Top of the Food Chain
by Christine Lepisto, Berlin on 11. 4.07
Wow, this picture says a throusand words--a few times over. Most people will be reading the obvious text: affordable, healthy fast food just ain't happenin'. But this graphic tells another story too. Ask yourself this: why is the government paying so much pork to the meat farmers? The answer is: they are not.
The subsidies which fatten the meat section in the pyramid on the left are primarily paid to producers of soy and corn products. This image vividly demonstrates the intense inefficiency of meat as a calorie source. It is this same inefficiency which has led to at least one calculation that eating meat contributes 21% of the carbon dioxide which can be attributed to human activity.
The choice to become a vegetarian beckons once again. A seemingly hard choice for the omnivore, but the lazy way out if you want to make a difference--because it is certainly easier than changing the politics of farm subsidies. If you cannot imagine a life without meat, at least take a tip from the food pyramid. The average American consumed 200 pounds of meat in 2005, almost 9 ounces per day. If you enter your age, height and weight at my pyramid, you can get a personal recommendation for meat consumption. A lot of people will find that they can do their health as well as the environment a favor by eating at least 50% less meat than they are eating today.
Via ::The Agonist
Is there a typo in this posting? It makes no sense to me but maybe I'm missing something.
Your posting states:
Ask yourself this: why is the government paying so much pork to the meat farmers? The answer is: they are not.
The subsidies which fatten the meat section in the pyramid on the left are primarily paid to producers of soy and corn products.
The subsides in the pyramid that are going to meat are actually going to soy and corn products? Is that right? That makes no sense. First of all that wouldn't be meat and secondly that would be a good thing if you're arguing against meat subsidies.
Could you clarify this?
I'm a vegetarian for exactly the reasons that I think this article is trying to explain.
===auth. note===
I will try to clarify: the pyramid on the left is demonstrating what percentage of the cost of meat delivered to the table can be attributed to government subsidies. The price of the meat is based largely on the cost of feeding the cows. Since a pound of meat requires a lot of pounds of soy-meal, corn and/or grass on subsidized pasture-land, the net result is that meat prices reflect far more the subsidy system than the real costs of meat production. Now, to be completely fair and balanced, animals can convert food not fit for humans into good nutrition. But the point remains: our food supply system is not based on what is good for our bodies, or what is good for the environment; with the net effect that a hamburger is ironically cheaper than a salad and we are outrunning the planet's resources.
Now wait a minute here. Someone's distorting the truth at the original source that the author has carried through in this summary. A lot of those subsidies is going to corn and soy, but have you seen all the articles about how that is harming food supplies of late because the corn and soy is going toward biofuels? Maybe in the old days that's happening with the corn and soy but the politicians probably are seeing there is no need to trim those subsidies because they are still useful.
If anything, the only reason they'd need to cut it is because of the booming biofuels market. Any farmer smart enough to be worthy of planting the corn and soy would know to sell it to biofuels and not for cattle feed. When was the last time you saw an article about corn and soy for cattle feed? So please, don't be getting on the nutrition case of the subsidies. Some of the other facts may be true, but it does not suggest causality between the subsidies and meat bought by government.
The answer lies in life cycle thinking.
By subsidizing, grains, the cost of meat production is kept low, encouraging consumption. Etc.
For a wonderfully insightful explanation, I sugget Micheal Pollan's op ed piece in todays' NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/04/opinion/04pollan.html?pagewanted=1&th&emc=th
With one exception, Pollan seems to have it right. (His mistake - He is dead wrong to assert that open range grazing is always better for the environment. Free roaming animals often over graze, causing severe erosion, filthing up streams, and contributing to downstream flooding. Grazing. like any management practice, must be managed properly. It can not be given a carte blanch "green" badge of honor by an authority who has no personalexperience in farming and soil management.
It seems like this is linked to the idea of taxing foods that are unhealthy both ecologically and health-wise. Taxing un-healthy foods where consumers buy them is the only way to ensure that there is an incentive for highly-subsidized corn and soy to be turned into healthy things like tofu and not meat or high-fructose corn syrup.
well its common sense stop substantiating the bad ones so the good ones have a chance cause junk food is cheeper then good healthy food and it would save us taxes to
It appears the left chart reflects a bit of consumer choice as well. People are choosing the cheap meat over the cheap grains/legumes for food. If the demand for meat were lower, more of the grains would be used for other products, such as human feed.
Just as Anon points out, corn and soy are used for things other than feed. Meat rarely is; so the American diet's bias is potrayed here as well. This is a result of consumerism, not just subsidies. Granted, cheap meat drives burger sales, but so does the desire for burgers.
I'm ready for a true free market.
It seems like this is linked to the idea of taxing foods that are unhealthy both ecologically and health-wise. Taxing un-healthy foods where consumers buy them is the only way to ensure that there is an incentive for highly-subsidized corn and soy to be turned into healthy things like tofu and not meat or high-fructose corn syrup.