“Meatless Monday” is an initiative promoted in the United States by the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health as well as by a number of environmental and animal welfare organizations. It seeks to encourage people to eat meat-free meals once per week and gives them recipes and other resources to do so. Some institutions, such as schools, are considering adopting this practice.
Carefully read the following six sources, including the introductory information for each source. Write an essay that synthesizes material from at least three of the sources and develops your position on whether school cafeterias in your area should participate in Meatless Monday.
Source A (MacDonald and Reitmeier)
Source B (Steinfeld et al.)
Source C (Ritchie)
Source D (Steussy)
Source E (Enzinna)
Source F (graph)
In your response you should do the following:
Respond to the prompt with a thesis that presents a defensible position.
Select and use evidence from at least three of the provided sources to support your line of reasoning. Indicate clearly the sources used through direct quotation, paraphrase, or summary. Sources may be cited as Source A, Source B, etc., or by using the description in parentheses.
Explain how the evidence supports your line of reasoning.
Use appropriate grammar and punctuation in communicating your argument.
Source A
MacDonald, Ruth and Cheryll Reitmeier. Understanding Food Systems: Agriculture, Food Science, and Nutrition in the United States. Academic Press, 2017.
The following is excerpted from a book about food production and consumption in the United States.
During WWI,1 there were campaigns for Meatless Tuesday and Wheatless Wednesday to remind US citizens to reduce their consumption of foods in limited supply and to conserve food for the war effort. Meatless days were also encouraged during WWII2 when meat, sugar, and other foods were rationed. These campaigns were effective in bringing US citizens together and sharing sacrifices for the war effort. During the 1960s when new nutrition research linked certain foods with diseases, such as red meat and dietary fat with heart disease, public campaigns to reduce the intake of these foods were common. A new approach in public campaigning to influence food consumption was launched in 2003. Sid Lerner, an advertising agent, in collaboration with faculty at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s Center for a Livable Future, created the Meatless Monday campaign. The campaign was initially part of a Healthy Monday initiative to encourage people to give up bad habits from the weekend and start healthier habits at the beginning of the week. The Meatless Monday component of that initiative grabbed a great deal of attention. The platform of the Meatless Monday campaign is that Americans consume too much meat and not eating meat one day a week will improve health. Reducing the impact of meat production on the environment also became part of the platform.
The Meatless Monday campaign gained substantial support from celebrities and is now a global movement. The Meatless Monday website (www.meatlessmonday.com) includes articles and promotional material to encourage groups to create Meatless Monday movements in their communities, schools, and workplaces. Recipes, diet ideas, and suggestions for meatless meals are presented in blogs, magazines, websites, and newspapers by chefs, journalists, nutritionists, and celebrities. The journalist Michael Pollan stated on The Oprah Winfrey Show in 2009 that if everybody in America participated in a Meatless Monday, it would have the equivalent effect on the environment of taking 20 million midsize sedans off the road. This statistic is difficult to verify but is easy to remember and repeat. Paul McCartney,3 a vegetarian, and his daughters started a Meat Free Monday nonprofit organization with the aim of “. . . raising awareness of the detrimental environmental impact of eating meat, and to encourage people to help slow climate change, preserve precious natural resources and improve their health by having at least one meat free day each week” (www.meatfreemondays.com).
Source B
Steinfeld, Henning, et al. Livestock’s Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2006, fao.org/3/a0701e/a0701e00.htm.
