The Recession Makes People Eat Less Meat, But More Fast Food

Too bad Johnathan Swift died before the Internet came about.

This will thrill PETA right out of their naugahyde pumps: doing what no bag of thrown flour could ever hope to accomplish, the recession has caused the average American to cut their meat consumption. According to a survey conducted by Parade magazine (Yes, the cheesy insert in the Sunday paper. Yes, I read it. Shut up.), nearly 60% of respondents say they have reduced the amount of meat they eat due to rising food costs.

In an unrelated but strangely appropriate survey, apparently the recession has also caused an uptick in business at fast food restaurants.

Conclusion: A t-bone steak at $12.99/lb is a budget-breaker, but two meat patties on a sesame bun with special sauce for $1.79 is dinner the way mama used to make. There's something wrong with this mentality and I'm not just saying that because I'm a vegetarian. Somewhere Michael Pollan just had a seizure.

In a country where affordable and accessible health care was one of the biggest issues in the recent presidential election, it seems unwise to be trading whole foods for processed ones -- especially those with a shelf life of 12+ years. If we want to encourage people to practice preventative health care by eating better and taking care of themselves, then pricing fast food cheaper than the real deal seems downright counterproductive. Where's our health food bailout? But perhaps hitting people in their wallet is the best way to make them sit up and pay attention.

For me, as you might expect, I have tried both extremes of the meat continuum. I've been fully vegan. I've also done the Primal Blueprint (also known as The Meat-and-Veg Diet.) And I've settled out somewhere in the middle -- a place I like to call "non-militant vegetarianism." Left to my own devices, I don't generally eat meat. But exceptions will be made for cases like wicked PMS, a bite of my husband's dinner at a fancy restaurant or a special dish made by a foreign friend. I also don't waste my breath trying to convert others to my veggie ways. This will almost guarantee the derision of hard-core vegetarians, but to be perfectly honest, I don't care if you eat meat. If there's one thing I've learned, it's that there are lots of ways to be healthy and I don't have all the answers.

But if you are looking for ways to cut down on the grocery bill -- and who isn't, considering that food prices have risen 7% over the past year and are expected to go up another 4% in 2009 -- then reducing your meat consumption is a good fix. In fact, a whole new trendy name -- Flexitarian -- has just been popularized for folks who eat less meat but don't eschew it (get it?) entirely. There is a way to have your meat and eat it too. Just don't replace it with a Big Mac.

Comments

[carrieanna]

I'm primarily a flexitarian. Mainly it's because I don't like handling or cooking with raw meat.

It would be great if the recession pushed people back into preparing their own meals. Maybe we could get away from the gigantic food portions most fast food and restaurants serve.

[VasuMurti]

A pamphlet put out by Compassion Over Killing says raising animals for food is one of the leading causes of both pollution and resource depletion today. According to a recent United Nations report, "Livestock's Long Shadow," raising chickens, turkeys, pigs, and other animals for food causes more greenhouse gas emissions than all the cars, trucks and other forms of transportation combined. Researchers from the University of Chicago similarly concluded that a vegetarian diet is the most energy efficient, and the average American does more to reduce global warming emissions by not eating animal products than by switching to a hybrid car.

A 2007 journal published by the American Dietetic Association found "meat protein production required 26 times more water than vegetable protein on rain-fed lands." Dieticians "can encourage eating that is both healthful and conserving of soil, water, and energy by emphasizing plant sources of protein and foods that have been produced with fewer agricultural inputs."

A single dairy cow produces approximately 120 pounds of wet manure per day, which is equivalent to that of 20 to 40 humans.

70% of the grain grown and 50% of the water consumed in the U.S. are used by the meat industry. (Audobon Society)

Over 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to grow grain for livestock. (Greenpeace)

Farmed animals produce an estimated 1.4 billion tons of fecal waste each year in the U.S. Much of this untreated waste pollutes the land and water.

[Vickster]

VasuMurti,

Allow me to play the devil's advocate for a moment. First, I've yet to read the study on livestock and greenhouse gases so I'll reserve judgement until then. Still, I have to wonder what we'd do with all these animals if we no longer farmed them. After all, we can't just turn them loose since this would mean they'd be competing with wildlife for food and shelter. If history is any indication, whenever a species is introduced into a habitat, the local flora and fauna almost always lose. This means the only other option would be to allow these animals to go extinct. History also teaches us that animals (wild and domestic) who became endangered or extinct during the twentieth century were the ones humans no longer depended on.

Second, most livestock is raised east of the Mississippi where water is plentiful, while most produce in this country is raised in California where the opposite is true. Therefore, comparing livestock to crop production is like comparing apples to oranges where water is concerned.

Third, most of that 260,000,000 acres you refer to was cleared during the nineteenth century and early twentieth century to grow grains for human consumption. Feeding all that grain to livestock didn't begin until some sixty years ago.

And finally, some farmers are now using their "fecal waste" to provide energy to neighboring towns. Besides, how will we ever wean ourselves off petroleum-based fertilizers without cow manure?