Not knowing the data source, I know often times a lot of what is considered "meat subsidy" is actually ranchers grazing cattle on public land at very low prices. It's not a subsidy in the traditional sense of taxpayers mailing checks to producers. It's more like taxpayers saying, "We could charge you $100, but we'll only charge you $50, to graze your cow on this hillside." We could charge those ranchers more, and probably should. But people need protein. They need calcium. The subsidies create a market imbalance, but it's not like it's an enormously harmful imbalance in our diet. We're not really a nation of fatties because we eat way too much beef and milk. It's the grain subsidies that really bother me. It makes absolutely no sense to subsidize the production of high fructose corn syrup.
Oops, forgot the link. I got the graph from Consumer Reports blog. http://consumerist.com/2010/03/why-a-salad-costs-more-than-a-big-mac.html A great website!