# Chapter 10: What Can Everybody Do?
*Part Four: Catalyzing A Future Without Animal Products*
From *After Meat: The Case for an Amazing, Meat-Free World* by Karthik Sekar.
Written and published November 2021, before the current generation of language
models. Human-written throughout; none of it is model output.
Source: https://aftermeat.org/book/text/chapter-10
The text of this edition is licensed CC BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) by Karthik Sekar.
Copy it, quote it, translate it, redistribute it, train on it; credit the author.
The figures are not covered: https://aftermeat.org/book/text#license.
---
## Outsized Impact
During college I was a bona fide, card-carrying Libertarian. I canvassed for Ron Paul during the 2008 election and donated to his campaign with the meager savings of a student. One of the reasons I adopted this ideology was my perception of how businesses drive progress and solve problems. In my view then, businesses could solve problems much better and faster than any other entity, and government should just get out of the way. As part of this phase, I read Ayn Rand’s overlong novel *Atlas Shrugged*—all 900 numbing pages of it. Rand paints the portrait of a socialist-leaning society that’s unable to solve any of its problems, including a crumbling economy and lack of technological innovation. The saviors are industrialists and entrepreneurs like its main protagonist, John Galt. In unintentionally laughable terminology, Rand characterizes Galt as a hero and the sniveling government officials as “looters” and “moochers.” These heroes are blackmailed and coaxed into saving the misguided populace. Push coming to shove, John Galt and his comrades break away and form their own utopia bolstered by their individual freedom.
If it’s not already obvious, this model of society and innovation is wrong, as we examined in the last chapter. Problem-solving is more complex and requires a number of actors. John Galt, Thomas Edison, Elon Musk, and Steve Jobs are not the primary determinants of technological progress and only serve one part of the whole. Aside from needing a stable society, they work using existing technology and knowledge that is often created by government or academia. There’s even more to it though; problem-solving and technological innovation can be accelerated by people who aren’t in the three domains of private enterprise, government, and academia. Citizens without any technical or business background can help catalyze a future without animal products.
You might ask, why you, personally, should bother? After all, many of the arguments so far conclude that this future is inevitable. Even if all you care about are resplendent gastronomical choices, then this future is better. If you care about cleaner technology that is less detrimental in terms of inputs, land, and waste, then this future is better. If you care about reducing the suffering of billions of sentient beings, then this future is better. We should want to arrive at this future sooner rather than later.
I would much rather that we dispense with animal technology sooner, and I hope that you feel the same way, too. Given that I wrote this book, I’m not content to just sit idly and let this revolution crawl into place. Rather, I hope collective actions by motivated players spur this revolution rapidly forward. The impetus is not just limited to the John Galts of the real world; many of us can affect much without a significant life change. To that end, this chapter focuses on various non-technological efforts that could speed up this transition.
## Consumer Information
Earlier, I argued that genetically modified organism (GMO) technology would help us replace animal technology sooner, but that instead GMOs have been unfairly pilloried due to the naturalism fallacy and neophobia. Accordingly, making it easier for producers to use GMO technology will help replace animal technology, and thus, figuring out ways to promote wider acceptance of GMO technology should be a foremost thrust for animal-rights activists.
The wariness against GMOs persists not just in the US, but Europe as well. Food producers advertise the absence of GMOs prominently while anti-GMO activists have generally sought to stymie their adoption. Specifically, anti-GMO activists have sought mandatory labeling of GMOs in all food. From their vantage, it’s a brilliant gambit. Labeling requirements appeal to folks who are both wary and agnostic about GMOs. Whether you support GMO’s or not, or just don’t care, labeling just gives everybody more information!
Of course, if there was zero cost, we should know everything about our food. Ideally, we could scan our food into an app, and we would learn everything: how the food was grown or reared, where specific ingredients were sourced, the DNA sequence of each sesame seed used, and which star each carbon atom originated from. Yes, that would be wondrous.
Earlier, I noted that a GMO descriptor is uninformative on its own because GMO is a methodology and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Labeling “Contains GMO Crops” would be akin to saying “Contains Rotated Crops” or “Contains Cross-bred Crops” or even, most likely, “Contains Crops.” So why single out GMO content for labeling? GMO labeling has a clear subtext because, partly, it’s a strategy whereby anti-GMO activists can cast GMOs as repugnant.[^417] If I smack a sticker on a jar of peanut butter that says, “Contains Hypoxanthine,” the alarm-raising implication is clear. If a consumer came across two brands of peanut butter that were exactly the same except for the hypoxanthine label, then I bet the consumer would purchase the non-labeled product. In case you’re wondering, despite its rankling name, hypoxanthine is indeed a real compound found virtually everywhere, especially in your food.
GMO labeling is in effect in various countries and states. The response has been counterintuitive and has, surprisingly, mollified my worries. In New Hampshire, GMO labeling diminished aversion toward GMO food.[^418] A nineteen-percent reduction in opposition occurred after mandatory labeling went into effect in 2016. The study’s authors did not investigate the precise mechanism behind this shift in attitude, but they conjecture that empowering consumers with more control makes a difference. Another explanation is that when we see the huge variety of foods that have innocuous GMOs, we realize our fears are misplaced. Consumers *can* accept GMO technology, a phenomenon that activists for a future without animal products should strive for and actively invest in.
