Edible Media takes an occasional look at interesting or deplorable food journalism on the web.
It's been a rough couple of months for meat eaters. In late November, the FAO issued a startling report claiming that livestock production emits fully 18 percent of global greenhouse gases -- more than all the automobiles in the world.
Then out comes a big book: The Bloodless Revolution by British scholar and proud "freegan" Tristram Stuart. The book seeks to trace the "cultural history of vegetarianism from 1600 to modern times."
The existence and long history of vegetarianism should make us meat-eaters squirm a bit. Who are we to make other sentient creatures suffer and die painful deaths, so we can gain our sustenance in a world with many non-animal choices on offer?
It's not inconceivable that our meat habit could one day seem monstrous. As Laura Miller put it in her review of Stuart's book on Salon:
We, like the people of the early 1800s, could be living through a period of slow but profound ideological change. ... In the future, right-thinking people might look back at us meat eaters with the same disapproval we heap on those who considered slavery acceptable 200 years ago.
Few would deny that out current mode of meat production is monstrous. The dirty business of slaughter takes place off-stage, so to speak. Most Americans blithely fill up on meat without knowing or caring about what goes on in fetid feedlots or brutal (for workers and animals alike) slaughterhouses.
In his elegant review of the Stuart book for The New Yorker, Steven Shapin brings up a bracing fact about U.S. meat consumption. Every year, the average American consumes 275 pounds of meat -- up from 238 in 1981.
That means the average American ingests three-quarters of a pound per day. When you account for vegetarians and people who eat meat only occasionally, that figure is even more breathtaking.
Worse still, other nations are following the the U.S. lead. Shapin informs us that in China, per capita meat consumption has surged from from 33.1 to 115.5 pounds since 1981. That's amazing.
Michael Pollan has made the point that explosive growth in meat consumption would not have been possible without the industrialization of farming. Essentially, when grain yields surged in the second half of the 20th century, prices tumbled and it began to seem economical to start feeding farm animals huge amounts of grain instead of grass. That in turn led to feedlots and vast centralized slaughterhouses, and the price of meat fell, turning it into a daily expectation rather than a luxury.
But if voracious meat consumption is related to the mechanization of agriculture and its marginalization from most people's lives, so might be vegetarianism. Shapin, in his New Yorker essay, makes a provocative point:
Those who kill animals in the course of their working day may quickly become habituated to it, and to dismiss this effect as mere desensitization effectively discounts great knowledge of animal death in favor of slight knowledge. Similarly, those who like to romanticize country people are frequently discomfited by their uncuddly ways with livestock. A major source of the sympathy with animal suffering that developed so strongly from the Enlightenment may well be the pattern of urbanization that removed so many of us from daily experience of how our food is produced. Why is it "natural" not to know very much about "nature"? [Emphasis in original]
The answer, then, might not be to ban meat outright (which, as relentlessly rising consumption patterns are telling us, is highly unlikely). Rather, it might be to revalue and spread the "experience of how our food is produced."
After all, the pre-Enlightment peasants who presumably treated their animals so unsentimentally didn't eat much meat. They respected it as a delicious, dense store of nutrients and learned to make it stretch, giving the world the immortal (I hope) art of charcuterie.
Moreover, a renewed, broad-based knowledge of where food comes from will reestablish something that vegetarians and vegans sometimes forget: that organic agriculture in any meaningful sense relies on diversified farming -- crops and livestock tended in close proximity.
But as a committed omnivore who is nevertheless appalled by feedlot agriculture and stunned by Americans' meat-eating gluttony, I've got nothing but respect for vegetarians and vegans.
A deal with seitan
Speaking of vegans, I loved the article in last Wednesday's New York Times food section about Brooklyn vegan chef Isa Chandra Moskowitz.
