He stops short of proposing a federal organic beef ration, but just barely. And not surprisingly, he backs up his claim that animal agriculture is boiling us alive by citing the UN report Livestock’s Long Shadow that was thoroughly debunked by University of California-Davis researcher Frank Mitloehner. Mitloehner found that the UN report authors “charged” more tangential emissions to animal agriculture, rather than to other economic activity like driving cars — so the report’s claim that livestock were worse climate villains than anything else was a “classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issues.”

So what’s the real picture? The Environmental Protection Agency found that animal agriculture accounts for less than four percent of American greenhouse emissions (nowhere near the 18 percent the debunked UN report proposed). All agriculture together was responsible for just six percent.

Bittman also lays the blame for deforestation on the backs of meat-eaters. There’s a small problem with that as applied to American meat: We aren’t chopping down forests to graze our animals. Bittman is applying a third-world standard to our first-world bacon.

How does modern American agriculture do relatively well? It’s not by going “organic.” A Stanford University study suggests that industrialization has made agriculture much more efficient. One of the authors even proposes, “We find that funding agricultural research ranks among the cheapest ways to prevent greenhouse-gas emissions.” You read that right: Modernizing agriculture prevents emissions by making food production more efficient, rather than causing “the absolute destruction of everything.”

Of course, when you’re an apostle of the economically illiterate local food movement like Bittman, recognizing that modernization can increase environmental friendliness would destroy your whole worldview. As long as federal regulators don’t take his mythmaking to heart, Bittman is more than free to join British organic movement leader Peter Melchett and the rest of the activists who have nothing to “go on” but “feelings.”

Without lean finely textured beef, or LFTB, the price of manually recovered lean beef trimmings have skyrocketed while the price of fatty trimmings (the raw ingredients for LFTB) have plummeted. As a result of the scare, 650 American workers have been laid off and US beef imports from Australia, New Zealand, and Uruguay have skyrocketed.

So what are Americans seeing at the supermarket? Retail ground beef prices hit a record high in March. Taking the equivalent of 1.5 million head of cattle out of the food supply won’t help ease that strain. (Not using LFTB wastes the equivalent of 1.5 million cows’ worth of beef over the course of a year.)

It’s also a divine irony that one of the prophets of the local-food movement, Mark Bittman, helped fuel the “pink slime” scare. Now, instead of consuming more meat from each U.S.-raised animal, Americans will get more of their ground beef from the Southern Hemisphere. When elitist food myths face off, it’s survival of the smuggest.

Food snobs may think that LFTB was the “lowest common denominator” (to quote Marion Nestle), but the evidence suggests that mindlessly bashing food processors isn’t helpful. Americans want their ground beef and buy it in spite of the scare. Unfortunately, they’ll have to pay more for it — while hundreds of other Americans have already lost their jobs.

This weekend saw the celebration of Earth Day, which comes with its own share of diet myths, endorsed by PETA and HSUS. Supposedly animal agriculture contributes more greenhouse emissions than driving, but as our Executive Director told The Daily Caller, that’s based on a sloppy comparison and third-world standards:

If that sounds a little too incredible, that’s because it is: The report’s own co-author later admitted that it uses flawed, apples-and-oranges comparisons in its calculations. Essentially, the report uses a more sweeping accounting for agriculture than it does for other sectors of life.

A much more reliable measure comes from the Environmental Protection Agency, which calculates that all agriculture accounts for less than 7 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Animal agriculture accounts for just 4 percent.

“Organic” green food myths are even more nonsensical. “Organic” methods can’t feed the world and even trying to use them on a mass scale would put an unbelievable strain on the natural world. We continued:

If we did things purely by “organic” means and rejected synthetic methods, we could only support a world population of about 4 billion people. And if you think needing an additional 1.5 million cows to replace “pink slime” sounds like a lot, we’d require 1 billion more livestock for just the U.S. to replace synthetic nitrogen (plus 2 billion acres to plant feed crops for these animals).

No surprise then that British organic movement leader Peter Melchett once said that “Science doesn’t tell us the answers.”

