In all seriousness, we have a major problem with heavily processed food in this country, which is assuredly contributing heavily to our obesity epidemic and high health care costs. Lab grown meat (and also the plant-based meat on the market now) will absolutely contribute to this, and I am staying far away from them. HOWEVER, this is pure MAGA virtue signaling if he's not willing to start taking aim at other ultra-processed foods (seriously, have you looked at an ingredient list for bread??? Never mind stuff that you know is bad for you!). Just goes to show the new Conservatism is just about weaponizing government against their own disfavored industries instead of, you know, actual principles.
Lab grown meat and plant-based meat do not really belong in the same category. If lab grown meat is genetically identical to butchered meat, then it does not belong in the processed food category.
Alligator wrestling is perfectly safe as long as you keep your center of gravity low and your head centered.
The "not safe" claims are such garbage. There's not even a product yet, and if there ever is, it'll have to go through FDA review like any other food product! There are echoes of the anti-GMO panic here.
C’mon Jeff, the culture war is all he has left! Cut the guy some steak, I mean slack… This is what I have come to expect from the populist “pro life new dealers” on the “right” these days.
However- the WEF really does want to make people “eat ze bugs.” Not by force directly, but by increasing draconian environmental rules that will make meat so expensive that “the market” will make anyone who isn’t crazy rich have to out of necessity (people will WANT it you see!). Of course none of what the WEF literature says makes any sense, because they want farmers to use “organic” fertilizer which is mostly cow shit, and you need to grow more meat to get that stuff… but that is what happens when you send out of touch do-goodies to conferences and have them try to plan the future. Most of the meat substitutes are crazy expensive and don’t have a lot of room to get much cheaper due to really high input costs, so I’m not sure if this will ever really work anyway- but that never stopped Silicon Valley guys trying to blitzscale. Fine with me as long as they don’t get the government involved to prop up their dumb uneconomic ideas.
I really can’t imagine a bunch of Americans going for the Soylent Green world though, so pretty low likelihood that this happens.
I think this is a misguided argument. You can criticise the logic of certain environmental regulations, but if complying with measures designed to make meat production more sustainable and reduce negative externalities means that it's unaffordable for the average consumer... that's a pretty good sign that we should be consuming less meat!
In a sense, the effect of raising its price then becomes a positive externality, to the extent that it drives consumers towards food options with a more positive cost:benefit ratio for them and the world. And if you want to call that motivation "making people eat bugs"... well, more likely it'll be cultivated meat or something else more appetising, and I think that's a very uncharitable and somewhat misleading framing anyway, but not totally without justification.
But the point of such intervention isn't primarily to steer behaviour. It's the kind of intervention that's justified even according to a fairly libertarian, market-friendly political philosophy: intervention that seeks to prevent significant external harms, such as those generated by the animal agriculture industry. If your product cannot present an attractive proposition at its price to consumers without doing massive collective harm, then yeah, it will be outcompeted, and that's the market at work.
Independent regulators will always seem like "out of touch do-goodies" when they correctly de-emphasise myopic concerns of industry in favour of taking a zoomed out, disinterested approach to the collective good. But environmental regulation of the animal agriculture industry is obviously quite important given the enormous environmental damage the industry does (not to mention the horrific suffering it produces on a literally inconceivable scale) It clearly needs *more* regulation, given that it's still by orders of magnitude the greatest source of suffering in the history of the world, and according to consensus best models, likely to be a great source of human suffering in decades to come, If it cannot be produced affordably without reducing those harms considerably, then the market will select for better food sources, and everyone but meat lobbyists and crony capitalists should welcome that.
Meat replacement products are similarly priced or sometimes even cheaper in the UK by the way, so if they're expensive where you are it's probably just because isn't as much demand for them to have scaled up production and distribution there. That will change; when things are obviously enough morally correct, they win over time (abolition, civil rights, not burning people for being the wrong religion), and it's obviously morally correct to refrain from paying to have animals hurt and killed for your pleasure.
It's just not a justifiable claim that meat alternatives are a "dumb, uneconomic idea". That is quite obviously motivated reasoning, because here's no way you could arrive at that view through a disinterested assessment of the facts.
"Free market" means "deregulate the businesses run by my donors." But "deregulate" means "repeal labor and environmental laws that increase the cost of doing business" but also "regulate THE F**K out of my donors' competitors, preferably regulating them right out of business."
To add to your of manly man things Ron DeSantis will do:
Rolling call, but pointing the exhaust to the truck cabin so he can breathe in all that sweet, sweet diesel exhaust while he laughs at the clean-air-breathing snowflakes.
Pam Handle! She's a keeper!
In all seriousness, we have a major problem with heavily processed food in this country, which is assuredly contributing heavily to our obesity epidemic and high health care costs. Lab grown meat (and also the plant-based meat on the market now) will absolutely contribute to this, and I am staying far away from them. HOWEVER, this is pure MAGA virtue signaling if he's not willing to start taking aim at other ultra-processed foods (seriously, have you looked at an ingredient list for bread??? Never mind stuff that you know is bad for you!). Just goes to show the new Conservatism is just about weaponizing government against their own disfavored industries instead of, you know, actual principles.