While I'm not about to abandon butter, eggs, and cream in dessert-making, I have no doubt that her confections are excellent. Why? Because of this bit:
Moskowitz ... does not particularly like to talk about tofu. Ditto seitan, tempeh and nutritional yeast. "I think vegan cooks need to learn to cook vegetables first," she said last week during a cupcake-baking marathon. "Then maybe they can be allowed to move on to meat substitutes."
Amen. I don't mean to knock vegans; if anything, their prohibitions force them into paying more attention to cooking than their McDonald's-gorging peers. Yet anyone who's been served monstrosities like vegan Sloppy Joes can give Moskowitz a witness.
Read Ethicurean
I love the food blog Ethicurean, whose posters have such decidedly non-vegan handles as Butter Bitch, Dairy Queen, Omniwhore, and Miss Steak.
Anyone who wants to keep up with the blitz of food news/commentary must RSS this blog.
And I'm not just saying that because they've often commented favorably on my own work. (Full disclosure: I discovered Ethicurean through the egregious procrastination tactic known as egosurfing.)
Climate Citizen: Michael Pollan on agriculture and health care
Tweet for the bees
Comments
View as Threaded
Bart Anderson Posted 6:41 am
28 Jan 2007
My favorite article this month is from the BBC: Going ape What if humans cast aside processed foods and saturated fats in favour of the sort of diet our ape-like ancestors once ate? Nine volunteers gave it a go... and were glad they did so.
Being locked in the zoo and offered bananas to eat is the kind of extreme diet scenario to wake some of us screaming in the night. But that was how a group of volunteers opted to try to cut their blood pressure and cholesterol levels.
They set up home in a tented enclosure at Paignton Zoo, Devon, next to the ape house, in an experiment filmed for TV. The idea, says Jill Fullerton-Smith, who helped organise the trial, was that modern diets, often dominated by processed foods and saturated fats, cause costly health problems.
...[Nutritionist and dietician] Ms Garton looked for inspiration to the plant-based diet of our closest relatives, the apes, and devised a three-day rotating menu of fruit, vegetables, nuts and honey.
...With so much food bulk and plenty of calories the subjects did not go hungry - indeed most failed to finish their daily ration. And once they were over the withdrawal from caffeinated drinks and some foods, says Ms Garton, they enjoyed good energy levels and mood.
So the "moments of unhappiness and grumpiness" that the TV crew was primed to capture failed to happen. The proved to be a motivated group, although the one odorous side-effect from all that roughage couldn't be ignored.
Overall, the cholesterol levels dropped 23%, an amount usually achieved only through anti-cholesterol drugs statins.
Permalink
Laurence Aurbach Posted 7:04 am
28 Jan 2007
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 7:43 am
28 Jan 2007
Lesson: Eat real food and be healthy; or eat processed food and turn your health over to the pharmaceutical industry.
Victual Reality
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 7:54 am
28 Jan 2007
Just came across podcasts from the UK Soil Association conference which just concluded. The Soil Association is the organic agriculture body in Great Britain.
They took "peak oil" as their theme, and had the most over-subscribed conference in their history. (article).
News that they might withhold the "organic" label from food that is shipped by air freight has hit the headlines (Guardian).
In California, this week's Eco-Farm conference of organic farmers had a peak oil keynote speaker (Richard Heinberg). In a recent essay, Heinberg argued that many more farmers will be needed as energy becomes more expensive: Fifty Million Farmers.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 8:32 am
28 Jan 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
meander Posted 9:10 am
28 Jan 2007
Pollan also archives many of his pieces at his own website, thus preventing paywalls from hiding them.
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:46 am
28 Jan 2007
Great posts! But please let me defend vegetarian cooking. If you're going to San Francisco (and are not part of a Yale singing group), you might look up some of the many different varities of Vegetarian restaurants in the Bay Area. There are Japanese, Chinese (several different types), Vietnamese and local gourmet favorites such as Greens.
In addition, you can try the vegetarian special at almost any Ethiopian restuarant (Yummm!!!), and there is of course Indian and Middle Eastern vegetarian food as well.
