Warning. This post is political. While it is very
different from previous posts, and may seem like I’m abandoning the mission of
hosting a plant-based nutrition website. However, as Mark Bittman makes clear, to write
or blog about food, is inherently a political act. Therefore I hope you’ll
forgive me for such transgressions and continue reading.
2104 was a big year for food politics if you paid
attention. Multiple battles over GMO labeling laws brought new urgency and
illumination to the issue – although most of those battles didn’t go quiet as
well as one would hope! There was a ban against growing GMOs in Maui, soda
taxes gained headlines and were passed overwhelmingly in Berkeley, gestation
crates turned critical eyes toward New Jersey, and food writer Michael Pollan
made a public statement in support for a national food policy!
However there are still many battles to fight –
and many of them in the not-to-far-off future.
As some of you may know, the Federal Dietary Food
Guidelines are currently under review. These guidelines are reviewed every five
years, and have taken form in the past as the Food Pyramid and more recently MyPlate.
When the panel of experts on nutrition and health
announced that they were considering taking the environmental toll of food production
into consideration for the new guidelines, there was outrage by certain food
industries.
No, Big Broccoli didn’t throw a fit! But organizations like the American Meat Institute (AMI),
National Beef Association, and the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA)
among others, have issued statements basically arguing that the expert
nutritionists selected to participate in the panel do not have the expertise
required to take environmental questions into consideration. Borrowing from the
NRA’s playbook, these lobbyist groups announced that they plan to grade
Congresspeople on their votes regarding food issues.
This matters because, unfortunately, it roughly
costs each of those members of Congress $7 million dollars to run a campaign
and win office. While the $100 or so I donate to progressive candidates every
election cycle makes me feel good, it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the
money spent by businesses and trade groups. According to David Robinson Simon,
animal food industry spends more than $100 million paying lobbyists every year!
This is a sad but important lesson in American Democracy.
In one study, members of the House of
Representatives who received money from the dairy industry were almost twice as
likely to vote for dairy price supports as those who received no money from
them. While it is illegal to “buy” votes, it is completely legal to vote for a
bill your constituents donors want. Furthermore, when a
Congressperson votes against their donor’s wishes, those donors often abandon
the lawmaker in their next campaign. Money, as they say, talks.
How does all of this relate back to the Dietary
Guidelines? Well shortly after the new Republican controlled Congress took
session, they did the unthinkable… They passed a bill! Feeling pressure from
groups like AMI and IDFA, lawmakers from both parties came together and
attached a list of "congressional directives" to a massive spending
bill that was passed by both the House and the Senate. One of those
directives expresses "concern" that the Dietary Guidelines Advisory
Committee "is showing an interest in incorporating agriculture production
practices and environmental factors" into their recommendations. The
Congressional directives then issued a statement telling the Obama
administration to ignore such factors in the next revision of the guidelines.
The question, then, remains, why are these
industries so insistent that environmental factors be excluded from the Dietary
Guidelines?
It’s because animal foods have a huge carbon
footprint. While the numbers vary, it has been estimated that between 14 – 40%
of total carbon emissions is attributable to the livestock industry. The 2006
United Nations report, Livestock’s Long Shadow, claimed that
animal agriculture makes up 18% of all greenhouse gases. Even this comparably
conservative estimate accounts for more than all modes of transportation
combined. That’s right. The volume of emissions created by the production of
animal foods is greater than those created by operating cars, trucks, buses,
airplanes, and ships!
As such, any inclusion of emissions would force
the new dietary guidelines to recommend a decrease in the consumption of animal
products. As NYU professor Marion Nestle explains, while it is clear that
Americans could benefit greatly by reducing animal and highly-processed food
products in favor of more fresh fruits and vegetables, in the past, Animal
lobbyist have been able to argue over language in the past, rather than saying
eat less meat, eat “lean meat.” These types of arguments and compromises have a
long history. Going back to the George McGovern report of 1977 – the very first
Dietary Guidelines – declared that “most all of the health problems underlying
the leading causes of death in the United States could be modified by
improvements in diet.” The report blamed the increase in consumption of rich
animal foods increasing saturated fat and an increase in added sugars. It
also specifically recommended decreasing meat consumption as the best way to
decrease saturated fat intake.
As one of the authors of that original report
later accounted, the meat, milk, egg, salt, and sugar producers were all very
upset. The National Dairy Industry actually suggested that the food industry
should be involved in creating the guidelines.
When the final report finally came out,
almost all of this language had been removed. Specifically, the recommendation
to decrease meat consumption was altered to read, “choose meats, poultry and
fish which will reduce saturated fat intake.” Do you see what happened there? The
recommendation went from a negative, “consume less” to a positive “choose meat…”
Even this wasn’t enough. In the end, the nutrition
committee was disbanded and folded into the functions of the Agriculture
Committee – the committee that is responsible for protecting producers rather
than consumers.
However, much of Big Agricultures power
over the Guidelines will diminish if the committee begins considering the
environmental footprint of the food. As Miriam Nelson, a Tufts University
professor, and member of the panel, told the rest of the committee, "in
general, a dietary pattern that is higher in plant-based foods and lower in
animal-based foods is more health-promoting and is associated with less
environmental impact."
Now, perhaps you are thinking, “big deal, I
ignored the food pyramid, I’ve ignored My Plate, and I’m going to ignore the
next set of regulations too.” Well, you’re probably not alone. Most Americans
don’t pay much attention to the Federal Dietary Guidelines; however, these
guidelines do play a large role in helping to decide which industries are
subsidized, and perhaps more importantly, they serve as the guiding principle
for federal feeding programs, including school lunches, foods legible for
purchase with food stamps, and federal prisons. Such an update to the
guidelines could mean that thousands if not millions of Americans would consume
less animal products.
Unfortunately, it seems that this fight has
already been lost. After a draft was released earlier this month, which
included the recommendation to consume less meat, the USDA bent to the pressure
of Congress and their masters, and have declared that the environmental impact
of food will not be considered when creating the new guidelines.
These types of issues are vital to improving the
health of our nation. Being healthy involves knowing what is in your food,
where it comes from, and how it is made. These should be rights – not
privileges. We must continue to demand that politicians are being held
accountable to us, the people, rather than to Corporations. As Lincoln famously once said, " Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith,
let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it."
Further Reading:
Brendan Brazier, Thrive Foods Da Capo Press, 2011.
Dan Charles, “Congress to Nutritionists: Don’t
Talk About the Environment.” NPR December 15, 2014.
David Robinson Simon, Meatonomics Conari Press, 2013.
Richard Oppenlander, Comfrotably Unaware: Global Depleation and Food Responsibility Langdon
St. Press, 2011.
Richard Oppenlander, Food Choice and Sustainablity,
Langdon St. Press, 2012.
Roberto A. Ferdman, “The Meat Industry’s Worst
Nightmare Might Soon Become a Realtiy.” Washington
Post January 7, 2015.
T. Colin Campbell, Whole: Rethinking the Science of Nutrition BenBella Books, 2013.
United Nations. Livestock's Long Shadow FAO Rome, 2006.
United States. Congress.
Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs. “Dietary Goals for the
United States” Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office. 1977.
As always the information presented in this blog
is for educational purposes only. It should not be considered as specific
medical, nutritional, lifestyle, or other health-related advice.
