The latest developments in the food industry show how fast the world is moving forward in countering climate change. Just this week, the global food chain giant McDonald’s announced that it is planning to cut its emissions intensity by 31% , across its supply chain, by 2030. That’s a big deal. It’s the first global restaurant company in the world to set a science-based target to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. If McDonald’s can lead on this, so should the United States.

We have an opportunity to do that this month. Unfortunately, it won’t be via the farm bill–one effective lever the U.S. government has to reduce food’s carbon footprint–which remains stalled in Congress again. It’s via the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s national dietary guidelines, which are in the process of a rewrite. We could use these guidelines to reduce food-based emissions. And while the USDA has never been a close friend of climate action (it excluded the word ‘sustainability’ from the previous National Dietary Guidelines) the department is accepting public input through March 30 for the 2020-2025 dietary guidelines.

If the U.S. wants to reduce its food-based emissions, the USDA should follow the advice of their advisers. The USDA’s own Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, made up of federally appointed health experts, recommended an increase in plant-based diets three years ago based on both nutritional and sustainability concerns. What should drive our nation’s dietary priorities must be good for both the American people and the planet–otherwise there’s no way to sustain it. And there is no question that a plant-based diet is key to sustainability and our survival.

Take a look at the evidence. On the production front, we know that a unit of beef protein contributes 150 times more greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than a unit of soy protein. Beef production also requires nearly 30 times more grazing land than pork or chicken production. That’s a whopper of a difference. Pork and chicken also have a heavy carbon footprint, coming in at 20 to 25 times heavier in GHGs than soy.

But it’s not just what’s being farmed that impacts us all, it’s how products are being farmed. In comparison to conventional farming methods, organic farming produces gains in resource management and allocation. In fact, organic agriculture captures significantly more carbon than non-organic and industrial-scale farming, which are often much more water and resource intensive.

By avoiding pesticides, herbicides, hormones and genetic engineering, organic farming’s health and environmental benefits are also clear. Organic food is six times less likely to contain pesticide residues than food produced through conventional farming methods.

Add to this fact that adding more plant-based foods to one’s diet is much more economical, which is a critical consideration for many American shoppers and families with a tight food budget, and it becomes clear why nutrition and sustainability are inseparable.