
USDA: We will not steer people away from meat to protect the environment - noondip
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/10/06/usda-we-will-not-steer-people-away-from-meat-to-protect-the-environment/
======
qrendel
There is no shortage of meat consumption in the US to the point of adverse
health effects - in fact the opposite would seem to be the case. The amount of
meat consumed per capita has increased around 54% since 1950 (up to something
like an average of 222 lbs per person per year)[1].

There is likely a shortage of healthy vegetable consumption compared to what's
been reported to reduce all-cause mortality.[2] Meanwhile beef production uses
something like 160x the amount of land per calorie of crops like potatoes,
wheat, rice, and around 28x that of other meats.[3]

[1] [http://grist.org/article/2010-03-25-corn-ethanol-meat-
hfcs/](http://grist.org/article/2010-03-25-corn-ethanol-meat-hfcs/)

[2]
[http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2014/03/03/jech-2013-20350...](http://jech.bmj.com/content/early/2014/03/03/jech-2013-203500.full)

[3] [http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/07/among-meats-beef-
has-...](http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/07/among-meats-beef-has-a-beefy-
environmental-footprint/)

~~~
001sky
Isn't the issue that poor people cannot afford fresh food? The calorie/dollar
of veg+fruit is not a good value because in places like NYC or SF the markets
are completely gentrified and the prices are astronomical. The other
consideration is that the poor cannot live in nice real estate areas -- they
live in grocery ghettoes. Take a look at the un-even distribution of places
like trader joes around the uS and compare that to wal-mart. TJs is only in
NFL metros for the most part (with upscale exceptions proving the rule). All
of these public health "concerns" reeek of 1st world problems by weatlthy
urban people who don't farm or have extensive familiarity with subsistence
living. Remember that food stamps were created for poor white people in rural
appalccia. The urban poor have completely different health concerns tied to
the economics of real estate and transportation. None of this is served or in
the scope of normal by the usda.

~~~
qopp
Here's the actual price data of U.S. cities compared to the midwest:

[http://www.bls.gov/regions/mid-
atlantic/data/AverageRetailFo...](http://www.bls.gov/regions/mid-
atlantic/data/AverageRetailFoodAndEnergyPrices_USandMidwest_Table.htm#ro3xg01apmw.f.1)

~~~
001sky
Obviously real estate and food prices are correlated at the county and/or zip
code level and that is a bit of a data challenge in reviewing this linked
data.

My point above is that its a hard thing to mandate people eat food X when it
might be $10 for 2,000 calories vs $2 for 2,000 calories. Its also a problem
if the $10 option pre-supposed you buy in bulk, have access to refrigeration,
and use spreadsheets to minimize wastage which otherwsie might be as high as
30% (making it $10 for 1400 calories down the gullet). My understanding of
what little research has been done in this area has highlighted that the
logistics and economics of fresh fruit/veg are heavily biased towards the
upper/middle classes in many ways that are not obviously apparent nor
addressed stricly by "guidance" on what is a "better" mix of foods. To use an
analogy that people with white priveldge may be more able to understand: if I
tell you to pack a weeks worth of fresh fruit and raw meat for a hike in
yosemite, which you have to carry, and forbid you from eating anything like
nuts/granola/raisins/cliffbars/dried meat, you probably would have a bad time
lugging around that backpack over 10,000 ft passes and what not. The reality
is that rich white people in the backcountry eat the same crappy food as inner
city poor people once they lose access to refrigeration/storage and
frequent/convenient resupply options. It doesn matter if you look at a pro bar
or a nature valley or a power bar or a snickers. They are all interchangeble
in that context and do the job, despite some being up to 7x as expensive. And
nobody would call a diet of 8 probars and a pack of beef jerkey a day either
healthy or well rounded, but you will survive your trip. Of course, if you eat
this diet in a sedentary culture, you're BMI will get out of wack. But that is
the power of the explanation.

------
mc32
The USDA should advise on nutrition not on environment, likewise the EPA
should advise on environment and not nutrition. So, while I eat little meat, I
think they made a good call. It's not in their direct scope. At the same time,
the meat producers should be reserved, one day they may find that less meat is
better nutritionally and if they do find so, tell it like it is.

Not sure what the WAPO is trying to imply here. It's as if they want the USDA
to go outside their scope --you know, not printing newspapers might also be
beneficial to the environment, WAPO, but I don't see you ditching printing out
of benevolence but rather necessity as fewer people buy newspapers.

~~~
sdenton4
On the contrary, the mandate of the USDA is to provide guidance and regulation
relating to the meat and dairy industries. As the meat and dairy industries
have definite environmental impact, they have space to make recommendations
relating to the intersection of the meat industry and the environment.

