• PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 months ago

    the oxford study doesn’t account for people who don’t pay money for food, grow their own, hunt, fish, raise livestock, or even have it subsidized. basically, it doesn’t account for poor people anywhere in the developed world. you are jumping to conclusions to say that it is cheaper for anyone but the wealthiest people.

    • usernamesAreTrickyOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      I cited more than one study. The other ones looked at average real world spending data

        • usernamesAreTrickyOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          I disagree with your premise that it is misleading at all. Including things that the majority of the population does not do nor can scale to the overall population would not work for a modeling study. Most people are not hunters, including that in a cost estimation study would just be giving people a false sense of true cost. Real world data would be more reliable way for that if you wanted to try to include that in a more realistic way

          • PeggyLouBaldwin@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            6 months ago

            most people get at least some of their food for free, subsidized, or through farming, gardening, or hunting. this study only accounted for foods taht people buy. it’s misleading to claim this represents accurately how much people spend on food.