And and and.... there are many different kinds. When you diss the vegan sloppy joe (and I admit to liking that kind of thing once in a while (smile)), you are really criticizing the MacDonalds of vegetarian food, ie, industrialized.
There are whole other worlds out there!!
Even if you eat meat, you are limiting your diet if you don't try some of them once in a while!
In Beijing the count of Chinese Vegetarian restaurants is running around 30 (hard to keep track), slow momentum, but there.
patrick
Permalink
Roz Cummins Posted 12:24 pm
28 Jan 2007
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 3:22 pm
28 Jan 2007
J.S.
P.S. I agree that Pollan's current article is by far his best- in fact, he was going steadily downhill until today.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
willa Posted 4:25 pm
28 Jan 2007
Ironically, I think this ends up meaning my diet is healthier than most, even leaving the vegetarian/omnivore issue aside. I tend to like things that are healthy, although I do like the sloppy joe mix (and Gardenburger Riblets, and Quorn "chicken"--man, I'd die without those things!). For the most part, I eat more "real" food than I would if I were counting calories or fat grams or carbs or whatever stupid thing.
So, i'm rambling, but I do have a point, which is that you shouldn't have too much respect for vegetarians, at least until you know what their strategy and reasoning is. :)
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 1:24 am
29 Jan 2007
And what's this with the Global Warming tie-in? Sure, cows burp methane, quite a bit of it. What's next, the need to include methane from human farts? The idea is that if we have less people, we would have less fart-methane, so that would be a good idea? Oh, now you see the fallacy of the argment!
I have to admit I love Chinese food too, although I was quite disappointed that my favorite Szechuan dishes had tofu that was fried not only once but TWICE. It just didn't seem too balanced to me.
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:52 am
29 Jan 2007
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
mihan Posted 2:39 am
29 Jan 2007
Thanks for the Pollen link, Laurence. I loved An Omnivore's Dilemma, but still enjoyed this essay ("silence of the yams" aside). My rule of thumb is to avoid items that you could eat right away and contain more than two ingredients, except for bread.
While I'm definitely way, way on the vegetarian end of the spectrum (3/4 lb. of meat a day? Good god!), and, despite what the vegans say, it is a spectrum, I agree about the meat "substitutes." Tofu does not have the same properties as meat. A dish meant to contain meat was not meant to contain tofu, and vice versa. Make a nice saag paneer, don't try to make a vegetarian vindaloo. Make a nice stuffed tofu, don't put chicken in it! If that makes me a cooking snob, so be it.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 3:15 am
29 Jan 2007
Permalink
Gregory Dicum Posted 4:19 am
29 Jan 2007
Thanks once again Tom for your excellent coverage of the eco-food nexus!
I just want to jump in here quickly to add one item to this mix; something for everyone's consideration, that I think is unaccountably absent from the slow/eco - food discussion (as much my fault as anyone's, I guess...)
I became a vegan seven years ago for many of the reasons being articulated here. Basically, I realized that, as an environmentalist, I had a lot of explaining to do if I was going to eat animal products. I looked more closely and concluded that for a person living in an industrial society, eating animals on a regular basis is not supportable. Our diet is the one thing we have the most control over--we raise our food to our mouths with our own hands--and it's easier to have a profound environmental impact by cutting out animal products than it is by any other lifestyle means. For most people, cutting out driving is, as a practical matter, more difficult than cutting out meat, thanks to the physical layout of our built environments. (for now)
I was also looking to avoid the health impacts of a diet overflowing with fat and protein, and low on the good stuff.
So I just tried it. And I felt great.
