What do you think?
Rate this book
Meatonomics: How the Rigged Economics of Meat and Dairy Make You Consume Too Much―and How to Eat Better, Live Longer, and Spend Smarter
Few consumers are aware of the economic forces behind the production of meat, fish, eggs, and dairy. Yet omnivore and herbivore alike, the forces of meatonomics affect us in many ways.
Most importantly, we've lost the ability to decide for ourselves what - and how much - to eat. Those decisions are made for us by animal food producers who control our buying choices with artificially-low prices, misleading messaging, and heavy control over legislation and regulation. Learn how and why they do it and how you can respond.
Written in a clear and accessible style, "Meatonomics" provides vital insight into how the economics of animal food production influence our spending, eating, health, prosperity, and longevity
"Meatonomics" is the first book to add up the huge "externalized" costs that the animal food system imposes on taxpayers, animals and the environment, and it finds these costs total about $414 billion yearly. With yearly retail sales of around $250 billion, that means that for every $1 of product they sell, meat and dairy producers impose almost $2 in hidden costs on the rest of us. But if producers were forced to internalize these costs, a $4 Big Mac would cost about $11.
Most importantly, we've lost the ability to decide for ourselves what - and how much - to eat. Those decisions are made for us by animal food producers who control our buying choices with artificially-low prices, misleading messaging, and heavy control over legislation and regulation. Learn how and why they do it and how you can respond.
Written in a clear and accessible style, "Meatonomics" provides vital insight into how the economics of animal food production influence our spending, eating, health, prosperity, and longevity
"Meatonomics" is the first book to add up the huge "externalized" costs that the animal food system imposes on taxpayers, animals and the environment, and it finds these costs total about $414 billion yearly. With yearly retail sales of around $250 billion, that means that for every $1 of product they sell, meat and dairy producers impose almost $2 in hidden costs on the rest of us. But if producers were forced to internalize these costs, a $4 Big Mac would cost about $11.
288 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2013
92 people are currently reading
2893 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 88 reviews
December 3, 2017
“Each year, American tax payers dish out $38 billion to subsidize meat, fish, eggs, and dairy.” Because of the artificially low prices of food from animals, as a nation, Americans eat more meat per person than any other country on the planet.
In the nonfiction book Meatonomics, David Robison Simon lays out the economic impact of factory farming while also noting the environmental, nutritional, and ethical impacts.
Two world bank scientists say animal agricultural systems is the single greatest cause of climate change.
“Compared to plant protein, raising animal protein takes up to one hundred times more water, eleven times more fossil fuels, and five times more land.”
The USDA and FDA, which are theoretically supposed to guard American’s health, are largely staffed by people with ties to the meat and dairy industries. This is why the food pyramids have little to do with truth and a lot to do with getting you to consume a lot of meat and dairy.
Antibiotics and steroids are commonly used to make farm animals grow faster. Anyone who eats these animals consumes these same steroids and antibitiotics. With all the subsidies, eating a meat-heavy diet is inexpensive in this country.
See the documentary Merchants of Doubt and the fictional film Thank You for Smoking for how lobbyists and “experts” are used to promote unsavory industries like oil and tobacco.
This is a downer of a book. He points out that organic farming is more efficient for pig production, but less efficient for dairy and egg production. Even buying locally may not be a good idea. Texas, for example, went through an epic drought, but still consumed unbelievable amounts of water to raise cattle.
The solution is to eat fewer animal products. Ask yourself why you could buy a burger from McDonald’s for $1 in 1991—and it still costs $1 today in 2017. It actually costs $11 to produce that (very disgusting, poor quality) hamburger. Altogether, when you add up the health and environmental costs of our heavy meat consumption, Americans spend $414 billion dollars in subsidies and higher insurance rates.
For more of my reviews, please visit: http://www.theresaalan.net/blog
In the nonfiction book Meatonomics, David Robison Simon lays out the economic impact of factory farming while also noting the environmental, nutritional, and ethical impacts.
Two world bank scientists say animal agricultural systems is the single greatest cause of climate change.
“Compared to plant protein, raising animal protein takes up to one hundred times more water, eleven times more fossil fuels, and five times more land.”
The USDA and FDA, which are theoretically supposed to guard American’s health, are largely staffed by people with ties to the meat and dairy industries. This is why the food pyramids have little to do with truth and a lot to do with getting you to consume a lot of meat and dairy.
Antibiotics and steroids are commonly used to make farm animals grow faster. Anyone who eats these animals consumes these same steroids and antibitiotics. With all the subsidies, eating a meat-heavy diet is inexpensive in this country.
See the documentary Merchants of Doubt and the fictional film Thank You for Smoking for how lobbyists and “experts” are used to promote unsavory industries like oil and tobacco.
This is a downer of a book. He points out that organic farming is more efficient for pig production, but less efficient for dairy and egg production. Even buying locally may not be a good idea. Texas, for example, went through an epic drought, but still consumed unbelievable amounts of water to raise cattle.
The solution is to eat fewer animal products. Ask yourself why you could buy a burger from McDonald’s for $1 in 1991—and it still costs $1 today in 2017. It actually costs $11 to produce that (very disgusting, poor quality) hamburger. Altogether, when you add up the health and environmental costs of our heavy meat consumption, Americans spend $414 billion dollars in subsidies and higher insurance rates.
For more of my reviews, please visit: http://www.theresaalan.net/blog
March 30, 2016
I won my copy from Goodreads Giveaways!
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer so this methodical and analytic approach to addressing a global issue greatly appealed to me.
This book has LITERALLY changed my life. In 3 weeks I have completely cut out meat and fish from my diet and have been weaning myself from dairy and egg-products. I probably sound fanatical, but Simon's book is THAT impressive.
I love animals, and am the proud bunny mom to 3 fur babies, but was never motivated to give up meat and dairy until reading Meatonomics: How the Rigged Economics of Meat and Dairy Make You Consume Too Much and How to Eat Better, Live Longer, and Spend Smarter for the sake of my health, my figure, my finances, and my social conscience. Like most consumers, I make decisions based on what makes the most financial sense, and Simon's book essentially pulls back the curtain on the large industry players both in government and business who supply American stomachs and wallets.
I am typically nervous about reading anti-meat/dairy "propaganda" because they have the tendency to focus on the emotional aspects of animal cruelty and become more of a lecture on your morality than education for people interested in making informed decisions. Simon does an excellent job at treating the reader as an educated, intelligent being who can't help but respond to their environment as common sense dictates. I was only sad when the book ended, but was happy to be reminded that I too lived with "sentient beings who pursued their own versions of happiness" (like cuddling and eating sweets all day).
I would highly recommend this book as a follow-up to Michael Pollan's highly moving The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals.
Happy Reading!!
Disclaimer: I am a lawyer so this methodical and analytic approach to addressing a global issue greatly appealed to me.
This book has LITERALLY changed my life. In 3 weeks I have completely cut out meat and fish from my diet and have been weaning myself from dairy and egg-products. I probably sound fanatical, but Simon's book is THAT impressive.
I love animals, and am the proud bunny mom to 3 fur babies, but was never motivated to give up meat and dairy until reading Meatonomics: How the Rigged Economics of Meat and Dairy Make You Consume Too Much and How to Eat Better, Live Longer, and Spend Smarter for the sake of my health, my figure, my finances, and my social conscience. Like most consumers, I make decisions based on what makes the most financial sense, and Simon's book essentially pulls back the curtain on the large industry players both in government and business who supply American stomachs and wallets.
I am typically nervous about reading anti-meat/dairy "propaganda" because they have the tendency to focus on the emotional aspects of animal cruelty and become more of a lecture on your morality than education for people interested in making informed decisions. Simon does an excellent job at treating the reader as an educated, intelligent being who can't help but respond to their environment as common sense dictates. I was only sad when the book ended, but was happy to be reminded that I too lived with "sentient beings who pursued their own versions of happiness" (like cuddling and eating sweets all day).