Speaking of information availability, author Jonathan Safran Foer points out in the book *Eating Animals*,[^419] that the animal-agriculture industry and consumers have an unspoken understanding: don’t look too closely, and we’ll deliver you abundant, cheap animal meat. To this end, the industry adopts cost-cutting, albeit heinous, methods. The industry itself is not inherently sadistic, merely pragmatic, trying to wring every dollar out of its process. They simply are using *everything* available given the economic pressures. If stuffing chickens into space-saving battery cages saves a dollar per chicken, even to the severe detriment of the chicken’s well-being, then it makes sense to do this, especially when no one is looking nor cares.
To facilitate this willful ignorance of the reality, industry lobbyists have sponsored and enacted “Ag-Gag” laws. Ag-Gag laws in states such as Alabama and Arkansas criminalize activities such as journalists taking pictures and videos of an animal facility without the consent of the owners.[^420] As a result, it’s harder to blow the whistle on these facilities. It’s more challenging to determine if the animal facilities are treating the animals humanely. Proponents even admit that these laws are meant to protect factory farming and that disclosure will result in negative consequences for the industry.[^421] This is anti-competitive behavior that ultimately hurts both society and the way markets should function to solve problems. The spotlight on the heinous animal treatment would spur the animal-agriculture industry to adapt or to look for better—non-animal—technology, creating a win-win for both constituents and animals. Thankfully, the pro-Ag-Gag law argument has proved legally untenable. Ag-Gag laws have been defeated or ruled unconstitutional in states ranging from California to North Carolina.[^422] Continued vigilance is required to ensure that these laws do not return.
Striking down these laws absolutely matters to raise animal welfare concerns. The EU passed a directive banning the use of battery cages for hens,[^423] which are designed for efficiency by cramming hens into rows and columns of cages and restricting their movements. As ethicist Peter Singer notes in *Animal Liberation*, hens will often peck each other in such confinement. Accordingly, producers will often have to trim the chickens’ beaks, creating another form of suffering for the helpless hens.[^424] Using first-hand knowledge of the situation for animals, advocacy groups achieved similar legal breakthroughs in other countries and states such as Switzerland and California.[^425]
The amplification of the importance of animal welfare opens the door wider for animal product alternatives. In the background, additional insidious, anti-market, anti-democratic machinations have been stymying the transition. The US subsidizes animal products with taxpayer dollars to a ludicrous degree that must be brought to the foreground of citizen concern just like animal welfare.
## Stop Subsidizing Animal Products
In the 1920s, a new era of agriculture began with the introduction of fertilizer. Farmers could suddenly produce hefty crops and flood the markets with their newfound bounty. The influx drove down prices and incentivized farmers to use more fertilizer and grow even more crops, creating a vicious feedback loop. This loop was not sustainable, particularly as it led to farmers unwittingly depleting their soil and the groundwater in such aquifers as the Ogallala.[^426] Barely arable and environmentally unstable land, like the prairie grasslands, were utilized to grow crops. The precious grass that anchored the equally precious topsoil in place was replaced by less capable wheat. A drought in the 1930s decimated the crops,[^427] along with their vital roots. The plants anchoring the soil down were now dead, and 100 million acres of topsoil were blown away by wind, nearly one third of what we use for agriculture today.[^428] Suddenly and ironically, a food shortage arrived, and droves of families from the Great Plains moved to the fertile soils of California, the “Okie” diaspora famously depicted in John Steinbeck’s seminal novel, *The Grapes of Wrath*.
To solve this crisis, contemporary president Franklin D. Roosevelt pushed the inaugural “Farm Bill” among his New Deal legislation. The Farm Bill tackled many of the issues leading to the food crisis and built a sustainable future for agriculture. The Farm Bill primarily stabilized the price of agricultural goods. The Ever-Normal Granary Program, in particular, steadied the sales and income from grain, whereby the federal government established a price for crops based on the cost to produce them. Whenever the market price for corn fell below this production cost, a farmer could take out a loan from the program with the corn as the collateral. If the price of the corn recovered, the farmer could sell the corn and pay back the loan. Otherwise, on loan expiry, the farmer could elect to repay the loan using the collateralized corn. The net effect was to render farmers less inclined to overproduce in case prices fell because the loan would steady their income until prices rose again. Thus, the treadmill effect of oversupply and low prices was averted. With the Farm Bill, the US Department of Agriculture was transformed into one of the largest departments and charged to oversee many of the country’s food goals.[^429] In addition to pricing stabilization, programs were instituted to educate farmers about better, more sustainable farming practices such as crop rotation and covering to intentionally protect and conserve the precious topsoil.
