Meat isn't a political thing, despite how they may portray it as such. In 1950 people were still recovering from the effects of the wars, diet wasn't as much of a priority. The quality of food in general has greatly decreased my very the decades, I would say it is at an all time low because of the mass involvement of corporations more interested in profit rather than quality. I ate predominantly plant based for years. All I can say is you have to try it for yourself, and perhaps listen to some people have discussions and debates on the topic.

People are pushed into eating meat because the nutritional content of veggies is much lower than it was decades ago. Meat usually packs much more, enabling you to be healthier. The lower relative price of meat is actually bad for business. Its driven by importing, and the effect is that small ranchers go out of business, and the remaining incorporated mega ranches use the worst practices - the worst for animal well-being and the worst for nutrition. Both are caused by government. The government doesn't want regenerative agriculture, which would fix the nutrition crisis as well as restoring the environment, and they use preferential loans (part of interest paid by gov so the farmer pays less) to push farmers into growing certain things and in certain ways. The government wants farmers using pesticides and fertilizer because they are dual purpose technologies - if you can make fertilizers, you can make bombs ; if you can make pesticides, you can make chemical weapons.

I am strongly against the fact that gov has direct point on this. Maby Politicians get incentivised to support big food companies. But then Politicians are only the tool. But the real bad guys are the big companies. And the laws that let them pay politicians without transparency. We need a big wave of transparency laws for democracies to work. How is our voting system free if we do not know who is paying?