But then a funny thing happened. I suddenly came to see an even more profound basis for veganism: reducing animal suffering. Freed from my dietary dependence on violence towards innocent animals, I suddenly saw that I had been rationalizing my meat eating for so many years. Even after visiting slaughterhouses and killing animals myself, I had gone on eating meat for years. It was only once I no longer had a psychological need to protect myself from the idea that these are suffering beings, just like me, that I was able to understand that clearly--and to find an even stronger reason for veganism. (And I'm not just talking about industrial agriculture. Something seems wrong with the idea that animals can be "humanely raised" only to be killed.)
Here's something I wrote about my veganism for my column a while back (disguised as a celebrity profile). My current thinking on veganism can be summed up thus:
I have four reasons for doing it:
1 - It is better for my body
2 - It is better for the planet
3 - It is better for other people
4 - It is better for the animals
There are always exceptions one can imagine about one or another of these points, or certain extenuating circumstances, but as a general way of being, I think it demands careful consideration by anyone trying to live a rational, conscious life.
Indeed, I think it demands that the question be turned around; it should not be "why are you vegan?" it should be "why do you eat meat?"
my books: The Coffee Book | Window Seat
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 4:25 am
29 Jan 2007
Basically, I think I'm like a lot of people -- I know I should go vegan. I know there's no good reason not to, and plenty of good reasons to do it. And yet ... I just don't. I can't really explain or defend it. But there it is.
www.grist.org
Permalink
brianbrussell Posted 4:28 am
29 Jan 2007
From personal experience the CSA I (and about 75 other "families") get our food from uses vegan agriculture.
I would also encourage people to look up:
Permaculture/Tree crops/Agroforestry/etc. which doesn't inherently rely on animal waste to maintain fertility
The Movement for Compassionate Living (out of the UK) advocates vegan, local, organic, tree-based agriculture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movement_for_Compassionate_L...
http://www.mclveganway.org.uk/
And here is wikipedia on vegan gardening:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_organic_gardening
Can vegan, local, organic, tree-based(perennial) agriculture support ~6.5-9 billion people? No.
But if you work the math it will support more than animal-annual based agriculture for the long haul and has a host of other benefits.
Permalink
Ethicurean Posted 4:39 am
29 Jan 2007
Gregory: As an ex-vegetarian and friend of several vegans, I also agree mightily that if we could wave a magic wand and make the planetary population become herbivores, and or even just the United States, we would vastly improve public health and the environment. But we can't.
In the meantime, I think it's important to focus efforts where we can effect real change: getting people who do eat meat to eat less of it, and to really look at where what they're eating comes from. The big meatpackers and CAFO owners in this country go to great lengths to hide their disgusting, irresponsible animal-raising practices. When you show people these conditions, and then show them the small-scale alternatives that are available, most of them respond positively.
Chew the right thing -- sustainable, organic, local, and/or ethical...SOLE food, for short.
Permalink
Mary Posted 4:59 am
29 Jan 2007
Mary
Permalink
Gregory Dicum Posted 5:02 am
29 Jan 2007
It's like compact flourescents... by themselves they're not going to address the massive structural energy problems our civilization faces, but right now they are a practical step that everyone can take. They are meaningful. But they're not the end of the path; just the first step.
So you work on getting everyone to eat a little less meat; I'll keep pointing out where I think we need to head (while also trying to get people to take that first step and eat a little less meat -- you can do it dave!) and together we're part of a broad front for positive change on our planet!
What fun!
(and thanks also Tom, for the Ethicurian plug; I hadn't seen it before and now I'm trapped there, chewing the right thing...)
my books: The Coffee Book | Window Seat
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:22 am
29 Jan 2007
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Roz Cummins Posted 5:32 am
29 Jan 2007
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 5:34 am
29 Jan 2007
Suffice to say, I work 10+ hour days ceaselessly trying to raise awareness of green issues and educate the public on them. I'm also a husband, father of two small children, and a homeowner, who also used to have hobbies and occasionally even attempts to relax. My food choices are one of about 500,000 things I need to attend to. I hardly think "apathy" describes my lifestyle, and more to the point, you hardly seem in a position to judge anything I do. Let me suggest, in as civil a manner as possible, that there's a reason vegetarians and vegans have a somewhat unflattering reputation among the population at large. You should take a page from Gregory's nonjudgmental, encouraging book.
