Other proposals include everything from persuading consumers to eat less meat to slapping a “sin tax” on pork and beef.

From earlier this year, in the archive:

If Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan -- a Camry, say -- to the ultra-efficient Prius.

See also, from earlier this week:

Standing before a two-story-tall pile of chicken manure, Lee Richardson pondered how times had changed. Gigantic fans suction ammonia from the birds' waste, filling the air for miles around.

A few from Pollan:

It seems to be a hallmark of industrial agriculture: to maximize production and keep food as cheap as possible, it pushes natural systems and organisms to their limit, asking them to function as efficiently as machines. When the inevitable problems crop up ... the system can be ingenious in finding “solutions” ... but this year’s solutions have a way of becoming next year’s problems. That is to say, they aren’t “sustainable.”

Whenever we try to rearrange natural systems along the lines of a machine or a factory, whatever we may gain in industrial efficiency, we sacrifice in biological resilience. The question is not whether systems this brittle will break down, but when and how, and whether when they do, we’ll be prepared to treat the whole idea of sustainability as something more than a nice word.

Another favorite:

Forgetting, or willed ignorance, is the preferred strategy of many beef eaters.

Finally:

As the portion of our income spent on food has declined, spending on health care has soared. In 1960 Americans spent 17.5 percent of their income on food and 5.2 percent ... on health care. Since then, those numbers have flipped: Spending on food has fallen to 9.9 percent, while spending on health care has climbed to 16 percent of national income.