"Meatless Mondays" - USDA Called 'Extremist Vegetarians'

Hank Campbell

The Agriculture Department is supposed to promote agriculture, including meat, but it seems someone in there once read a flawed metric that claims it takes a gallon of gas to produce a pound of beef and recommended USDA employees go meatless to save the world.

Is there any truth to it? No, but maybe they are counting on another four years of anti-science, advocacy-based leadership and getting a head start. In their agency newsletter, they provided tips on how to reduce environmental impact while eating in the department cafeteria - they suggested not eating meat.

They derived that claim from a UN report which copied it from a dubious claim in a book which lifted it from a 1986 newspaper article quoting an activist who made it up - basically, the same way the UN gets most of its science. It was a nice, round number so simple even anti-science activists could remember it. It caught on. Seriously, in activism that is how these claims become mantra. The School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University even has a website devoted to it, claiming that going meatless will prevent cancer, cardiovascular disease, diabetes and obesity. Oh, and solve global warming. That's $1 billion of your tax dollars per year right there, folks. Thanks, Johns Hopkins.

Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, who represents a lot of farmers, flipped out after the National Cattleman’s Beef Association denounced the USDA Any-Food-Except-Meat advocacy. Politico quotes his Twitter account, “I will eat more meat on Monday to compensate for stupid USDA recommendation abt a meatless Monday."

Even Al Gore knew better than to screw with Iowa farmers. He frankly admitted he only claimed ethanol was solid science just to get votes from the midwest. After the National Cattleman’s Beef Association called it part of an extremist vegetarian agenda, the Agriculture Department said that newsletter recommendation was made "without proper clearance" and removed it. You need clearance for a newsletter? How about only hiring people who know what they are talking about instead of activists who like making a newsletter a political football during election season?

Whoever made that claim for the USDA must also have read the anti-science nonsense claiming it takes 140 liters of water to make a cup of coffee and boycotted that also - because they clearly are sleeping on the job.

Comments

In fairness, this was from an internal newsletter, which can obviously include contributions from all manner of people. If we're talking about something put together by employees, then there's nothing official about it.

From my understanding it found its way to the FDA website, where it was placed without "official" approval.

You need clearance for a newsletter?

Well, yeah ... if you want to avoid the media feeding frenzy over any topics/opinions/ideas that might be expressed in it [especially since it wasn't an official outlet]. On the one hand we complain about bureaucracy and yet we force it by requiring everything to be examined through official channels, lest we foment another tempest in a teacup.

Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, who represents a lot of farmers, flipped out after the National Cattleman’s Beef Association denounced the USDA Any-Food-Except-Meat advocacy.

I'll make sure to thank him for adding another level of political correctness that we all have to be aware of [note to self ... can't say anything bad about meat any more].

{NOTE: Head-slap to Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley, for thinking that his constituents and the rest of the American people are so stupid and gullible that an entry in an internal FDA newsletter is enough to get the entire nation to stop eating meat on Mondays. Of course, if he doesn't really think that, then he needs to simply shut up, because he's got a lot more important work he should be focusing on than what people eat for lunch}.

Gerhard Adam | 07/26/12 | 13:12 PM

Link

I think the notion that taxpayer-financed organizations that force themselves into positions of oversight can have employees who advocate personal beliefs in official documents (externally distributed or not) has long been debunked.

USDA cranks should write a personal blog instead, they don't need to put their opinions on government letterhead.

—

Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind

Hank Campbell | 07/26/12 | 13:18 PM

Link

Except it's not an official document. It's a newsletter, talking about their cafeteria, so it's not an actual document using "government letterhead" beyond the use of the acronym.

To view the actual newsletter:
http://moran.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=668d6da1-314c-4647-9f17-25edb67bb2f2

Gerhard Adam | 07/26/12 | 13:29 PM

Link

If Exxon wrote something in its newsletter that was in violation of federal policies and guidelines, they'd be in court. This is a government body, nothing in any document is personal opinion. Johns Hopkins can engage in crackpottery because they only get government money, they are not the actual government.

