The Government's Idea of Saving on Energy is through Your Stomach

The Associated Press wrote an article today regarding a dietary change for the US - less beef.  According to the article, a panel that advises the Agriculture Department is ready to recommend that the public be told what foods are better for you and the environment.  This recommendation, should it become law, cuts across all kinds of sectors - agriculture, food processing, food distribution, fertilizer, energy, chemical, trucking, healthcare, to name a few.  It also cuts across livelihoods - ranching, farming (grains for the cattle), processing, distribution, healthcare to name a few.  It also takes away some freedom of choice.

Hopefully, there will be careful deliberation on this as the impact would literally and figuratively alter the landscape of the US.  The panel would push for more fruits, vegetables, nuts, whole grains and other plant-based foods - at the expense of meat.  The irony here is that fruits, vegetables and grains require water and for us much of the fruits and vegetables And the panel has already been discussing this in public meetings, and "indicating that its recommendations, expected early this year, may address the environment.  In a study by the journal proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published last year, said that compared to other animal proteins (pork and chicken), beef produces more heat-trapping gases per calorie, puts out more water-polluting nitrogen, takes more water for irrigation and uses more land.  My son took a bi-disciplinary course at Case Western this past semester that looked at the food industry and sustainability.  The course was espousing the same view points as the panel.  I just completed a sustainable development course from Jeffrey Sachs of Columbia University that also espoused the same view points.  I also took an alternative energy course from the University of California at San Diego and in the biofuels section, they addressed the energy role in raising cattle (methane production) and grains (ethanol).  The point here is that academia is very much interested in advancing similar concepts to students as the advisory panel is to the Agriculture Department.  

Our food growing, food processing and delivery system has been constructed over decades and has delivered food not only for the US, but also the world.  So, how are we to implement this change?  In those above mentioned courses and I suspect the National Academy of Sciences, the concept of small farming is being pushed on a global basis.  By pushing this concept and financially aiding developing countries, they would begin to feed themselves, create jobs and strengthen their economies.  We could then down-size our agribusinesses to incorporate small farming as well.  The end result is much less fertilizer being used (energy intensive and polluting), less water could be used if drought resistance seeds are used (mentioned in the courses above), and jobs may increase as more are employed at the small farming end, with a multiplier effect.

But, this really needs to be thoroughly thought through.  Too much is at stake.  While healthy is good, it is more expensive and perishable (this adds to expense).  Logistical systems, rail and truck, are already being stretched, adding time-sensitive fruits and vegetables could burden the system.  Now, that is food for thought.