The USDA should advise on nutrition not on environment, likewise the EPA should advise on environment and not nutrition. So, while I eat little meat, I think they made a good call. It's not in their direct scope. At the same time, the meat producers should be reserved, one day they may find that less meat is better nutritionally and if they do find so, tell it like it is.
Not sure what the WAPO is trying to imply here. It's as if they want the USDA to go outside their scope --you know, not printing newspapers might also be beneficial to the environment, WAPO, but I don't see you ditching printing out of benevolence but rather necessity as fewer people buy newspapers.
On the contrary, the mandate of the USDA is to provide guidance and regulation relating to the meat and dairy industries. As the meat and dairy industries have definite environmental impact, they have space to make recommendations relating to the intersection of the meat industry and the environment.
It's foolish to think that we should all live in tiny, proscribed silos of expertise, and simply ignore all areas which other silos might have some claim to...
That's why we have other departments of the gov't to advise on their proscribed silos of expertise. No, I think this is the right thing to do. Stick to your area of expertise. I don't want gov't departments going rogue using up resources.
They should stick to their scope like nutrition, food safety, etc. They have too few food inspectors as it is.
> Natural Resources and Environment ensures the health of the land through sustainable management. Its agencies work to prevent damage to natural resources and the environment, restore the resource base, and promote good land management.
"going rogue, using up resources" -- doesn't apply to the USDA, does apply to meat production. And it's not like the industry just shuts up and makes meat, sticking to wasting resources that way; they also advertise and lobby, do they not?
I think there is a distinction between good land management, given conditions, that's to say how to best use land, with the presupposition of it being used, versus saying don't use it at all.
Moreover, the USDA itself is of the opinion that kind of recommendation you're suggesting, it out of their scope. So they disagree. I know people want them to think otherwise, but, they don't think so. I'm glad they have not become an activist department going beyond their scope, in this case.
You can't realistically separate agriculture, nutrition and the environment. Any body that deals with nutrition has to worry about agriculture, and any body that has to worry about agriculture has to worry about the environment. The way people get food is one of the biggest factors in the changing of the environment.
No I get that. But that's for someone like the EPA to regulate, not the FDA to give an opinion on. They should be _unbiased_ as to what constitutes a good diet and nutrition (not conditional recommendations).
Imagine getting medical care and the doctor says, well, yes, there is this cure, but if I put on my accountant hat, it would be too expensive, you know what, instead let me recommend this course of action instead. It's not as effective, but it's better for the budget.
>They should be _unbiased_ as to what constitutes a good diet and nutrition (not conditional recommendations).
This presupposes that there is one "good diet" and it necessarily includes meat, neither of which are true. Also, given, the way the climate is heading, those "conditional recommendations" might be environmental realities soon enough.
>Imagine getting medical care and the doctor says, well, yes, there is this cure, but if I put on my accountant hat, it would be too expensive, you know what, instead let me recommend this course of action instead. It's not as effective, but it's better for the budget.
Health insurance companies do this regularly. They will not cover certain medications until cheaper alternatives have been tried.
No man is an island. Advice and guidelines that don't take context into consideration are useful mostly as some kind of utopian ideal. The various agencies should be working together on things like this. And they sometimes do where their goals overlap. The dietary guidelines are actually an example of that since they're jointly issued by the USDA and HHS.
If the PH in our oceans became so unbalanced they could no longer support any kind of commercial fishing and it became a delicacy would they continue to push a certain percentage of fish as part of our diet? Considering the distortion lobbies create with respect to the balance of democratic power it would surprising if there weren't a certain amount of undue influence.
Not sure what the WAPO is trying to imply here. It's as if they want the USDA to go outside their scope --you know, not printing newspapers might also be beneficial to the environment, WAPO, but I don't see you ditching printing out of benevolence but rather necessity as fewer people buy newspapers.