You're twisting this as some political correctness about cattle. This is a government employee using a government tool on government time to promote personal beliefs that contradict the mission statement of the agency that has its name on it.

—

Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind

Hank Campbell | 07/26/12 | 13:32 PM

Link

You're twisting this as some political correctness about cattle.

It is. You say "If Exxon wrote something in its newsletter" ... absolutely right. If Exxon did it. Not if an employee writing for an internal unofficial newsletter.

This wasn't the USDA making the statement. It was an employee. That's the distinction.

My concern is that for a nation that prides itself on having the "Freedom of Speech" protected in the first amendment, we seem far more concerned about ensuring that crazy people have guns, than in ensuring that we can actually speak freely in this country. I am opposed to the notion that an employee should be [or even can be] fired because they may say something that disagrees with an official position of a company they work for. Similarly, I'm opposed to the notion that being a government employee always means we have to agree or we have to oppress our personal views.

In all these cases, I'm talking about expressing ourselves in an unofficial capacity, not where it's part of our job or we have a obligation to specifically represent the organization.

As for the cattle ... those whiney-asses haven't gotten over their issue with Oprah, so I don't have any sympathy for them. They're doing fine and they need to get over their hiper-vigilance over the idea that people may not think meat is the "food of the Gods". I happen to be an extreme meat-eater, so I'm hardly in the vegetarian camp on this.

For me, chicken is almost a vegetable ... so it's not any bias that I have against them.

The truth is, that this notion of "supporting" these industries is bullshit. If the same USDA employee had written a comment about helping people quit smoking, there wouldn't be a single opposing comment, despite the obvious point that the USDA [or this employee] would not be supporting tobacco growers. It absolutely is about political correctness.

Also, we should also question why a senator feels that a governmental agency is in the business of supporting particular industries? In case he's forgotten, his obligation is to his constituents ... not his political contributors/lobbyists, but then it's an easy mistake to make. Then again, one doesn't acquire the title "King of Pork" without reason.

Gerhard Adam | 07/26/12 | 13:42 PM

Link

This is an example of politics overcoming common sense. The article was not anti-agriculture. Vegetables, grains are all agriculture. Political influence has led our government agencies to ignore nutritional science in favor of promoting unhealthy alternatives.

Conscientia (not verified) | 07/27/12 | 10:18 AM

Link

... read the anti-science nonsense claiming it takes 140 liters of water to make a cup of coffee

Here's greater hyperbole: 200 L to make a cup of coffee. According to USGS, it takes 133 L (35 US gallons). To show the great confidence interval in such figures, the same site claims that it takes somewhere between 4,000-18,000 gallons of water to make 1 hamburger. That's an average of 11 000 gallons or 41800 L. So if 400 billion hamburgers are eaten per year in the US, 2 X10¹⁶ L would be required. That's almost twice the water than in all of Lake Superior! Unlikely for just one product.

Enrico Uva | 07/26/12 | 16:31 PM

Link

That's almost twice the water than in all of Lake Superior! Unlikely for just one product.

That's easy enough to prove. If you can take a picnic lunch and walk to the Edmund Fitzgerald then there's probably some merit to the claims :)

Gerhard Adam | 07/26/12 | 16:53 PM

Link

That's easy enough to prove. If you can take a picnic lunch and walk to the Edmund Fitzgerald then there's probably some merit to the claims :)

:) Funny

Enrico Uva | 07/27/12 | 04:45 AM

Link

Right, 'virtual water' won all kinds of awards from activist groups because it is scary and tells us we are doomed. Except people do not drink virtual water and therefore there have been no wars over water, but there should have been for the last 50 years if it were anything except made-up nonsense.

That part got cut from the book because I already made the same point about beef and a gallon of gas (but that got shortened anyway) - it is easy to do a whole book on nothing but made up goofy metrics invented by activists for scare purposes.

