MEATLESS MONDAY V THE MEAT INDUSTRY
Much of this research had been accomplished by cardiologists appalled by the apparent “epidemic”of coronary heart disease among American that followed World War II. They could not help but be impressed by the contrasting absence of this disease among populations consuming largely plant-based diets.
~Marion Nestle Food Politics (2002)
Meatless Monday is gaining traction, as reported by Jane Black in The Washington Post last Wednesday. Aside from individual people worldwide choosing to consistently forgo meat one day of the week, there seems to be two important indicators:
- The food service industry – those who serve meals for large groups of constituents such as hospitals, school districts and restaurants (some with chefs with name recognition and a following), and even a city in Belgium – have embraced the concept by offering vegetarian meals, lowering their overall percentage of meat purchasing, or endorsing a day without meat.
- Various meat-related industries and associations (National Pork Board, National Cattlemen’s Association, the Farm Bureau, etc) are raising a stink, writing letters of warning to the groups above.
Is this cheeky or what? In the public interest alone, they should stop issuing warning letters to institutional and policy-makers who write nutrition-minded recommendations against eating less meat. Let nutritionists and scientists do their job, researching and delivering whatever objective data they have assembled. The meat industry is not content to include everyone in a well-rounded discussion, they just want you to eat meat.
The American Meat Institute (AMI) has a Meat News Network, and in a video series called Ask the Meat Scientist featuring a no-nonsense looking Director of Scientific Affairs, (and what the heck is a meat scientist, anyway?) where she tows the meat company line. Some info on portion size, although what meat eater eats only three ounces? In each video, she pairs good information with bad.
Beans are mentioned (but not distinguished as dried beans or legumes), and quickly dismissed as “incomplete forms of protein”. I don’t know many people who eat beans all by themselves; it makes me gassy just thinking about that. Combining foods is integral to cooking and eating. And combining can be achieved through what you eat for subsequent meals or even on subsequent days.
Many people (probably many meat eaters) don’t like beans, and many don’t know how to successfully prepare them. But even those who don’t like them will at least concede knowledge that they are nutritious.  The meat people don’t want you to believe that you can get adequate daily protein from other sources; they just want you to eat meat.
On another video, touting hot dogs as an appealing food for all ages, she says, “they contain an excellent source of high-quality protein, including all of the essential amino acids, vitamins and minerals.”  It is hard to imagine anyone believing that hot dogs are a high-quality source of protein. Most people know that hot dogs are made from meat by-products from processing other cuts that would otherwise go to waste. I’m no scientist or dietitian, but I don’t know of one food that single-handedly contains all essential amino acids, vitamins and minerals. And if I had to guess what food comes closest to filling that impossible criteria, it certainly wouldn’t be hot dogs.
I think most people are smarter than that, seeing through such blatant falsehoods. It is just this sort of poor information that the food industry uses to push their self-serving message, another way of telling you to eat more meat.
Does anyone really believe that eating less meat poses any sort of risk whatsoever, health or otherwise? If you’re out there, I want to hear from you.
The fact that the meat industry doesn’t mind issuing false statements is evidence that they are getting a little desperate. Time and again the food industry has demonstrated that they don’t want to peacefully coexist with other foods on the table; they want meat front and center despite the growing body of nutritional evidence that less meat is better. Of all the nutritional publications today, and especially considering the overeating that is generally going on, is there anyone except the meat industry who doesn’t advocate eating less meat?
When was the last time you heard anyone say, “I don’t think I’m getting enough meat”?
If they are interested in promoting health within the context of their industry’s livelihood, why don’t they advocate cooking meat with beans? Wouldn’t you think that suggesting chili with meat would be better for their cause than vegetarian chili?  And cooking beans with bacon would be better for them, and appeal to many more people, than vegetarian beans. Why don’t they advocate moderation and variety, the watchwords of good eating habits? Their scorched earth tactics are aggravating, and I like meat! Because of their industry shenanigans, I’m much more inclined to eat less meat.
The Post article goes on to state:
In a letter to the committee, the American Meat Institute voiced concern that policymakers were overemphasizing plant-based food as the foundation of a “healthy” diet for Americans. . . . “AMI strongly recommends that the Committee evaluate its data based on sound science and a scientifically based risk assessment, not nutrition publication bias.”
Are they are really beginning to throw around the word nutrition, as if it were a bad thing? If we had use for any sort of bias, I’d say that a nutrition bias would serve humanity pretty well.