The Farm Bill, in terms of meeting its goals, was a resounding success. Hunger was drastically abated, farmer incomes stabilized, and warehousing of the excess food eliminated widespread food shortages in the United States. However, the Farm Bill has mutated and evolved over time, under the lobbying pressure of avaricious interests.[^430] While initially the Farm Bill served individual farms and sharecroppers, farms soon consolidated into large corporate conglomerates which fast became the primary beneficiaries of the Bill’s munificence. A 2014 report from the USDA indicated that only twenty-five percent of farms received subsidy payments,[^431] with those payments skewed toward large farms. And from 1999 to 2012, about ten percent of recipients received three-quarters of the total payments.[^432]
Furthermore, these larger farms became even more efficient, achieving records in yield and productivity year after year. The problem of oversupply and low prices intruded once again. In the 1970s, the USDA under the charge of Earl Butz posed a solution: the export and sale of US grain abroad, something which had been previously prohibited. Butz emphasized commodity crops and industrialization of agriculture versus small farms and crop variety. Butz dismantled the Ever-Normal Granary Program, and consequently, after the repeal, production only grew. This time, however, with the entire world as the market, the prices wouldn’t crater. As a result, the treadmill was restarted as farms were incentivized to produce as much as possible. Larger farms were favored, wielding more political clout to maintain the unhealthy dependence on subsidies.[^433]
The current iteration of the Farm Bill continues to subsidize crops, which incidentally reduces animal product prices. Between 1997 and 2005, a bushel of corn cost $2.62 to produce, but was sold at $2.00, a situation that can only work because of the subsidies of the 1996 version of the Farm Bill. Tyson, the largest producer of chicken meat in the country, saved nearly $300 million per year during this period in terms of the cost to feed their chickens. In total, industrial livestock firms are estimated to have saved $35 billion during this period.[^434] In 2015, nearly $6 billion subsidized corn production of 14 billion bushels, enough to fill the entire Sydney Harbor.[^435] Soybeans were subsidized to the tune of $46 billion dollars from 1995 to 2019 in the US.[^436] Soybeans have two associated products—their oil and dry meal. Eighty percent of the oil is used for human consumption, but only about two percent of the meal is. The rest—a staggering ninety-eight percent—is used for animal feed.[^437] Additionally, the established Dairy Producer Margin Protection Program provides direct payments to dairy producers to cover the cost differences between the price of milk and the price of the feed for the cows, to the tune of $250 million dollars in 2018.[^438] Finally, the under-scrutinized Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) ostensibly helps farmers manage soil, water, and land conservation in order to meet environmental regulations.[^439] EQIP funding partially helps animal agriculture stay environmentally compliant with direct funding support— another subsidy. Of the nearly $2 billion per year in the program,[^440] roughly sixty percent goes toward animal agriculture.[^441] Tallying all of these programs suggests that the United States subsidizes animal products by nearly thirty percent. In other words, consumers pay nearly a third less than the actual cost of producing the animal products.
This is awful. Price affects consumption. Consumers purchase less gasoline, cigarettes, and alcohol when those goods increase in price.[^442] These subsidies are leading to the opposite effect; we’re increasing animal product consumption compared to what would happen in a free and fair market. We can and should ween agriculture off subsidies. The agriculture industry is no longer a dainty flower in need of cosseting and diligent watering; it is vastly more technologically advanced than 100 years ago. Rescinding these subsidies does not mean that our supply chain will fall into shambles, and we’ll starve to death. Analyses by think tanks, including the right-wing Heritage Foundation, rebut this fear, finding on the contrary that these industries will continue to produce and remain profitable while feeding the country even without current subsidies.[^443] Furthermore, we have evidence from countries such as New Zealand that dismantling agriculture subsidies can ultimately be beneficial, leading to more diversified crops and financially sustainable farm that don’t depend on government handouts.[^444]
As far as I can judge, this is an issue that should strongly resonate with both liberals and conservatives who should see eye to eye and join forces to enable developing cleaner, environmentally friendly technology, reduce unnecessary government spending, and let market forces act to improve outcomes. The problem is that the argument hasn’t been raised enough. And the solution does not have to be overnight nor instant. Reducing subsidies from over thirty percent to a mere twenty-five percent is a start and would help tremendously.
Imagine if we were in the gaslight era back at the beginning of the 20th century when the prospect of a commercial light bulb was imminent and obvious. The initial price differences between light bulbs and kerosene lamps did not favor light bulbs. In fact, Edison’s early carbon bulb, introduced in 1883, was roughly three times more expensive than the kerosene lamps.[^445] By 1900, it was cheaper than kerosene light, but not by thirty percent. Only by 1910 did light bulbs sell at more than half the cost of kerosene lamps, and by 1970, incandescent bulbs were nearly thirty times cheaper.
Now, let’s imagine if kerosene lamps were subsidized by thirty percent before light bulbs were developed and came to market. How much longer would it have taken for commercial light bulbs to come to market? Consider all of the companies and individuals who would have been deterred from trying to develop light bulbs. Even though light bulbs were obviously the better long-run technology, could they have competed with financially subsidized, but inferior kerosene technology? Certainly not in the early years. How much longer would the full transition from kerosene to light bulbs have taken? If the corollary is not obvious, that’s precisely where we are with animal products versus the alternatives. The subsides are a tremendous problem—we’re paying to prop up bad, outdated technology and stymying the transition to better products.