—

Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind

Hank Campbell | 07/26/12 | 16:54 PM

Link

"The Agriculture Department is supposed to promote agriculture," ?Please educate me, does eating need promoting in the developed world ...

—

Thor Russell

Thor Russell | 07/26/12 | 16:38 PM

Link

ha ha You have stumbled on the great mystery of government bureaucracy. We have a Department of Education at the federal level despite the fact that all education is done at the state and local levels; so the federal group collects money and then sends 85% of it right back to local school districts that sent it. What happens to that 15% is why I should have worked for the government.

—

Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind

Hank Campbell | 07/26/12 | 16:51 PM

Link

You think that's something. In Canada, compared to Quebec, Alberta and Saskatchewan have 1.75 and 1.5 times the per capita GDP. Moreover, Quebec has a huge deficit so it cannot pay for its post-high school education. So the federal government takes excess revenue collected from the rich provinces and sends transfer payments to Quebec so it could keep the colleges and universities running. Now, one may argue that at one point the roles were reversed, and that's what federalism is all about. But despite all this, people in this province still expect free tuition and some, in addition, have the audacity to talk about separating from the country!

Enrico Uva | 07/27/12 | 12:21 PM

Link

So the federal government takes excess revenue collected from the rich provinces and sends transfer payments to Quebec so it could keep the colleges and universities running.

Part of the role of government is the redistribution of wealth [despite the howls of protest]. Without that, what's the point of having a centralized government? If we take the states as an examples, do we really want to have 50 states competing with each other for industry? Do we really want to have "ghetto" states?

After all, the primary consideration should reflect what the benefit is in terms of belonging to a centrally organized nation. It might be different if each state or province had the choice in determining whether to participate or not, but it certainly isn't reasonable to require their participation and then deny them benefits.

Gerhard Adam | 07/27/12 | 12:49 PM

Link

what's the point of having a centralized government

To provide services that are unique to the nation, like defense, interstate standards and commerce, treaties.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/27/12 | 14:24 PM

Link

Now you're just cherry-picking the things you want. What does that mean ... "unique to a nation"? Does that mean the "nation" has the authority to force membership? What if some group no longer wants to participate and wishes to become their own "nation"?

Gerhard Adam | 07/27/12 | 15:12 PM

Link

The States joined the Union, and we had a war then some of them tried to seceded.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/27/12 | 17:50 PM

Link

I'm not sure what your point is, other than that the U.S. central government took military action to enforce its leadership over those of the states.

Other parts of the world have had similar experiences, but that begs the question then about what constitutes the "nation". If is simply that which has the military might to hold together its territories, then it's not much of a criteria.

Gerhard Adam | 07/27/12 | 18:10 PM

Link

Part of the role of government is the redistribution of wealth [despite the howls of protest]. Without that, what's the point of having a centralized government?

My point is that there are many other reasons for a centralized government.

—

Never is a long time.

Mi Cro | 07/30/12 | 09:15 AM

Link

Part of the role of government is the redistribution of wealth [despite the howls of protest]. Without that, what's the point of having a centralized government?

Yes but there are two problems here:

(1) It makes provinces like ours irresponsible because no matter how corrupt and over-bureaucratic they are, they keep receiving transfer payments (which, incidentally, we need to pay for medicare, also under provincial jurisdiction).

(2) People here should appreciate that they are essentially being bailed out by the West and thus should not oppose tuition hikes, which translates into wanting more handouts from the richer provinces. Threatening with separatism is effectively equivalent to cutting a lifeline. No wonder some Westeners would love it if we did indeed split from the rest of the country.

Enrico Uva | 07/27/12 | 20:05 PM

Link

Well, actually your problem is the same as the U.S. The point is that everyone wants a strong central government, except that they still want to be able to do all their own stuff too. So, they develop this kind of "schizophrenic" nature where each state/province wants to be able to dictate its own terms, while relying on the central government to be a source of revenue.

