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