If you didn’t think this section could get any more depressing or you’re a foreigner who remains bemused so far, well, there’s more news. The European Union also flagrantly subsidizes crops and animal products.[^446] The US *and* Europe also export food around the world. These subsidized grains may feed animal agriculture in other countries, or the meat is exported directly.[^447] These pervasive subsidies affect animal products across the world, making it harder for everyone to transition away.
Farm Bill policies continue, I suspect, mostly out of the misunderstanding and unfamiliarity of US citizens with their complexities. The Farm Bill is generally not a hot button issue. During my research, I encountered one book geared toward a popular audience, *The Farm Bill: A Citizen’s Guide* by Daniel Imhoff and Christina Badaracco. As a result, the entrenched farmers, lobbyists, and corporations can basically write bills, unfettered by the concerns of citizens. In addition, I have yet to encounter an animal rights organization tackling this issue head on despite asking around incessantly and despite how much it’d help us transition into a future without animal products. How do we expect alternatives to animal products to compete effectively in the current marketplace with such unfair advantages to entrenched entities? Consumers already complain about the price of Beyond Burgers and Impossible Burgers.[^448]
The practical matter of seeing this through politically and socially is outside of my particular wheelhouse. I can highlight the problem well, but I’m a biochemical scientist and engineer, not a policy or political wonk. I do know that not nearly enough effort is being spent on such a pressing problem. Therefore, if you know of efforts or have ideas to reduce US taxpayer subsidization of animal agriculture, I’m all ears. I will muster and coordinate whatever I can in terms of resources to solve this. If it’s not clear, this, in my view, is perhaps the *biggest barrier to a future without animal products proclaimed so far in this book*. We must diminish these subsidies.
## Institutional Changes
In his delightful book, *The End of Animal Farming*, Jacy Reese highlights how far animal rights advocacy has progressed and assesses various strategies across different countries.[^449] In particular, he extols the tractability and outcome of advocating institutional changes versus merely trying to convince consumers. Institutions such as companies, schools, organizations, and governments have different incentives though. Consider a workplace and its human resources policies. Most policies are designed to protect all of the employees and to engender a diplomatic, safe working atmosphere. Every company would rather have everyone mildly satisfied versus a situation where ninety percent of people are extremely happy and ten percent are miserable or infuriated. As a result, minority opinions and predilections can hold sway more powerfully in a workplace.
It can be easier to convince an institution to adopt animal-free practices versus any one individual. I’ve seen this work out firsthand in my current workplace: among the roughly eighty employees, there are only about three or four vegetarians and vegans. My company places a daily restaurant order for employees, and if a vegetarian or vegan person is working, we ensure that any restaurant can meet that person’s needs. Therefore, restaurants that do not have sufficient, reasonable options may not be considered at all for our order. At the very least, we might have two separate orders, which still hurts the meat-eaters-only restaurant by splitting what could have been solely their bounty.
Furthermore, meat eaters can eat vegetarian or vegan options but not vice-versa, and they obviously can only do so when such options are available. A lot of people enjoy salad, falafel, Indian food, and Thai curries, not just the animal-free folk. All this to say that the minority vegan and vegetarian can have a more outsized impact than their proportion of the population would imply, depending on the institutions that they claim membership to. I implore folks to wield this power to promote a future without animal products. Call a restaurant ahead of time and ask what vegan options exist before ordering from them. This will force restaurants to have such options available—which is only hospitality industry best practices anyway. Implore the social and events department to have sufficient food options at gatherings. Ask for snacks that do not have animal products to be stocked.
Universities have recently experienced this effect with vociferous students. Post-secondary schools, such as colleges and universities, have more vegan and vegetarian options compared to other institutions (i.e., workplaces),[^450] and many schools have dedicated dining halls for vegan students. As of 2018, two thirds of schools have a vegan dining option for all three meals of the day.[^451] Even my alma mater, the University of North Carolina, has now received an A+ rating according to the system used by the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).[^452] Many of the criteria would not have held fifteen years ago when I was there; non-dairy milk was not in every canteen.
