It happened one day, and I can’t recall exactly when. However, I woke up to find that all the fast food and grocery stores were selling fake meat. It was really that fast. Burger King sold hamburgers one day and then it sold soy patties the next.
Supply and demand are two sides of the synthetic meat craze. Vegans love the taste of meat. Environmentalists prefer a healthier alternative. Markets offer everything, even vegetarians.
The rise in synthetic meat must be considered alongside the wider war against animal agriculture. The Lancet called in 2019 for a “radical transformation” of the global food system to combat climate change. It stated that global meat consumption “must be reduced by more then 50%” to attain the desired “environmental benefits”. Scientific American recommended people to eat less meat “to address the climate crisis.” A Monday hit piece in the New York Times shows that American farmers and meat have powerful and well-connected enemies.
The Times article attacked Frank Mitloehner’s work as a researcher and animal scientist at University of California, Davis. He is the director of the university’s Clarity and Leadership for Environmental Awareness and Research Center (CLEAR). Hiroko Tabuchi, Times, reported that the CLEAR Center which hosts Mitloehner’s blog and funds his research is partially funded by IFEEDER (Institute for Feed Education and Research), a non-profit associated with the American Feed Industry Association. Never stated, the implication is that Mitloehner’s scholarship is compromised because of the center’s industry donors.
Mitloehner is a frequent critic of activist scholarship that seeks the destruction of America’s agricultural industry. He works with farmers to improve their farming practices and reduce their carbon footprint, instead of trying to eliminate cattle ranching and replace them with cricket farming. He believes in reform and not revolution.
Mitloehner stated on his blog that “people want us to go record that animal agriculture needs to fade away or be substantially reduced,” but that wasn’t our charge or our position. “Our mission is to reduce the impact of animal agriculture on our climate and the environment. To do this, we must collaborate with those who raise the food that sustains us all.”
Mitloehner, while not what progressives would consider a “climate denier”, has described climate change as “the greatest challenge of our lifetime” and is more concerned than mainstream right-wingers about the potential effects of climate change. His efforts have led to significant shifts in sustainability in agriculture. For example, milk production in 2007 used 90% less land and 66% less water than in 1948. He has been adamant against attempts to exaggerate the negative environmental consequences of animal agriculture. This includes a United Nations report about the environmental impacts of livestock. The supernational body was then forced to revise his criticism.
The Times admits that there is no evidence Mitloehner (U.C. Davis or the CLEAR Centre violated ethics or disclosure rules. The Times instead insinuates Davis’ research on sustainable agricultural practices was tainted and quotes a professor who accuses Mitloehner of “downplay[ing] all impacts of livestock” as well as reaching conclusions that are “disturbing from the scientific consensus.”
The professor does not specify the issues on Mitloehner disagrees with the supposed “scientific consensus”, and Mitloehner’s colleagues defend their academic rigor. Alison Van Eenennaam, a U.C. animal geneticist, said in response to the report that Mitloehner is not defending his academic rigor. Alison Van Eenennaam is a Davis professor and animal geneticist. She responded to the Timesreport by saying that Mitloehner has never presented “a statement not supported by peer reviewed papers” and that she has accepted the current estimate that 14 percent of the global greenhouse gas emissions are due to livestock.
Even if we take the “scientific consensus”, what do we make of the fact livestock contributes 14 percent to global greenhouse gas emissions. Is it possible for people all over the globe to stop eating meat in order to lower global temperatures by just a fraction of one degree centigrade over the next century?
Environmentalists would say “yes” and that Mitloehner doesn’t want people eating bugs is his biggest criticism. When he put out a blog post last year criticizing the idea that giving up animal meat would make a meaningful difference in global temperatures, Johns Hopkins put out a scathing letter insisting that Mitloehner “mischaracteriz[ed]… the evidence” and redoubling their call for Americans to periodically forgo meat “to take a step toward reducing their environmental footprint.” Mitloehner’s assertion that individual diets don’t “drastically impact the climate and environment”, was rebuffed by the Times with a humorous parenthetical saying that “the scientific consensus” states that food choices have an effect on the climate.
Sign up today
Receive weekly emails to your inbox
They care so much about meat consumption, even though it contributes very little to climate change, according to their estimates. Consider the alternatives to farm-raised meat: Insect meat from ” Bug farms” in urban warehouses, and synthetic beef created by Ivy League scientists. These workers are less likely to be Democratic voters than the average farmhand who, while he may have a lower level of grunt due to factory farming, is still able to make a decent speech. When you consider that vegetarians tend to have lower testosterone than their meat-eating peers, the reasons for the Times’s anti-meat jihad become obvious.
It is notable that both progressives as well as “conservatives,” are not addressing crucial issues in modern agriculture. Instead, they focus their attention on how methane emissions from livestock contributes to rising global temperatures. The rise of factory farms, the use of agrochemicals, and the effects they have on the environment and public safety are ignored by environmentalists and those who defend the status quo. Exposure to different pesticides or fertilizers has been associated with nervous system damage and even cancer. Pesticides are frequently detected in some 88% streams and rivers across America. The chemicals they’re putting in the water are, in fact, turning the freaking frogs gay. These chemicals are also in our water.
It would be great to see Mitloehner focusing on these other issues. He has my support even if he does nothing but keep me from eating an Impossible Whopper.
