Obviously just another elitist smear of the excellent production and distribution system we enjoy in the USA. Lots of misinformation despite asking, and receiving help in reaching experts in a variety of fields from NCBA (for the Beef Checkoff). Including several cattle producers. Only one was quoted, and that wasn't complete.
First, he misrepresents as fact the statement that agriculture is the sole cause of the "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico. Science is not absolutely certain of the cause and the author did not credit any of the tons of chemicals used for home and business landscaping, government owned parks, golf courses and other such users of lawn fertilizers and pesticides. Not so long ago, that was more than used by agriculture, and had less regulation!
He assumes people in the USA consumer more meats/proteins than they actually do, blaming obesity on food, rather on those who make the poor choices.
He ignores the fact that more than 85% of the USDA budget is for welfare food and other such programs, not for subsidizing corn production. Let alone that corn is used for far more than feeding cattle and making corn syrup and corn oil for frying. Or even that much of the US corn crop is exported to nations with malnutrition problems rather than obesity.
He fails to mention that $1.00 spent for beef would buy about one (government approved) serving of 4 ounces, and that would be for lean or very lean hamburger.....yet implies that it is not 'helthy', the message being that $1.00 buys too much food which contains too much fat for good health. He seems to blame farmers for the 'unhealthy' fried chips and soda's, which, of course, are not produced by farmers, and which are fine in a balanced diet in moderate proportions. Maybe he wants government officials to decide what and how much people can eat. He sure doesn't give anyone credit for being able to analyze food and determine whether, or how much, they should eat.
Most of us who are farmers/ranchers on this site understand that antibiotics serve a purpose in animal husbandry, cost money, and are monitored by animal health professionals. Further, they are not the cause of antibiotic resistance in humans, as that is overprescription such meds for people.
He blames ONLY animal production and crop chemicals for any pollution in streams, ignoring the huge number of septic systems, community sewer systems which malfuntion and/or overflow on occasion, and that contributed by wildlife as having any effect on streams.
He implies that farm animals in confinement systems are not allowed space to lie down, stand up and turn around. Guess he's never seen a large feedlot........or doesn't want his readers to know the facts, which seems more likely.
He praises organic growers, particularly the Niman ranch in CA. Mr. Niman was formerly an attorney for the environmental group Earthjustice. That apparntly prepared him for the pastoral life of raising cattle on grass and hay "with intensive, individual care" provided by he and his wife for the three years the animals will "spend on the ranch". A safe assumption would be that the animals go to slaughter at that point, but it must somehow be indelicate to state that fact!
Obviously, there are various methods of producing beef and other foods. Destroying the existing system in favor of "small, local food production systems" is necessarily make food more expensive, maybe even more difficult to get. Certainly it will be more seasonal, with fewer fresh fruits and veggies in winter in most areas of the USA.
Hopefully, many people will realize that Time magazine is far from reliable in their 'reporting'.
It may even be interesting to check the author and those he admires on Google or other such sites.
mrj