www.grist.org
Permalink
evanvoo Posted 5:57 am
29 Jan 2007
According to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization's recent report, this reaction is not unfounded. Livestock are responsible for more greenhouse gases that cause global warming than any other industry -- more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together. Livestock now use 30 per cent of the earth's entire land surface, and are a major cause of deforestation. Animal agriculture accounts for 37 per cent of all human-induced methane. It generates 65 per cent of human-related nitrous oxide, which has 296 times the global warming potential than that of CO2. In short, appealing to momentary gustatory pleasure to defend contributing to such enormous environmental degradation is, in my opinion, unjustifiable.
That being said, I agree that--in practical terms--the question of eating meat does not have to be (although ideally it is) an "all or nothing" proposition. For those who for whatever reasons find themselves "unable" to completely eliminate animal products from their diets, even to cut their consumption by a half or a third would have an enormous impact on the environment and animal suffering. I have great respect for those who have already taken this important first step, and encourage others to continue to push themselves as much as possible.
Permalink
Gregory Dicum Posted 6:33 am
29 Jan 2007
Yet I can also see where someone like David is coming from -- he's a busy guy, and as easy as it sounds to make a "lifestyle change," it's really not so simple. Becoming vegan involves changing the way you relate to some of the most fundamental things in your life -- starting with food, shared meals with your loved ones, even your body's equilibrium.
But rather than see this as a frustrating impasse, let's take it on as a challenge. If someone who says "I know I should go vegan. I know there's no good reason not to, and plenty of good reasons to do it. And yet ... I just don't. I can't really explain or defend it." -- someone who is such a committed environmentalist he has been personally denouced by James Inhofe -- can't be brought round to vastly reduced animal product consumption, culminating in veganism, then nobody can be.
So... let's help David. Let's help him reduce his intake of meat and dairy (we'll get to leather later) while maintaining or enhancing his quality of life, including his nutrition, the amount of free time he has, the amount of money he spends on food, and his personal relationships.
First step, I think, is to establish a baseline: David, just how much of this stuff are you consuming?
my books: The Coffee Book | Window Seat
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 6:47 am
29 Jan 2007
And yet ... while it's true that sustainable agriculture can exist without animal waste, I wonder whether vegan ag can be productive enough to replace animal-based sustainable ag. Every time you eat an apple or a bite of lettuce, you have extracted nutrients from the soil that need to be replaced. Nitrogen-fixing "green manure" crops are valuable and necessary, but I honestly don't know if they're sufficient for intensive small-scale planting.
It seems to make sense for small vegetable farms to keep animals to turn crops residues and other would-be wastes into valuable fertilizer. This utilitarian defense of animal ag, of course, doesn't confront the moral arguments, though.
Moreover, I resist renouncing meat on cultural-preservation grounds. Our human heritage is more than just old buildings, old texts, and ruined monuments. It also lies in the robust living culinary traditions of cultures that really value food--e.g., Thailand, Italy, Vietnam, France, Mexico, China, etc. The idea of banning, say duck confit or Pho seems as tragic to me as obliterating the glorious ruins of Rome.
These traditions are, of course, overwhelmed and undermined by McDonalds culture, the idea that every American has the right to polish off nearly a pound of meat per day.
This has been a great discussion, and a consensus has formed: we need to eat much less, and when we do eat it, we should do so conscientiously.
Victual Reality
Permalink
mihan Posted 6:59 am
29 Jan 2007
Transportation accounts for many, many more times the greenhouse gas emissions than does agriculture. This does not mean that agriculture is unimportant, but if we're trying to decrease our emissions, surely it makes sense to first decrease the largest contributions, which are from transportation and electricity production?