I would highly recommend this book as a follow-up to Michael Pollan's highly moving The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals.
Happy Reading!!
February 18, 2014
This is such an important book!
My bookclub loved Meatonimics, it inspired a really great discussion for us. We all learned a lot about how our economy works in relation to animal products, and also about other things like the devastating environmental impact of fishing.
Meatonomics tackles animal consumption in a whole new way, and I think every tax-paying citizen of the U.S. should read this book in order to understand what they are supporting with their tax dollars. This book was enlightening, well-written and extremely well-researched. Highly recommend it!
My bookclub loved Meatonimics, it inspired a really great discussion for us. We all learned a lot about how our economy works in relation to animal products, and also about other things like the devastating environmental impact of fishing.
Meatonomics tackles animal consumption in a whole new way, and I think every tax-paying citizen of the U.S. should read this book in order to understand what they are supporting with their tax dollars. This book was enlightening, well-written and extremely well-researched. Highly recommend it!
December 27, 2013
Everyone should read this for a reality-check on how food choices and government policy are shaped by big industry and steps (individual and government-related) to address the screwed up system that has resulted in widespread acute and chronic disease among humans, antibiotic resistance, pollution of soil, groundwater, waterways and air, egregious cruelty to farmed animals (from land to marine animals), and bankrupting of small farmers in America and abroad. Many concepts are illuminated: Animal protein is recycled plant protein, making animal flesh and animal products like dairy inefficient nutrition sources..."vegetable sources are incomplete nutrition" and other industry promulgated propaganda is debunked...the external costs of animal-product production that are charged to consumers and that damage the environment...the toll taken by hormones, chemical-laden animal feed and other additives on eaters and the environment...how "organic" and "free-range" labels are misleading...subsidies funded by taxpayers that cut the cost of animal flesh and dairy/cheese/egg products by more than half.
Some excerpts:
"The meat and dairy industries are among the most heavily subsidized sectors in the United States, beating even the well-supported oil industry by a factor of four. The animal food industry also generates by far the highest level of externalized costs of any industry, imposing almost $2 in expenses on American taxpayers and consumers for every $1 of product sold at retail."
"Meat and dairy are cheap. From 1980 to 2008, the inflation-adjusted prices of ground beef and cheddar cheese fell by 53 and 27 percent, respectively. During roughly the same period, the inflation-adjusted prices of fruits and vegetables rose by 46 and 41 percent, respectively. The result is that in contrast to their relative prices three decades ago, today a dollar buys three times the ground beef compared to vegetables that it once did...."
"The true cost of $5 carton of organic eggs is roughly $13. A $10 steak $27."
Some excerpts:
"The meat and dairy industries are among the most heavily subsidized sectors in the United States, beating even the well-supported oil industry by a factor of four. The animal food industry also generates by far the highest level of externalized costs of any industry, imposing almost $2 in expenses on American taxpayers and consumers for every $1 of product sold at retail."
"Meat and dairy are cheap. From 1980 to 2008, the inflation-adjusted prices of ground beef and cheddar cheese fell by 53 and 27 percent, respectively. During roughly the same period, the inflation-adjusted prices of fruits and vegetables rose by 46 and 41 percent, respectively. The result is that in contrast to their relative prices three decades ago, today a dollar buys three times the ground beef compared to vegetables that it once did...."
"The true cost of $5 carton of organic eggs is roughly $13. A $10 steak $27."
December 20, 2013
Meatonomics is a crucial book to read if you eat meat, or even only dairy and eggs! We all have a right to see how government & big business have steered us toward actions that are bad for us & the environment. Every single American regardless of age, class, or diet stands to learn something from Simon's book. Plus it's a great read. I read it cover to cover in a week!
January 8, 2014
What a compelling argument for the huge economic cost, estimated at $414 billion, of Americans' high meat consumption! Eating this amount of meat--three times the world average--is made possible for Americans by huge government subsidies and the astonishing political clout of the meat industry, among other factors. This is not just a rehash of meat consumption issues--I've read a lot of books that are--but will help readers see things from a fresh viewpoint; i.e. how much it is costing us as a country.
That alone would make the book worth reading, but there's more: the author is a man with a plan. It is especially encouraging to read not just a lament about what's wrong, but a detailed proposal for how to fix it, including the imposition of taxes on animal foods, a restructure of the USDA, and adjustment of federal support programs. He anticipates and discusses objections that may arise. Several appendices along with detailed endnotes and an index make it even more useful.
Reviewers' superlatives--"spectacularly important" (John Robbins) and "ranks [with] . . . The China Study in its power to expose the truth" (Patti Breitman)--are well-earned. It's only 185 pages: read it!
That alone would make the book worth reading, but there's more: the author is a man with a plan. It is especially encouraging to read not just a lament about what's wrong, but a detailed proposal for how to fix it, including the imposition of taxes on animal foods, a restructure of the USDA, and adjustment of federal support programs. He anticipates and discusses objections that may arise. Several appendices along with detailed endnotes and an index make it even more useful.
Reviewers' superlatives--"spectacularly important" (John Robbins) and "ranks [with] . . . The China Study in its power to expose the truth" (Patti Breitman)--are well-earned. It's only 185 pages: read it!
June 27, 2014
Did you know that the number one thing you can do to go 'green' is to stop eating meat? I certainly didn't.
This is not the regular rehash of arguments as to why we should all eat less meat, but an eye-opening analysis of how US govt practices subsidize the meat/dairy industry to the detriment of consumer health, natural resources, and the American pocketbook.
The author regularly throws out jaw-dropping facts to elucidate the issues at hand. Texas is in a drought, and so is California. Simon crunches the numbers to calculate that the "water used for the 14 million beef cattle that come out of TX annually - 40 trillion gallons - could cover the entire state under a lake almost a foot deep."
And for the humanitarian/environmentalist in everyone: "More than 1/2 the world's crops are used to feed animals, not people. It takes 100 times more water, 11 times more fossil fuel, and 5 times more land to produce animal protein than equal amounts of plant protein."
For anyone that eats food and cares about the environment, this should be required reading.
This is not the regular rehash of arguments as to why we should all eat less meat, but an eye-opening analysis of how US govt practices subsidize the meat/dairy industry to the detriment of consumer health, natural resources, and the American pocketbook.
The author regularly throws out jaw-dropping facts to elucidate the issues at hand. Texas is in a drought, and so is California. Simon crunches the numbers to calculate that the "water used for the 14 million beef cattle that come out of TX annually - 40 trillion gallons - could cover the entire state under a lake almost a foot deep."
And for the humanitarian/environmentalist in everyone: "More than 1/2 the world's crops are used to feed animals, not people. It takes 100 times more water, 11 times more fossil fuel, and 5 times more land to produce animal protein than equal amounts of plant protein."
For anyone that eats food and cares about the environment, this should be required reading.
October 31, 2017
Well damn. Now I have to take action.
August 13, 2021
I'm really torn about this book...
1. Simon's book is focused on the U.S., how "Big Meat" (if you will) has shaped - and continues to influence - so much of the U.S. agricultural system to the detriment of everyone and everything except themselves and the people in their pockets. That's great, it's a story that needs to be shouted from the rooftops.
However, the book is so focused on the U.S. that any references to Europe and European practices are essentially used in contrast to show how shitty the U.S.' are - and yes, the U.S. is far worse than the EU - but the EU and its members are still pretty shitty on this front (hey, just check out where the majority of the EU subsidies end up... just sayin'). The EU has a lot of the same issues regarding artificially pressed prices, subsidies disproportionately benefiting big industrial farmers and organizations - primarily those producing animal products - fishing, price dumping in poorer countries, pollution and run-off, misinformation practices from both public and private sources, ag-gag and Eco-terrorism laws, etc.
2. It's awesome that "Meatonomics" shows - and very well too - how bad the current system is financially. He does a great job addressing, on a point by point basis, just how crap the economic arguments spouted by the drivers behind the "meatonomic" system are. The current agricultural system, and particularly industrial livestock farming, is not only ecologically unsustainable, it's economically unsustainable - in fact, it's directly destructive in both cases.