Our Senior Research Analyst also advised Floridians that PETA’s shocking proposal to turn the Treasure Coast into a “no-birth community” for dogs and cats is very much in character. He noted that PETA’s apparent view that “killing is kindness [… is] a strange view of ethics.”

Meanwhile, our HSUS advertising parody video “Lawyers in Cages” has been making the rounds on the internet, drawing tens of thousands of views in a few days. HSUS’s fundraising films might show abused dogs and cats, but most donation money tends to end up supporting factory fundraisers, anti-farmer lobbyists, and the HSUS pension fund. As for HSUS itself, we’ll quote from our video: “PETA with suits and deodorant.”

Indeed, the USDA reduces the school lunch program’s annual cattle slaughter and environmental footprint by the equivalent of up to 12,000 animals by using 7 million pounds of boneless lean beef trimmings in hamburgers and ground beef. Despite this potential for savings, foodies demand it be banned (even, oddly, those who decry the numbers of animals raised for food).

So what’s wrong with boneless lean beef trimmings? In the real world: Nothing, which is why the FDA treats it as what it is; namely, ground beef. Of course, if “foodie world” is so worked up about it, surely something is wrong. Something must be wrong; after all, the USDA plans to offer an opt-out to schools that don’t want to use boneless lean beef trimmings. What could it be?

Is it chemicals? After all, celebrity chef Jamie Oliver (remember him?) went on television and poured household ammonia cleaner on some beef to show how the evil “pink slime” is made. Of course, not everything on reality TV is real. Beef processors neither use household ammonia-water mixes nor do they bathe the beef trimmings in cleaner. In fact, food processors mist the beef with an ammonium hydroxide solution to kill pathogens, making the resulting ground beef safer. Sure enough, ammonium hydroxide is Generally Recognized As Safe by the Food and Drug Administration.

Is it contamination? That wouldn’t make any sense, since the whole point of processing the beef trimmings is to kill pathogens, and sure enough, even some prominent critics of beef processors acknowledge of the products aren’t unsafe. Marion Nestle, while criticizing the existence of boneless lean beef trimmings, told The Washington Post: “I’m not arguing that that stuff is unsafe.” Indeed, the very same process that is now the subject of a food scare was featured in the Post in 2008 as a possible model for the future of food safety.

So what is the problem? Aesthetics (snobbery might be a better word) seems to be the answer. As Nestle told the Post, “I’m arguing that it’s the lowest common denominator.” And what makes lean beef trimmings “the lowest common denominator?” Nestle doesn’t tell us. It just “sounds disgusting.” Unfortunately, that doesn’t reflect reality.

This processed ground beef may not be “real” enough to satisfy those in the ivory tower, but is it worth killing up to an additional 12,000 cows for? If you’re Marion Nestle or Mark Bittman, apparently it is.

To call this figure questionable would be like calling Death Valley “warm.” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in its 2007 assessment report that agriculture accounted for less than half the percentage that NPR states. And in the U.S., the EPA reports that agriculture produces less than seven percent of national emissions. Considered alone, animal agriculture accounts for just 4 percent.

Of course, that won’t stop HSUS from promoting its meatless agenda at the expense of reasonable, constructive solutions.

The Center for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST) released a new report this month proposing practical solutions to mitigate livestock impact on greenhouse gases. CAST believes that improving the digestibility of livestock feed and better breeding can reduce the amount of energy needed in rearing livestock.

Are CAST’s solutions reasonable? Maybe. But this approach sure beats the approach of animal-rights zealots campaigning to “get rid of” livestock farms entirely. But then, why would we expect allies of PETA co-founder Ingrid Newkirk (who has called humans the “the biggest blight on the face of the earth”) and HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle (who has said, “I don't believe in the green revolution as a means of feeding the world”) to do anything else? To the misanthropes, agriculture is the problem because people are the problem—you know, by destroying the earth and eating animals.

It’s one thing to question the work of the Nobel Prize-winning scientist whose advances in crop yields may have saved one billion people from starvation. But now as they attack agriculture, can we agree that these folks have as much credibility as Paul Ehrlich?