Lab grown meat and plant-based meat do not really belong in the same category. If lab grown meat is genetically identical to butchered meat, then it does not belong in the processed food category.
Fair enough, I guess I'm operating on the assumption that lab-grown meat would necessitate a lot of additives to grow it and preserve it.
"Genetically identical" is very different from identical. You eyes and liver are "genetically identical" yet rather different.
I don't know that it's MAGA virtue signaling as much as pure in-state vote pandering - surprisingly, Florida is #12 nationally in beef production.
Thank you!
He says it's not "safe." So I expect next, he will outlaw Lunchables, Hot Pockets, and alligator wrestling, all of which are still legal in Florida.
Alligator wrestling is perfectly safe as long as you keep your center of gravity low and your head centered.
The "not safe" claims are such garbage. There's not even a product yet, and if there ever is, it'll have to go through FDA review like any other food product! There are echoes of the anti-GMO panic here.
C’mon Jeff, the culture war is all he has left! Cut the guy some steak, I mean slack… This is what I have come to expect from the populist “pro life new dealers” on the “right” these days.
However- the WEF really does want to make people “eat ze bugs.” Not by force directly, but by increasing draconian environmental rules that will make meat so expensive that “the market” will make anyone who isn’t crazy rich have to out of necessity (people will WANT it you see!). Of course none of what the WEF literature says makes any sense, because they want farmers to use “organic” fertilizer which is mostly cow shit, and you need to grow more meat to get that stuff… but that is what happens when you send out of touch do-goodies to conferences and have them try to plan the future. Most of the meat substitutes are crazy expensive and don’t have a lot of room to get much cheaper due to really high input costs, so I’m not sure if this will ever really work anyway- but that never stopped Silicon Valley guys trying to blitzscale. Fine with me as long as they don’t get the government involved to prop up their dumb uneconomic ideas.
I really can’t imagine a bunch of Americans going for the Soylent Green world though, so pretty low likelihood that this happens.
I think this is a misguided argument. You can criticise the logic of certain environmental regulations, but if complying with measures designed to make meat production more sustainable and reduce negative externalities means that it's unaffordable for the average consumer... that's a pretty good sign that we should be consuming less meat!
In a sense, the effect of raising its price then becomes a positive externality, to the extent that it drives consumers towards food options with a more positive cost:benefit ratio for them and the world. And if you want to call that motivation "making people eat bugs"... well, more likely it'll be cultivated meat or something else more appetising, and I think that's a very uncharitable and somewhat misleading framing anyway, but not totally without justification.
But the point of such intervention isn't primarily to steer behaviour. It's the kind of intervention that's justified even according to a fairly libertarian, market-friendly political philosophy: intervention that seeks to prevent significant external harms, such as those generated by the animal agriculture industry. If your product cannot present an attractive proposition at its price to consumers without doing massive collective harm, then yeah, it will be outcompeted, and that's the market at work.
Independent regulators will always seem like "out of touch do-goodies" when they correctly de-emphasise myopic concerns of industry in favour of taking a zoomed out, disinterested approach to the collective good. But environmental regulation of the animal agriculture industry is obviously quite important given the enormous environmental damage the industry does (not to mention the horrific suffering it produces on a literally inconceivable scale) It clearly needs *more* regulation, given that it's still by orders of magnitude the greatest source of suffering in the history of the world, and according to consensus best models, likely to be a great source of human suffering in decades to come, If it cannot be produced affordably without reducing those harms considerably, then the market will select for better food sources, and everyone but meat lobbyists and crony capitalists should welcome that.
Meat replacement products are similarly priced or sometimes even cheaper in the UK by the way, so if they're expensive where you are it's probably just because isn't as much demand for them to have scaled up production and distribution there. That will change; when things are obviously enough morally correct, they win over time (abolition, civil rights, not burning people for being the wrong religion), and it's obviously morally correct to refrain from paying to have animals hurt and killed for your pleasure.
It's just not a justifiable claim that meat alternatives are a "dumb, uneconomic idea". That is quite obviously motivated reasoning, because here's no way you could arrive at that view through a disinterested assessment of the facts.
"Free market" means "deregulate the businesses run by my donors." But "deregulate" means "repeal labor and environmental laws that increase the cost of doing business" but also "regulate THE F**K out of my donors' competitors, preferably regulating them right out of business."
To add to your of manly man things Ron DeSantis will do:
Rolling call, but pointing the exhaust to the truck cabin so he can breathe in all that sweet, sweet diesel exhaust while he laughs at the clean-air-breathing snowflakes.
'Wrestle and/or fuck a deer" just started my day off perfectly
The version I read said a bear… much manlier than having your way with a deer.
Oh dang I confused it with this:
Marry the deer, take out a life insurance policy, and then poison the deer so slowly that the police never suspect a thing. Because that’s cold.
Wrestling a deer is a cool image though
Fetterman’s comment is disappointing.
Sadly, this is not new for Florida republicans
https://www.forbes.com/sites/johntamny/2015/08/06/marco-rubios-big-sugar-embrace-flunks-basic-economics/?sh=761d37043cab
Hey, hypocrisy never stopped the Republicans before, why start now?
And why is John Fetterman joining
DeSmall Boots in anything? Is he depressed again?