January 14, 2005
Changing Our Diet
Wednesday, the government released new dietary guidelines which emphasize weight loss in addition to dietary health. There’s been a lot written about the US’s poor eating habits, but what I find most interesting is average meat consumption in the US. At 8.2 ounces per person per day, even more when you consider that nearly 3% of american adults claim to be vegetarian, we well outpace the recommended 5.5 ounces per day.
The new recommendations call for 5.5 ounces of meat and protein per day. Our national average exceeds this by nearly 50%, not to mention the lack of other sources of protein in our diets. Okay, so americans are unhealthy, that's old news.
The undeniable truth is that a lot of human-consumable food is used to produce meat for the american consumer. Ranging from 5:1 for chicken up to 16:1 for beef, the ratio of consumable grain/soybean to edible meat is astounding. These rates of course assume that these animals are raised on a diet that could be used to feed humans. Traditionally, beef cattle were raised on field grass, but for efficiency, beef cattle are now mostly raised on grains suitable for human consumption. Within the last 75 years, we've progressed from eating cattle slaughtered at 4 to 5 years old to cattle slaughtered at just over a year old thanks to their new diet. However, this dietary shift also requires antibiotic protection as this is a rather unnatural diet for cows. Source.
So, americans are unhealthy and the market for meat represents a sinkhole for natural grains. In addition, the US and state governments spend billions on subsidizing the meat industry. On top of that, add this administration's questionable agricultural subsidies policy and we get a grand total of our money being wasted. One, the government recommends that we eat only 2/3 of our current average meat consumption (at most). And two, the government intervenes financially to keep costs of meat production low. How can we get a policy that will benefit everyone? Decreasing the amounts of government subsides to the meat industry will certainly cut governmental costs and cause meat prices to rise, thereby cutting demand, and hopefully consumption. There are a few problems still.
What about american farmers? Well, rather than simply trimming meat subsidies, we can shift them towards subsidizing something we can all agree on: decreasing dependance on foreign oil. By shifting meat subsidies to farmers growing corn for the production of ethanol, we keep farmers employed and at the same time enjoy a renewable resource that displaces 7 gallons of imported oil per gallon produced. Additionally, with a decrease in meat production, the grain which would have gone to feed animals can be used to produce ethanol as well.
What about the american public? This is the remaining problem: our culture's obsession with meat consumption. Would Americans stand for the government's role in an intentional rise in the cost of meat? Does this go too far? In my opinion, it is too far for the national and state governments to pour billions into keeping meat production costs artificially low. All this plan requires is that Americans accept a shift in culture, in this case prodded by rising meat costs.
Posted by Andrew Parker at January 14, 2005 12:17 AMI’m flying to Kansas City today, and I sure hope I get a chance to hit a good midwestern barbeque place while I’m there. They just don’t make it like that in the East.
Posted by: Chops at January 14, 2005 11:24 AMTo give your post a serious response, though, I agree that the subsidies need to go. The government is just involved in far too many aspects of our economy. Regulation is good; backstopping the economy through the FDIC and the Federal Reserve is good, but the government generally makes things worse when it gets into private sector activities.
Posted by: Chops at January 14, 2005 11:27 AMIt’s not the overconsumption of meat and protein that causes obesity; it’s the overconsumption of high-fructose corn syrup, which is in just about everything these days. This combines with the lack of exercise is what causes so many people to be obese.
Posted by: Cameron Barrett at January 14, 2005 11:30 AMAP,
Good article, however you didn’t mention hogs which can be raised at close to 3.2 to 1 .
There is also a difference between food grade and feed grade grains, most of the corn you see growing could’nt be sold as food but would work very nicely for ethanol production.
The problem with ethanol is enviromentalists block most of the plants, and nobody wants to live close to one(they do stink).
I can go along with cutting most of the farm subsidies, but I would exchange that with; ” No property taxes on farm land in current use to produce products for retail sale.”
Small Farmers are being taxed off their land, if you can net (at best) $1000 an acre by farming it, and it is worth $20,000 an acre if sold to a developer, at some point you must sell it.
The $$ signs are too great for most townships, countys, states, ect. to resist and they tax based on value if sold.
I would think that even city folks would agree that we need to preserve some of our farmlands.
Who wants to gather the family, and take a quiet drive through a traffic jam on a sunday afternoon??
Yes, I’m off topic and venting, but this is a very complex issue, one that isn’t a “this or that” type of thing.
Everyone should eat more healthfull foods, fish and wildgame would be a good start.
If we just “pull the rug” from under farmers in this country, will people eat more veggies or will it just lead to more imported beef?
Cameron -
I understand that sugars are more of the root cause of obesity than overeating meats and proteins. This article is more an argument for changing the government’s agricultural subsidies policy.
Beagle -
Thanks for your insights, comments like yours are why I post my ideas here. There are a lot of minor details that are difficult to find on your own, without talking to someone who knows the situation more closely than yourself.
Posted by: AParker at January 14, 2005 02:57 PMAParker, didn’t Oprah get into trouble for saying something similar?
Actually, I really like your idea about switching the subsidies to energy independence.
As for the overconsumption of meat, I blame those places where, if you eat a hundred ounces of steak, your meal is free. :)
AP -
Probably… it seems that some people don’t like it when you think through government policy and realize its a sham. The people who are getting a great deal out of it certainly don’t want anyone to realize what Washington is handing them.
Posted by: AParker at January 18, 2005 09:57 AM
