I hope there will be enough water supply for the future!
— Marsha Daughenbaugh, member of a Colorado ranching family, as quoted in the 2015 Colorado Water Plan.
I got interested in nutrition shortly after dropping out of college, in 1971, near the end of the Vietnam War. I had applied to my local draft board as a ‘Conscientious Objector’ to military service, because I didn’t believe the Vietnam War was morally defensible, and also because I abhorred the idea of getting sent to a foreign country to kill people who lived there, because of their political beliefs.
My local draft board denied my C.O. application, so while I was waiting for a decision on my appeal to the state draft board, I prepared myself to fail the required physical exam by going on an extended low-calorie diet. The Army classified extremely skinny people as unfit for military service, and I indeed became extremely skinny. But I also became interested in nutrition science, studying ways to remain as healthy as possible while shedding body weight. The state draft board finally awarded me C.O. status, and I was required to give two years of local community service in exchange for my non-military classification.
One of the nutrition books I came across was “Diet for a Small Planet’ by Frances Moore Lappé. Some of us were just beginning to realize, back in the early 1970s, that we truly lived on a small planet, and that our dietary choices had a bearing not only on our personal health, but also on the overall health of Mother Earth.
Frances Moore Lappé knew that humans require a certain amount of protein in their diet, and that meat, dairy and eggs were sources of so-called “complete protein” — that is to say, foods that contained all of the 20 different amino acids found in the human body. But she also knew that, globally, most humans do not get their protein from meat, dairy and eggs. Instead, most humans get their protein from vegetables, especially beans and grains.
Beans do not provide complete protein (except soy beans). Neither do grains. But by eating various beans along with rice, wheat, barley, oats and other grains, all the essential proteins are provided in sufficient quantity for human health. Ms. Moore Lappé’s book was largely a collection of recipes that provided “complete protein” without any need to consume animal protein.
(Disclaimer: I currently serve on the San Juan Water Conservancy District Board of Directors as an appointed volunteer, but this editorial series does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the Board as a whole, nor of any individual Board members other than myself.)
We briefly touched on the same idea, yesterday in Part Five, as discussed in a 2017 article by reporter James Hamblin in Atlantic Magazine, “If Everyone Ate Beans Instead of Beef”:
Here’s a bit more from that same article.
Helen Harwatt is a researcher trained in environmental nutrition, a field focused on developing food systems that balance human health and sustainability. She’s interested in policy, but realistic about how much progress can be expected under the aforementioned leadership. So she and colleagues have done research on maximizing the impacts of individuals. As with so many things in life and health, that tends to come down to food.
Recently Harwatt and a team of scientists from Oregon State University, Bard College, and Loma Linda University calculated just what would happen if every American made one dietary change: substituting beans for beef. They found that if everyone were willing and able to do that — theoretically — the U.S. could still come close to meeting the 2020 greenhouse-gas emission goals pledged by President Barack Obama in 2009.
That is, even if nothing about our energy infrastructure or transportation system changed — and even if people kept eating chicken and pork and eggs and cheese — this one dietary change could achieve somewhere between 46 and 74 percent of the reductions needed to meet the target.
…A relatively small, single-food substitution could be the most powerful change a person makes in terms of their lifetime environmental impact — more so than downsizing one’s car, or being vigilant about turning off light bulbs, and certainly more than quitting showering.
As many Americans are aware, the Amazon jungle in Brazil — one of the largest ‘carbon sinks’ in the world — has been beset by almost continuous wildfires, started by cattle ranchers who are clearing out the jungle to create more grazing opportunities. Brazil is now the world’s largest exporter of beef, and expects to increase its global leadership in that market over the coming decade.
Currently, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service has a rule that allows beef and pork labeling to bear the phrase “Product of the U.S.A.” if it is merely processed in the States. The rule doesn’t require that the animal actually be raised in the States.
But we’re focused, in this particular editorial series, on water diversions. Generally speaking, cattle ranching is water intensive. Do we know just how intensive? Does America’s hunger for beef play a role, for example, in the 540-page Colorado Water Plan, approved by our state government in 2015 and updated in 2016?
Perhaps not.
The word “beef” does not appear anywhere in the 540-page plan. The word “cattle” appears six times, but only once in connection with any discussion about water use. Ranching family member Marsha Baughenbaugh writes, in the plan:
Conservation and efficient use of water are mandatory. Understanding the future is everyone’s responsibility. We can no longer allow ourselves the luxury of wasting either our water or our time….
…Our family has water rights from the Elk River dating back to the late 1890s and I understand the critical importance of water availability for crops and livestock for our agricultural long-term sustainability…
Do beef producers, and beef consumers, truly see the full picture? Do our water districts and water industry professionals really see the full picture?