But, I think he goes too far. He makes great rational points. He takes down one argument after the other, illustrating how and why they are wrong. So far so good, even non-activist mainstream omnivores should be able to get behind those arguments. But then he goes all activist on us. Even some of his economic arguments are both directly and indirectly "tainted" by moral and ethical arguments. And representing suffering as a financial/economic loss... well, it's not that I disagree, per se, but I think it makes the book weaker. I think it makes it easier to dismiss as just another piece of activism in the eyes of those still in need of being converted.
3. He kind of does the same thing regarding various health arguments. I think most people would be willing to follow along in the comparisons with how tobacco causes healthcare costs, and so does "Meatonomics." So it's not those arguments I have an issue with. Those arguments are great - in fact, I think the detrimental health effects, and the resulting costs, of the current system needs to have a more central role in the discussion.
Similarly, the book does a great job highlighting how "Big Meat" uses false and manipulated science to increase sales and undermine the "real" science showing that their products are mostly a load of baloney (yup, pun intended). Simon also manages to show that policy and official recommendations often deliberately goes against better knowledge, and why this is.
Alas, then he falls pray to showing how much healthier plant-based foods are. And he partially does this with some of the more questionable and hyped up study findings. Not good. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the general conclusion that plant-based foods are healthier (at least if you have access to a wide variety and sufficient calories), but I think Simon does himself, the book, and the cause he's promoting a disservice committing some of the same pitfalls as he's
8rightly) accusing the drivers of meatonomics of doing. It's too bad, because better science is available that say many of the same things... just not as spectacularly all the time.
Again, I feel like this leaves the door open for people to dismiss the whole book on the basis of pointing out the more disingenuous parts of it.
I have more similar issues with the book. It's a pity, because the story in it is one that really need to be told. One that usually doesn't get enough room in the debate.
There's a reason proponents of the current system likes to highlight emotionally driven activists picketing outside McDonald's, it's so much easier to label them crazy and dismiss them. Had the book stuck to the rationality and economic arguments, without straying into this very same activism, I think it would have been more effective.
Nonetheless, I would encourage anyone and everyone to read this book. Some of the stats are a little dated, but most of the stuff is at least equally bad still - some even worse - and the economic analysis is sound. And if you somehow pick this one up without knowing anything about the practices in and surrounding the animal food industry, this book does give you some gruesome descriptions to illustrate the point (I just wish it hadn't, because that you can get in so many other books that focus specifically on the suffering, morals, ethics, and emotions).
To (sort of) close on a bombshell - as the boys on Top Gear would say - the book does a great job providing visuals for how ludicrous the scale of animal agriculture is. And how obviously damaging it is. Simon, for example, uses the case of Texas and its beef industry. In the production of its cows, Texas uses enough water to cover the entire state of Texas in a foot of water (and Texas is huge y'all!). Texas, of course, is very prone to droughts. It's not difficult spotting a legitimate economic concern in the midst of other issues pertaining to this.
Oh, and add to that the fact that Texas grows roughly 40 percent of the U.S. cotton (the U.S. is - I think - the third largest cotton producer in the world), and cotton isn't exactly known to go light on water...
Needless to say, the water situation in Texas could look very different.
If, we really wanted it to.
The same is true for animal agriculture.
1. Simon's book is focused on the U.S., how "Big Meat" (if you will) has shaped - and continues to influence - so much of the U.S. agricultural system to the detriment of everyone and everything except themselves and the people in their pockets. That's great, it's a story that needs to be shouted from the rooftops.
However, the book is so focused on the U.S. that any references to Europe and European practices are essentially used in contrast to show how shitty the U.S.' are - and yes, the U.S. is far worse than the EU - but the EU and its members are still pretty shitty on this front (hey, just check out where the majority of the EU subsidies end up... just sayin'). The EU has a lot of the same issues regarding artificially pressed prices, subsidies disproportionately benefiting big industrial farmers and organizations - primarily those producing animal products - fishing, price dumping in poorer countries, pollution and run-off, misinformation practices from both public and private sources, ag-gag and Eco-terrorism laws, etc.
2. It's awesome that "Meatonomics" shows - and very well too - how bad the current system is financially. He does a great job addressing, on a point by point basis, just how crap the economic arguments spouted by the drivers behind the "meatonomic" system are. The current agricultural system, and particularly industrial livestock farming, is not only ecologically unsustainable, it's economically unsustainable - in fact, it's directly destructive in both cases.
But, I think he goes too far. He makes great rational points. He takes down one argument after the other, illustrating how and why they are wrong. So far so good, even non-activist mainstream omnivores should be able to get behind those arguments. But then he goes all activist on us. Even some of his economic arguments are both directly and indirectly "tainted" by moral and ethical arguments. And representing suffering as a financial/economic loss... well, it's not that I disagree, per se, but I think it makes the book weaker. I think it makes it easier to dismiss as just another piece of activism in the eyes of those still in need of being converted.
3. He kind of does the same thing regarding various health arguments. I think most people would be willing to follow along in the comparisons with how tobacco causes healthcare costs, and so does "Meatonomics." So it's not those arguments I have an issue with. Those arguments are great - in fact, I think the detrimental health effects, and the resulting costs, of the current system needs to have a more central role in the discussion.
Similarly, the book does a great job highlighting how "Big Meat" uses false and manipulated science to increase sales and undermine the "real" science showing that their products are mostly a load of baloney (yup, pun intended). Simon also manages to show that policy and official recommendations often deliberately goes against better knowledge, and why this is.
Alas, then he falls pray to showing how much healthier plant-based foods are. And he partially does this with some of the more questionable and hyped up study findings. Not good. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the general conclusion that plant-based foods are healthier (at least if you have access to a wide variety and sufficient calories), but I think Simon does himself, the book, and the cause he's promoting a disservice committing some of the same pitfalls as he's
8rightly) accusing the drivers of meatonomics of doing. It's too bad, because better science is available that say many of the same things... just not as spectacularly all the time.
Again, I feel like this leaves the door open for people to dismiss the whole book on the basis of pointing out the more disingenuous parts of it.
I have more similar issues with the book. It's a pity, because the story in it is one that really need to be told. One that usually doesn't get enough room in the debate.
There's a reason proponents of the current system likes to highlight emotionally driven activists picketing outside McDonald's, it's so much easier to label them crazy and dismiss them. Had the book stuck to the rationality and economic arguments, without straying into this very same activism, I think it would have been more effective.
Nonetheless, I would encourage anyone and everyone to read this book. Some of the stats are a little dated, but most of the stuff is at least equally bad still - some even worse - and the economic analysis is sound. And if you somehow pick this one up without knowing anything about the practices in and surrounding the animal food industry, this book does give you some gruesome descriptions to illustrate the point (I just wish it hadn't, because that you can get in so many other books that focus specifically on the suffering, morals, ethics, and emotions).
To (sort of) close on a bombshell - as the boys on Top Gear would say - the book does a great job providing visuals for how ludicrous the scale of animal agriculture is. And how obviously damaging it is. Simon, for example, uses the case of Texas and its beef industry. In the production of its cows, Texas uses enough water to cover the entire state of Texas in a foot of water (and Texas is huge y'all!). Texas, of course, is very prone to droughts. It's not difficult spotting a legitimate economic concern in the midst of other issues pertaining to this.
Oh, and add to that the fact that Texas grows roughly 40 percent of the U.S. cotton (the U.S. is - I think - the third largest cotton producer in the world), and cotton isn't exactly known to go light on water...
Needless to say, the water situation in Texas could look very different.
If, we really wanted it to.
The same is true for animal agriculture.
July 22, 2019
Well researched and incredibly interesting. Felt heavy handed at times though. A vegan myself I agreed with a lot of the sentiments, and am already following the author's advice, but the "preachy-ness" made me uncomfortable.
