"Outrage" Only Begins To Describe My Feelings On This

Prairie Gleanings

Today, EPA used their official blog to condemn meat production. Is paying taxes optional? Donating to HSUS is.

Published on: April 20, 2010

Since President Obama took office, many farmers have felt the U.S. EPA has been out to get them.


As justification, most point to their seemingly endless expansion of power in the name of cleaning up production agriculture. Discussing things such as a flatulence tax for livestock farms seemed laughable at first.


As these "world changers" kept pushing for cleaner this and that, at the expense of ag, we got a little worried. Well, now we've got a big reason to be scared.


On EPA's official blog, Greenversations, they actually took the liberty to publicly condemn livestock production. (http://blog.epa.gov/blog/2010/04/20/living-without-meat/) Straight from the blog, here are the reasons:


  • Air pollution due to dust and liquid manures.
  • Fossil fuels, water, and land over-use
  • Rainforest erosion and destruction for pasture land
  • Water contamination due to animal waste
  • Grain and corn grown for animal feed instead of addressing world hunger


Can you guess who the author was? A college sophomore from Indiana University who is studying non-profit management. Thus, in all her worldly experience, I'm certain she knows a great deal about the industry she so eloquently attacks in "Living Without Meat."


Some of you may be thinking, what's the big deal? We already knew EPA was against us. And, what does a 19/20-year-old non-profit management major know about production agriculture?


First off, I think this young woman's age and opinion only makes this more dangerous. As a young intern, she'll have an easier time motivating folks of a younger generation, who know very little about farming. Thus, the farm/consumer gap only widens.


Second, I agree with Tricia Braid Terry, with the Illinois Corn Growers Association. She points out that why are tax payer dollars being used to promote anti-meat views? We can choose to not support HSUS. Not paying taxes because I don't agree with EPA probably wouldn't be a good idea. Yet, they are able to use their tax-enabled seat of power to espouse controversial views that fly in the face of production ag.


Lastly, as sort of a slap in the face, the EPA published this at the bottom of the blog. “The opinions and comments expressed in Greenversations are those of the authors alone and do not reflect an Agency policy, endorsement, or action, and EPA does not verify the accuracy of the contents of the blog.”


Thus, I will publish this at the bottom of mine. "My views and comments do not necessarily reflect the issues and concerns of rural farm families. As such, these views are not meant to be an indication of voting habits come election time."

Registered users may comment on this blog.