Last I checked, David did not ask for anyone's help in changing his eating habits. Should we also offer him help in getting rid of his car? [David, just how often do you drive?] If he does wish to do so, I'm sure we'll be the first several dozen to know.
Permalink
Gregory Dicum Posted 7:19 am
29 Jan 2007
There is plenty of human cultural heritage we've thankfully put behind us, starting with ritual cannibalism and slavery, extending through absolute monarchy and total subjugation of women, and into many, many things we're still working on, like racism, homophobia, and abusive levels of economic inequality.
All of those things were (and some still are) "robust living traditions." But we have transformed them as we have progressed. So now it's possible to, for example, admire the Taj Mahal without longing for the political and cultural systems that brought it about.
Is vegan pho still pho? It's different, that's for sure, but I submit that it is still a way to connect with the good parts of human cultural heritage contained within that steamy bowl while moving on from the bad parts.
Mihan:
It's not an either/or thing... it's a process and we're all working towards making the world better in whatever ways we can. I've been fortunate that I've been able to give up both meat and car ownership. Neither was "easy" but both have been rewarding.
David:
Forgive my enthusiasm. I forgot to ask: how can I help?
my books: The Coffee Book | Window Seat
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 7:27 am
29 Jan 2007
Aside from the meat, the dairy's the real problem. Cheese. Cream in my coffee. Butter. Mmm ... butter. Proof of God's love.
Here's why I don't go vegan:
The division of labor in my home is that I keep the kids entertained while my wife (who also works full-time) cooks dinner most nights. So I'd have to get her -- and by extension, the kids -- on board with changing about 90% of her cooking/eating habits. Suffice to say, it's always hectic, we're always both tired, she's trying to scramble something together quick, and "slow food" just ain't gonna enter the picture. I'd like to hear from other parents of multiple small children whether they completely eschew pre-made meals, cause if they do, well, they're heroes. Thank God for Trader Joes is all I'm saying.
Something about my metabolism, but I need hot, hearty, juicy food. I eat rice or vegetables or oats or whatnot and it just vaporizes in my stomach. I'm a heavy-food kind of guy, and for the most part, heavy means meat.
With some exceptions -- many present here in this discussion -- the outspoken vegans and vegetarians I've come across have been smug, self-righteous, humorless, judgmental, and otherwise repugnant to well-adjusted people. Why would I want to join a club for which they are spokespeople? (This is where they respond, smugly and self-righteously, that facts are facts and it doesn't matter how they're presented, thus betraying again their fundamental misunderstanding of human nature and culture.)
OK, that last one has nothing to do with my eating habits, but I just wanted to say it.
So I need more than just vegan recipes. I need to know how vegan meals can be pulled together quickly, with minimum effort, at reasonably low cost, and can feed four hungry people every night, and fill my belly.
www.grist.org
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:49 am
29 Jan 2007
He is right, of course, about the scandalous waste of perfectly good food. In NYC there is an excellent organization called City Harvest, which collects discarded food from restaurants and distributes it to underprivileged persons. Perhaps there are similar organizations elsewhere.
But feeding oneself out of the dumpsters and garbage dumps of others, the way too many people must keep themselves alive, is not a choice that most people who do not live with that necessity would make.
The early-modern stuff is great. Presumably Stuart makes clear some details that in Steven Shapin's review are a bit murky. In kashruth, hares (and rabbits too, I guess) are as unclean as pigs: the former chew the cud (true?) but do not split the hoof; the latter split the hoof but do not chew the cud. So rabbits, strangled or otherwise, are never on the menu of kosher-keeping Jews. As a Gentile, and (nominally?) a Christian, on the other hand, Isaac Newton felt free of the Jewish dietary rules, entitled to live by the decree of the Council of Jerusalem, in Acts 15:20 and 29, which retains those rules in a very minimal form.
