The media is at it again, forgetting about the political shenanigans because they are over. The Washington Post published an article talking about the difference between animal protein and plant protein. As usual, the Post selects a university scientist that supports their theme. Walter Willett, professor of epidemiology and nutrition at the Harvard School of Public Health, sounds credible, right?
He actually says, “The proteins in foods from animals, such as meat, milk and eggs, tend to be absorbed more easily than those from plant sources, such as nuts, beans and grains. This is partly because of the fibrous coatings that help protect plants from insects and diseases, and this shield can also reduce the rate of digestion.”
But this isn’t a reason to choose animal proteins over plant proteins. He goes on to say that plant protein absorbs into the body 10-20% less efficiently than animal protein, and he explains the benefits of the amino acids that meat supplies the body with for growth and muscle development.
But he says that citizens in rich countries eat too much animal protein anyway, and our bodies don’t require much in the way of animal protein. He’s actually pretty balanced on the differences between the two but comes down on the side of plant protein.
Then this guy goes on to say, “At this time in human history, it’s also important to consider the role of food choices in preserving a viable planet for future generations. Although eliminating use of fossil fuels is the highest priority, we have little hope of avoiding disaster if we don’t also shift our diets to be more plant-centric.”
Does this sound like a typical university professor who perhaps receives much of his research funding from the governments or industries who have something to gain from this research, which we have known about for years? I suppose Beyond Meat is behind this.
In the end, neither meat diets nor plant diets gained much from this information. It always perplexes me when these people attack meat. Especially when consumers are paying more for meat than ever and U.S. consumers consume more than 200 pounds of meat per year. For these researchers, I would suggest paying attention to the markets of the products you’re attacking.
They are activists hiding behind a university professorship. Do you trust everything they tell you? Who do you really believe? Who do you take diet information from? You take information from your own body’s signals—I think most folks in animal agriculture understand that.
Then we have The New York Times, another major publication with little credibility. The author has more of a bone to pick because outside industry groups fund the pro-animal agriculture center at University of California (UC), Davis. The author is Hiroko Tabuchi, whoever she is. She’s just another anti-meat activist.
Her angle is that UC Davis’ CLEAR Center is run by Frank Mitloehner, and industry groups fund it. She seems more upset that an outside industry group funds the research center.
According to the article, “The documents show that the center, which has become a leading institution in the field of agriculture and climate, was set up in 2019 with a $2.9 million gift to be paid out over several years from the Institute for Feed Education and Research, or IFeeder, the nonprofit arm of the American Feed Industry Association, a livestock industry group that represents major agricultural companies like Cargill and Tyson.” The author says they also received more than $350 million from other groups, including $200 million from the California Cattle Council—imagine that.
“Industry funding does not necessarily compromise research, but it does inevitably have a slant on the directions with which you ask questions and the tendency to interpret those results in a way that may favor industry,” said Matthew Hayek, an assistant professor in environmental studies at New York University. Makes me wonder if the scientific hypothesis is still in use. Solid science is repeatable, and you get the same results. How do you achieve that with climate science? The weather is always changing.
What I find disturbing about these meat-related articles is their underlying topic, which is climate change. The first author was supportive of animal and plant protein, but when viewed under the climate change criterion, animal protein lost out. Then our second author referred to the United Nations’ “Livestock’s Long Shadow” report. He continued to claim bovines are responsible for 15% of methane pollution—research that was debunked the year after the report came out.
If we’re going to talk about these issues, let’s all agree on established facts and that there are variables, especially when you throw climate change in the mix.— PETE CROW