Institutions can also be a large purchaser of animal products, so these decisions have tremendous cascading effects. An estimated seven to eight percent of milk sales go to school cafeterias.[^453] This is a significant market for dairy producers, a point underscored during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic when schools closed and milk sales suffered.[^454] Sales to schools have the added benefit for milk producers by indoctrinating kids into consuming dairy milk. Being reared on dairy milk means that the kid will be more likely to purchase and consume it as an adult. You might ask, well, why don’t we allow non-dairy milk for school lunch? Are you ready for it? In a very real sense, this phenomenon is also part of, and due to, the Farm Bill. School lunches are subsidized by the National School Lunch Program (NSLP), a federal program instituted by the US Department of Agriculture. The NSLP defines the criteria of a nutritionally balanced lunch, which allows them to be eligible for subsidy.[^455] And for opaque historical reasons, the NSLP considers dairy milk to be a nutritional mainstay. This program is vast. In 2016, the ingredients in thirty-million meals were established by this program.[^456]
Unfortunately, the primary mechanism for younger students to gain access to non-dairy milk is by demonstrating lactose intolerance with a doctor’s note.[^457] Consider how absurd this is, that the socioeconomically-neediest children need confirmation from a doctor, who is obviously not particularly accessible to this demographic, just to *not* have dairy milk. The goal behind the NSLP is laudable: we should make sure that students, especially needy ones, meet essential nutritional demands, and what better way than through school? And cash-strapped schools are not going to turn down the easy source of money that this program provides. The core problem stems from the parochial idea of a balanced meal defined by the NSLP administrators working at the USDA. Getting the USDA to admit to the viability of nutritionally equivalent alternatives to dairy milk would be progress. I grant that children can drink water or juice instead, but at the least, getting the program to permit milk substitutes freely, i.e., without a doctor’s note, would be a step forward. It’s worth noting that the USDA and the dairy industry have had a historically cozy relationship,[^458] highlighted by the perplexing area that dairy products garner on the overly reductive food pyramid.[^459] There’s also the USDA’s Dairy Price Support Program, which props up the price of dairy products by guaranteeing purchases for the school lunch programs of cheese, milk, and butter.[^460] Overall, I hope that civic action and pressure on this issue will help steer the USDA in the right direction.
## Personal Changes
Let’s first start with the obvious: if everyone intentionally reduced their consumption of animal products, then we would reach a future after meat sooner. Were we to do so, the sales of animal products would decrease, with many of the purchases displaced toward the alternative foods. I acknowledge that everyone may not feel comfortable nor ready to rid themselves of animal products completely. However, any bit of change absolutely matters here. There is a difference between consuming one pound versus five pounds of beef per week. Reduction is a progress-pushing, impactful strategy.
I’m not the first to make this point; in fact, there’s an entire movement, spearheaded by the Reducetarian Foundation.[^461] For example, followers are motivated to take up a Meatless Monday or to limit meat to once per day. Meatless Monday is a good start, and as we learn more recipes and garner more options, then that becomes Meatless March, then hopefully Meatless 2023. The feedback loop here makes it easier over time as restaurants and grocery stores adapt, followed by folks reducing even more, particularly as more and more alternatives are spurred to market, driven by demand.
It’s also worth emphasizing different cultures of food. Peter Singer offers this advice at the end of *Animal Liberation*.[^462] The prototypical Western meal of meat, bread, and potatoes is harder to replace one to one with an animal-free diet. But consider other cultures—Ethiopian anjera, Mexican tacos, Israeli salads, Indian curries, Thai noodles, and Chinese stir fry. These are all easy to veganize, with numerous vegan versions already abundantly available and consumed as a matter of course. Sometimes the first experience sets expectations for no meat including miso soup with tofu or chana masala with flatbread.
Normalizing veganism will also foster the future minus animal products. Right now, the US population is somewhere between two to six percent vegetarian or vegan.[^463] The proportion is higher in younger demographics—a quarter of 25- to 34-year-old Americans self-report to be vegetarian or vegan.[^464] There are indications that these numbers are at the bottom of an S curve, and we could see pronounced jumps in the coming years with the tipping point driven by better animal-free alternatives.[^465] We’ve seen similar jumps for the acceptance of women’s and minority rights.[^466]
But in order to normalize veganism, we must societally reconcile and repudiate some outdated views. The first is just how marginalized the term “vegan” has become. It’s tantamount to “pretentious” and “aggressive,” and that notion apparently deters meat eaters from considering vegan ideas and food.[^467] As mentioned earlier, restaurants and food producers have adopted the “plant-based” adjective partly as a palatable alternative to “vegan.”[^468] Secondly, some of the most uncharitable reasoning is attributed to vegans, for example that they made the choice to cultivate a feeling of moral superiority.[^469] And we can’t forget the meme: “How do you know when someone is vegan? Don’t worry, they’ll tell you.”[^470]
Though I’m sure there are some vegans who cultivate the feeling of superiority, in my experience, most vegans I’ve known have made the choice out of ethical considerations. They also would never introduce themselves with that label. Of course, it just happens to come up because of how often food intrudes into everyday conversation and social interaction—literally, breakfast, lunch, and dinner. Furthermore, it can be hard, lonely, and obviously inconvenient. No wonder we go crazy. I certainly find myself screaming inside when surrounded by obtuse, shallow-musing colleagues and friends while eating a meal together. We vegans make a choice that prevents us sometimes from getting invited to dinner parties (too complicated), restaurant outings, leaving us to sulk in a corner during barbecues or work holiday parties when no provision has been made for our dietary choices.[^471] But we do it because we are concerned with the suffering and pain of animals generally. I, myself, just cannot stomach contributing to an innocent, conscious being suffering a lifetime of pain just so that I can have the most fleeting of hedonic pleasures. Sorry, but *that* motivates my dietary choices.
