Sanders, Warren, Booker sponsor bill to ban factory farming by 2040

[dead0man]

won't this make food much more expensive?  Doesn't that hurt poor people?  I 100% agree that what we do to (most) farm animals is tragic not to mention the horrible environmental impacts farming has ("factory" or otherwise), but making food more expensive seems like a bad idea to me.

We should be pushing hard for factory (as in an actual factory) meat and processed food made with bugs or kelp (or whatever) that can produce crazy amounts of calories in a tiny footprint.  And in the meantime, GMO crops that reduce bad things, increase good things and also has a smaller footprint.  Of course that's more complicated, more permanent and most of all, doesn't hurt anyone directly so it's much less likely to be supported by people who support the ham fisted measure proposed by the OP.

[dead0man]

won't this make food much more expensive?  Doesn't that hurt poor people? 

No and no. Plenty of cheap food out there.

what's your evidence for this?  How are non-factory farms going to make up for the losses in efficiency?

[dead0man]

won't this make food much more expensive?  Doesn't that hurt poor people? 

No and no. Plenty of cheap food out there.

what's your evidence for this?  How are non-factory farms going to make up for the losses in efficiency?

Evidence that cheap food is out there? I, uh, go to the grocery store regularly.

right, thanks in large part to "factory farming".  Due to their efficiencies over non-factory farming...which brings us back to my question.

This bill only deals with meat and dairy, which are not essential foods.

I'll let the mob deal with this.  Good luck.

[dead0man]

Climate deniers, climate deniers everywhere.

where?

[dead0man]

Not sure how you raise fats then and not massively jack up prices to the point that hamburger meat is out of reach for fast food restaurants and many working poor.

Eating meat is a choice, first of all. The cost of meat is not nearly as affective as the cost of energy. Of course, we do need to take measures with energy to fight climate change as well, but this is a reasonable solution as far as affecting poor people is concerned. Energy costs affect much more facets of our lives, including the cost of meat (transportation, feed, etc).

Maybe less meat and fast food consumption would be good for the poor, and every other American. So what if last night's dinner of a 16 oz NY steak with shallot wine sauce, lyonnaise potatoes and sauteed kale might cost me $13 to cook instead of $10? We are talking about saving the goddamn planet here!

Two packs of chicken legs, a bag of rice, some spinach, a box of oatmeal and a dozen eggs will feed a family of four for a week for about $20 currently. If that goes to $24, that is not devastating to the poor.

three things:
1.why don't we let poor people decide what they want to eat?  No, they're not always going to make decisions you (or I) agree with, but what are you going to do, make all important decisions for them?  I think that's been tried before, it never turns out well.
2.if someone suggested SNAP benefits for a family of 4 should be limited to $24/week (because hey, they can be well fed at half that price if they just ate beans!) you'd (correctly) freak the hell out.
3.humans are omnivores, eating meat is natural.  NOT eating meat is the choice.