Frustrating, no. Half the people in the US couldn't afford food if the costs weren't low. Paying subsidies is a way to keep labor costs low while keeping people fed.
It's part of the disconnect that industrialization and urbanization has brought. People don't really understand agriculture or agriculture policy anymore.
Things like adding iodine to salt; iron, thiamin, and niacin to bread; extra vitamin D to milk. Federal stockpiles of various types of food from grain to cheese. All done to improve the general health and wellbeing, and as a measure of insurance in the event of war or disaster.
The only thing most people on the internet seem to know about today is the old politician's cry of "We're paying farmers not to grow food!" Yeah, well, there's a reason for that. When the farmers go out of business, you have no food.
It's not ideal. It's not perfect. But it's worked, and has kept America fat and happy for almost a century. Try to understand more than what's right in front of you.
"Frustrating" is by itself vague, so I agree with your point. I meant: frustrating for having an informed conversation about how a changing world and a changing climate suggest a changing diet. Past subsidies to animal agriculture make it easier for people to now dismiss new plant-based foods as fringe and not for them, because of their cost.
Plants high in protein are easier to preserve, cheaper to grow, cheaper to transport, can be stored with less energy, the list goes on.
It seems like we do this entirely because most of us think it tastes good. There’s no reason we couldn’t sustain ourselves on a fraction of the meat, dairy, and eggs that we have now.
I do wonder what I’m missing. There must be more to it.
Or to assure a minimum well being for the population. A good economy is just a means for the goal of providing well being the citizens.
Even if keeping people fed increased labor cost over letting them starve, we should still keep people fed.