It's foolish to think that we should all live in tiny, proscribed silos of
expertise, and simply ignore all areas which other silos might have some claim
to...

~~~
mc32
That's why we have other departments of the gov't to advise on their
proscribed silos of expertise. No, I think this is the right thing to do.
Stick to your area of expertise. I don't want gov't departments going rogue
using up resources.

They should stick to their scope like nutrition, food safety, etc. They have
too few food inspectors as it is.

~~~
PavlovsCat
They are sticking to their scope, actually. They're just not sticking to your
baseless claim of what their scope is.

[http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=USDA_MISS...](http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=USDA_MISSION_AREAS)

> Natural Resources and Environment ensures the health of the land through
> sustainable management. Its agencies work to prevent damage to natural
> resources and the environment, restore the resource base, and promote good
> land management.

[http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/](http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/)

"going rogue, using up resources" \-- doesn't apply to the USDA, does apply to
meat production. And it's not like the industry just shuts up and makes meat,
sticking to wasting resources that way; they also advertise and lobby, do they
not?

~~~
mc32
I think there is a distinction between good land management, given conditions,
that's to say how to best use land, with the presupposition of it being used,
versus saying don't use it at all.

Moreover, the USDA itself is of the opinion that kind of recommendation you're
suggesting, it out of their scope. So they disagree. I know people want them
to think otherwise, but, they don't think so. I'm glad they have not become an
activist department going beyond their scope, in this case.

------
marricks
This is a sad day, this really should have been established... at least the
discussion brought attention to the thunderous impact of animal ag on the
environment, given that it produces more CO2 emissions than the combined
exhaust from all transportation.[1]

Also quite revealing the meat industry's objection,

> _The meat industry disputed the claim, and the notion that dietary
> guidelines ought to consider the environment._

They, of course, didn't dispute the impact, just that people should even
consider it in a dietary guideline.

[1]
[http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM](http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/a0701e/a0701e00.HTM)

------
peterwwillis
It's possible that we could run out of food by ignoring the environment.

If we overfish, there will be no more fish for the FDA to regulate. If we
pollute the earth, water and air, there will be less clean earth, water and
air with which to grow crops to eat. The crops are fed to the land animals we
farm, too, so those are also affected.

There is no government agency dedicated to making sure we have both good
quality food and enough ("sustainable") food. The FDA and USDA are concerned
with food _safety_ and not availability or quality.

There aren't ecosystems, there is one giant ecosystem that everything is a
part of. Until the majority of our food is grown in underground caves, both
the FDA and USDA should make an interest in the environment a major priority
so we can have the best quality (and most abundant) food possible. But this
doesn't happen.

Why? Because the people with the greatest financial incentives to create food
will profit more now by caring about the environment less now. Politicians
don't get increased campaign funds to make sure your tomatoes are healthier
for you. They get increased campaign funds to make sure the tomato seeds are
copyrighted by a corporation.

Fish fall through the cracks in a big way because we never needed to "grow"
them before. Between 1970 and 2010, fish stocks worldwide fell to 26% of their
former levels. About 70% of current worldwide fish stock is overfished or at
its limit. But USDA only regulates farmed fish like catfish. The rest is
handled by the U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s Fisheries Service. The EPA in collaboration with the FDA sets
limits on acceptable levels of contaminants in fish products.

------
ghubbard
USDA: The United States Department of Agriculture

The U.S. federal executive department responsible for developing and executing
federal government policy on farming, agriculture, forestry, and food.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Ag...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Department_of_Agriculture)

------
Reason077
I always assumed that USDA was some kind of industry body set up to promote
the U.S. beef industry. I'm surprised to learn that it actually has other
roles!

------
hugh4
Wow, it's like there's a government department which sees its job as serving
the people instead of ruling over them.

~~~
emj
Because the meat worship we have today is totally a grass root movement.

~~~
venomsnake
It is. Also grass fed. Tasty tasty grass fed.

Meat has always been the food of the rich, of the higher classes and is damn
tasty. Meat is also terrific source of proteins, fat soluble vitamins and
fats.

~~~
noondip
It's also a great source of saturated fat and cholesterol. Besides, fruits,
vegetables, grains and legumes have all the protein and nutrients you need, so
why filter them through an animal's body?

------
thephyber
USDA was the department that bought us the "food pyramid"[1] and somewhat
controversial[2] plate[3][4] marketing campaigns.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_pyramid_%28nutrition%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_pyramid_%28nutrition%29)

[2] Controversial due to the details surrounding the including the replacement
of a water drink with a dairy drink placeholder. See [4]

[3] [http://www.webmd.com/diet/20110602/plate-replaces-pyramid-
as...](http://www.webmd.com/diet/20110602/plate-replaces-pyramid-as-diet-
guideline-icon)

[4] [http://friedmansprout.com/2011/10/04/harvard-vs-usda-
dishing...](http://friedmansprout.com/2011/10/04/harvard-vs-usda-dishing-out-
controversy-over-dietary-guidelines/)

