Back Good Calories, Bad Calories
Chapters (40)
  1. Cover Page
  2. Title Page
  3. Dedication
  4. Prologue A Brief History of Banting
  5. Part One
  6. Chapter 1
  7. Chapter 2
  8. Chapter 3
  9. Chapter 4
  10. Part Two
  11. Chapter 5
  12. Chapter 6
  13. Chapter 7
  14. Chapter 8
  15. Chapter 9
  16. Chapter 10
  17. Chapter 11
  18. Chapter 12
  19. Chapter 13
  20. Part Three
  21. Chapter 14
  22. Chapter 15
  23. Chapter 16
  24. Chapter 17
  25. Chapter 18
  26. Chapter 19
  27. Chapter 20
  28. Chapter 21
  29. Chapter 22
  30. Chapter 23
  31. Chapter 24
  32. Epilogue
  33. Notes
  34. Bibliography
  35. Acknowledgments
  36. Illustration Credits
  37. A Note About the Author
  38. Also by Gary Taubes
  39. Footnotes
  40. Copyright

The fundamental problem was an ever-increasing world population, but secondary blame fell to an imbalance between food production and consumption. This, in turn, implicated the eating habits in the richer nations, particularly the United States. The “enormous appetite for animal products has forced the conversion (at a very poor rate) of more and more grain, soybean and even fish meal into feed for cattle, hogs and poultry, thus decreasing the amounts of food directly available for direct consumption by the poor,” explained Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer in 1974. To improve the world situation, insisted Mayer and others, there should be “a shift in consumption in developed countries toward a ‘simplified’ diet containing less animal products and, in particular, less meat.” By doing so, we would free up grain, the “world’s most essential commodity,” to feed the hungry.

This argument was made most memorably in the 1971 best-seller Diet for a Small Planet, written by a twenty-six-year-old vegetarian named Francis Moore Lappé. The American livestock industry required twenty million tons of soy and vegetable protein to produce two million tons of beef, according to Lappé. The eighteen million tons lost in the process were enough to provide twelve urgently needed grams of protein daily to everyone in the world. This argument transformed meat-eating into a social issue, as well as a moral one. “A shopper’s decision at the meat counter in Gary, Indiana would affect food availability in Bombay, India,” explained the sociologist Warren Belasco in Appetite for Change, his history of the era.

By the early 1970s, this argument had become intertwined with the medical issues of fat and cholesterol in the diet. “How do you get people to understand that millions of Americans have adopted diets that will make them at best fat, or at worst, dead?” as the activist Jennifer Cross wrote in The Nation in 1974. “That the $139 billion food industry has not only encouraged such unwise eating habits in the interest of profit but is so wasteful in many of its operations that we are inadvertently depriving hungry nations of food?” The American Heart Association had taken to recommending that Americans cut back not just on saturated fat but on meat to do so. Saturated fat may have been perceived as the problem, but saturated fat was still considered to be synonymous with animal fat, and much of the fat in the American diet came from animal foods, particularly red meat.

Ironically, by 1968, when Paul Ehrlich had declared in The Population Bomb that “the battle to feed all humanity” had already been lost, agricultural researchers led by Norman Borlaug had created high-yield varieties of dwarf wheat that ended the famines in India and Pakistan and averted the predicted mass starvations. In 1970, when the Nobel Foundation awarded its Peace Prize to Borlaug, it justified the decision on the grounds that, “more than any other single person,” Borlaug had “helped to provide bread for a hungry world.”