The following is excepted from a report published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
In terms of nutrition, livestock food products globally contributed an average of 17 percent of energy and 33 percent of protein to dietary intakes in 2003 (FAO, 2006b). There are stark differences between countries and country groups, with meat consumption ranging in 2003 from only 5 kg per person and year in India to 123 kg in the United States (FAO, 2006b). Because developing countries still have low intakes of animal food the share of livestock products in the “global average diet” is expected to continue to rise to reach the OECD1 country averages of about 30 percent of dietary energy and 50 percent of protein intake. In terms of health and nutrition, therefore, livestock products are a welcome addition to the diets of many poor and under- or malnourished people who frequently suffer from protein and vitamin deficiencies as well as from lack of important trace minerals. Children in particular have shown to benefit greatly in terms of physical and mental health when modest amounts of milk, meat or eggs are added to their diets, as shown by long-term research carried out in Kenya (Neumann, 2003). In contrast, a large number of non-communicable diseases among the more wealthy segments of the world’s population are associated with high intakes of animal source foods, in particular animal fats and red meat: cardio-vascular disease, diabetes and certain types of cancer. While not being addressed by this assessment, it may well be argued that environmental damage by livestock may be significantly reduced by lowering excessive consumption of livestock products among wealthy people. International and national public institutions (e.g. WHO2 and Tufts University, 1998) have consistently recommended lower intakes of animal fat and red meat in most developed countries. . . .
Livestock compete for crops but provide a buffer against grain shortages. In simple numeric terms, livestock actually detract more from total food supply than they provide. Livestock now consume more human edible protein than they produce. In fact, livestock consume 77 million tonnes of protein contained in feedstuff that could potentially be used for human nutrition, whereas only 58 million tonnes of protein are contained in food products that livestock supply. In terms of dietary energy, the relative loss is much higher. This is a result of the recent trend towards more concentrate-based diets for pigs and poultry, with nutritional requirements more similar to humans than ruminants.3
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2016, H. Steinfeld; P. Gerber; T. Wassenaar; V. Castel; M. Rosales; C. de Haan, Livestock’s Long Shadow, http://www.fao.org/3/a-a0701e.pdf. Reproduced with permission.
Source C
Ritchie, Hannah. “Which Countries Eat the Most Meat?” BBC News, 4 Feb. 2019, bbc.com/news/health-47057341.
The following was adapted from a graph in a news article about meat consumption in different parts of the world. The data was compiled by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.
Source D
Steussy, Lauren. “Why Meatless Mondays May Not Be Health Fix School Kids Need.” New York Post, 12 Mar. 2019, nypost.com/2019/03/12/why-meatless-mondays-may-not-be-health-fix-school-kids-need/.
The following is excerpted from a newspaper article about the introduction of a Meatless Monday program in New York City schools.
Meat’s been expelled from New York City schools on Mondays. But the substitute might not be much better.
Mayor Bill de Blasio announced this week that all New York City public schools will have Meatless Mondays—meaning that cafeterias would serve only vegetarian meals on the first day of the week—starting this fall. De Blasio debuted the news by proudly digging into a grilled cheese and a pile of baked beans at PS 130 in Kensington, one of the 15 Brooklyn schools that participated in a Meatless Monday pilot program starting in spring 2018. Officials say they were successful in getting kids to actually eat and enjoy the meatless options—which include vegetarian tacos, chili and, yes, grilled cheese—so they decided to expand the program to the rest of the city’s 1,800 schools.
De Blasio and school officials are patting themselves on the back for the move, which they say is good for kids’ and the planet’s health. They point out that using less meat will cut down on greenhouse gas emissions and one in five NYC kindergartners is obese.
But meatless doesn’t always mean better for you, according to health experts.
“There’s a very easy way to be less healthy by going meatless,” says Amy Shapiro, a registered dietitian and nutritionist based in Noho who has three kids in the NYC public-school system. “My kids might get a big pretzel or garlic bread at school—I don’t know where the nutrients are, but I know it’s meatless.”
Robin Barrie, a nutritionist who specializes in kids’ eating, agrees—and doesn’t think de Blasio should look so smug about that cheesy sandwich.
“Grilled cheese as part of a healthy balanced diet is fine,” says Barrie. “But I don’t consider it healthy on its own. The saturated fat in a grilled cheese is almost the same as the saturated fat in red meat.”