I know that my pain has no comparison to the real victims of the phenomena, the animals in the industry. Nonetheless, the pain of vegans is not to be diminished. Consider that just in 1988, only around twelve percent of the United States supported same-sex marriage.[^472] Assuming you’ve adopted the progressive, sensible attitude toward same-sex marriage, imagine that you were transported back to 1988 and discussed it with folks. You'd feel frustrated, right? Or imagine that today you visited Saudi Arabia and witnessed the public stoning of a man for apostasy or a woman for adultery. And you might say that we’re wrong or this is just an entitled, personal opinion, but it’s more than that. We’ll discuss more in the next chapter.
As part of the normalization process, we need more public veganism and more people to actually know a vegan colleague, friend, or family member, and obviously with a positive regard, too. It’s not enough that Hollywood celebrities—perceived as out-of-touch and often elitist, to boot—are vegans.[^473] Vegans should not segregate themselves and isolate from meat-eaters. Occasionally, I’ll see a disappointing story to that effect; for example, a vegan bride disinvites meat-eaters from her wedding,[^474] and social media websites such as Reddit will lap it up because it knocks down those annoying, self-righteous vegans a peg.[^475] In contrast, David Chang, a celebrity chef, was notified that a customer raised alarm that her broth wasn’t vegetarian. Chang responded, “Fuck her, man. Starting tomorrow, let’s put pork in every fucking dish.”[^476] Where is the Reddit outrage over this similarly marginalizing action?
Obviously, the bride acted rashly and even against the vegan movement she espouses, though unfortunately not enough vegans agree with me about this.[^477] I deplore this kind of intentional divisiveness; meat eating is fallacious, but it occurs, ultimately, due to a lack of knowledge, opportunities, and understanding. What better opportunity to spur progress than at a celebratory wedding meal where all, including a bunch of non-vegans, are experiencing vegan food and thereby helping more animals? So, yes, please do invite them to the wedding with only vegan food. We’ve seen from atheism and the homosexuality rights revolution that personally knowing an atheist, gay, or lesbian person is associated with higher acceptance of those ideas.[^478] I suspect the same principle to apply here. At the very least, you’ve spared a few animals by having others eat vegan for a meal.
The good news is that eventually veganism *will* be normalized, despite anyone’s feelings or attitudes. I’ve emphasized throughout the book that technology will be the overriding factor. And I predict that veganism will be considered praiseworthy and make progress in the social realm as well. After all, what’s cooler? Supporting the coal-era technology of food while hurting a bunch of animals *or* supporting the jetpacks of food that improve the lives of everyone? I even hope for those “No animals were harmed in the making of this” labels that we see in movies to eventually be used on our food, clothing, and drugs.
In the very first chapter, I alluded to the idea that, eventually, we’ll deem using animals as a technology to be abusive and immoral in the same way that we came to collectively reject racism and sexism. Racism and sexism were wrong long before the majority of the population accepted these ideas to be so because the best morality was already clear. We’re in the same position with animal agriculture: it’s immoral, and we haven’t seen strong refutations otherwise. We’ll delve deeper into this in the next chapter.
## Chapter Summary
The transition beyond animal products is upon us; the only questions are when and how? Even though knowledge generation remains the primary determinant for this reality, many background factors affect the transition, too. Consumer acceptance of GMOs and understanding of animal agriculture welfare practices will spur this future sooner. The US and the European Union subsidize animal products to an exasperating, counterproductive degree (over one quarter of the cost) and stymie the replacers from competing effectively and fairly. Reducing and eliminating these subsidies merits pronounced effort that so far we’re falling well short of. Despite currently being a small portion of the population, vegans and vegetarians can facilitate progress, most easily through institutions that are sensitive to the concerns of minorities versus individual consumers who are personally focused. Finally, vegans must canvass for their cause by emphasizing reduction of animal products generally (getting to zero eventually) and to be cherished by friends, family, citizens, and role models. Eventually, non-animal technology will be commonplace; cultivating that familiarity in a greater population is a worthwhile, productive cause.
[^417]: Eveleth, R. (2012). What Will Convince People That Genetically Modified Foods Are Okay? Smithsonian Magazine. (August 5, 2020).
[^418]: Kolodinsky, J., & Lusk, J. L. (2018). Mandatory labels can improve attitudes toward genetically engineered food. Science Advances, 4(6), 1–6. .
[^419]: Foer, J. S. (2010). Eating Animals (1st edition). Back Bay Books.
[^420]: What Is Ag-Gag Legislation? ASPCA. (Accessed July 4, 2020).
[^421]: Bollard, L. (2013). The Terrible Price of Ag-Gag Laws. New York Daily News. (Accessed July 4, 2020).
[^422]: Hall, C. (2013). California ‘ag-Gag Bill’ Is Gagged and Gone. Los Angeles Times. (Accessed July 4, 2020).
Doran, W. (2020). In Targeting Animal Rights Activists, NC Violated the First Amendment, Court Rules. The News & Observer. (Accessed July 4, 2020).
