It is to encourage less consumption: that is all. Remember that during wartime, eggs, butter, sugar, coffee, and other products were rationed as well.
Will the beef industry suffer? Of course -- but the sad truth is that if we continue as we are, Americans in the future will suffer far worse. Additionally, people in other agricultural-related industries will benefit from the ban because of increased consumption of other products.
Another benefit may be in terms of human health. During wartime rationing, it was noted that "one surprising effect...was that the health of the nation actually improved as people ate a more balanced diet, less meat and fat and had more exercise (Wartime rationing, Body Soul and Spirit, 2008). High amounts of meat consumption have been linked to a number of cancers, including colorectal cancers, and just as the nation have striven to discourage consumption of other unhealthy carcinogenic substances, like cigarettes and unhealthy amounts of alcohol, encouraging high levels of meat consumption results in higher medical costs for the entire nation.
Of course, one concern might be how rationing might 'work.' During World War II, families were issued ration coupons. However, the 'rationing' in this instance, since it was meant to be a lifestyle change on the part of the nation, could be simpler and more holistic. First of all, children should not receive beef as part of their school lunches, and should have more meatless days. So should American troops, although of course they should be appropriately fed. In fact, this would improve the health of these critical American populations, and possibly lessen the obesity crisis affecting so many of our nation's children -- and even members of our armed forces, who must be poised and ready to fight at a moment's notice.
Consumption of fruits and vegetables would have to escalate. Beef portion sizes would be nationally limited in restaurants all over the nation...
Consumer would be limited to the quantities of beef they could purchase at one time -- if they purchased over a certain number of ounces, they would be subject to a federal tax, like a gas tax. This would discourage beef consumption on a mass scale, except for special occasions.
Of course, there might be some 'fudging' of portion sizes in restaurants by establishments willing to tempt health inspectors, and consumers could go to multiple supermarkets. But these barriers would still discourage excessive consumption, even if the
enforcement of the
law was imperfect.
There are some who will argue that this would disproportionately affect the poor. But
fast food such as hamburgers is already cheap, and causing the poor to disproportionately suffer the effects of the
obesity epidemic. Instead, such policies would divert Americans to using a wider array of environmentally-sustainable protein alternatives to meat. As more Americans are changing their consumption habits in favor of cheaper fruits and vegetables, as a result of the
economic downturn, this is an ideal time to introduce a change in the American way of eating that could have an impact on American's health and the planet for generations. Hopefully, other developed nations will follow our example as we change the course of our meat consumption habits -- and the
developing world will follow before it is too late.
Works Cited
Eisnen, Marc Michael Pollan Interview. The Progressive. November 2008. March 4, 2009. http://www.progressive.org/mag/intv1108
Jowit, Juliette. "UN says eat less meat to curb
global warming." The Guardian.
September 7, 2007. March 4, 2009. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/07/food.foodanddrink
Wartime rationing." Body Soul and Spirit. January 8, 2008. March 4, 2009. http://bodysoulandspirit.blogspot.com/2008/01/war-time-rationing.html