Regardless, I would love to see a 50% meat tax (or higher even).
Regardless, I would love to see a 50% meat tax (or higher even).
December 10, 2014
Great ideas; some poor execution. I appreciated the presentation of certain parts of the agriculture/meat industry that I had not known beforehand. However, many important figures and facts weren't cited properly, and some analysis was very weak.
January 10, 2022
This book starts strong showing us how the manipulation of information and statistics led to the disastrous results of overproducing and hence overconsumption of the animal products in US. However, it fails on the same tactics used another extreme end where one should avoid all animal products in favor of plants! That is why I gave it 3 stars for the effort and for the great demonstration of how the lobbyists work. Let me expand a little bit on the manipulation used by both sides. Our bodies evolved to consume meats along plants, in fact, humans are omnivores. If you travel to the land where plants are in abundance you see it reflected in the diet of people. Native people of the harsh northern territories consume meat and fish as a staple! That is completely ignored in the book. In fact, until the population adopted more western type diet with grains and sugars there were much healthier. The author somehow completely ignored current nutritional research showing that overconsumption of sugar in all its forms, not fat is the main culprit of obesity and the health problems, including inflammation.
Let's wait for some time and then future research would show us something different!
It's great to consume less meat, however fish and eggs are excellent for one's health. And fermented diary, contrary to the author we evolved to digest lactose!
I live in the country with no subsidies for meat and diary and the prices continue to rise and rise. People consume cheaper meats, and even less fish because of the price yet they still prefer it in their diet. As of now, because of the pandemic, all of the food staples including grains (which are not good for one's health), are up.
Let's wait for some time and then future research would show us something different!
It's great to consume less meat, however fish and eggs are excellent for one's health. And fermented diary, contrary to the author we evolved to digest lactose!
I live in the country with no subsidies for meat and diary and the prices continue to rise and rise. People consume cheaper meats, and even less fish because of the price yet they still prefer it in their diet. As of now, because of the pandemic, all of the food staples including grains (which are not good for one's health), are up.
February 24, 2014
Writing a book describing all the stupid things going on in the world is easy. But writing a book that not only describes the problem, but has a solution — now you’ve got my attention.
"Meatonomics" looks at animal agriculture and assesses all the horrible things that have happened as a consequence of this nasty form of food production. It goes further, and gives each of these horrible things a monetary cost. It introduces for the general reader two key economic concepts — the idea of external costs, and the idea of a Pigovian tax. If you don’t have a clue what either of these is, then, basically, you should read this book.
The calculation of costs of meat-eating is methodical and fair. Sometimes the costs can be calculated in a pretty objective way that at least in principle everyone could agree on. For example, we all know that health care costs money, and we also know that consuming animal products causes heart disease. This isn’t perfectly straightforward; there are bound to be some disagreements, and other factors are at play besides meat-eating (for example, smoking, lack of exercise, etc.). But in principle, if we get all the informed players to the table, we should be able to agree on what the economic health costs of heart disease are due strictly to consumption of animal products.
At other times, the calculations can be a bit subjective. For example, what about the pain and suffering of animals due to factory farms and slaughterhouses? But even here, there is a way to assign economic costs. Sales of “happy meat” and eggs from “happy hens” demonstrate that, at least in principle, consumers are willing to pay more to alleviate the suffering of animals. Even though these “happy hens” often aren’t actually that happy, the general principle is valid. We can look at what people would be willing to pay (on average — some people care more than others), multiply by the number of consumers, and you have an economic cost for animal suffering. It’s not as high as it should be, nor as high as it would be if half the population were vegan; but it’s a start at assigning some economic and political responsibility.
An “external” cost is an unintended loss which is involved in some economic transaction. It is a classic example of a “market failure” — a case where the market system does not efficiently allocate costs. If someone builds a coal plant that pollutes the air next to a laundry service that air dries its laundry, obviously this generates economic harm to the laundry service. If I drive a car and it pollutes the air and contributes to climate change, this harms the entire population of the planet. In the same way, sales of animal products generates $414 billion of negative external costs, costs which millions of individuals in our society are bearing. Simon’s proposal is simply to force the industry to bear some of these external costs.
A “Pigouvian tax” (called “Pigovian” by Simon, and named after A. C. Pigou who thought up this idea) is designed to redress this market failure. It does not compensate the victim, but just insures that the cost of the product reflects the true costs so that the market can operate accurately. The cost of the item is increased by the tax amount, hopefully sufficiently so that the cost of the item more accurately reflects the true cost to society, which is substantially greater than the costs which animal agriculture incurs in its normal process of doing business.
A Pigouvian tax will not likely be perfect, which Simon acknowledges. You will have the problem of estimating the costs, which may be a highly nebulous thing. But it does give the industry the option of either paying the tax or “abating” the conditions which created the externality. “Abatement” in this case just means leaving out the animal products. Simon has set up his proposal so that any amount of animal products in a food item results in the “meat tax” being imposed. For some people (such as dairy and beef operations), their only choice will be to go out of business or pay the tax. But for others (such as the makers of chocolate bars where only one ingredient isn’t vegan), it may be easier just to leave the animal ingredient out. Simon’s argument is that this makes the tax immensely easier to administer, though some people might prefer a tax based on the proportion of animal products in the food item.
A “meat tax” has been proposed before, but Simon is the first to go into this much detail about how the tax would work and the benefits to be expected. I have a few comments about this, which are not really criticisms but just making clear exactly what is being proposed.
First, the tax does not offset 100% of the costs. Simon proposes a tax of 50% of the value of the animal product sold. Using his assumptions of the price elasticity, demand decline due to the tax, and numbers of consumers, a 50% tax would result in a decline in meat consumption, so the tax would reduce the externalized costs from $414 billion to $231 billion. But the revenue raised would “only” be $77 billion. So you would still have uncompensated externalized costs of about $154 billion. This is a lot better than $414 billion, but still, there you have it. To completely offset the externalized costs, you’d need a tax of something like 149% (which would also drive the consumption of meat down to just 3% of current consumption, if you follow his assumptions all the way).
Second, since he proposes to refund the revenue raised through this tax to the consumers, there is the danger that some consumers would just use their tax refunds to offset the increase in prices. Oh, look, meat prices are higher! But, suddenly, the government is giving me a bunch of extra money! Some people will not give a thought to alternatives; they’ll just use their tax refund to pay for the higher price of meat.
Third, this does not address the underlying problem of “limits to growth.” It just seeks to offset the costs of economic growth in one sphere, namely agriculture. If you really want to deal with all of the problems of the “growth” economy — such as peak oil and climate change — you would need a more broad approach. You would need to put absolute limits (not just taxes) on all consumption of natural resources that cannot be replenished, along the lines suggested by those advocating “ecological economics.”
This is an important and challenging book, which I hope that vegans and others will pay attention to and read.
"Meatonomics" looks at animal agriculture and assesses all the horrible things that have happened as a consequence of this nasty form of food production. It goes further, and gives each of these horrible things a monetary cost. It introduces for the general reader two key economic concepts — the idea of external costs, and the idea of a Pigovian tax. If you don’t have a clue what either of these is, then, basically, you should read this book.
The calculation of costs of meat-eating is methodical and fair. Sometimes the costs can be calculated in a pretty objective way that at least in principle everyone could agree on. For example, we all know that health care costs money, and we also know that consuming animal products causes heart disease. This isn’t perfectly straightforward; there are bound to be some disagreements, and other factors are at play besides meat-eating (for example, smoking, lack of exercise, etc.). But in principle, if we get all the informed players to the table, we should be able to agree on what the economic health costs of heart disease are due strictly to consumption of animal products.
