Food and fuel: Case for cavemen
Hoosier Ag Today
Gary Truitt
The food vs. fuel debate that sprang up when renewable fuels started chewing up billions of bushels of grain and soybeans has taken a new turn. According to the New York Times, not only is it bad to use food for fuel but now it is bad to use food for food.
In a Jan. 27 article called "Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler," Mark Bittman calls for a return to the Stone Age.
He says meat is like oil: it is subsidized by the government, harmful for the environment, and facing increasing world demand.
He advocates, in all seriousness, giving up meat consumption, turning the livestock loose to return to their "natural environment," and going back to a lifestyle of eating grains and locally grown fruits and vegetables.
Bittman's article is full of the same worn out arguments against modern agriculture that have been around for years.
He also trumpets lots of academic sources with statistics on just how bad the livestock industry is for our environment, our health, and our world.
He conveniently ignores the facts that run counter to his argument such as: CAFOs are zero discharge facilities by law, larger operations are more efficient than smaller operations, and modern grain-based feedlots are more environmentally friendly than free-range operations.
Bittman and I agree on the value of locally-grown food and small family operations. While these operations play an increasingly important part in the local farm economy, they can not and will not meet the world demand for low cost commodity food products. According to Bittman, the world's meat supply was 71 million tons in 1961.
Today it is estimated at 284 million tons. Most of this increased demand came from other places in the world. As nations grew their economies, their people earned more money, and what did they do with it? They bought meat.
Why? It tastes good and, as part of a balanced diet, it is good for you.
So while Bittman and his ilk wring their hands in worry over the imagined social, economic, and environmental consequences of eating meat, millions of people around the world are eating meat regularly, some for the first time. Meanwhile, U.S. farmers are using the latest technology and the most environmentally responsible methods to produce that meat.
Bittman writes books on vegetarianism, yet he himself is not a vegetarian. Like so many others at the New York Times, he wants to tell us how to live, but will not follow his own advice.
The Food Policy Research Institute advocates a national PR campaign aimed at reducing U.S. meat consumption by emphasizing consequences to personal health, compassion for animals, and doing good for the poor of the world.
If these guys really wanted to help the environment, they would stop printing the New York Times; think of the trees that would save.
If they wanted to improve public health, they would use their PR campaign to get people to exercise.
If they really wanted to help the poor of the world, they would give them a big juicy steak, then tell them there was more where that came from if they would stop their civil wars and start plowing their fields.
No other civilization in history has ever walked away from advance in food production. If we do, it will be the downfall of our civilization and the beginning of a new Stone Age