We should just dispense with the nonsense and recognize that there is a central authority that performs certain well-defined services and beyond that the states/provinces are unequivocally responsible. If there is any possibility of crossing over with these issues, then corruption will take over and each group will seek advantage over others.

Gerhard Adam | 07/27/12 | 20:54 PM

Link

Well how much water, feed, gas, energy does it take to produce 1 pound of beef?

Anonymous (not verified) | 08/03/12 | 12:37 PM

Link

Exactly the same as it takes to produce the other 800+ pounds of beef to which it is attached.

... and guess what? It will take that to produce milk too [for cows that are kept to that purpose].

Gerhard Adam | 08/03/12 | 12:40 PM

Link

Well ok, so how much is that.

Anonymous (not verified) | 08/03/12 | 12:46 PM

Link

Well, that's like asking how much water does a human consume. It depends. For a 1,000 lb cow [depending on if it is lactating or not] the number could easily range from 10 gals to 50 gals. Bear in mind that the most water will be used for lactating cows [i.e. those producing milk], so they cannot be considered as beef producing.

Cows will also eat about 25 lbs of grass hay per day, although if you're finishing a steer that can easily be supplemented with up to 5-10+ lbs of grain per day [built up over time]. The objective is to make them gain weight very rapidly [2-3 pounds per day].

So, let's also put another perspective on this. A 1,000 pound cow is a BIG cow, so to produce beef, you're normally looking at about a 500 - 600 lb steer that over the next four months will be "finished" [i.e. gain weight at the rate indicated above and then butchered for market]. The goal is to try and get them up to a 1200 lb weight. Obviously there is going to be variations, so this is the short story.

At that, a 1200 pound steer will probably produce about 800-900 lbs of beef. Again, these are very rough estimates.

So, to answer your question, the food and water will need energy to either produce or deliver. However, to count that in the cost of producing beef, you have to consider what the alternative would be, because the point is that humans need to eat, so you can't argue that saving the water by not giving it to a cow, or by not growing hay, will "save" that water. It will simply have to be redirected to some other use to produce food.

One of the advantages of things like grass hay, is because like the name implies ... this is grass. It doesn't take much effort to grow it, so if you have sufficient acreage for grazing, it's a no-brainer to let your cows roam and eat at will. In some parts of the U.S. the cows are simply let loose to forage wherever they choose [including National Parks] where such land-use treaties or agreements exist. In those cases, there is no cost to the food or water, since the animal is simply foraging for what it needs. Periodically cowboys go round them up and brand, market, etc. etc. do whatever is necessary to manage the herd.

While it's not a simple answer, hopefully it illustrates that the question itself is fundamentally foolish and unanswerable in any meaningful way.

Some additional info:
http://lincoln-adams.wsu.edu/4-h/MonitorSteerProgess_Re-formatted.pdf
http://lincoln-adams.wsu.edu/4-h/Feeding_Market_Steers.pdf

Also, some of the discussion here:
http://board.hobbyfarms.com/Topic26215-21-1.aspx

Gerhard Adam | 08/03/12 | 13:05 PM

Link

It can be almost any number because all that is needed is to exaggerate 'how much' it takes to do anything else in the production chain - but it can go the other way too. Vegetarians like that metric, for example, because it says meat eaters are killing the planet. But a whole lot of meat is raised on natural ranges so replacing those with factory farms and fertilizers to grow vegetables, including displacement of the natural ecology, is actually far worse for the environment.

So you are safe in not accepting that walking to the store (if you eat meat) causes more global warming than driving your car to the store.

I laid out how they derived that metric in my book (much like I did in http://www.science20.com/science_20/energy_density_why_gasoline_here_stay-91403 for how a gallon of gas can power an iPod for 20 years, making it far more efficient than solar for many applications) and they were off by 3,000%.

