3 ms·

On the contrary, the mandate of the USDA is to provide guidance and regulation relating to the meat and dairy industries. As the meat and dairy industries have

On the contrary, the mandate of the USDA is to provide guidance and regulation relating to the meat and dairy industries. As the meat and dairy industries have definite environmental impact, they have space to make recommendations relating to the intersection of the meat industry and the environment. It's foolish to think that we should all live in tiny, proscribed silos of expertise, and simply ignore all areas which other silos might have some claim to...

mc32 11y ago
That's why we have other departments of the gov't to advise on their proscribed silos of expertise. No, I think this is the right thing to do. Stick to your area of expertise. I don't want gov't departments going rogue using up resources. They should stick to their scope like nutrition, food safety, etc. They have too few food inspectors as it is.
- PavlovsCat 11y ago
  They are sticking to their scope, actually. They're just not sticking to your baseless claim of what their scope is. http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=USDA_MISSION_AREAS http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=USDA_MISS... > Natural Resources and Environment ensures the health of the land through sustainable management. Its agencies work to prevent damage to natural resources and the environment, restore the resource base, and promote good land management. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ "going rogue, using up resources" -- doesn't apply to the USDA, does apply to meat production. And it's not like the industry just shuts up and makes meat, sticking to wasting resources that way; they also advertise and lobby, do they not?
  - mc32 11y ago
    I think there is a distinction between good land management, given conditions, that's to say how to best use land, with the presupposition of it being used, versus saying don't use it at all. Moreover, the USDA itself is of the opinion that kind of recommendation you're suggesting, it out of their scope. So they disagree. I know people want them to think otherwise, but, they don't think so. I'm glad they have not become an activist department going beyond their scope, in this case.

mc32 11y ago

That's why we have other departments of the gov't to advise on their proscribed silos of expertise. No, I think this is the right thing to do. Stick to your area of expertise. I don't want gov't departments going rogue using up resources. They should stick to their scope like nutrition, food safety, etc. They have too few food inspectors as it is.

PavlovsCat 11y ago
They are sticking to their scope, actually. They're just not sticking to your baseless claim of what their scope is. http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=USDA_MISSION_AREAS http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/usdahome?navid=USDA_MISS... > Natural Resources and Environment ensures the health of the land through sustainable management. Its agencies work to prevent damage to natural resources and the environment, restore the resource base, and promote good land management. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ "going rogue, using up resources" -- doesn't apply to the USDA, does apply to meat production. And it's not like the industry just shuts up and makes meat, sticking to wasting resources that way; they also advertise and lobby, do they not?
- mc32 11y ago
  I think there is a distinction between good land management, given conditions, that's to say how to best use land, with the presupposition of it being used, versus saying don't use it at all. Moreover, the USDA itself is of the opinion that kind of recommendation you're suggesting, it out of their scope. So they disagree. I know people want them to think otherwise, but, they don't think so. I'm glad they have not become an activist department going beyond their scope, in this case.