Hilal Elver & Melissa Shapiro | last updated 09 Sept. 2019 —
Our consumption of meat, and red meat in particular, has been under intense scrutiny as of late. The year began with a headline-making report from the EAT-Lancet Commission, which called for a 50% reduction of global red meat and sugar consumption by 2050 as part of the “Great Food Transformation.” This summer, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) followed suit, finding that the switch to plant-based diets presents a critical step for mitigating and adapting to climate change.
Now, this narrative, or at least some version of it, has become an unlikely focal point of the Democratic presidential campaign. During last week’s “climate crisis town hall” debates, Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) expressed support for changing dietary guidelines to support less red meat consumption. Citing to the IPCC report, Andrew Yang added that eating less meat would be healthy on an “individual and societal level,” but noted that, in light of the individual autonomy granted to Americans, “you can’t force people’s eating choices on them.”
To some extent, Andrew Yang’s statement is correct—the government cannot force Americans to eat certain foods; but the government can, and does, significantly influence eating behaviors through policy and regulation.
Take Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits, for instance, which helped 39.7 million enrolled Americans purchase food in 2018 alone. The Trump Administration not only proposed cutting SNAP funding by about 30% in its 2020 budget proposals, but has also attempted to limit who can participate and what participants can eat. Under the White House’s poorly received “Harvest Box” proposal, for example, SNAP beneficiaries would receive a delivery of certain commodity, non-perishable food items selected by the government and receive less benefits for making fresh-food purchases in stores.
This summer, the USDA proposed a rule that would allow SNAP-approved retailers to satisfy their meat and dairy requirements by stocking heavily-processed products, such as beef jerky or canned cheese. Certainly, for those populations with limited access to stores accepting SNAP benefits, the potential loss of fresh food options could have devastating impacts to their health and nutrition.
In principle, government regulation of what we eat is not a problem, and, in fact, is necessary to ensure that all individuals are guaranteed the right to food. Under international human rights law, every person has the right to freedom from hunger and to regular, unrestricted access to safe, nutritious and culturally appropriate food. It is the duty of governments, first and foremost, to protect, respect, and fulfil the progressive realization of this right. While the U.S. is among the few countries that refuse to formally recognize the right to food, it is nevertheless a fundamental entitlement that extends to all Americans.
The government’s administration of SNAP benefits and its issuance of dietary guidelines are actually consistent with the human rights obligations that it refuses to recognize. The right to food requires governments to ensure that food is accessible, available, and adequate for all people at all times. Subsidizing culturally-appropriate, nutritious foods under SNAP and requiring SNAP retailers to sell such foods, especially in places that are otherwise deemed “food deserts” helps to ensure that Americans are able to realize their right. Issuing dietary guidelines to advise Americans on nutritionally-safe and diverse eating habits similarly supports the right to food.
Conversely, interfering with Americans’ ability to enjoy their right to food constitutes a violation of this fundamental right. This includes slashing SNAP benefits or infringing on a consumer’s ability to purchase fresh food that is culturally appropriate, nutritious, and safe. Yet it is not a violation of the right to food to issue dietary guidelines that recommend eating less red meat, or otherwise regulating meat consumption.
Why? Because the right to food does not guarantee the right to meat.
The right to food requires that food is universally accessible, available, and adequate, but it also includes a fourth pillar: sustainability. According to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ General Comment No. 12, the notion of sustainability implies that food must be accessible for both present and future generations. In other words, our own right to food is not realized if the way we eat undermines the right to food of future generations.
As the EAT-Lancet Commission and the IPCC explained, our current meat consumption patterns are among the greatest threats to our immediate health and the future health of our planet. Intensive animal agriculture has devastating, lasting impacts on our natural environment, including soil erosion, deforestation, water pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. And this damage is not speculative: the wildfires currently ravaging the Amazon rainforest have been closely linked to Brazil’s beef industry, which has grown exponentially in response to rising global demand for meat.
Realizing the right to food and achieving the “zero hunger” goal set out in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development requires us to recognize that the right to food and sustainability are inextricably linked; it also requires us to realize that our consumption of meat, at its current rate, stands as a major barrier to both our own human rights and the rights of future generations.
It is time that we rethink the foods we choose to eat and the duty of our government to help protect our personal and planetary health. Side-stepping the issue of meat consumption in the upcoming dietary guidelines, for example, does a disservice to Americans and to the global population that looks to the U.S. to lead by example. It is therefore incumbent upon the public to start recognizing the import of this conversation. Instead of asking “Are Democrats going to take away red meat?” we should be asking “Who is going to save our right to food?”