At other times, the calculations can be a bit subjective. For example, what about the pain and suffering of animals due to factory farms and slaughterhouses? But even here, there is a way to assign economic costs. Sales of “happy meat” and eggs from “happy hens” demonstrate that, at least in principle, consumers are willing to pay more to alleviate the suffering of animals. Even though these “happy hens” often aren’t actually that happy, the general principle is valid. We can look at what people would be willing to pay (on average — some people care more than others), multiply by the number of consumers, and you have an economic cost for animal suffering. It’s not as high as it should be, nor as high as it would be if half the population were vegan; but it’s a start at assigning some economic and political responsibility.
An “external” cost is an unintended loss which is involved in some economic transaction. It is a classic example of a “market failure” — a case where the market system does not efficiently allocate costs. If someone builds a coal plant that pollutes the air next to a laundry service that air dries its laundry, obviously this generates economic harm to the laundry service. If I drive a car and it pollutes the air and contributes to climate change, this harms the entire population of the planet. In the same way, sales of animal products generates $414 billion of negative external costs, costs which millions of individuals in our society are bearing. Simon’s proposal is simply to force the industry to bear some of these external costs.
A “Pigouvian tax” (called “Pigovian” by Simon, and named after A. C. Pigou who thought up this idea) is designed to redress this market failure. It does not compensate the victim, but just insures that the cost of the product reflects the true costs so that the market can operate accurately. The cost of the item is increased by the tax amount, hopefully sufficiently so that the cost of the item more accurately reflects the true cost to society, which is substantially greater than the costs which animal agriculture incurs in its normal process of doing business.
A Pigouvian tax will not likely be perfect, which Simon acknowledges. You will have the problem of estimating the costs, which may be a highly nebulous thing. But it does give the industry the option of either paying the tax or “abating” the conditions which created the externality. “Abatement” in this case just means leaving out the animal products. Simon has set up his proposal so that any amount of animal products in a food item results in the “meat tax” being imposed. For some people (such as dairy and beef operations), their only choice will be to go out of business or pay the tax. But for others (such as the makers of chocolate bars where only one ingredient isn’t vegan), it may be easier just to leave the animal ingredient out. Simon’s argument is that this makes the tax immensely easier to administer, though some people might prefer a tax based on the proportion of animal products in the food item.
A “meat tax” has been proposed before, but Simon is the first to go into this much detail about how the tax would work and the benefits to be expected. I have a few comments about this, which are not really criticisms but just making clear exactly what is being proposed.
First, the tax does not offset 100% of the costs. Simon proposes a tax of 50% of the value of the animal product sold. Using his assumptions of the price elasticity, demand decline due to the tax, and numbers of consumers, a 50% tax would result in a decline in meat consumption, so the tax would reduce the externalized costs from $414 billion to $231 billion. But the revenue raised would “only” be $77 billion. So you would still have uncompensated externalized costs of about $154 billion. This is a lot better than $414 billion, but still, there you have it. To completely offset the externalized costs, you’d need a tax of something like 149% (which would also drive the consumption of meat down to just 3% of current consumption, if you follow his assumptions all the way).
Second, since he proposes to refund the revenue raised through this tax to the consumers, there is the danger that some consumers would just use their tax refunds to offset the increase in prices. Oh, look, meat prices are higher! But, suddenly, the government is giving me a bunch of extra money! Some people will not give a thought to alternatives; they’ll just use their tax refund to pay for the higher price of meat.
Third, this does not address the underlying problem of “limits to growth.” It just seeks to offset the costs of economic growth in one sphere, namely agriculture. If you really want to deal with all of the problems of the “growth” economy — such as peak oil and climate change — you would need a more broad approach. You would need to put absolute limits (not just taxes) on all consumption of natural resources that cannot be replenished, along the lines suggested by those advocating “ecological economics.”
This is an important and challenging book, which I hope that vegans and others will pay attention to and read.
November 12, 2022
Interesting read about how government subsidies for animal feed result in ultra-low meat prices in the U.S. Americans eat more meat per capita than any other country on earth, which results in numerous health problems. Most of the crops grown in the world are now used to feed animals, not people. It takes five times as much land to produce a pound of animal protein versus a pound of plant protein. The Amazon rainforest is being deforested to plant crops used to feed factory-farmed animals. The methods used in animal agriculture have become more cruel over the years in order to increase efficiency and profits. “Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations” (I.e. CAFOs or factory farms) result in very bleak lives for the animals as well as environmental concerns such as spills from the “manure lagoons”. We, the American taxpayers, subsidize all of this, because no American politicians dare to stand up to the powerful food and agriculture industries.
June 30, 2023
a decent overview but damn bad economics
December 16, 2025
Meatonomics examines the economics behind the meat and dairy industries, arguing that government subsidies, lobbying, and hidden costs distort food prices and encourage overconsumption. The author lays out how these systems affect public health, the environment, and consumer choice, using data and case studies to show how “cheap meat” isn’t actually cheap at all once the wider impacts are accounted for.
I found this an interesting and informative read, with some seemingly good supporting evidence. That said, it didn’t fully grip me from start to finish. It’s worthwhile and persuasive in parts, but overall it was just okay rather than transformative.
I found this an interesting and informative read, with some seemingly good supporting evidence. That said, it didn’t fully grip me from start to finish. It’s worthwhile and persuasive in parts, but overall it was just okay rather than transformative.
August 16, 2014
This Book Will Change Your Life
Do you know what checkoff programs are? Do you know why the prices for meat and dairy products are so low at grocery stores? More importantly, are you aware that the fact that you’re paying such low costs for these products actually means that you’re paying exorbitant hidden costs elsewhere? The answers to these questions are going to shock and enrage you. It’s not often that a book actually changes the way that you perceive the world, but “Meatonomics” is powerful enough to do just that.
David Robinson Simon peels back the lid on the meat and dairy industry and no intelligent consumer is going to like what he/she finds. In “Meatonomics,” Simon exposes the insidious influence the animal agriculture industry has on the United States government. Don’t believe me? Have you ever heard the slogan, “Milk. It does a body good”? Of course you have. It’s ubiquitous. But when cow’s milk is full of cholesterol and fat (not to mention growth hormones and antibiotics), why is the U.S. government endorsing this product as healthy?
You have a right to make informed decisions about the products you buy and the food that you eat. You have a right to know where your hard-earned money is going in terms of taxes. Unfortunately, as “Meatonomics” proves unequivocally, when there’s money to be made, the animal agriculture industry is more than happy to disregard human health, environmental destruction, and the well-being of the poor animals trapped in factory farms.
Do yourself a favor: buy this book. Inform yourself about the truth. “Meatonomics” is going to change your life for the better…forever.
Do you know what checkoff programs are? Do you know why the prices for meat and dairy products are so low at grocery stores? More importantly, are you aware that the fact that you’re paying such low costs for these products actually means that you’re paying exorbitant hidden costs elsewhere? The answers to these questions are going to shock and enrage you. It’s not often that a book actually changes the way that you perceive the world, but “Meatonomics” is powerful enough to do just that.
David Robinson Simon peels back the lid on the meat and dairy industry and no intelligent consumer is going to like what he/she finds. In “Meatonomics,” Simon exposes the insidious influence the animal agriculture industry has on the United States government. Don’t believe me? Have you ever heard the slogan, “Milk. It does a body good”? Of course you have. It’s ubiquitous. But when cow’s milk is full of cholesterol and fat (not to mention growth hormones and antibiotics), why is the U.S. government endorsing this product as healthy?
You have a right to make informed decisions about the products you buy and the food that you eat. You have a right to know where your hard-earned money is going in terms of taxes. Unfortunately, as “Meatonomics” proves unequivocally, when there’s money to be made, the animal agriculture industry is more than happy to disregard human health, environmental destruction, and the well-being of the poor animals trapped in factory farms.
Do yourself a favor: buy this book. Inform yourself about the truth. “Meatonomics” is going to change your life for the better…forever.
April 19, 2016
Rereading this for a book club … that I probably won't go to this month because I'm in the 3rd day of a COLD! … thank goodness I underlined. This book is a big step in addressing the argument: It's my choice if I want to eat meat and dairy and nobody else's business.