I debunked the 140 liters to make a cup of coffee virtual water nonsense too.

—

Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind

Hank Campbell | 08/03/12 | 13:28 PM

Link

As I mentioned later, let's not overlook the fact that to "save" anything also means exterminating all the animals in general. A cow doesn't eat less or drink less simply because it's roaming free.

Even then the costs are actually quite low, for things like grass hay. It costs virtually nothing for the grass to grow [perhaps cost of irrigation if necessary]. In my case, I had a few cows [about 6] and some horses. So I could buy a small field of grass hay at the rate of about $100/ton and I might get 8 tons. Often if the field is larger this may be shared by several people, but let's use that as an example.

In terms of fuel, it simply costs me the fuel to drive a few miles in my pick-up and put the 8 tons on a flat-bed trailer. Probably less than $5 in gas. Doing this three or four times a year would only cost $20 in fuel costs. Certainly there are the fuel costs of cutting and baling, but that would occur for any crop you intend to harvest, so that's a wash.

Similarly with water, since it comes from my well, there's no real cost beyond the electricity to run the pump.

Grain cost $5 for a 50 lb bag, so again, about .10/lb [this may have gone up since the last time I did it]. So, if I take 160-170 days to finish a steer, then we're looking at an additional cost of about $80.

So for a single steer after they are weaned, the total cost to produce about 800 pounds of beef is under $375 [give or take]. I can't really include the costs of maintaining the mother, because she can be bred again, but that would like be a fixed cost of about $500/yr in grass hay.

Of course there are butchering costs, etc. but they aren't really part of the "production" aspect of it. Also, this will vary in different parts of the country and different conditions that exist for each cow, but in general, it is clear to see that the costs aren't nearly as high as often envisioned, and they certainly are not destroying the environment [at least not compared to the damage done by 7 billion human beings].

Gerhard Adam | 08/03/12 | 13:36 PM

Link

and they certainly are destroying the environment [at least not compared to the damage done by 7 billion human beings].

Gerhard, typo maybe?

—

Make love not war

Helen Barratt | 08/03/12 | 17:01 PM

Link

Yep ... edited and fixed

Gerhard Adam | 08/03/12 | 17:53 PM

Link

So delete my comment :)

—

Make love not war

Helen Barratt | 08/03/12 | 18:48 PM

Link

No. I don't want it said that you corrected me and I censored you by making the correction and not acknowledging your contribution.

Gerhard Adam | 08/03/12 | 20:08 PM

Link

What??? OK, you're joking, very funny! Ha ha, maybe Hank will oblige? Please delete my comments here Hank, they are unnecessary clutter don't you think?

—

Make love not war

Helen Barratt | 08/03/12 | 21:44 PM

Link

I don't think he is kidding.

—

Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind

Hank Campbell | 08/03/12 | 21:49 PM

Link

Very funny! You would make a good comedy act duo, Adam and Campbell :)

—

Make love not war

Helen Barratt | 08/03/12 | 22:01 PM

Link

Thank you for your effort. It seems no one really knows. But now I know more than I did.

Anonymous (not verified) | 08/03/12 | 13:20 PM

Link

Of course we know, it's just not worth calculating it in that fashion. If you were working on the economics of your steers, you'd have a much better handle on it. As a matter of fact, any student that participates in 4-H can give you quite specific details about the costs of raising beef cattle, because that's what those fair projects entail [and they require accurate record keeping].

However, bear in mind, that unless you plan on murdering all the cows and having them go extinct as a species, there will never be any savings, since they must consume food and water as long as they are alive.

Gerhard Adam | 08/03/12 | 13:24 PM

Link

Well ok we know, but that information is not available for print. Would we save if less cows were raised because we are eating less beef. .

