August 31, 2015
肉類警訊 分享不錯的英文 文章
希望常吃素 能減緩世界糧荒
Meat alert
By Michael Shank
Announced in the quiet of Congressional recess, new data
published this week by Consumer Reports indicates that
ground beef often contains bacteria that causes sickness
in humans and resists drug treatment. Congress should take
note. Fortunately, the United States Department of Agriculture
already rolled out meat substitutes in school lunches nationwide,
replacing meat with equally protein-rich alternatives. It’s part of
a shift in national dietary guidelines, and it's long overdue. Our
current approach to diets is not only unhealthy but also
unsustainable.
Federally appointed health experts serving on the Dietary
Guidelines Advisory Committee agree with this assessment and
recommend a rethink on the future of American food and
nutrition programs. Congress will want to pay attention, as the
committee's findings will have a major impact on what we eat.
ADVERTISEMENT
In submitting a scientific report to the Secretaries of the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), this year's committee
recommended less meat and more plants as essential for the
health of America's population and the planet. Hundreds of
prominent environmental and health leaders agree, submitting
a letter to HHS Secretary Silvia Matthews Burwell and Agriculture
Secretary Tom Vilsack, encouraging the adoption of sustainability
standards and considerations.
Influencing the Dietary Guidelines for Americans, a document
published every five years by the HHS and USDA that guides U.S.
food programs and nutrition policies, is a competitive space as
innumerable meat and dairy industries are also interested in
altering outcomes and have been fighting the committee's
recommendations. Industry realizes how big of a deal it is for
HHS and USDA's own Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
to call for plant-based diets.
It's unsurprising that industry would be on the defensive. The
impact of the guidelines on American health and environment
is substantial. It comes with the added benefit of modifying the
National School Lunch Program and MyPlate (previously known
as the food pyramid) and impacting millions of American diets,
and millions of square miles of American farmland as well.
Industry shouldn’t drive our country's dietary priorities,
however, if it flies in the face of what we already know regarding
what's good for the planet and good for the American people.
There is no question that a plant-based diet is key to
sustainability and our survival.
On the production front, for example, we know that a unit of
beef protein contributes 150 times more greenhouse gas (GHG)
emissions than a unit of soy protein. That's a whopper of a
difference. Pork and chicken also have a heavy carbon footprint
but are only 20 to 25 times heavier in GHGs than soy. Additionally,
cows, and their methane, are responsible for 65 percent of
livestock emissions, more than any other species, and beef
production requires nearly 30 times more grazing land than
chicken or pork production.
Going further, when you consider organic farming versus
conventional methods, the gains are even more pronounced
as organic agriculture captures significantly more carbon than
non-organic and industrial-scale farming, which is often much
more water and resource intensive. Organic farming’s health
and environmental benefits, by avoiding pesticides, herbicides,
hormones and genetic engineering, are also clear.
But it's not just the environment that benefits from this and
an immediate implementation of the committee's dietary
recommendations. Our health benefits as well. We need to shift
away from diets featuring a heavy intake of meats (along with
refined sugars and fats and oils), all of which is expected to
increase agricultural emissions by 80 percent by 2050. By
doing what's sustainable for the planet, we also help prevent
diabetes, heart disease, colorectal, ovarian and breast cancer,
obesity, high blood pressure, and other diseases that lower
life expectancy.
The good news is that we can do all of this without costing
consumers more. By reducing animal products, we're cutting
out the middle person, which in this case is the cow, pig or
chicken, and we're going directly to the source: plants. We
increase agricultural efficiency and effectiveness and ultimately
feed more people. A Dutch study predicts that roughly 10.4
million square miles of grazing land would be immediately
available, as well as 386,000 square miles of land that is
currently growing crops for livestock.
As our population continues to grow (the U.S. has one of the
fastest population growth rates in the developed world), we
must think creatively and courageously about more sustainable
diets. We simple do not have sufficient energy and water
resources for a diet heavy in animal protein. The science
committee points another path forward for HHS and USDA, and
it's one we must adopt soon. Do it for the health of this country.
Do it for the American people. Do it for the heartland.
Shank is a professor at George Mason University's School for
Conflict Analysis and Resolution and writes in his personal capacity.