As reported on the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) website, UEP members had already been discussing adopting the new cages well before HSUS came along to claim victory:

Prior to the negotiations between the HSUS and UEP, the UEP had been considering adding European-style enriched housing similar to that described in the deal with the HSUS as an approved option for the UEP Certified program. Gregory said the UEP contacted [HSUS CEO Wayne] Pacelle about the enriched housing option, and discussions began among teams from the organizations.

Within the UEP, the deal was arranged by its 34 board members, who were tasked with representing the interests of more than 200 member organizations, Gregory said.

More to the point, prior to the “truce,” HSUS was very reluctant to endorse enriched housing – despite the fact that many legitimate animal-welfare activists had embraced the new standards. The American Humane Association, AVMA, and renowned activist Temple Grandin have all supported the benefits of the new European-style furnished cage systems for more than a year now. It was only after UEP approached Wayne Pacelle with an offer of a collaborative effort that HSUS did an about-face on the issue.

Reviewing the evidence (and its stated purpose of abolishing American egg production), it’s easy to see HSUS is simply taking credit for a change egg farmers had been planning to implement all along. Is that really a victory worth clucking about?

"Industrial agriculture is a part of the problem,” Gore said Friday during an interview with FearLess Revolution founder Alex Bogusky. “The shift toward a more meat-intensive diet,” the clearing of forest areas in many parts of the world in order to raise more cattle and the reliance on synthetic nitrogen for fertilizer are also problems, he added.

Synthetic nitrogen isn’t a mere problem, as reported—Gore flat-out stated that “the reliance on synthetic nitrogen fertilizer is a Faustian bargain, kind of like steroids.” Well, that clears things up: The former vice president believes that modern farming is a deal with the devil. We wonder what millions of people in the Midwest think about that. (But we digress.)

Let’s humor him for a moment and assume that we overhauled the entire farming sector by reducing the number of livestock raised for food as well as stopping crop farmers from using synthetic nitrogen, which are suggestions that usually only come from fringe environmental activist groups.

For one, if synthetic nitrogen didn’t exist, animal manure will be used as an organic source of nitrogen. And agronomist Vaclav Smil has calculated that in order to replace synthetic nitrogen with organic nitrogen, the U.S. alone would need an additional 1 billion livestock (for manure) and 2 billion acres of forage crops (for the livestock).

Yes, that’s the irony: We’d have to cut down swaths of wilderness to make room for all these animals (if we could), plus make room for crops to feed them. In the case of the US going completely organic, we’d need landmass roughly the size of the lower 48 states. (Smil elsewhere argues that the Haber–Bosch process enabling development of synthetic nitrogen is the most important development of the 20th century. And it’s no wonder why.)

Moreover, the entire agriculture sector is responsible for just 6.4 percent of domestic greenhouse gas emissions, according to the EPA. Animal agriculture specifically provides just 4 percent of emissions.

Perhaps Gore should adopt a new mantra: Everybody else should farm as efficiently as Americans. Meanwhile, we’re going to enjoy a nice steak. We're super-duper serial.

Naturally, the eat-less-meat report got a thumbs-up from Andrew Weil, who sits on the advisory board of the anti-meat, anti-cheese group Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. Foodie author Michael Pollan also signed on, no doubt enticed by EWG’s eat-organic philosophy. And, of course, Mark Bittman gave the report some friendly blog space.

But the report’s claims are drawing criticism from one respected researcher:

Frank Mitloehner, who studies animal-environmental interactions at the University of California-Davis, disputes the numbers. Scientific life cycle assessments of meat production "haven't been conducted," he says.

The Environmental Protection Agency says only 3.4% of all greenhouse gases are the result of animal agriculture. "By changing the focus to eating habits, people think it doesn't matter whether they drive a Hummer or a Prius, it's whether they eat a burger or not."

You might recall that Mitloehner documented a major flaw in the claims of a 2006 United Nations report titled “Livestock’s Long Shadow,” which claimed that livestock producers are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Mitloehner discovered that the UN researchers overstated animal agriculture’s contribution to emissions by performing a more detailed accounting for the agriculture sector than transportation. In other words, the UN was comparing apples and oranges. Upon reviewing Mitloehner’s allegations, one of the authors of the UN report accepted Mitloehner’s criticism.

