How do I debate thee? Let me count the ways — and they’re numerous, because a recent op-ed hit job by the editors at Bloomberg got it totally wrong in their attack on animal agriculture.
Nary a week goes by without a major media source running either a news feature on some study castigating red meat, an opinion column demonizing animal foods or what’s known in journalism as a “puff piece” lauding some alt-meat entrepreneur or one of the category’s latest introductions.
The latter article having all the hard-hitting impact of a mashed potato sandwich.
The latest entry into this hall of shame is a commentary written by a pair of Bloomberg editors titled, “Give up Meat (for a Day, at Least).”
This 600-word attack on meat producers not only repeats virtually every meme espoused by anti-industry activists, but shamelessly distorts the data and obfuscates the facts that ought to inform a rational examination of global food security, agricultural productivity and the conflation of short-term population growth, resource scarcity and the worsening climate crisis.
There are no easy, simple or inexpensive solutions to any of these challenges — unless you’re drawing a paycheck as a member of the Bloomberg Opinion editorial board, apparently.
Let’s unpack this op-ed’s most egregious, shall we say, exaggerations.
» “Global meat consumption has more than doubled since the 1960s [and] Americans … ought to curb their appetite(s).” First of all, the op-ed is all about demonizing cattle, and thus portrays beef as Public Enemy No. 1. But the doubling of global meat consumption since the ’60s is due to the increase in poultry consumption, which increased from 12% to 35% of total meat production, according to the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization. Meanwhile, beef’s share was cut in half, from 44% to just 22%.
Yes, beef consumption increased by 145% from 1960 to the present, but global population increased by 160% during that same time period. If the writers want to point fingers, they should finger people, not cows.
» “Livestock are responsible for 12% of man-made greenhouse-gas emissions, more than the entire aviation industry.” Again, the op-ed writers made it crystal clear that “most of that comes from just one animal: the humble, gassy cow. Serving your family roast beef at dinner is as bad as driving about 100 miles in the average car.” But if a reader hadn’t clicked past the article by that point, they wouldn’t have learned that a significant portion of that 12% is due to deforestation, particularly in the Amazon Basin.
Obviously, the destruction of rainforests is a huge, serious, ongoing eco-disaster, but much of Brazil’s complicity is a result of slash-and-burning to clear land for the cultivation of soybeans and sugar cane — not, as activists love to contend, to raise cattle so McDonald’s has enough beef for their Big Macs.
» “The world’s system of beef production is on course to destroy itself.” Really? Of all the world’s arable land, more than one-third consists of rangeland. Whether labeled as prairies, savannas or steppes, these grasslands are too arid to support forests but receive enough precipitation that they’re not classified as deserts. And what’s the biggest threat to the health of these vast areas? According to a recent report from National Geographic, it’s farming!
When such acreage is cultivated for crop production, instead of their natural ability to support grazing animals, the effect on groundwater sources and soil erosion is almost always detrimental. Of course, that didn’t stop the Bloomberg writers from blithely pushing for the substitution of plant-based foods — which require cultivated farmland — over animal foods, which can be sourced from grazing on grasslands.
» “Adopting the Mediterranean diet, which includes poultry but limits red meat, would have about the same impact as driving 70 fewer miles each week. (It would also thrill your doctor.)” Leaving aside the reality that no doctor I’ve ever encountered was thrilled about anything (other than their annual income, perhaps), the 3,640 miles one wouldn’t be driving according to this scenario would produce about 2,500 pounds of CO2 equivalent in GHG emissions, according to EPA. To equal that amount by reducing beef consumption would require consuming 52 pounds less beef a year!
Given that the average per capita consumption in the United States is 59 pounds a year, that means one would be limited to eating 1.6 ounces of beef a week — basically, one bite.
Enjoy!
» “Lawmakers need to take the initiative … by rewriting their dietary guidelines as the Netherlands and Sweden have done.” For the record, the Swedish dietary Guidelines aren’t all that different from USDA’s Dietary Guidelines, with a notable exception: Sweden strongly promotes active, daily exercise as a key component of optimal nutrition, prominently urging Swedish citizens to “Exercise for at least 30 minutes every day!.” You have to scroll down to 6-point footnotes to reference USDA’s by-the-way suggestion to remember that “The relationship between diet and physical activity contributes to calorie balance and managing body weight.” Point being, both sets of guidelines demonize fat, lionize produce and pretend that everyone’s better off living on brown rice and tofu.
The Bloomberg op-ed concludes by urging readers to “go on a meat hiatus.”
Here’s a better idea: How about a hiatus from inaccurate, biased commentaries that distort data, ignore science and attempt to rewrite human dietary history?
How about that?
The opinions in this commentary are those of Dan Murphy, an award-winning journalist and commentator
