- Honor
- Family
and if you are from Nebraska
3. Bo Pelini
Anyways before I get too sassy, I can only assume the issue behind Meatless Monday arises from the idea of "honor" and "family." In Nebraska, raising cattle is a tradition that is seen as noble, but also a generational occupation. Deep and rooted feelings are connected with the work these farmers put into raising their cattle to meet the pressing demands of society. It is our economy.
Last night a student tried to pass a bill in ASUN (student government) to introduce education about Meatless Monday in dining halls. The bill did not pass due to extreme opposition from students studying agricultural topics who saw it as a criticism of modern agriculture.
But here's the thing. No industry is above criticism. This is not a distopia like in 1984 where the beef industry acts as Big Brother and regulates what information can exist. Especially information that is backed by *gasp* science! Some senators openly would not support the bill because it targeted livestock and beef producers. Once again, I'd like to welcome these students to the real world where there are contrary viewpoints.
Anyways below I have some of the education that you won't find in your dining halls anytime soon:
FACTS
Meatless Monday was then revived in 2003 by former ad man, Sid Lerner, in association with the John Hopkin's Bloomberg School of Public Health's Center for a Livable Future. It was now introduced as a public health awareness act to educate individuals on the health concerns that arise from consuming large amounts of meat. Some health concerns include:
- atherosclerosis: hardening or clogging of arteries
- increase in nitrosamines (stomach cancer causing toxins)
- increases risk of type 2 diabetes
- increase risk of Alzheimers
Though most of the focus of Meatless Monday has been on health related issues, the environmental advantages are equally relevant. If you already use re-usable shopping bags and drive a fuel efficient car, reducing meat consumption is another easy personal step.
Here's some numbers.
The popular red meat
requires 28 times more land to produce than pork or chicken, 11 times more
water and results in five times more climate-warming emissions. When compared
to staples like potatoes, wheat, and rice, the impact of beef per calorie is
even more extreme, requiring 160 times more land and producing 11 times more
greenhouse gases. (The Guardian)
This is NOT AN ATTACK on the beef industry. It is simple fact.
Yes there is something called sustainable agricultural practices. But these practices still result in a release of greenhouse gases. In fact some sustainable practices erode even more land and release more emissions that factory farming.
And at no point am I trying to say that we can completely eliminate greenhouse gas production, I just want everyone to be on the same page that greenhouse gas is a result of the beef industry.
People get hyped up around food. Whether you eat raw meat, vegetables, or tofu, let's just agree, for once, that to silence students' voices is wrong. To eliminate the chance for education in a higher academic setting is ridiculous, and the opposition to a Meatless Monday education bill shows a lack of understanding on our campus.
We are better than that Nebraska.
We are better than that Nebraska.
Dear Author,
ReplyDeleteAs I respect your opinion on the recent ASUN senate debate regarding Meatless Monday education in dinning halls, I would like to take a minute to reflect on your blog from an “east campus” perspective. First off I would like to confirm your thoughts that the strong outpouring of opposition to this movement is highly tied to honor and family. In America over 90% of farms are family owned and have most likely been a part of that families livelihood for almost 4 generations. Along with the fact that our families have made livestock and crop production a priority, we also take great pride in the fact that over the past 30 years we have been successfully reducing our environmental impacts and have been developing more sustainable ways to produce enough food to feed 9 billion people by the year 2050. In the humble opinion of agriculturalists these improvements result in great pride and honor for our industry. I would also like to agree with you that no industry is perfect and that criticism can be easily assigned. However, in the past 5 years the agriculture industry has come over more scrutiny than ever. As farmers and ranchers we are questioned every day about our production practices and technological advancements. As progressive agriculturalists this becomes very frustrating because less than 2% of the American population is involved in agriculture, and even a smaller percentage than that is involved in production agriculture. Now more than ever consumers are removed from the farm and have little to no knowledge about how their food is produced except for what they read online and hear on the television. However, now more than ever consumers are speaking out about their concerns and more often than not basing their opinion on emotion rather than * gasp * science. Because of this scrutiny we as agriculture students are becoming more outspoken because we have learned that the general public doesn’t always have our best interests at heart, and unless we stand up and speak out our story will never be heard. This is evident by the outstanding showing of agriculture students at the ASUN debate that took place last night.
Continuation of previous comment...