What’s the real deal? Domestically, the Environmental Protection Agency estimates that the entire agriculture sector contributes 6.4 percent of GHGs. Livestock farming accounts for less than 4 percent of US emissions. And the industry is getting more efficient: America’s beef production in 2008 needed 37 million fewer cattle to produce the same amount of meat as in 1975, for example, meaning less feed was needed and less waste was produced.

So what would EWG have us do? The report encourages people to buy locally to reduce their “footprint.” But this is even more myth-making. Researchers calculated that shipping New Zealand lamb to England was two to four times less emissions-intensive than producing lamb in England for local consumption. Similarly, fresh flowers grown in Kenya and shipped to Europe have a smaller environmental impact than flora grown more locally in Holland and sold in neighboring countries.

It’s all about economies of scale. And let’s not even get into the environmental costs of going completely “organic” (which is what it seems EWG wants).

EWG also throws in a few health scares, claiming that eating meat may be "contributing to the obesity epidemic” (nonsense) and insinuating that meat may cause cancer (pure baloney). EWG also dredges up scares about toxins in meat, a bogus talking point that we’ve exposed in the past.

In the end, the report seems like a hodgepodge of the most discredited animal-rights and organic-only propaganda designed to promote the “Meatless Monday” agenda.

If it wanted to do something credible, perhaps EWG should be praising the efficiency of American livestock farmers (and the agriculture sector generally) instead of bashing their products.

Or here’s a better idea: Since EWG points out that lots of people throw away food, why not simply encourage Americans to clean their plates? That would certainly be more palatable than ridiculous fear-mongering. And we’d guess it would find widespread support—except, perhaps, among the food police and anti-obesity zealots.

As part of the deal, UEP said it would endorse federal legislation to move hens out of “battery” cages and into the roomier accommodations by the end of 2029. In return, HSUS promised to shut down its $10 million ballot campaigns in Washington and Oregon. But UEP was already a step ahead of HSUS on the enriched-cage issue when the deal was struck.

The Oregonian reports:

Bob Krouse, chairman of United Egg Producers, said despite assumptions that farmers were forced into the agreement, many producers already have been looking to make the switch without affecting their profits and the affordability for consumers.

"It's the only way we can see to move forward as a group on a fair and equitable basis," Krouse said.

In other words, Big Egg took to heart the American Humane Association’s finding last year that enriched cages for egg layers are indeed "humane." The legendary animal welfare expert Temple Grandin agrees that these new cages are a big improvement.

More surprising is HSUS’s about-face on the issue. Just one day before the news about the truce broke, HSUS’s front group Oregonians for Humane Farms argued that a law requiring enriched cages would be “an illusion of reform and only barely improves the quality of life for hens.” (And HSUS’s statement against enriched cages, dated last July, is still up on its website.) That’s a harder-nosed approach than what animal-welfare experts have been saying for the past year.

At best, HSUS is a Johnny-come-lately on the enriched-cage question. At worst, the animal-rights group is taking credit for a change egg farmers had been intending all along. And with HSUS’s stated agenda for ending egg production in the United States, does it really deserve the benefit of the doubt?

A few highlights:

Did you know agave nectar contains “significantly more fructose than high fructose corn syrup?”  (In the end, of course, “a sugar is a sugar.”)

“Raw” (unpasteurized) milk is a new favorite of “hipster food-trendy people,” but “you’re 51 times more likely to get bacterial contamination” by drinking this moo-juice.

Those reusable plastic bags can be a decidedly unhealthy source of heavy metals and bacterial contamination. “People don’t wash these bags … you put that dripping chicken breast into your bag, and then you toss in that red pepper … It’s a recipe for creating contamination.”

Free-range eggs? “An egg laid out in the middle of a pasture — at least a chicken that’s pecking on worms and all that —it turns out the studies suggest over and over again [that] those are going to have a higher quantity of bacteria in them.”

And organic veggies? “A study that came out of the UK’s version of the EPA said there’s absolutely no nutritional difference between organics and conventional.” And all the untreated, unsterilized manure used to grow that health-haloed produce is “the ‘ick’ in organic.”

Watch the whole segment:
Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com