Plus, the one-day-a-week shift will have a limited impact if the rest of the week’s menu isn’t nutritious, says Barrie, who has worked with schools, including PS 6 on the Upper East Side, on their menus. At PS 130, where de Blasio announced the plan, vegetarian chili and veggie tacos are on the menu for the next two Mondays, but the following Tuesdays bring hamburgers and cheeseburgers—not exactly a dietary win.
And the kids are savvy to the fact that their “healthy” day goes by quickly. When asked about whether her classmates were annoyed by Meatless Mondays, 14-year-old Ella Rindler of PS 130 told CBS New York, “Some people say, ‘I want my chicken nuggets,’ but they serve that on other days.”
That’s why selling kids on healthy meatless meals is going to be such a challenge for New York City cafeterias, says Emily Burson, founder of California-based school-menu consulting company School Nutrition Plus.
“The [meals] with cheese are the biggest hits because it’s familiar to them,” Burson says. “That’s what they see on kids’ menus at restaurants, which are generally processed food high in fat and sodium. So we’re really fighting against those kids’ menus at restaurants.”
So, sure, kids will chow down on grilled cheese, but “it’s a little harder” to convince kids to eat vegetarian meals that are also legitimately healthy, she says.
From New York Post. © 2019 New York Post. All rights reserved. Used under license.
Source E
Enzinna, Wes. “Big Meat vs. Michael Pollan.” Mother Jones, Nov./Dec. 2010, motherjones.com/environment/2010/12/michael-pollan-backlash-beef-advocacy.
The following is excerpted from a magazine article about an advocacy group that counters the arguments of beef industry critics such as author and activist Michael Pollan.
[Carrin] Flores, a graduate student in veterinary medicine at Washington State University-Pullman, plans to work in the beef industry when she finishes. But she’s already a graduate of the Masters of Beef Advocacy (MBA), an industry-funded program that trains college students to fight back against critics of big agribusiness, like Michael Pollan.
“Pollan,” Flores tells me over beers at Dupus Boomer’s, a campus bar, “is really our enemy right now.” More than 35,000 college students were assigned one of his books last year; The Omnivore’s Dilemma is one of the most widely read titles on US campuses. Flores and her fellow big beef advocates hope to counter that. “In the future,” she says, “we’re the ones who are going to tell you about your beef.”
Since its launch in March 2009, the MBA has trained nearly 3,000 students and farmers to spread the “positive beef message,” offering online lessons on how to combat PETA and organizing a Twitter and Facebook “Food Fight” against its “campus critics.” Daren Williams, the communications director for the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, helped start the MBA with $240,000 from the Beef Checkoff program, the beef industry’s PR wing. He says the MBA’s “focus has really become young people on the big land-grant campuses,” from which more than one-fifth of future farmers and industry leaders will emerge. . . .
“Some of what you are hearing is organic, grassroots debate—they have different opinions about agriculture and beef production—and that’s good for a democracy,” says Pollan, who teaches journalism at the University of California-Berkeley (where I was his student). Yet he’s wary of the interests behind the campaign, noting that a PR firm funded by McDonald’s reportedly urged elementary schools not to let Fast Food Nation author Eric Schlosser speak to kids.
Asked if the MBA is just a phony PR campaign for Big Ag, Flores is emphatic: “[. . .] We’re just worried about our futures in agriculture.” The dozen or so MBA grads and young farmers I spoke to shared similar anxieties. “We know the environment is in crisis and we don’t want to contribute to that,” says Crystal Young, a recent graduate of Kansas State University, where she received degrees in animal science and journalism. “But we’re also farmers, so the hard thing for us is to take into account all the criticisms of conventional agriculture, and to also continue to feed the world on the scale we are doing now. I think a lot of young people are primarily worried they won’t be able to have a career in farming at all in the future.”
© Mother Jones
Source F
“U.S. Gross Cash Farm Income Relatively Stable since 2016.” United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 30 Aug. 2019, ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=76943.
The following is adapted from a graph created by the United States Department of Agriculture.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|