[^423]: EC Council Directive. (1999). Council Directive 99/74/EC of 19 July 1999 laying down minimum standards for the protection of laying hens. Official Journal of the European Communities, (6), 53–57. .
[^424]: Sherwin, C. M., Richards, G. J., & Nicol, C. J. (2010). Comparison of the welfare of layer hens in 4 housing systems in the UK. British Poultry Science, 51(4), 488–499. .
[^425]: Grandin, T. (2015). Improving Animal Welfare: A Practical Approach (2nd edition). CABI.
Farm Animal Confinement Bans by State. ASPCA. (Accessed July 4, 2020).
[^426]: Little, J.B. (2009). The Ogallala Aquifer: Saving a Vital U.S. Water Source. Scientific American. (Accessed January 14, 2021).
[^427]: Amadeo, K. (2020). The Dust Bowl, Its Causes, Impact, With a Timeline and Map. The Balance. (Accessed July 5, 2020).
Droughts in the United States. (2020). Wikipedia. (Accessed July 5, 2020).
[^428]: Growing A Nation. (July 5, 2020).
Trimarchi, M. (2008). What Caused the Dust Bowl?. HowStuffWorks. (Accessed July 5, 2020).
[^429]: Imhoff, D., & Badaracco, C. (2019). The Farm Bill: A Citizen’s Guide (3rd edition). Island Press.
[^430]: The Farm Bill is not a singular piece of legislation, but rather deceptively refers to a series of legislation over the years that affect agriculture policy (e.g., Food and Agriculture Act of 1977, Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996, etc.).
[^431]: Hoppe, R. A. (2015). Structure and finances of U.S. farms: Family farm report, 2014 edition. U.S. Family Farms: Structure, Finances, and Agricultural Production Role, (132), 1–91.
[^432]: Bakst, D., & Wright, B. (2016). Addressing Risk in Agriculture. The Heritage Foundation, (189), 64.
[^433]: Imhoff, D., & Badaracco, C. (2019). The Farm Bill: A Citizen’s Guide (3rd edition). Island Press.
[^434]: Starmer, E., & Wise, T. A. (2007). Feeding at the Trough: Industrial Livestock Firms Saved $35 billion From Low Feed Prices. In GDAE Policy Brief (Vol. 7).
[^435]: Database, EWG’s Farm Subsidy. EWG’s Farm Subsidy Database. (Accessed July 5, 2020).
Honig, L. (2015). August Crop Production Executive Summary. In National Agricultural Statistics Service.
[^436]: Soybean Subsidies in the United States Totaled $46.1 Billion from 1995-2019. EWG’s Farm Subsidy Database. (Accessed July 5, 2020).
[^437]: Wills, K. (2013). Where Do All These Soybeans Go? MSU Extension. (Accessed July 5, 2020).
[^438]: Margin Protection Program for Dairy; MPP Dairy. USDA – Farm Service Agency. (Accessed July 5, 2020).
[^439]: What Happens to Animal Waste? FoodPrint. (Accessed July 5, 2020).
[^440]: Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) | Farm Bill Report (FY 2009 through FY 2019). USDA – Natural Resources Conservation Service. (Accessed July 5, 2020).
[^441]: EQIP: The Farm Bill, Livestock Producers & Help to Pay For Your Building. Summit Livestock Facilities. (Accessed July 5, 2020).
[^442]: Yeh, C. Y., Schafferer, C., Lee, J. M., Ho, L. M., & Hsieh, C. J. (2017). The effects of a rise in cigarette price on cigarette consumption, tobacco taxation revenues, and of smoking-related deaths in 28 EU countries - Applying threshold regression modelling. BMC Public Health, 17(1), 1–9. .
Xu, X., & Chaloupka, F. J. (2011). The effects of prices on alcohol use and its consequences. Alcohol Research & Health : The Journal of the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, 34(2), 236–245. .
Knittel, C. R., & Tanaka, S. (2019). Driving Behaviour and the Price of Gasoline: Evidence from Fueling-Level Micro Data. NBER Working Paper, November, 1–19.
[^443]: Bakst, D., & Wright, B. (2016). Addressing Risk in Agriculture. The Heritage Foundation, (189), 64.
[^444]: Imhoff, D., & Badaracco, C. (2019). The Farm Bill: A Citizen’s Guide (3rd edition). Island Press.
[^445]: Nordhaus, W. D. (1996). The Economics of New Goods. In T. F. Bresnahan & R. J. Gordon (Eds.), The Economics of New Goods (pp. 27–70). .
[^446]: Common Agricultural Policy. (2020). Wikipedia. (Accessed August 5, 2020).
[^447]: Amadeo, K. (2020). US Imports and Exports with Components and Statistics. What Does the United States Trade With Foreign Countries? The Balance. (Accessed July 5, 2020).
[^448]: Gilbert, B. (2019). The Impossible burger has 1 major flaw to overcome: It's nearly triple the price of normal ground beef. Business Insider. (Accessed August 29, 2020).
Kirkwood, B. (2020). Beyond Meat Beyond Burgers Drop Price To $1.60 A Burger. Vegan News. (Accessed August 29, 2020).
