THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume X, Issue # 30, February 3, 2008
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
DOES THE NEW YORK TIMES HATE MEAT?
By Alan Caruba
EATING MEAT & ITS IMPACT UPON THE ENVIRONMENT: THE PREPOSTEROUS CLAIMS OF ENVIRONMENTALISTS &
VEGETARIANS -- QUACKERY & PROPAGANDA DISSEMINATION TO ADVANCE THE OBSESSIONS & POLICY AGENDAS OF
ENVIRONMENTALISTS & VEGETARIANS
FULL STORY:
After a while, one grows accustomed to the environmentalist rants that appear in the New York Times. This newspaper,
so often pointed to as an exemplar of the highest standards of journalism, has been repeatedly revealed to employ fantasists
for whom truth and facts are mere impediments to the advancement of their obsessions and agendas.
A perfect example of this is the January 27, 2008, rant, “Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler,” authored by Mark Bittman, who writes
for the “Dining in and Dining Out” section of the New York Times and is identified as the author of How to Cook
Everything Vegetarian. Accompanying Bittman's identification is the disclaimer that “He is not a vegetarian.” However, if
one looks like a vegetarian, walks like a vegetarian and quacks like a vegetarian, he probably is a vegetarian.
Bittman's commentary is a cornucopia of assertions and cherry-picked facts that beg to be rebutted, but I shall choose just a
few, starting where he started. “Like oil, meat is subsidized by the federal government.” By subsidized, the reader is asked to
assume that the raising, packaging, and distribution of meat products depends on government subsidies to exist and that the
oil industry does as well. Unlike the European Union, those engaged in either industry in the United States of America are
expected to make a profit on their own, without such dependence. It’s called capitalism.
“Finally — like oil — meat is something people are encouraged
to consume less of, as the toll exacted by industrial production
increases, and becomes increasingly visible.”
Visible to whom? Do supermarket sections offering abundant choices of meat products suggest anything other than the fact
that people want meat as part of their diet? Does anyone really give any thought to how it got there?
The only people recommending we eat less meat are vegetarians. Indeed, they would have us not eat any meat! But Mark
Bittman, we are duly informed “is not a vegetarian.” And Santa Claus does not live at the North Pole. (In 2000, the New
York Times reported that it was melting and had to later retract this absurdity.)
The heart of his screed about meat is this:
“These assembly-line meat factories consume enormous amounts
of energy, pollute water supplies, generate significant greenhouse
gases and require ever-increasingly amounts of corn, soy, and
other grains, a dependency that has led to the destruction of vast
swaths of the world’s tropical rain forests.”
Where to start disassembling this environmentalist horror story? Let’s begin with the fact that there are now more than 300
million Americans, most of whom enjoy a good hamburger, a tasty barbeque, a thick steak, a slice of ham, a rasher of bacon,
the endless ways chicken can be prepared, ad infinitum. Millions more around the world have adopted our food preferences,
just as we have adopted theirs.
If parts of the rainforest, in Brazil, for example, are being destroyed, the Wall Street Journal recently informed us that
the U.S. mandate requiring more ethanol has driven up the price of corn and soy. Brazilian ranchers and farmers want to cash
in as well. As the leading exporter of meat, ranchers “looking for pasture land are clearing forests, accounting for about two
thirds of the loss….” Brazilian Farmers want to plant more corn and soy. This is what is meant by unintended consequences.
Since the day when the Pilgrims got off the boat at Plymouth Rock, Americans have been totally obsessed with what they eat.
Other than the Fourth of July, the most quintessential national holiday is Thanksgiving, a huge feast to celebrate the good
fortune of being American.
Does it take energy to raise, butcher, and transport meat? Yes, but it also takes energy to light our cities and towns. Does this
generate greenhouse gases, i.e., carbon dioxide and methane? Yes, but humans exhale about two pounds of CO2 every day.
Cows also contribute in their own way. How much of the earth’s atmosphere is represented by its CO2 content? Somewhere in
the vicinity of 0.038 percent.
Bittman piled “fact” upon “fact” to demonstrate the horror of meat production and consumption, but a funny thing is
happening around the world as economies in China and throughout Asia are now improving, putting more money in the hands
of more people, many of whom are now buying and consuming meat.
Bittman, of course, attributed “heart disease, some types of cancer, diabetes” in part to our enjoyment of meat. Other than the
morbidly obese, the American preference for meat as part of our diet, does not point to any specific disease factor.
For example, the Japanese eat a very low fat diet and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans. The French eat a high fat diet
and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans. The Japanese drink very little red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than
Americans. The Italians drink a lot of red wine and suffer fewer heart attacks than Americans. You cannot connect the dots
because there is no connection.
How much and what we eat is largely a matter of economics and, when there is plenty, Americans and others around the world
eat across the entire spectrum of food.
It is only the crypto-environmentalists and vegetarians who are making claims that eating meat is bad for the environment.
In November, Associated Press reporter, Seth Borenstein, wrote:
“America’s obesity epidemic and global warming might not
seem to have much in common. But health experts suggest
people can attack them both by cutting calories and carbon
dioxide at the same time.”
This is pure quackery. It’s absurd nonsense, based on the increasingly discredited hoax called global warming.
As Dr. Jon Robinson, who holds a Doctorate in Health Education and Exercise Physiology, and a Master of Science in Human
Nutrition, noted several years ago:
“We are in desperate need of a serious serving of common
sense when it comes to eating. Viewing foods as weapons
of mass destruction is scientifically unsound and
psychologically destabilizing. In fact, our burgeoning fear
of foods has actually spawned a new eating disorder —
orthorexia nervosa — the obsession with eating only
‘healthy’ food.”
I will not cite any more nonsense from the Bittman article, but I call attention to it to remind you that the human stomach is
designed to digest meat. Human beings are carnivores (meat-eaters), while many other living organisms are herbivorous, i.e.,
are plant eaters.
Meat is meat. It is part of the environment, not its enemy, and neither are you. Eat! Get some more exercise. Enjoy life and pay
no mind to the New York Times.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
Political Environmentalism Versus Human Progress & Prosperity:
Policy Issues Relating to Energy, Environment,
& Natural Resources
Science, Ethics, & Human Health:
Human Health & Public Policy
Alan Caruba is a veteran business and science writer, a Public Relations Counselor, and Founder of the National Anxiety Center, a
clearinghouse for information about media-driven scare campaigns. Caruba writes a weekly commentary, "Warning Signs," posted
on the Internet website of the National Anxiety Center, which is located at
www.anxietycenter.com.
Caruba has a daily blog at http://factsnotfantasy.blogspot.com.
Caruba’s new book, Right Answers: Separating Fact from Fantasy, has been published by Merril Press.
© Alan Caruba 2008
Published with Permission of Alan Caruba
ACaruba@AOL.Com
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume X, 2007
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity