Very good question, wrong answer tho'

The “gigantic” power of the meat and dairy industries in the EU and US is blocking the development of the greener alternatives needed to tackle the climate crisis, a study has found.

The analysis of lobbying, subsidies and regulations showed that livestock farmers in the EU received 1,200 times more public funding than plant-based meat or cultivated meat groups. In the US, the animal farmers got 800 times more public funding.

Why is this allowed, why is this happening, good questions both. This is partially wrong as an answer:

Alex Holst, at the Good Food Institute Europe, said: “While European investment in sustainable proteins has increased in recent years, this study shows the sector is still only picking the crumbs off the EU’s table. The sector needs public investment to scale production and reduce prices [or] Europe risks missing out on the enormous benefits.”

We’ve noted that both almond and oat milks are available in the local Aldi. As, we believe, are a number of the fake meats. And let’s be honest about it, if something’s on sale at Aldi then it’s already at scale. So, no, we don’t see that subsidy is required to get to scale as it’s already there.

But it’s this which is really wrong:

“It’s not a level playing field at all at the moment,” Lambin said.

The answer to that which is wrong that is. Level playing field? Sure. Level it by paying off whoever can chat up the minister responsible for subsidy? No. The correct answer is to stop subsidising the alternative. The claim is that dairy and meat gain a £35 billion a year subsidy. We’d not be surprised if that were true. The answer is to stop paying that subsidy.

Free market farming is the answer to the demand for a level playing field. So let’s have unsubsidized free market farming.