STRAIGHT FROM THE HORSES MOUTH

Duane A. Lienemann
UNLExtension Educator

     I have over the years tried to relay information, to anyone who will read my words or listen to me, on the continual attack on agriculture and particularly animal agriculture. I am now saddened to announce that it appears to me like our own government is on the verge of doing the very same thing I worry about. We are used to the EPA zeroing in on us, but not the USDA and Health and Human Services. Here is the crux of the matter. Every five years, USDA and HHS review the dietary guidelines for American food consumption. So Congress once again directed the Secretaries of Agriculture and Health and Human Services to publish dietary guidelines containing "nutritional and dietary information and guidelines for the general public. That seems rather routine and innocent; however, they released this 571 page report this past Thursday, and I have to tell you that it caught my attention for several reasons that I will outline in this week’s edition. 
     The new report recommends, to the aforementioned secretaries, what should be included in the dietary guidelines that will be issued later this year. Unfortunately it looks to me that there is some ideology that is taking place in the manufacturing of this document and I think it needs to be pointed out, and why I think it is important to address it. The big red flag that comes up for me is that the report blatantly leaves lean red meat out of what it considers to be a healthy diet! Come on, give me a break. This should not only be very disconcerting to the entire livestock industry but also a great concern to dietitians who support consumption of lean red meat and to families who want to provide a balanced menu.
     It is hard for me to understand why the very agency tasked with promoting agriculture would encourage people not to eat meat. But then you don’t have to think back to far to remember that they also tried to instigate Meatless Mondays right at the USDA, as well as our school lunch programs. I won’t even delve into the fiasco that our school lunch program has become. I believe that these are misguided dietary guidelines, and our farmers and ranchers deserve more of an ally in the USDA, rather than an adversary. These misleading dietary guidelines will not only confuse consumers, but would also harm Nebraska’s livestock industry which is the engine that drives our state.  
     In my opinion we need to urge the HHS, USDA and our Congressmen to consider the impacts and then reconsider the recommendations in the report. As our farmers and ranchers continue to seek ways to feed a growing global population, our government should find ways to empower, not hinder, our producers. Dietary guidelines have historically been based on healthy eating and nutrition but it looks to me that they are more interested in an “environmental agenda” rather than a complete health concern. When you read through the document, you become concerned that the report’s obsession with “sustainability issues” goes well beyond both the group’s expertise, and its clearly defined mission. To me, this has an ideological slant and a not-so-veiled agenda that has permeated the political and even educational fields.
     This document repeats alarmist, unsubstantiated and deeply flawed assertions about land use that were first promulgated by a United Nations agency with scant agricultural understanding and that have been debunked since they first came out. These assertions contradicts decades of scientific consensus. The overall guidelines also ignore easier and more effective ways that we can reduce carbon footprints, if that is really their concern. Many others join my concern that this committee’s unrealistic view of sustainability and climate change perverts their views regarding meat in the American diet. Instead of supporting the health benefits of lean meat consumption, as previous advisory committees have consistently done, the committee seems to focus only on sustainability, climate concerns and a diet “higher in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, low- or non-fat dairy, seafood, legumes, and nuts; moderate in alcohol (among adults); much lower in red and processed meat.”  This report could have been written by Vegans and/or vegetarians, animal rights groups, and certainly extreme environmentalists; all of who are coming out of the woodwork supporting it! That should tell you something!
     We in agriculture ask for science based and fairly reviewed information, but it looks to me that producers and animal scientists were not invited to be a part of this important committee, and that is troubling to me. We need a scientific and health based approach to nutrition, and that includes meat. Farmers, ranchers and consumers deserve better from the USDA.
. We all know that good protein, zinc and iron sources like lean meat should be part of a healthy diet. This group should not base their report on the buzzword of “sustainability”, ideological agendas, or concerns based on “global climate change” but instead should base their guidelines on what is good for the consumers and those who provide our meals!
     Previous attempts to provide government guidelines have given the public pervasively incorrect or harmful advice, forcing repeated retractions, causing public confusion and cynicism. Government advice on total carbohydrate and fat intake, specific advice on eggs / coffee / salt /caffeine / milk / cholesterol intake, have been proven damaging to public health and businesses or just incorrect. (Read NY Times “The Government’s Bad Diet Advice”). Given the poor track record of government and diet guidelines, I think this study and report needs a complete overhaul!! If you share my concern for this direction that is being taken, or even if you agree with it, the public is encouraged to view the independent advisory group’s report and provide written comments at www.DietaryGuidelines.gov . You have a period of about 45 days to express your thoughts and provide your comments. I will need to continue discussion on this topic next week as there is much more troubling “revelations” in this report.  In the meantime I suggest you read up on this latest saga and see for yourself!

The preceding information comes from the research and personal observations of the writer which may or may not reflect the views of UNL or UNL Extension. For more further information on these or other topics contact D. A. Lienemann, UNL Extension Educator for Webster County in Red Cloud, (402) 746-3417 or email to: dlienemann2@unl.edu or go to the website at: http://www.webster.unl.edu/home