s a $500M market that’s slated to hit $800M in the next five years. When the economic incentives are there, people take them. So long as we subsidize meat, they won’t bother.
Not under the deluge of agricultural propaganda or the pride of place certain foods take relative to others. Hell - and I can’t believe this continues to bare mentioning - not all grocery stores carry the same foods. Not all communities have grocery stores. Addressing this deficit goes a long way towards shifting dietary habits.
One big reason why India doesn’t have a big consumption habit with meat is that Indian groceries don’t stock meat. Pretending there’s a choice to have beef in a Hindu society or bacon in an orthodox Muslim one is delusional.