4 reasons why Berkeley’s decision to spend less on animal foods will cause more harm than good

The City of Berkeley in California passed a resolution recently that requires the city to cut the spending on animal-sourced foods (meat, poultry, seafood, milk and eggs) by 50% by 2024. The effort is part of the city’s ongoing effort to become “a global leader in addressing climate change, advancing environmental justice, and protecting the environment.” But is this really the smartest way to curb climate change?

Members of the Berkeley City Council are also exploring plans to see whether the city can reach 100% plant-based food sources by next year. Part of the motivation behind the city’s decision to shirk animal foods comes from animal rights activist group Direct Action Everywhere (DxE), which encouraged the city to pass the resolution. The Berkeley City Council engaged in a year of negotiations with DxE regarding the resolution. DxE has been involved in numerous illegal activities, terrorizing farmers and causing major property damage. In fact, DxE has been labeled the “most dangerous animal rights organization out there.”

The resolution follows Berkeley’s 2018 decision to launch a campaign called Green Mondays that required city events and meetings taking place on Mondays to only serve vegan foods.

Here are four reasons why Berkeley’s new resolution and intent to eliminate all animal foods from its municipal spending are misguided.

1.) How something was grown or raised matters more than the type of food

Many critics of meat claim that cattle are raised in ways that harm the environment and human health. Although they are quick to encourage plant-based diets, they rarely say anything about how those plants were raised, harvested, transported, or processed. Berkeley City Council could have included language in its resolution that required the city to purchase a certain percentage of its food from local vegetable growers or farmers’ markets. This would have been a far more effective way to achieve their goal of spending government funds in ways that promote a new and more sustainable food system.

2.) Plant-based protein is more expensive and less nutritious than meat

Berkeley City Council has also failed to take nutrition into consideration when passing the resolution and advocating for the elimination of all animal foods in public spending. To get the same amount of protein in a 4-ounce steak (181 calories), you’d need to eat 12 ounces of kidney beans (almost one pound) plus a cup of rice, which equals 638 calories and 122g of carbs. Imagine trying to get 100 grams of protein from this sort of diet.

Many plant-based proteins are chock full of additives and ingredients intended to help the plant protein mimic the taste and texture of meat. Some of these highly processed alternatives also pack major servings of sodium. And while Beyond Meat’s Beefy Crumbles have roughly the same protein as a serving of grass-fed beef, it contains almost no vitamins and minerals while the third ingredient is sunflower and canola oil -- two highly inflammatory oils. In many cases, veggie burgers are more expensive than grass-fed ground beef sold at the supermarket.

3.) Berkeley is located near countless farms raising animal foods in regenerative ways

California is one of the most fertile growing regions in the world and home to countless small- and mid-scale farming operations. Instead, Berkeley may continue to truck in produce from large-scale vendors like Sodexo and Aramark. Instead of putting a prohibition on animal foods, the Berkeley City Council could have chosen to allocate a certain percentage of spending to locally produced meats and dairy products, which are available in abundance in that region. A simple review of EatWild or Local Harvest provides a list of so many farming operations in the area that would have likely benefited from such an effort.

4.) (Most importantly) The precedent creates a slippery slope for eliminating other foods

Although some critics of animal agriculture may applaud the Berkeley City Council’s decision to cut back government spending on animal foods, it creates a dangerous precedent. This opens the door to restricting government spending on other food groups or items in the future. There is no one-size-fits-all diet for humans. The ability to choose the foods that fuel your body the best and align with your personal beliefs regarding agriculture should not be undermined based on current fads villainizing meat. By allowing the group DxE to influence city food policy, the doors would open for any dangerous, non-science based, ideological group to coerce the government to vilify, tax or even make certain foods illegal.

Check out the film Sacred Cow, which explores the nutritional, environmental and ethical case for better meat. The film features a story about DxE terrorizing The Local Butcher Shop, a small, ethical butcher shop in Berkeley, sourcing all of their meat from farms within 100 miles that have high animal welfare standards.