New diet guidelines might reflect environment cost

For years, the government has been issuing guidelines about healthy eating choices. Now, a panel that advises the Agriculture Department is ready to recommend that you be told not only what foods are better for your own health, but for the environment as well. That means that when the latest version of the government's dietary guidelines comes out, it may push even harder than it has in recent years for people to choose more fruits, vegetables, nuts, whole grains and other plant-based foods — at the expense of meat. The beef and agriculture industries are crying foul, saying an environmental agenda has no place in what has always been a practical blueprint for a healthy lifestyle. The advisory panel has been discussing the idea of sustainability in public meetings, indicating that its recommendations, expected early this year, may address the environment. A draft recommendation circulated last month said a sustainable diet helps ensure food access for both the current population and future generations...more

Been warning you Michelle O's whole nanny state nutrition program is anti-meat.  Now it may become official government policy to discriminate against meat.  All of the feds' resources (regulatory, spending & media) will be arrayed against your product.

A dietary pattern higher in plant-based foods and lower in animal-based foods is "more health promoting and is associated with lesser environmental impact than is the current average U.S. diet," the draft said. That appears to take at least partial aim at the beef industry. A study by the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences last year said raising beef for the American dinner table is more harmful to the environment than other meat industries such as pork and chicken. The study said that compared with other popular animal proteins, beef produces more heat-trapping gases per calorie, puts out more water-polluting nitrogen, takes more water for irrigation and uses more land.

Two biggies mentioned:  land and water.  Will the government cease issuing grazing permits in order to protect our and the environment's health?  Ask Michelle O's Forest Service and BLM.  Will government cease leasing water for the same reasons?  Ask Michelle O's Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers. 

Am I pushing this too far?  Maybe.  But notice their rationale is to protect us "and future generations."  Expect to hear more about how all of this is to protect our children and grandchildren.

So what's next?

Once the recommendations are made, the Agriculture and Health and Human Services departments will craft the final dietary guidelines, expected about a year from now. Published every five years, the guidelines are the basis for USDA's "My Plate" icon that replaced the well-known food pyramid in 2010 and is designed to help Americans with healthy eating. Guidelines will also be integrated into school lunch meal patterns and other federal eating programs.

I say hold it right there.  Before issuing anymore guidelines or edicts one thing needs to be determined:  what is the environmental footprint of the U.S. Congress?  And I don't mean just the D.C. buildings, field offices and travel by the Congressmen and their staff.

Since everything undertaken by the feds is authorized by a congressional statute and annually funded by congressional legislation, we need a complete environmental footprint of everything the feds do.  Once we have the footprint, let's line them all up, weigh the environmental benefits and costs of each and then decide where to take action.  That would be a reasonable and fair approach.

And in the meantime, quit picking on ranchers and schoolchildren.