Epistemic status: preliminary take, likely not considering many factors.
Iām starting to think that economic development and animal welfare go hand in hand. Since the end of the COVID pandemic, the plant-based meat industry has declined in large part because consumersā disposable incomes declined (at least in developed countries). Itās good that GFI and others are trying to achieve price parity with conventional meat. However, finding ways to increase disposable incomes (or equivalently, reduce the cost of living) will likely accelerate the adoption of meat substitutes, even if price parity isnāt reached.
My understanding is that the consumption of essentially all animal products seems to increase in income at the country level across the observed range, whether or not you control for various things. See the regression table on slide 7 and the graph of āimplied elasticity on incomeā on slide 8 here.
Iām not seeing the paper itself online anywhere, but maybe reach out to Gustav if youāre interested.
Status: recollection of past reading on meat consumption elasticity a while ago and some claude fact-checking
AFAIK atleast in many developing economies (which collectively hold atleast >70% of the human population),an increase in disposable incomes leads to an increase in meat consumption.
I think the net effects in developed countries is the same, plant based meat consumption goes up but simulatounsly the lower income members of society eat more meat.
Most of this meat consumption increase relies on the cheapest meat of factory farmed chickens in particular so Iām not sure if I agree on the symbiosis here.
However, Sonnet 3.5 says that insect consumption broadly decreases with economic development so a weaker version of your claim could be closer to the truth
Epistemic status: preliminary take, likely not considering many factors.
Iām starting to think that economic development and animal welfare go hand in hand. Since the end of the COVID pandemic, the plant-based meat industry has declined in large part because consumersā disposable incomes declined (at least in developed countries). Itās good that GFI and others are trying to achieve price parity with conventional meat. However, finding ways to increase disposable incomes (or equivalently, reduce the cost of living) will likely accelerate the adoption of meat substitutes, even if price parity isnāt reached.
Do you have a source for this? Median real disposable income is growing in the US, as is meat consumption. https://āāwww.vox.com/āāfuture-perfect/āā386374/āāgrocery-store-meat-purchasing people are buying more and more meat as they get richer, even in developed countries
My understanding is that the consumption of essentially all animal products seems to increase in income at the country level across the observed range, whether or not you control for various things. See the regression table on slide 7 and the graph of āimplied elasticity on incomeā on slide 8 here.
Iām not seeing the paper itself online anywhere, but maybe reach out to Gustav if youāre interested.
Status: recollection of past reading on meat consumption elasticity a while ago and some claude fact-checking
AFAIK atleast in many developing economies (which collectively hold atleast >70% of the human population),an increase in disposable incomes leads to an increase in meat consumption.
I think the net effects in developed countries is the same, plant based meat consumption goes up but simulatounsly the lower income members of society eat more meat.
Most of this meat consumption increase relies on the cheapest meat of factory farmed chickens in particular so Iām not sure if I agree on the symbiosis here.
However, Sonnet 3.5 says that insect consumption broadly decreases with economic development so a weaker version of your claim could be closer to the truth