Anonymous (not verified) | 08/03/12 | 13:50 PM

Link

It still takes farm equipment and fertilizer to raise vegetables. What we are left with are vague mystery numbers for how much savings of any kind we might get. For example, people behind smoking bans claim smoking bans saved us $100 billion in health care costs. How do they know that? No one can predict disease from smoking, it is just a risk factor - well, they don't know it, they just say it and it becomes popular so the first 10 links of Google search all show it and they become fact to people.

So if smoking leads to higher health costs we can be sure a vegetarian diet will lead to ten times more higher health costs. There is a reason parents who force their children on vegetarian diets go to jail; it isn't healthy.

—

Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind

Hank Campbell | 08/03/12 | 13:58 PM

Link

As I said before ... how ... if the animals are still around? They are going to consume the grass and water. More to the point, all those steers would now be bulls and capable of mating, so the population would likely increase radically [at least until the population hit the wall]. Therefore you would see an increase in that kind of consumption.

If you want to be serious about "saving". Then let's have fewer people. They are by far, the most expensive component on this planet and then everything becomes cheaper and more tolerable [especially regarding environment impacts]. However to ignore the impact of the human population and look for these kinds of peripheral savings ... it's simply nonsense.

So, the information is available for print, but it simply isn't "sound-bite" tidy. This is the problem with this kind of questioning, because it presumes simple answers to complex questions without even considering what the alternative costs are, because they are presumed to be "free". So unless all those fields growing hay are supposed to revert back to wilderness, then the notion of "saving" anything is literally bullshit [sorry ... pun intended].

Gerhard Adam | 08/03/12 | 14:11 PM

Link

Interesting, Well what is the cost of producing 1 lbs of veggies? How do we know we are not saving the billions by banning smoking. If effects of smoking cannot be quantified then why do health insurance companies charge higher premiums if you smoke. When did anyone go to jail trying to feed their children vegetables.

Anonymous (not verified) | 08/03/12 | 14:18 PM

Link

If effects of smoking cannot be quantified then why do health insurance companies charge higher premiums if you smoke.

Because they can. Also, one doesn't have to be able to quantify actual costs to recognize increased risks.

As for the other ... it's vegan rather than vegetarian, but you get the idea.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18574603/#.UBwolKPhcsw

Gerhard Adam | 08/03/12 | 14:38 PM

Link

Well what is the cost of producing 1 lbs of veggies?

Good question. While I don't know the details, let's consider that:

1. Cost of fertilizer/ground preparation
2. Cost of pesticides
3. Cost of water delivery systems [sprinklers, irrigation]
4. Cost of harvest
5. Cost of storage

In all of these cases, we have to consider that they will require heavy equipment because unlike animals, crops can't move themselves around, so all resources need to be brought to them. Also, we have to consider crop loss [which would be akin to animal death], because in those cases the investment would be an incurred cost but lost to recovery.

This also doesn't consider costs of seeds or managing any aspect of that [of which, I am ignorant].

Without knowing specific details, the number of interactions are going to require higher fuel costs because of the increased use of heavy equipment. In addition, since fertilizers and pesticides may be "petroleum-based' products, that cost will also need to be factored in.

While we can quibble about the cost of storing meat and refrigeration versus the cost of spoilage in vegetables, we also have to consider the cost of contamination and storage to prevent rodents/insects from destroying a product after it has been harvested.

Gerhard Adam | 08/03/12 | 14:34 PM

Link

Yes, there are costs associated with everything. We can all grow veggies in our backyard or in planters. There are even people who have created growing systems that fit into small spaces yielding enough veggies if you can to last a year. Buffalo meat is much healthier than beef, fish, turkey and chicken (USDA). Buffalo do not go into feed lots and are not fed hormones or antibiotics or corn that they cannot fully digest. We have options and we should know the cost to us our environment and others. You make it sound that we cannot figure out anything and when we do we don't do it right. Thank you for honest responses, however you can do better than you have by providing facts not a smoke screen to hide the facts. Take care

Anonymous (not verified) | 08/03/12 | 15:26 PM

Link

You make it sound that we cannot figure out anything and when we do we don't do it right.