Meatonomics is the first book I've read that clearly outlines the externalities and costs of the meat and dairy consumption passed on to the consumer. The book is a challenging and fascinating read! Understanding the extent and details of the problem will move us towards solutions needed to turn the enormous ship, that is our Food System, in new directions.
The book is dense, well researched, and organized. It's a complex book because these are complex, entangled issues with many interdependencies between groups. The feds, regulating organizations, the industries, and many more profiteers make some kind of money, swap favors, and more. Unfortunately the default culture, what is considered 'normal', has the advantage of a highly misinformed, broad consumer base.
Simon does a good job of addressing many of the roadblocks: lopsided lawmaking, regulatory failure, and industry doublespeak. The externalities and costs are well explained; their historical background, examples, and pie charts/graphs/tables helped me see the big picture more clearly. Analysis, summaries, and recommendations wrap it up. I'm hoping Meatonomics will drive a lot of discussion by consumers and at all levels of change.
Meatonomics is the first book I've read that clearly outlines the externalities and costs of the meat and dairy consumption passed on to the consumer. The book is a challenging and fascinating read! Understanding the extent and details of the problem will move us towards solutions needed to turn the enormous ship, that is our Food System, in new directions.
The book is dense, well researched, and organized. It's a complex book because these are complex, entangled issues with many interdependencies between groups. The feds, regulating organizations, the industries, and many more profiteers make some kind of money, swap favors, and more. Unfortunately the default culture, what is considered 'normal', has the advantage of a highly misinformed, broad consumer base.
Simon does a good job of addressing many of the roadblocks: lopsided lawmaking, regulatory failure, and industry doublespeak. The externalities and costs are well explained; their historical background, examples, and pie charts/graphs/tables helped me see the big picture more clearly. Analysis, summaries, and recommendations wrap it up. I'm hoping Meatonomics will drive a lot of discussion by consumers and at all levels of change.
October 26, 2013
I was pretty interested to tuck into this book when it arrived from the library. Simon draws forth a lot of important issues tied to animal agriculture that are in dire need of being addressed publically.
Unfortunately for me, while Simon exposes a lot of the propaganda and manipulations of an industry, he does so by utilizing the same fudged numbers, out-of-context studies and data from highly-ideological sources without mentioning the ideological nature. He frequently cites from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which sounds like some legit medical organization, but is in fact nothing but an extension of PETA, has nothing to do with medicine outside of advocating for animal-free diets and even many of its members aren't even doctors. When he tries to push the claim that studies consistently show eating fish is a dangerous factor in heart disease, he's practically setting up his own deconstruction.
While it raises some great problems, it addresses them using the same misinformation tactics of the industry it criticizes. This book is far from objective.
Unfortunately for me, while Simon exposes a lot of the propaganda and manipulations of an industry, he does so by utilizing the same fudged numbers, out-of-context studies and data from highly-ideological sources without mentioning the ideological nature. He frequently cites from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, which sounds like some legit medical organization, but is in fact nothing but an extension of PETA, has nothing to do with medicine outside of advocating for animal-free diets and even many of its members aren't even doctors. When he tries to push the claim that studies consistently show eating fish is a dangerous factor in heart disease, he's practically setting up his own deconstruction.
While it raises some great problems, it addresses them using the same misinformation tactics of the industry it criticizes. This book is far from objective.
December 27, 2013
For those not swayed by the personal health, ethical, or environmental arguments for eating less meat, Simon lays it all out in dollars and cents. What are the true costs, especially to our health care system, of a high-fat, high-cholesterol national diet centered around meat and animal foods?
In terms of sheer health costs, we see that Big Livestock most closely resembles Big Tobacco--although on an even greater scale. That's why, Simon argues, if we are ever going to get a hold on this and recoup some of our out-of-control situation, we need to tax animal foods like we tax tobacco.
It's a rational argument that will, like other books of this genre, no doubt mostly be read by people who have either already stopped or greatly reduced their consumption of animal products. When it comes right down to it, it seems that there are two subjects human beings are wholly incapable of being rational about: love and food.
In terms of sheer health costs, we see that Big Livestock most closely resembles Big Tobacco--although on an even greater scale. That's why, Simon argues, if we are ever going to get a hold on this and recoup some of our out-of-control situation, we need to tax animal foods like we tax tobacco.
It's a rational argument that will, like other books of this genre, no doubt mostly be read by people who have either already stopped or greatly reduced their consumption of animal products. When it comes right down to it, it seems that there are two subjects human beings are wholly incapable of being rational about: love and food.
June 24, 2017
I have believed the philosophy that there are three pillars that hold up my adherence to a vegan diet. Health, conscience for animal rights and suffering, and the disastrous impact eating meat has on the climate and environment. This book builds a fourth pillar all while being connected and weaving into the other three, that being the profound negative economic impact that the meat and dairy industry lay at the feet of the American taxpayer and the citizens of the world. This book will take another reading at some point to fully digest (see what I did there) all if the information and concepts, but also much of it is a reinforcement of the evidence that has been presented in many other anti meat and dairy works. David Simon is a lawyer so he writes from a different perspective than do the doctors that are discussing similar topics. This book was far better than I was expecting and it will be one of my staples when I am trying to help show people the way away from meat and dairy.
July 4, 2018
I've read and researched meat consumption in the US in various places over the past year, and this is one book I will be firmly recommending to everyone. Simon does one thing I consistently look for (but rarely find) in nonfiction, he describes a problem
and
offers solutions.
The book flows well and each chapter offers concise summary points. It does have an economics focus but is not a challenging or technical read.
The stats in this book are shocking. Read the book, read the source information/research studies, read the appendices, make an informed decision for yourself, action that decision.
My personal notes-->
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K...
The book flows well and each chapter offers concise summary points. It does have an economics focus but is not a challenging or technical read.
The stats in this book are shocking. Read the book, read the source information/research studies, read the appendices, make an informed decision for yourself, action that decision.
My personal notes-->
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1K...
January 30, 2014
Meatonomics is well-researched, well-written and chockful of useful information pertaining to what we put into our bodies that will affect our health for life. The author also connects this personal concern with a social concern for how food is produced and marketed. Dave Simon has done a masterful job and is not preachy with his approach. The information is there for the reader to access and assess. As an economist and partial vegetarian for the past 30 years, I unequivocally endorse this book.
October 29, 2015
This was a really important read. Everyone needs to read this book because our future depends on it.
April 12, 2025
Right off the bat, I have to agree with the reviews that this is a book that EVERYONE- vegans, meat-eaters, and everyone in between- needs to read. Meatonomics: How the Rigged Economics of Meat and Dairy Make You Consume Too Much―and How to Eat Better, Live Longer, and Spend Smarter, by David Robinson Simon, is a very in-depth look at, particularly, the meat and dairy industries. If you care about your health, your food, your money, or your conscience, it’s imperative that you get the facts. And Simon’s book delivers just that. Simon presents the economical side of the meat-eating debate, although he does touch on the areas of compassion, health, and the environment as well. It’s impossible to talk about the meat and dairy industries by talking exclusively from one angle, because they’re all important and they’re all related.
Simon talks also of the egg industry, of fish-farming, and how “organic” or “humanely-raised” does not mean much at all. And lest you think he’s just spewing hot air, this book has extensive and well-documented citations.
I knew of the basics of these animal industries, and of factory-farming in general, but it’s the level of detail that’s fascinating, and the staggering costs associated with each of these cruel industries. For instance, take government subsidies; most of us know that these subsidies are the reason why a gallon of cow’s milk appears to be so much cheaper than the equivalent amount of plant-based milk. But the extensiveness of these subsidies is shocking. And why do these subsidies even exist? Because the meat and dairy industries are so powerful and have lobbied Congress for funding, and they have corrupted both the FDA and the USDA. (I first learned of the FDA/USDA corruption in Skinny Bitch: A No-Nonsense, Tough-Love Guide for Savvy Girls Who Want to Stop Eating Crap and Start Looking Fabulous!, another fantastically-informative book and one that is referenced here). As an example, why is the USDA in charge of setting nutrition guidelines? It’s the Department of Agriculture– the intent was to focus on farmers, real farmers, not these crazy, greedy, factory-farmers. Who, BTW, have sufficiently influenced the USDA that the agency doesn’t shy away from promoting meat and cow’s milk as part of a healthy diet.
