Way back in July, 2012 the newsletter of the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) supported Meatless Monday. This was based on health concerns about meat consumption, the environmental impact of meat production, and its inefficiency (for example, it takes 7 kilograms of grain to make 1 kilogram of beef).
The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) took issue with this recommendation and J.D. Alexander, the president of the NCBA, responded: “This is truly an awakening statement by USDA, which strongly indicates that USDA does not understand the efforts being made in rural America to produce food and fiber for a growing global population in a very sustainable way. USDA was created to provide a platform to promote and sustain rural America in order to feed the world. This move by USDA should be condemned by anyone who believes agriculture is fundamental to sustaining life on this planet.” It was also claimed that the support of Meatless Monday was “a slap in the face of the people who every day are working to make sure we have food on the table to say, ‘Don’t eat their product once a week.’ ”
There were also tweets critical of the newsletter. For example, Iowa Representative Steve King responded with “USDA HQ meatless Mondays!! At the Dept. of Agriculture? Heresy! I’m not grazing there. I will have the double rib-eye Mondays instead.”After these reactions, a USDA spokesperson retracted its support Meatless Monday and that the link to the newsletter had been posted without “proper clearance.”
While this was a minor political dust up, especially compared to the nightmare that is current political hellscape, the meat debate is still ongoing. One issue that persists is whether meat is a means of producing “food and fiber for a growing global population in a very sustainable way.”
While meat is food and has some fiber, it is not an effective way of providing food and fiber for a growing global population relative to the alternatives. After all, meat production is far less efficient than growing crops. While the exact ratios vary, producing a kilogram of meat requires much more than one kilogram of feed. As such, a more effective way to feed a growing global population would be to grow crops for human consumption rather than use them to make meat.
While the meat industry has tried to make meat production more sustainable, it is not as sustainable as the alternatives. Meat production is far more resource intensive than growing crops for human consumption and meat production does more environmental damage by adding the damage of meat production on top of the damage caused by feed production. And given that producing a kilogram of meat requires creating multiple kilograms of feed, it is just math that meat production is not as sustainable as the alternatives. There is also concern about the waste products of the animals that often end up contaminating water and food. While non-meat agriculture generated contamination (mainly from pesticides and fertilizers), meat production produces far more because the animals require feed crops that produce contaminants and the animals also produce contaminants, for a double shot of contamination. So, the idea that meat production is a sustainable means for feeding a growing global population seems mistaken.
There is also the economic concern to consider. The meat industry employs people and can be a profitable business, especially with the government transferring wealth from taxpayers to farmers. If people go meatless on Mondays (or other days) this could result in slightly lower sales of meat, thus costing the meat industry some profits. As such, a utilitarian argument could be made against Meatless Monday. If people eat less meat, then there will be less income for the meat industry.
There is an obvious reply to this concern. While Meatless Monday might lead to less meat consumption, it is not the same thing as “Meal less Monday” in which people eat nothing. As such, if someone is not eating a steak or pork chop on a given Monday, they will probably be eating something else, thus supporting some other food industry.
While I still like meat, I love truth more and hence I believe that eating meat is not very healthy. While it has long been known that excessive meat consumption is unhealthy, even small amounts of red meat present a health risk. While red meat is protein dense, eating red meat is a causal factor in heart disease and studies also link it to other health problems, such as colorectal cancer. Naturally, those in the meat industry dispute these findings. While the fact that the meat industry is biased does not prove that they are in error, this bias reduces their credibility.
Because I do like eating meat, I would like these studies to be wrong. However, what I would like is not the same thing as what is true. In my own case, I had to change my diet because of health concerns back in 2012. Despite running 50+ miles a week and working out regularly, my blood pressure and cholesterol were not great. After changing my diet, my blood pressure dropped and my good cholesterol increased. Since then, I’ve maintained a diet that is very light in meat and mostly plants. While my case is just an anecdote, my experience is consist with the best medical advice today.
To head off the obvious straw man attacks, I am not advocating that people eliminate all meat from their diets (although that would be an excellent idea in terms of health and ethics). Rather, I think that reducing meat consumption would help improve individual health and would also help the non-meat producing aspects of American agriculture. It would also be better for the environment. It would, of course, not be ideal for folks in the meat industry—but they are not the only people who matter and a Meatless Monday is not Meatless Everyday or even Meal Less Monday.
A Philosopher’s Blog is Now on Substack!
You can subscribe and read for free.