By Austin Snedden, Ranching Contributor, Valley Ag Voice
When the government grows to the point that its tentacles are in everything, it inevitably gains the power to lay a finger on the scales of lifestyle and health. The questionable food pyramid from my youth, built on a foundation of grains and carbs with just a light topping of animal proteins and dairy, has resulted in an overweight society. The food pyramid and resulting dietary recommendations from that era were built by the US Department of Agriculture.
The USDA, as part of the U.S. Executive Branch, holds considerable influence over what is eaten and grown. It sets nutritional guidelines, manages nutritional assistance — formerly known as food stamps — and decides which crops receive subsidies. In other words, the USDA swings a big stick when it comes to the food choices consumers will make, as well as incentivizing which crops will be grown. This power and influence do not go unnoticed so, naturally, the USDA decision-makers are frequented by groups lobbying for favoritism.
We became oversaturated in unsaturated fats beginning in the 1950s when Physiologist Ancel Keys compiled scientifically unsound evidence that saturated fats contributed to heart disease. The American Heart Association (AHA) received a transformative amount of money during that time from a leading manufacturer of vegetable oil (low in saturated fats). In 1960, Keys was appointed to AHA’s nutrition committee, and in 1961 AHA released a study based on Keys’ faulty evidence that the nation should reduce its consumption of saturated fats. This suggestion by the AHA was utilized by the USDA and other government agencies to build dietary recommendations and decide which agricultural crops were going to be incentivized by safety nets and subsidies. The 1961 AHA recommendation resulted in arguably one of the most notable nutritional policy trends in history that extended beyond US borders.
When you couple undue industry influence with government, it results in biased policy. Add to that multiple decades where animal rights activists and man-made climate change zealots piled on to steer consumers away from animal protein. The theory of man-made climate change is based on a hypothesis that cannot be proven, but part of this theory suggests that animal agriculture plays a large role in man-made global warming. Although an unsubstantiated theory, the disciples of man-made climate change have done an impressive job of getting much of the masses to buy into their theory, thus resulting in a reluctance to support animal agriculture.
Despite this daunting history of faulty science, industry lobbying, and climate zealots, things are looking bright for animal agriculture. Sixty years of adherence to biased nutritional guidelines has resulted in increased obesity and diabetes, and folks are noticing — including consumers, doctors, scientists, and policy makers.
With a new presidential administration on the horizon, Trump supporter Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is looking to play a role in the Administration’s food policy. RFK wants to get the industry out of government food policy, and he also recognizes we may have been down an unhealthy path by suggestions from government agencies that were in bed with the unsaturated fat/vegetable oil/seed company interests. We will see what role RFK will play going forward, but I am hopeful the new Trump administration will direct agencies to get away from the 60-plus-year history of picking winners and losers when it comes to agriculture sectors.