There’s a lot of information in this book, to some of which non-vegans may take offense. But read it, I urge you, if you care about your dollar.
There are many things I don’t understand about non-vegans, but especially why they say things like, “I don’t eat red meat anymore” or “I only eat fish”, as if they’ve somehow made an improvement???? Understand that fish-farming might just be the cruelest industry there is; it’s certainly up there with the chicken/egg industry.
When we talk about animal rights, I’ve had meat-eaters stupidly (but genuinely) ask me, “So they should be able to vote?” There are far more basic rights that animals deserve than being able to cast a ballot. (Though I suspect that, if they could vote, our world politics might finally be fixed.) The concept of “animal rights” means a right to live, a right to spread one’s wings, to nurture one’s young, a right to swim long distances. A right to be free from the bonds of slavery.
A fleeting palate pleasure is not worth a lifetime of torture for anyone. And if it’s human rights you care more about, know that working in a slaughterhouse is one of the most dangerous professions out there. And that the slaughter industry has a history of taking in undocumented laborers abusing their rights.
So, when you support meat and dairy (and fish and eggs, etc.), it’s a lose-lose situation for both you and me.
Simon talks also of the egg industry, of fish-farming, and how “organic” or “humanely-raised” does not mean much at all. And lest you think he’s just spewing hot air, this book has extensive and well-documented citations.
I knew of the basics of these animal industries, and of factory-farming in general, but it’s the level of detail that’s fascinating, and the staggering costs associated with each of these cruel industries. For instance, take government subsidies; most of us know that these subsidies are the reason why a gallon of cow’s milk appears to be so much cheaper than the equivalent amount of plant-based milk. But the extensiveness of these subsidies is shocking. And why do these subsidies even exist? Because the meat and dairy industries are so powerful and have lobbied Congress for funding, and they have corrupted both the FDA and the USDA. (I first learned of the FDA/USDA corruption in Skinny Bitch: A No-Nonsense, Tough-Love Guide for Savvy Girls Who Want to Stop Eating Crap and Start Looking Fabulous!, another fantastically-informative book and one that is referenced here). As an example, why is the USDA in charge of setting nutrition guidelines? It’s the Department of Agriculture– the intent was to focus on farmers, real farmers, not these crazy, greedy, factory-farmers. Who, BTW, have sufficiently influenced the USDA that the agency doesn’t shy away from promoting meat and cow’s milk as part of a healthy diet.
There’s a lot of information in this book, to some of which non-vegans may take offense. But read it, I urge you, if you care about your dollar.
There are many things I don’t understand about non-vegans, but especially why they say things like, “I don’t eat red meat anymore” or “I only eat fish”, as if they’ve somehow made an improvement???? Understand that fish-farming might just be the cruelest industry there is; it’s certainly up there with the chicken/egg industry.
When we talk about animal rights, I’ve had meat-eaters stupidly (but genuinely) ask me, “So they should be able to vote?” There are far more basic rights that animals deserve than being able to cast a ballot. (Though I suspect that, if they could vote, our world politics might finally be fixed.) The concept of “animal rights” means a right to live, a right to spread one’s wings, to nurture one’s young, a right to swim long distances. A right to be free from the bonds of slavery.
A fleeting palate pleasure is not worth a lifetime of torture for anyone. And if it’s human rights you care more about, know that working in a slaughterhouse is one of the most dangerous professions out there. And that the slaughter industry has a history of taking in undocumented laborers abusing their rights.
So, when you support meat and dairy (and fish and eggs, etc.), it’s a lose-lose situation for both you and me.
September 26, 2020
My rating:
3.5 ***.(*/2)
Cholesterol has two children - HDL and LDL. HDL is great and LDL is HDL's evil twin. We've all heard of it, we've all seen doctors asking us to reduce dietary cholesterol, in fact every time USDA and HHS come together to give Americans and the rest of the world's population that looks up to a thumbs up from FDA and USDA, we are urged to reduce dietary cholesterol and instead adapt more MUFAs and PUFAs in our dietary intake. In Simon's own words, "The average American has little idea what these terms mean or the kinds of food associated with them. It's like telling a child, 'You're prohibited from prevaricating,' instead of just saying, 'Don't lie.'". For most laymen who do not understand what cholesterol/MUFAs/PUFAs are, simply put, the dietary guidelines and doctors' recommendations are asking to eat more avocados and little to no ground beef, eggs and dairy for a healthy heart and a sane level of cholesterol.
Nutritionists, dieticians, doctors, physical trainers and industrialists, especially industrialists, have ingrained it in the very blood of people the need for protein! You don't eat meat? Where the hell do you get your protein from? You had an apple and a banana for breakfast? Oh my gosh! that is so much sugar and fat in one meal; and immediately shun it and brand it a recipe for bad breakfast. We have all become slaves to the eternal need for matching macros and micros to the daily intake that USDA recommends and start pouring scoops of whey into our pancake batter, or smoothies - dangerously without understanding if and why our bodies need these artificial quantities of protein?
Simon discusses and explains in his book the economics set in motion by one little organisation with a confused motto and a greedy business of dairy, meat and eggs. While a lot of books that touch this topic have discussed the ethical and health impact of the consumption of artificial quantities of meat, eggs and dairy, meatonomics simplifies the concepts of externalised costs in the meat industry and the unfortunate places they have cropped up at, digging deep into people's pockets and causing several other problems that do not come with a price tag. After all, who can put a price tag on the emotional disturbances and suffering one has to go through while a loved one is battling with obesity/diabetes/multiple heart strokes/cancer. And what price tag is anyone willing to put on the world's 95% missing fisheries, thanks to overfishing, that have provided free services such as cleaning & filtering the world's waters used for irrigation, recycling and so much more. (This has an estimated value of $33 trillion dollars as of 2012, but I have no idea how we arrived at this number. Yet, the highlight remains, 95% fisheries are gone and we have no idea what to do to replace them in a cost effective manner, assuming someone is trying to figure out how to replace this invaluable service.)
3.5 ***.(*/2)
Cholesterol has two children - HDL and LDL. HDL is great and LDL is HDL's evil twin. We've all heard of it, we've all seen doctors asking us to reduce dietary cholesterol, in fact every time USDA and HHS come together to give Americans and the rest of the world's population that looks up to a thumbs up from FDA and USDA, we are urged to reduce dietary cholesterol and instead adapt more MUFAs and PUFAs in our dietary intake. In Simon's own words, "The average American has little idea what these terms mean or the kinds of food associated with them. It's like telling a child, 'You're prohibited from prevaricating,' instead of just saying, 'Don't lie.'". For most laymen who do not understand what cholesterol/MUFAs/PUFAs are, simply put, the dietary guidelines and doctors' recommendations are asking to eat more avocados and little to no ground beef, eggs and dairy for a healthy heart and a sane level of cholesterol.
Nutritionists, dieticians, doctors, physical trainers and industrialists, especially industrialists, have ingrained it in the very blood of people the need for protein! You don't eat meat? Where the hell do you get your protein from? You had an apple and a banana for breakfast? Oh my gosh! that is so much sugar and fat in one meal; and immediately shun it and brand it a recipe for bad breakfast. We have all become slaves to the eternal need for matching macros and micros to the daily intake that USDA recommends and start pouring scoops of whey into our pancake batter, or smoothies - dangerously without understanding if and why our bodies need these artificial quantities of protein?
