Meatless Monday Not Better For Health, Environment

This op-ed debunks the myth that Meatless Mondays provide the nutritional edge and lighter environmental footprint.

More About:

It has come to my attention that Meatless Monday is being portrayed as a benefit to both your health and the environment. Unfortunately, that is incorrect.

VIV magazine claims that if you cut meat out of your diet one day per week, you can lose weight and become healthier overnight. I wish that was true. It would be nice to find a solution that easy for all of us who have struggled with weight issues.  

Personally, I have lost 50 lbs. in just more than 18 months by eating red meat every day. Zinc, iron and protein are all found in red meat and often are key ingredients missing from our diets. Don’t forget that red meat also contains essential amino acids and vitamin A. The list goes on.

Did you know that, while 3 oz. of lean beef has 180 calories, in order to get the same amount of protein you must eat 7 tbsp. of peanut butter, which has more than 600 calories? I challenge you, instead of Meatless Monday, make it Meatful Monday but pick healthier, lean cuts. I bet you will see a healthy you in the near future.

Yes, the environment and global warming has us all concerned, but following Meatless Monday is not the way to rectify this alarming situation.

According to Jude Capper of the Washington State University Department of Animal Sciences, “The Environmental Working Group (EWG) claims that national carbon emissions would be reduced by 4.5% if everyone in the U.S. chose a vegetarian diet. This is an impressive achievement, given that the Environmental Protection Agency cites livestock production (including poultry and horses) as accounting for only 3.1% of total U.S. emissions.”

Let’s do the math based on the EPA numbers. The EWG report focuses on the impact of red meat and dairy, so if we remove poultry and horses from the EPA’s 3.1% figure, we get a total red meat and dairy impact of 3.05%. Divide that by seven, and the impact of one meatless day per week is equal to 0.44% of the U.S. carbon footprint – and that’s assuming that the U.S. population of 311 million people all adopt this lifestyle change.

To read the entire article, click here.

Discuss this Article 5

Anonymous (not verified)
on Feb 13, 2013

You fail to include all of the environmental costs in growing corn with fertilizers that they feed the cows which are pumped with hormones so they can unnaturally digest the corn. This process is unsustainable and the factory farms in the U.S. are corrupt. It would do you, and the rest of the U.S. alot of good to at least go one day without eating meat. Looking at the name of the magazine title, it seems like this won't change anyone's opinion on this biased story, but all I can do is try to help.

Schedule f
on Feb 14, 2013

Reply to: Anonymous (not verified)
You need a dose of reality. Learn the facts about fertilizer and agricultural production.
Fact: Globally, beef cattle consume 5% of total grain production.
Facts about hormones: Estrogen content in food. A nanogram = 1 billionth of a gram.
Untreated steer 8 ng per pound
implanted steer 11 ng per pound
all vegetable protein Patty 9300 ng per 100 gram
infant milk soy-based 25,000 ng per 100 grams
pregnant human female produces 90 million nanograms of Estradial 17b per day
One birth control pills contains the same amount of estrogen as 125,000 pounds of beef from implanted steers. That would be a half-million quarter pounders.

It seems so many want to label everything factory or corporate farming but nobody has come up with a definition for corporate farming.
Is it over 10 acres, is it over 10 cows, is 1000 acres or 10,000 acres, is it 100 cows or 1000 cows or 10,000 cows.

The bigger question is "does it matter"

I get the feeling that if I farm or ranch actually making a living at it then I'm labeled a corporate or factory farm and therefore I am unsustainable and corrupt.

Shar (not verified)
on Feb 14, 2013

Thanks for bringing up the hormone facts. A half million quarter pounders should bring it in perspective for many. If you could just get the new York times and other urban papers to actually print that it would be great.

We also have sheep and I try to point out that wool, as a byproduct of raising lamb, takes the fewest inputs of any fabric. Cotton, organic or not, still needs farmed.

Anonymous (not verified)
on Mar 4, 2013

Thank you for establishing the facts about grain production and hormones. Numbers tell the truth don't they? Any idiot can bash an industry without research and knowing the facts. Which is exactly why the United States of America is well on its way to incurring a $20 trillion deficit. These people that continue to bash agriculture at every turn might someday be knocking on our door for food when they're starving. And you know what? We'll probably GIVE it to them.

Frank Schlichting (not verified)
on Feb 14, 2013

To claim cutting meat out of our diet one day a week will reduce global warming is a joke. For one thing if you don't eat meat you will be eating something else. Beef is produced on marginal land with a minimum of inputs. Vegtables are grown on top quality land with high inputs. When you add up the energy required to plant, harvest, water and process fruits and vegtables ...........I doubt there is any reduction in greenhouse gas.

If the city folks really wanted to help our planet by reducing greenhouse gases why not do something that will really make a differance? How about carless Mondays? Instead of driving to work on Mondays, carpool with a coworker,walk, bike or ride the bus one day a week! Then you will actually do something good for the environment.

Post new comment
Sign In or register to use your BEEF Magazine ID
(optional)

BEEF Newsletter Sign Up

Search 2.5+ million listings