Katie wrote:
We can manage our water use primarily on the local level, somewhat on the regional level, and perhaps to a limited extent on the national level, but very little if at all on the international level. For example, how the water supply in Wyoming is allocated between crop production and livestock production is something that can be debated and, to some extent, altered (again, not all types of land and all sources of water are interchangeable between crops and livestock), but how the water supply in China (or India or Brazil or anywhere else) is allocated between crop production and livestock production is not something that can be altered by altering how the water supply in Wyoming is allocated. I mean, you could stop raising cattle in Wyoming, but you can't grow rice there, and you're not going to get any more rice or fresh water to China by trying.

I agree so much.

My background is in agricultural economics and my family owns cattle. The figures I often see for cattle production water use are totally inappropriate for this part of the Midwest. They are particularly distorted by water use in the Western states, where both grain feeds and pastures are irrigated. We don't irrigate our pastures, we do not need to. Global climate change may affect this and it might be worth switching over to more drought resistant livestock.

Rice is also about as big a contributor to methane production as cattle.

Bittman saying " food that could nourish people" is particularly infuriating to me since hunger is a food distribution issue. Not eating beef in Illinois is not going to affect the poor infrastructure, political corruption, etc. in poor countries. Lots of ethical reasons to be vegan, mostly having to do with harm to animals and animal rights, but solving poverty is not a good reason.

My opinion on Mark Bittman has been that he's a fantastic cookbook author and maybe should go back to school or at least study the field with a little more depth if he'd like to work in food policy.