Your blog may well be your own, but like any public blog it’s part of cultivating your persona. Your posts are certainly the darling of the meat industry. It’s like you’re Rick Berman reborn with a PhD!

1) Giving up meat one day per week is exactly that, regardless of whether you use the words “skipping”, “meatless” or any other term. I’m not arguing that anybody is meat-deprived, my point is that this type of restrictive vision does not address the bigger picture.

2) I appreciate that you have particular interests in veganism (from your Twitter page). I used to be vegetarian, then I was vegan and now I’m omnivorous. I full support consumer choice (whatever that choice might be) and good science – I do not support science based on incorrect and poorly researched assumptions masquerading as consumer advice. My blog is my own, not funded by any industry or organization and is not part of my job. Frankly the continued insinuations as to being “paid” are tiresome, without merit and do not promote productive discussion.

3) If my area of expertise related to viniculture then I’d be happy to blog about it. It is not, and therefore I leave those issues to people who are better placed to write about it than I. Just because we eat food (or drink wine) does not make us experts, no matter how much wikipedia we all read.

If you want to find a representative meal, you should compare apples to apples. Compare eating a Chipotle burrito with steak, pork, or chicken and a Chipotle burrito with only beans and vegetables.

All Meatless Monday advocates are asking is that consumers occasionally (if Mondays are too taxing for you, make it Tuesday) make the conscious decision to choose the vegetarian option over the meat option for the sake of the environment and for the sake of the animals. Is it going to change the world? No. But the symbolism isn’t inconsequential either.

When you say you wonder why it has to be “giving up” foods, you are again intentionally misrepresenting the EWG report. Nowhere in the EWG report does it recommend anyone “give up” anything. In fact, it explicitly says the EWG fully expect people will not give up meat, but “it is not difficult to cut down a bit” (p. 13). Most Americans (yes, even school children) eat more than enough meat. Sometimes an institutional push, whether it be from a school, employer, retirement home etc., to eat a more balanced diet, the occasional vegan meal, could be a good thing. It’s not unhealthy for schoolchildren to be served hummus wraps instead instead of bologna sandwiches one day a week.

Providing consumers more information about environmental impact sounds like a great idea. You should write your next blog post about that. The impact of wine grapes on watersheds is a serious concern throughout the west. Folks in Washington state should find that interesting, eh? But that’s not what you’re paid to do.

The EWG pledge verbiage states that “skipping” meat one day per week, will have positive health and environmental consequences – my point is simply that is entirely dependent on the food used to replace the meat. As to being a meat industry lobbyist – I purposely used an 8 oz steak or pork chop rather than the often-advertised “3 oz serving”. 8 oz is a fairly hefty chunk, if I looked at an entire meal that serving size would be reduced – the problem is finding a representative meal that somebody doesn’t take exception to. I could certainly make meat look good (if I wanted to) by simply serving it with a salad, minus dressing.

Ironically, as I write this I’m eating my (late) entirely vegetarian lunch.

Further, there are healthier options at Chipotle (skip the guac and chips). For example, here’s the vegan burrito that I commonly get at Chipotle: https://spreadsheets.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AiX97cBhDLxNdGo5b3FUeVdZdDkzbzUzcHE2aGhLMEE&hl=en_US

605 calories, 15g fat. Admittedly, it’s high in sodium, but it’s very hard to avoid excess sodium in prepared foods.

The entire idea of Meatless Mondays is decidedly NOT “you must give up ‘x.’” It’s not a campaign aimed at people like you who are fully aware of what happens to animals from farm to fork, and are fully aware of the impact that agriculture (yes, both livestock and crops) has on the environment.

It’s a strategy for those who are ready to make conscious decisions about what they eat. The campaign wants to change the views of those who without a second thought go into KFC and order a 10-piece bucket with mashed potatoes, extra gravy. It’s an attempt to educate people that there might be better options which better for their bodies, better for the environment, and better for the animals. Are there crops that have a negative impact on the environment? Absolutely, palm oil, for example is incredibly destructive, and environmental groups, responsible ag groups, and animal rights groups should do a better job to heighten awareness of these issues. You will readily admit that the arguments are incomplete on both sides so it doesn’t make sense to repeatedly target ONLY the veg advocates. Unless of course you’re a lobbyist for the meat industry.

And tofu ain’t so bad. I had curried tofu, green beans, and lentils for lunch. It was delicious. Try it next Monday.

I’m arguing that we need to put the consequences of all of our lifestyle choices into context and stop demonizing individual foods in the belief that if we only give up “X” we’ll save the planet. The short-sighted thinking encouraged by the EWG’s report doesn’t help anyone.

Straw man arguing at its finest.