ReplyDeleteI hope that you don’t feel like we were trying to eliminate your voice and chance for education. Our intentions are more focused on providing education about the agriculture industry and as an industry we feel that removing meat from your diet is not necessary, even if it is only for one day. You see the recommended daily serving of lean beef is 1.8 oz., when in fact studies show that most Americans only consume 1.7 oz. of lean beef per day. So as a nation we are not over consuming beef products. In fact world demand for beef is higher than ever and as an industry we are striving to produce enough meat to feed a growing world population, which is demanding a source of complete protein. To qualify as a complete protein source a food must contain all essential amino acids, beef is the only meat source that is considered “complete”, pork and chicken don’t meet these classification standards. I would also like to remind people that according to the EPA, in the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions are more highly related to the electricity and transportation sectors than the agriculture industry. This makes me think that as a student body we should be focusing more on the true source of emissions rather than targeting a group that produces less than 10% of the total greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. Maybe it would be a better use of our time to promote a day without electricity, or to have a campus wide “take the bus” day to help reduce the amount of tailpipe emissions produced by UNL students. Since this response is becoming a bit lengthy I would like to close by saying that on behalf of the east campus community we pledge to continue research and higher education in order to find ways to provide the world with a safe, sustainable, and abundant supply of food, and ensure that we will continue to find ways to produce food that is environmentally friendly. However, we will most likely never support a movement to reduce the consumption of the delicious protein that we call beef, a movement to support Meatless Mondays would be a step toward silencing the voice of agriculture on this campus and that is ridiculous.
We are better than that Nebraska.
Hey Lauren,
ReplyDeleteThanks for taking the time to write out your opinion as well. If anything, I always appreciate students who defend their ideas.
However, this is an opinion blog and I continue to support the factor that beef production, in general, creates more greenhouse gas emissions than "taking the bus" though that is still an awesome idea and one that ESC has done in previous years. (Bike Day, BikeUNL etc.)
BUT here is the main goal of the blog post summed up in a couple sentences.
1. I just want everyone, whether environmentalist or agriculturalist to admit together that yes, beef production contributes greenhouse gas emission. So do a lot of activities and industries. I was just shocked that some students at the ASUN hearing were living in complete denial of this fact. I commend the work that the ag business is putting into reducing their emissions. A lot of industries are working towards the goal of reducing these harmful emissions because they know it is the right thing to do.
2. I was frustrated that this bill didn't pass because in no way was it forcing or even encouraging students to forgo eating meat. It simply was to have table tents with the history behind and explanation of Meatless Monday. Half of the student population probably wouldn't have even read them, but to reduce the chance for freedom of speech was disheartening for me. The Ag groups on campus could have their own week of table tents talking about whatever they wanted, and to be honest, would probably be better received than our table tents.
Are we all on the same page now? If not, we could set up some sort of roundtable discussion between open-minded students to work through this. It could be fun and for a group that feels misunderstood, I would love to have better communication between us. Both environmental studies and agriculture classes take place on east campus. We exist together.
Melissa,
ReplyDeleteFirst off I would like to say that I agree that environmentalists and agriculturalists should work together to find common ground on important issues facing our areas of interest because quite frankly agriculture will cease to exist if there are no natural resources to support it, and if agriculture ends then we will all be very hungry people and no one wants that. With that being said I think that there are a lot of misconceptions that are arising from this issue between our two groups.
1. We as beef producers understand that cattle produce methane. In fact we get the pleasure of smelling it everyday. However, the reason we are reluctant to admit it is because the facts state that roughly 65% of all agricultural greenhouse gas emissions come from cattle and that in the U.S. alone 10% of all greenhouse emissions are contributed to agriculture. If I did my math correct that means that roughly 6.5% of all greenhouse emissions in the U.S. are due to cattle production, whether that be beef cattle or dairy cattle. When we start to talk about the beef that most people consume it is more often than not sourced back to beef cattle not dairy cattle. Dairy cattle are not processed for beef until they are much older which results in lower quality meat that is most likely exported to other countries or consumed at lower quality restaurants. As of January 1, 2014 there were 87.73 million head of beef cattle and 9 million head of dairy cattle in the U.S. This means that the actual percentage of greenhouse emissions from beef cattle alone is slightly lower than 6.5%. As agriculture students we don’t feel that this number is extremely high in the scheme of things thus, we don’t believe it is something that needs to be addressed because beef cattle aren’t the reason we are experiencing global warming. Yes they are a minor contributing factor but not the biggest problem.
2. I completely understand that your organizations intentions were not to promote a meatless diet but to instead raise awareness of cattle greenhouse emissions. Sadly whenever the phrase Meatless Monday comes up the first thing a majority of readers automatically associate the phrase with is a pro-vegetarian/pro-vegan movement. This is what the beef industry is afraid of and is why we are so quick to respond. I would not consider myself a “creative” person but perhaps if someone could come up with a saying other than Meatless Monday that would instead focus on the environmental impacts of cattle rather than the consumption of beef, then we might be more open to that type of education. We by no means oppose the use to table tents to educate on environmental facts. It’s just that the phrase Meatless Monday has too many negative connotations for us to support its use.
I think that it would be beneficial for organizations such as the Collegiate Farm Bureau to work with your organization in finding a middle ground on this issue because if we could find a way to join forces our presence on campus will be much stronger than if we continue to act alone. I hope that in the coming months the groups can find a way to team up and promote agriculture and the environment at UNL.