The Flawed Ideology That Unites Grass-Fed Beef Fans and Anti-Vaxxers

5 comments

1. >And yet, no matter how many studies get published, the hype around this and other “natural” fixes for environmental and health problems shows few signs of slowing down, winning adherents from across the social and political spectrum, and now finding its way into the executive branch. New Health and Human Services head Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has spoken about regenerative farming in near-magical terms, claiming that “the best thing that you can do for climate is to restore the soils.” He has also boosted the supposed health benefits of fries cooked in beef tallow (as opposed to seed oils), championed raw milk, called for a “let it rip” bird flu strategy, in the hopes of promoting “natural immunity” among chickens, and proselytized about remedies like cod liver oil to stop the measles outbreaks spreading among primarily unvaccinated people in Texas and New Mexico.

   >The proponents of these approaches tend to get one thing right: There are countless problems with the U.S. food and health systems. Industrialized animal agriculture harms the environment, workers, and animals; chronic diet-related disease has reached epidemic proportions; and powerful corporate interests are blocking change. But where they go wrong is believing that there is a simple, “natural” solution that will solve all of these issues in one swoop. The problem is not just the way that *natural* is equated with *good*—a dynamic that has a long and storied history. The bigger issue—and one that goes beyond regenerative beef—is an emerging ideology of nature-based solutionism, where all things “natural” are proposed as a sure fix for complex problems. Be it *Common Ground* or MAHA, the adherents of this ideology assume that a better world will emerge from letting “nature” run its course, no matter what the experts or regulators say.

2. Good article! To me, the most salient paragraph is at the end:

   >Ironically, this can lead the solutionists to overlook the real nature-based solutions [demonstrably effective](https://drawdown.org/sectors/food-agriculture-land-use) at improving health and food system sustainability. Eating lower on the food chain, reducing food waste, protecting ecosystems, and promoting conservation agriculture are some of the best climate solutions out there. They are not flashy, they won’t solve all of our problems, they likely don’t make for the most views on streaming platforms or the most memorable stump speeches, but at least they’re backed by science.

3. Ignorance breeds contempt

4. Get your shots and eat plants. Pretty fucking simple folks.

5. The part of the article about the grass fed beef being worse is a bit misleading tbh.

   >The range of sequestration rates considered in our analysis reflects true rangelands (i.e., low productivity semiarid lands) or slightly lusher, more productive grasslands. It does not reflect pastures and meadows occupying croplands (or potential croplands), where the largest added sequestration rates, which can suppress production emissions to competitively low levels, are mostly observed. Consequently, the settings most likely to render grass-fed beef carbon competitive are not considered.

   While plant based solutions for sure have lower emissions playing with the data to push an agenda I feel is counter-productive.

Comments are closed.