No one said that it can't be figured out, just that it was not going to be based on a "sound-bite" basis. We already know, by default, what a lot of things cost because of what they cost in the marketplace. Obviously no one can sell something for less than it costs to produce, so that's already a fairly reliable indicator [at least as an outside estimate].

...you can do better than you have by providing facts not a smoke screen to hide the facts...

What facts do you claim are being hidden? If you know something, then why not bring it up. If you don't, then what's the basis for your allegation.

It's simply annoying when you do your best to present information that is known [or that I know personally] and the other individual simply wants to accuse you have subterfuge. You can accuse me of being wrong, and you can provide alternative data, but to accuse me of putting up a "smoke screen to hide the facts". That's just uncalled for, and suggests that you're the one with the agenda.

Gerhard Adam | 08/03/12 | 15:39 PM

Link

We all have agendas and prejudices. I recognize yours and you recognize mine, In this case not recognizing facts that it costs more for a pound of beef than a pound of almost any veggie. And since both producers make a profit or try to anyway we can assume that the price reflects a profit on actual cost. You also avoid the high cost of feeding cattle in feed lots (water, trucking in feed, drugs, vets, etc) and the pollution it causes to ground water. You avoided these facts and others, which lead me to the conclusion that you were trying to fan a smoke screen.

Anonymous (not verified) | 08/04/12 | 08:35 AM

Link

I don't think he was engaged in a smokescreen. You are not making true comparisons. If we only care about 'cost' to grow then the whole world should eat zucchini. They grow everywhere. The resource cost of a steak in Kansas City is nowhere near the resource cost of organic apples in a California Whole Foods store.

To you, calories are calories so, in truth, the entire world should eat at McDonald's because they produce calories more efficiently than anyone on earth.

—

Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind

Hank Campbell | 08/04/12 | 09:49 AM

Link

If we only cared about cost, then everyone should hunt their own food. In that sense, the resource being pursued lives/survives completely on its own with no cost to humans, until such time as it is killed.

That is even cheaper than having your home garden patch.

Gerhard Adam | 08/04/12 | 10:37 AM

Link

In this case not recognizing facts that it costs more for a pound of beef than a pound of almost any veggie.

Well, clearly that's not true. Admittedly, there will be differences depending on the means of production, and my costs were associated with raising beef for my family and people locally I could share with. That would clearly be very similar to a home garden.

However, I would also argue that eating vegetables year-round is generally a cost you don't hear vegetarians talk about very much. As for water pollution, you'll also have to consider the pesticide, fertilizer run-off that is routine with plants.

So, anyone that wants to paint a picture that raising any particular food is harmful or costly can do so, but it simply indicates which side of the food debate they already favor. As I said previously. The problem is the size of the human population. Growing anything or raising any source of food will be problematic because of the volume that has to be addressed.

Gerhard Adam | 08/04/12 | 10:34 AM

Link

Just eating at McDonalds may cost you more than money can buy, your health. This discussion began with comment on the USDA newsletter that it withdrew from the public eye. It was because of one strong lobbying group slamming a department of the US government that is supposed to not only work for the cattle industry but also on behalf all farmers, ranchers, and the consumers. In this case the USDA was forced to give in to the lobbing group for the cattle industry. It did this not retracting what was said in newsletter. The point that we need to eat much less beef is a finding supported by the largest and longest study being conducted. The nurses’ study, as it is known, has been going on for decades. It is a study being conducted by the Harvard University School of Public Health. There is absolutely no other study of it size or length. There are other studies that support its findings. For the record I still eat beef, organic and 100% grass fed, and never raised with hormones and antibiotics but mostly buffalo once or twice a week. We eat a lot of organic and home raised vegetables with no chemical pesticides. Meatless Mondays has a basis in fact. I am moving to other topics. Thank you.

