Dangerous and under-informed recommendations. American veterinarians on the Pew Report
“Both in substance and in approach, therefore, the Pew report contains significant flaws and major dalliances from both science and reality. These missteps lead to dangerous and under-informed recommendations about the nature of our food system – and shocking recommendations for interventions that are scarcely commensurate with risk.”
That’s the report of a group that ought to know something about this, the American Veterinary Medical Association (78,000 members). You can read their summary and a full report here. The Pew Report in question was issued eighteenth months ago by the Pew Charitable Trusts and entitled Putting Meat on the Table. Super-critical of methods of raising animals for meat in the United States, it was widely publicized and a foundation of the food activist movement.
Thanks for sharing this, Rachel. I will read this PM. Looks like another effort to move ‘organic’, etc, closer to empirical reality.
Well, it’s a pretty specific point by point reply. I have not had time to read it carefully but it seems to me that serious debate has to be good–if any of the food activists actually pick it up. I have not seen that yet, but hope it will come.
Without wishing to take sides on this, I’m sure the American Veterinary Medical Association have their own vested interests in this issue too.
Undoubtedly the AVMA have their own vested interests. But that does not mean that their opinions are necessarily ill-founded or viciously self serving. And we have heard far too little from those the food activists are attacking.
Is it true that we have “heard far to little from those the food activists are attacking”? Let’s put that claim to the test. Name any target of the “food activists” and we can check if there is a long record of voluble and well-funded response.
I’d be happy to put it to the test. For starters, where is the serious agriculture journalism in our major newspapers? The New York Times carrries, indeed promotes, long articles by Michael Pollan which is just fine by me. But I do not see other points of view either from farmers or from journalists carrying stories about farms.