Might The Election Affect Meat Demand?
Greg Henderson, FarmJournal's Pork
October 12, 2020
Could a change in administration affect America’s meat consumption? Purdue University economist Jayson Lusk says its possible. Speaking with AgriTalk host Tyne Morgan on Monday, Lusk said researchers are noticing more partisan divide in terms of meat demand.
“That’s particularly true for highly educated, more liberal consumers who show weaker meat demand compared to more conservative consumers,” Lusk said. “That gap has been widening over time, so it’s not surprising to see it starting to show up in some of our political debates.”
Vice presidential nominee Kamala Harris suggested earlier this summer she would like to see a change to U.S. dietary guidelines to reduce meat consumption. However, Lusk said it could be difficult to change those dietary guidelines immediately.
“There’s a dietary guidelines committee going on right now,” he said. “The way the administration would affect that process is by who they appointed to that committee. Can they undo that now? I doubt it. But that is a lever (a new administration would have).”
Lusk said if a new administration sought certain types of environmental regulations or climate regulations, that could have an impact on the cattle and beef industry. He sees some pros and cons for agriculture under a Biden/Harris administration.
“You could imagine policies where they try to incentivize certain practices that might do a better job sequestering carbon. Could farmers be paid for adopting those sorts of practices? If we see a sweep of all the legislative and executive branches of government, it’s more likely we’ll see that kind of move towards those sorts of policies,” Lusk said.
Morgan questioned whether politicians are listening to the scientists who are showing that livestock’s impact on climate change is exaggerated by activists.
“Livestock does have an impact on the environment,” Lusk said. “The question is how big and how much? Our own EPA suggests that maybe 9% of all greenhouse gas emissions are from agriculture, maybe 3% or 4% of that is cattle. We have to put that in context relative to the other impacts that we have.”
Lusk said any efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions for livestock should be done in a way that actually incentivizes producers to adopt practices that actually achieve the desired outcome.
“My fear is that something like a cow tax will just (treat) all animals the same, no matter how they are raised and what part of the country they are raised in, no matter how they are fed, no matter how productive they are,” he said...
more, including audio [12:00 min.]