Anonymous (not verified) | 08/04/12 | 14:31 PM

Link

So you only accept the science that reaffirms your pre-chosen lifestyle and world view. I think we knew that.

never raised with hormones and antibiotics

Then there is a 100% chance you grew it yourself. Organic beef certainly does have antibiotics. Organic beef is also raised on GMO feed, in 100% of the cases. Your home raised vegetables are likely just what you think they are but if you bought the product in a store, your food is only 95% organic and can have lots of synthetic ingredients. If you bought it at a farmers market, it also used pesticides - they are simply based on 'natural' pesticides. Wash thoroughly unless you enjoy strychnine poisoning.

—

Want more no-nonsense, independent science? Buy Science Left Behind

Hank Campbell | 08/04/12 | 14:46 PM

Link

This discussion began with comment on the USDA newsletter that it withdrew from the public eye.

It did this not retracting what was said in newsletter.

See, this is part of the problem. Those statements are a deliberate misrepresentation of what occurred.

The comment was a part of an internal USDA employee newsletter was never intended to be in the "public eye" and was certainly not an official representation of anything. As a result, there is certainly nothing to retract, since nothing was officially stated.

It is this kind of liberal attitude with the truth, that results in everyone being overly sensitive and politically correct. There is nothing wrong with people having differences of opinion, and it would be shocking to expect that everyone working for a company or a governmental agency to have exactly the same views.

In this case the USDA was forced to give in to the lobbing group for the cattle industry.

No. Because of unwarranted attention by people that look for any excuse, this was a case of an employee newsletter suddenly being elevated to "official" status. At that point, of course, now all the politicians and officials have to "officially" condemn it because it has now become "official".

The truth is that this was an employee newsletter where a personal view suddenly received all manner of unwarranted attention.

However, by treating this as if it were some kind of official statement and retraction, you've simply ensure that the ability for individual employees to express themselves will be curtailed and quite possibly people will lose their jobs, because no one seems to have a sense of proportion anymore.

The point that we need to eat much less beef ...

Is something that has been known for decades if not centuries. This is not a surprise, nor is it an issue. However, there is a difference between saying people should eat better and turning it into a moral issue.

Gerhard Adam | 08/04/12 | 16:04 PM

Link

Absolutely wrong in all you say. Your statements are uninformed. By law Organic Beef or Organic any meat cannot be treated with antibiotics, hormones and no GMO feed. Feed must be organic. Organic animals may not be fed GMO feed, prohibited by law. My seeds are organic and I use composing and no chemicals. Now you are fanning the smoke to hide the facts. Please read the law on requirements to use the words organic in connection with food. Oh well. More smoke blowers than I thought on this site.

Anonymous (not verified) | 08/04/12 | 15:57 PM

Link

Well, that's certainly a sanctimonious enough post. Never have so many been so adamant about something they don't really understand. Thus is the power of myth.

Gerhard Adam | 08/04/12 | 16:21 PM

Link

Well boys, I will try to be a lady. You need to reach out and touch the truth. Good bye,

Anonymous (not verified) | 08/04/12 | 18:39 PM

Link

... and this is how it always ends. With the mystical invocation of "truth", thereby reinforcing the mythology.

As with most other such situations, there's simply no reasoning with "true believers".

Gerhard Adam | 08/04/12 | 19:05 PM

Link

I really thought you could do better than that, like many men they just cannot perform.

Anonymous (not verified) | 08/04/12 | 19:43 PM

Link

Hmmm ... I didn't think you'd stoop to gender based insults so quickly. It doesn't matter. As I said, you're only interested in advancing an agenda based on a personal belief system, so actual evidence or information doesn't matter.

Gerhard Adam | 08/04/12 | 21:09 PM

Link

Comments

Know Science And Want To Write?

What's Happening

Books By Writers Here

Related Articles on Science 2.0

Comments

Know Science And Want To Write?

What's Happening

Books By Writers Here