Simon discusses and explains in his book the economics set in motion by one little organisation with a confused motto and a greedy business of dairy, meat and eggs. While a lot of books that touch this topic have discussed the ethical and health impact of the consumption of artificial quantities of meat, eggs and dairy, meatonomics simplifies the concepts of externalised costs in the meat industry and the unfortunate places they have cropped up at, digging deep into people's pockets and causing several other problems that do not come with a price tag. After all, who can put a price tag on the emotional disturbances and suffering one has to go through while a loved one is battling with obesity/diabetes/multiple heart strokes/cancer. And what price tag is anyone willing to put on the world's 95% missing fisheries, thanks to overfishing, that have provided free services such as cleaning & filtering the world's waters used for irrigation, recycling and so much more. (This has an estimated value of $33 trillion dollars as of 2012, but I have no idea how we arrived at this number. Yet, the highlight remains, 95% fisheries are gone and we have no idea what to do to replace them in a cost effective manner, assuming someone is trying to figure out how to replace this invaluable service.)
This entire review has been hidden because of spoilers.
October 3, 2022
First, off, let me explain that I really wanted to like this book more than I did. The authors examples were compelling, disturbing, and though they were a bit dated, still seemed relevant.
But the more I thought about them, the more I realized they were playing on my emotions more than my reason, and I resent that.
Also, some other examples did not stand the test of time. Certain scientific studies used to bolster the arguments have been shown to have flaws (much like the studies he compares them against.) For example, I read The China Study years ago (which is referenced early in the book) and I've seen explanations by statisticians that show how the data can be interpreted to mean the opposite of what those authors claim.
When I encounter contrary evidence to large claims, my senses tell me to be wary of other large claims made by that same authority.
There are many statistical claims that connect with research studies in this book, but the issue that really got me to lower my book rating was that I don't think the author fairly compares his ideas to the alternatives he proposes. He explains the horrors of animal farming well, but there is too little attention given to the futurist "what ifs": vertical farming? bioengineered meats? alternative protein sources (bugs, fungus)? This is odd because he does express the technological changes that got us where we are today, but seems to suggest that this is where it ends.
Also, while he shares economic data about the costs associated with animal farming, we do not get comparative data for plant farming. It is common technique used to lie with statistics (and there are several good books on that subject). I'll not go into an explanation of this issue here.
So, while his claims may be valid, and he clearly expresses his ideas, I don't this he has proved his points as well as I would like him to.
But the more I thought about them, the more I realized they were playing on my emotions more than my reason, and I resent that.
Also, some other examples did not stand the test of time. Certain scientific studies used to bolster the arguments have been shown to have flaws (much like the studies he compares them against.) For example, I read The China Study years ago (which is referenced early in the book) and I've seen explanations by statisticians that show how the data can be interpreted to mean the opposite of what those authors claim.
When I encounter contrary evidence to large claims, my senses tell me to be wary of other large claims made by that same authority.
There are many statistical claims that connect with research studies in this book, but the issue that really got me to lower my book rating was that I don't think the author fairly compares his ideas to the alternatives he proposes. He explains the horrors of animal farming well, but there is too little attention given to the futurist "what ifs": vertical farming? bioengineered meats? alternative protein sources (bugs, fungus)? This is odd because he does express the technological changes that got us where we are today, but seems to suggest that this is where it ends.
Also, while he shares economic data about the costs associated with animal farming, we do not get comparative data for plant farming. It is common technique used to lie with statistics (and there are several good books on that subject). I'll not go into an explanation of this issue here.
So, while his claims may be valid, and he clearly expresses his ideas, I don't this he has proved his points as well as I would like him to.
July 10, 2023
I read this book in 2023 after hearing it as a recommendation on the Ezra Klein show. The book is now a bit outdated. I was often left wondering what the most recent data or policies would still support the author's statements. As someone raised on a standard American diet, and later became vegetarian I went through a phase of consuming the canonincal books and documentaries in the American anti-animal agriculture space. As my vegetarianism has gone from a novel to mundane part of me over time, so has my interest in this kind of book. They all make very similar arguments and I can only subject myself to so much imagery of horrific violence against animals. However, I picked up this book hoping for a fresh perspective on the topic.
Like many other anti-animal agriculture texts, this book tries to be comprehensive and intersectional but ends up making too many incomplete arguments at once. It is also laden with anti-fat bias which it uses to bolster health claims that uderpin "meatonimics". I expected this book to provide a fresh perspective by providing an analysis of a plant-based lifestyle from an econimists' lens. However, "meatonimics" relies so overwhelmingly on externalized healthcare costs as a rationale for political action, it ends up being just another book about the negative health effects of animal foods. In my opinion, this focus is too narrow because it ignores other structural reasons for high healthcare costs in the US, and the negative impact of refined plant foods like sugar. The political solutions offered are not particularly savvy, and could never be implemented in the US. This left me without any meaningful take-away message from the book.
I really wanted to like this book, but found it to be a bit of a nothingburger. If you haven't read too many books critical of animal agriculture, it may be a fine place to start.
Like many other anti-animal agriculture texts, this book tries to be comprehensive and intersectional but ends up making too many incomplete arguments at once. It is also laden with anti-fat bias which it uses to bolster health claims that uderpin "meatonimics". I expected this book to provide a fresh perspective by providing an analysis of a plant-based lifestyle from an econimists' lens. However, "meatonimics" relies so overwhelmingly on externalized healthcare costs as a rationale for political action, it ends up being just another book about the negative health effects of animal foods. In my opinion, this focus is too narrow because it ignores other structural reasons for high healthcare costs in the US, and the negative impact of refined plant foods like sugar. The political solutions offered are not particularly savvy, and could never be implemented in the US. This left me without any meaningful take-away message from the book.
I really wanted to like this book, but found it to be a bit of a nothingburger. If you haven't read too many books critical of animal agriculture, it may be a fine place to start.
June 12, 2017
Great, broad explanation of the externalities imposed by animal agriculture on society as well as their root causes. Fairly good at staying on topic within each chapter, so if you're only interested or already feel you know enough about the ethical, environmental, or health costs of animal agriculture, you could technically skip those chapters. However, it's pretty short so I'd recommend just giving the whole book a read. I honestly think everyone in the United States regardless of diet should read this as it impacts you as a citizen and taxpayer regardless of your level of participation in the consumption of animal products.
-1 star for the inaccurate GHG statistic cited: animal agriculture accounts for roughly 13-15% emissions (depending on source age and calculation methods used). That 50% statistic was from a non peer-reviewed report and has since been corrected. The UN provides 14.5% as an estimate for livestock as a percentage of man-made emissions:
http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resourc...
-1 star for the inaccurate GHG statistic cited: animal agriculture accounts for roughly 13-15% emissions (depending on source age and calculation methods used). That 50% statistic was from a non peer-reviewed report and has since been corrected. The UN provides 14.5% as an estimate for livestock as a percentage of man-made emissions:
http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resourc...
November 12, 2019
A wonderful book that is very well written in a neat methodical fashion covering a wide range of topics. Even though the author is a lawyer, the language used in the book is entertaining and gets the message across without the unnecessary circumvention that is common in legal parlance.
As the title suggests, meatonomics deals with the economic side of the meat (and dairy) industry. An eye-opener in terms of the huge sums of money that is wasted in animal farming and also the gruesome fate of these farm animals. The author is not at all condescending in his tone when he narrates the plight of farm animals and especially when suggesting how each reader can help improve the situation for the good of the animals and the humans who consume them.
This book has provided a lot of insight into the workings of the animal farming industry and has helped me in bolstering my conviction to continue being a vegan and being happy at that.
As the title suggests, meatonomics deals with the economic side of the meat (and dairy) industry. An eye-opener in terms of the huge sums of money that is wasted in animal farming and also the gruesome fate of these farm animals. The author is not at all condescending in his tone when he narrates the plight of farm animals and especially when suggesting how each reader can help improve the situation for the good of the animals and the humans who consume them.
This book has provided a lot of insight into the workings of the animal farming industry and has helped me in bolstering my conviction to continue being a vegan and being happy at that.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 88 reviews