The following is an op-ed that I wrote that was published in Environmental Health News today--which seems appropriate since it is Earth Day.
If you read this and feel compelled, please follow the link at the end of the piece to submit a public comment to the USDA to consider as they finalize the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans.
No Water Left to Water Down the Dietary Guidelines
Controversies generated by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory
Committee’s (DGAC) recommendations raced through the media like wildfire.
For
the first time in history, the DGAC recommended that Americans consider the
environmental impact of their food choices. Following this to its logical and
scientifically-supported conclusion, the DGAC also recommended that Americans
eat less meat. Not surprisingly, the meat industry finds this recommendation
unpalatable and is sending a loud and clear message to the US Department of
Agriculture (USDA). They advocate that the dietary guidelines should focus on
nutrition—focusing on the environmental impact of meat is a serious overreach
and a recommendation that should be ignored.
It’s ultimately the decision of the USDA, along with the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), whether or not the DGAC
recommendations become the official 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans. This
process is important because the Dietary Guidelines influence foods available
for school lunch programs, WIC and SNAP benefits. They also have a major impact
on Americans’ food choices and agricultural production.
The “eat less meat” message has been shot down or watered
down since it appeared on the scene in 1977 as part of recommendations proposed
by George McGovern’s Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs (a committee
that predated the DGAC). After much outcry, the message was changed to, “choose
meats, poultry, and fish that will reduce saturated fat intake.” Given the
links of red and processed meats with heart disease and some cancers, “eat less
meat” has continued to be part of the discussion when considering new dietary
guidelines, but it has never gotten foothold.
The 2015 approach to the message of “eat less meat” is one
of environmental sustainability. The DGAC report states, “access to sufficient,
nutritious, and safe food is an essential element of food security for the US
population. A sustainable diet ensures this access for both the current
population and future generations.” It goes on to describe sustainable diets as
higher in plant-based foods and lower in animal-based foods. The added benefit
of such diets is that they are also healthier for us than current US dietary
practices. These recommendations leave plenty of room for people to keep eating
meat. They simply highlight the importance of considering the environmental
impact of our food choices. This means focusing on sustainable meat production
and cutting down, not cutting out meat.
We cannot continue disregarding the energy, land, and water
use required to keep up our system of agriculture. This message was driven home
recently when the snowpack in the Sierras was measured at a mere 5% of normal,
causing Governor Jerry Brown to issue a mandatory 25% water reduction for the
state of California. Nearly one-third of California depends on the snowpack for
water—including some of the country’s most productive farmland in the Central
Valley.
It is scary to contemplate the consequences of the
unrelenting drought both on life in California, but also on the availability of
food in the US.
California produces nearly half the vegetables, fruit and nuts
grown in the US. It also produces more dairy than any other state and ranks
number four in cattle production. The cattle production is particularly
environmentally intensive since an estimated 5-20 pounds of feed grain are
required for every pound of edible beef.
It is irrational to think that our dietary guidelines can be
created in a silo that ignores ripple effects on the environment. The drought
is causing dire consequences for California right now, and these effects will
soon spill over to the rest of the country if things don’t change soon. The
resources needed to feed everyone are not unlimited.
We do ourselves a great
disservice by not planning our food choices according to these limitations. We
will likely find ourselves limited by environmental factors—namely water—in the
near future. However, if we haven’t put planning and forethought into how to
deal with this, we will be forced to limit intake of environmentally-intense
foods, like meat, but won’t have the benefit of
advanced planning on how to do so.
Creating dietary guidelines that take
the environmental impact of our food choices into account is required to make
sure that we have plentiful and diverse food choices for generations to come.
There is a period open for the public comment about the DGAC
recommendations and the 2015 Dietary Guidelines. If you would like to submit a comment, the deadline is May 8.
Michelle Hauser, MD,
MPA is a Chef, Post-doctoral Research Fellow in Cardiovascular Disease
Prevention at Stanford, and an Internal Medicine-Primary Care Physician in
Redwood City, California.
Thank you for this post!
ReplyDeleteI'm devoted to conserving my water usage in responce to the draught. I'm also devoted to composting for a houselhold of nine. Building compost to enrich the soil will increase the hydration of the soil. Also adding biochar will increase the capacity of moisture-retention in the soil. Diverting urine to the compost pile rather than flusing it down a toliet (with several gallons of water each time) can probably save about 100 gallons of water a day in some households. There are a number of other water conservation practices that people can do including collecting their rain water to water the gardens rather than use city water.
These practices readily make obvious sense in light of the draught. However, eating less meat isn't as obvious. What makes sense is to amking new choices including choosing grass-fed meat and elimminating all the grain-fed varities. The reasoning for this muti-fold and includes the proper feeding of ruminants, human nutriton as well as agricultural sustainability. When talking about agriculture it needs to be understood that we are talking about whole systems.
Agriculture needs fertility and the prime source of support that feeds this fertility is animal manure (that then gets composted). There is a balance that each ranch/farm needs to have regarding the number of animals that their land can feed. That balance is either in jeopardy or completely lost when the ruminating animals are not feeding on their natural diet of pasture but put on a grain diet. That deserves to be an included consideration when one advocates a blanket reduction of meat consumption.
This is great! Thanks so much for sharing all that you do to preserve the environment. It would be great if you could provide this as a public comment for the USDA to consider when making the Dietary Guidelines. The link is http://www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/dga2015/comments/writeComments.aspx and the deadline is May 8.
ReplyDelete