by Tom Philpott
Ironically enough, the people who cram animals together and stuff them full of dodgy feed are really, really sensitive. So please don’t say anything critical about meat.An iron-clad rule for government bureaucrats of all ranks: thou shalt
not question the American habit of eating more than a half pound of
meat per day. The folks responsible for churning out millions of pounds
steaks, chops, nuggets, and burgers—and vast, toxic manure
cesspools—are sensitive souls. Hurting their feelings is … mean! From
the Hill:
The Farm Bureau is none too happy with the EPA today for publishing a
blog post urging Americans to give up meat.
The post in question was written by an EPA intern and recounts her
decision to stop eating meat. The author, Nicole Reising, cites the
“environmental effects of meat production” and urges readers to stop
eating meat.
….
The American Farm Bureau Federation issued a statement today decrying
the post as disrepectful to ranchers.
“While this is a position taken by an intern of the agency, EPA
should control its blog space,” said AFBP President Bob Stallman. “What
is written on its blog comes across as its official position toward
farmers and ranchers that it regulates and shows a terrible disregard
for them and the agriculture industry.”
To be clear, the American Farm Bureau Federation calles itself the
“Voice of Agriculture,” but it’s really the voice of industrial agriculture—and the few companies that benefit from it. To say that the
EPA “regulates” concentrated-animal feedlot operations (CAFOs) is a bit
fanciful. As the Washington Post recently put it:
Despite its impact, manure has not been as strictly regulated as more
familiar pollution problems, like human sewage, acid rain or industrial
waste. The Obama administration has made moves to change that but
already has found itself facing off with farm interests, entangled in
the contentious politics of poop.
The brazen intern in question, Nicole Reising, had proposed—without
considering the feelings of meat-industry execs or CAFO
operators!—that “Regulations can be made to help prevent the effects of
meat production,
but the easiest way to lessen the environmental impacts is to become a
vegetarian or vegan.”
Over on TNR,
Brad Plumer quibbles with Reising: “if you’re trying to tamp down on
the consequences of meat production, the ‘easiest’ approach may be to
start small and just convince people to eat less meat, rather than
swearing off it altogether.”
I would quibble with Reising and Plumer. Habits form and congeal over decades. Historically, meat has
been dear; it’s now cheap largely due to specific government action and
inaction over the past 30 years.
People aren’t going to cut back
on meat because EPA interns and political bloggers want them to. Curbing
the ruinous practices of the meat industry starts with enforcing the
regulations already on the books; and that means a new commitment on the
part of Reising’s bosses at the EPA, as well as leaders at FDA and
USDA, to make the meat industry pay for the messes it creates.
When
that happens, people will surely eat less meat—and the meat that they
do eat will tend to come from ecologically robust agriculture, and not
the dark, Satanic meat mills that now dominate. Check out my recent post on what it would take to expand human-scale, pasture-based meat
production.
Related Links:
Hipster habits that annoy the Earth [SLIDESHOW]
Foreign Policy mag spotlights ‘peak phosphorous’
Michigan woman faces down meat industry, wins [VIDEO]