[^449]: Reese, J. (2018). The End of Animal Farming: How Scientists, Entrepreneurs, and Activists Are Building an Animal-Free Food System. Beacon Press.
[^450]: Ferguson, D. (2019). Vegan College Menus on the Rise as Students Return to University. The Guardian. (Accessed July 11, 2020).
[^451]: Wiltsie, M. (2018). Report: Two-Thirds of Colleges Now Offer Three Square Vegan Meals a Day. PETA. (Accessed July 11, 2020).
[^452]: Check out The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill’s Vegan Report Card Grade! PETA’s Vegan Report Card. (Accessed July 11, 2020).
[^453]: Butler, K. (2015). The Surprising Reason Why School Cafeterias Sell Chocolate Milk. Mother Jones. (Accessed July 11, 2020).
[^454]: Purdy, C. (2020, April 6). Covid-19 has the US cheese and milk industries on the brink. Quartz. (Accessed July 11, 2020).
[^455]: Nutrition Standards for School Meals. USDA – Food and Nutrition Service. (Accessed July 11, 2020).
[^456]: National School Lunch Program (NSLP) Fact Sheet. USDA – Food and Nutrition Service. (Accessed July 11, 2020).
[^457]: News 12 Staff. (2020). Brooklyn Borough President Proposes Non-Dairy Milk Choices for School Children. News 12 Brooklyn. (Accessed July 11, 2020).
[^458]: USDA Working with Dairy Industry to Ensure Americans’ Consistent Access to Milk. USDA - Agricultural Marketing Service. (Accessed July 11, 2020).
[^459]: Melnick, M. (2011). The USDA Ditches the Food Pyramid for a Plate. TIME. (Accessed July 11, 2020).
[^460]: Price Support. USDA – Farm Service Agency. (Accessed January 15, 2021).
[^461]: The Reducetarian Foundation (Accessed July 12, 2020).
[^462]: Singer, P. (2015). Animal Liberation: The Definitive Classic of the Animal Movement. Open Road Media.
[^463]: Lane. (2020). How Many Vegans in The World? In the USA? (2020). Vegan Bits. (Accessed July 12, 2020).
[^464]: Parker, J. (2019). The Year of the Vegan. Economist. (Accessed July 12, 2020).
[^465]: ModVegan. (2017). The S-Curve of Innovation & the End of Animal Agriculture. ModVegan. (Accessed July 12, 2020).
[^466]: Schaeffer, K. (2020). Key Facts about Women’s Suffrage around the World, a Century after U.S. Ratified 19th Amendment. Pew Research Center. (Accessed January 15, 2021).
[History.com](http://History.com) Editors. (2021). Civil Rights Movement. HISTORY. (Accessed January 15, 2021).
[^467]: Higson, A. (2019). Vegan Stigma: A Barrier To Dietary Change. Faunalytics. (Accessed July 12, 2020).
[^468]: Choi, C. (2018). ‘Plant-Based’ Replaces ‘v-Words’ to Appeal to Carnivores. Christian Science Monitor. (Accessed July 12, 2020).
[^469]: King, B. (2012). Do Vegetarians And Vegans Think They Are Better Than Everyone Else? [NPR.org](http://NPR.org). (Accessed July 12, 2020).
[^470]: Bricker, K. (2017). How Can You Tell If Someone Is Vegan? Don’t Worry, They’ll Tell You. Medium. @korinnebricker/how-can-you-tell-if-someone-is-vegan-dont-worry-they-ll-tell-you-4eec13254f03 (Accessed July 12, 2020).
[^471]: Jasiunas, L. (2020). Veganism, Stigma, And You. Faunalytics. (Accessed August 29, 2020).
[^472]: Hidden Brain: America’s Changing Attitudes Toward Gay People. [NPR.org](http://NPR.org). (Accessed July 12, 2020).
[^473]: Ettinger, J. (2019). 50 Celebrities Who Are Vegan For Life. LIVEKINDLY. (Accessed July 12, 2020).
[^474]: Castrodale, J. (2019). Vegan Bride Bans All Non-Vegans from Her Wedding for Being ‘Murderers.’ (Accessed July 12, 2020).
[^475]: r/Insanepeoplefacebook - This Lady Banned All Non-Vegans from Her Wedding, Including Family and Bridal Party. Reddit. (Accessed July 12, 2020).
[^476]: Brion, R. (2011). David Chang on Treme: ‘Let’s Put Pork in Every Fucking Dish.’ Eater. (Accessed January 15, 2021).
[^477]: r/Vegan - What Are Your Thoughts about the Vegan Bride That Banned Her Meat-Eating Family Members from Attending Her Wedding? Reddit. (Accessed July 12, 2020).
[^478]: Knowing Gays and Lesbians, Religious Conflicts, Beliefs about Homosexuality. (2015). Pew Research Center - U.S. Politics & Policy. (Accessed July 12, 2020).
Feelings toward religious groups. (2019). Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project. (Accessed July 12, 2020).