The ancient Israelites did strangle (i.e., twist the necks of) doves, when they were chosen as sacrificial animals (cf. Leviticus 5:8). But then apparently they were cut open, and the blood drained, as with mammals. At some point, it seems, the practice of slaughtering fowl by the swift slash of a knife across the throat became standard in rabbinic Judaism. In an excellent little book, from 1959, "The Jewish Dietary Laws," by Samuel H. Dresner and Seymour Siegel, Dresner insists that eating meat is a moral compromise, but when it is done according to kashrut, it is a way of hallowing God's creatures; the act of slaughtering is carefully prescribed to minimize the suffering of the individual animals; and part of the purpose of that care and reverence is to avoid desensitization and brutalization that result from non-kosher methods of killing animals, by hunting in the first place.
How much meat did Middle Eastern, Mediterranean and Northern Europeans actually eat, in pre-modern times? I suspect for most of the population, it was relatively little. There is a story told among classicists of a 19th-century English archeologist in Greece, describing to a peasant the power of Queen Victoria, and the great extent of her possessions; the peasant remarked in awe, "Oh, what a great queen, she must be able to eat meat every day!"
In the Iliad, the Greek warriors always eat beef -- and that strikes archeologists as so unlikely for any Aegean people, that they trace that story-element to an ancestral memory from before the arrival of proto-Greek-speakers in the Aegean region, or else a folkloric bit of fantasy. Greeks have always raised sheep, goats, pigs and donkeys; they had cattle and horses, but those were relatively rare.
In that connexion, the passage from "Henry V" is interesting, suggesting that the French were a bit horrified by the regular English diet on beef. One wonders what Shakespeare assumed the French ate.
Also, at first glance, I dispute Stuart's interpretation of that Scottish Grace, in which those who have "meat" are contrasted with those who do not. I do not think "meat" necessarily means the flesh of animals. The original sense in English was all solid food, from any source, NOT necessarily the flesh of animals. We still use the word "meat" to mean the edible interior of anything with a shell or husk, e.g. the meat of a nut.
On the "uncuddly ways with livestock" of countryfolk, I believe that has never been universally the case. Cf. the ironic, poignant speech of the Cyclops Polyphemus, on the morning after he was blinded, to his largest ram, as all the sheep file out of the cave, with Odysseus' men tied beneath; Odysseus holds the ram for himself, and goes out last; and Polyphemus says, "Sweet ram, why are you the last of the flock to pass out of the cave like this? You have never before lagged behind the others ... Yet today you are the last of all. You must be grieved for your master's eye, blinded by a wicked man and his accursed friends ..."
And also, cf. 2 Samuel 12, the prophet Nathan's parable of the rich man and the poor man, likening King David to the evil rich man, and the soldier Uriah, whose death David had engineered in order to get away with his affair with Uriah's wife Bathsheba, to the poor man: "The rich man had exceeding many flocks and herds; But the poor man had nothing, save one little ewe lamb, which he had bought and nourished up; and it grew up together with him, and with his children; it did eat of his own meat [i.e., food], and drank of his own cup, and lay in his bosom, and was unto him as a daughter." The rich man receives a guest, and in order to serve him dinner, takes no animal from his own flocks, but instead "took the poor man's lamb, and dressed it for the man that was come to him." David is enraged: "As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die." Nathan turns on him, and says, "Thou art the man."
Finally, Bart gives us another kind of parable, from the zoo in Devon. We can observe that this rude diet happily did not kill the participants, in spite of the flatulence. But on the other hand, they were highly motivated to begin with. What is important to remember is that human beings from just about every culture have practised some form of "cuisine," some traditional methods of messing around with foods, involving various mixtures and heatings, to improve them somehow, and render them palatable. And for many people, the enjoyment of cuisine is part of the good life. To have to live like those denizens of the zoo would not be considered an improvement at all.
Too bad that caffeine takes a hit. The preparation of coffee in the Ottoman empire, and of tea in East Asia, can be regarded as an artform, almost a sacrament.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
mihan Posted 7:51 am
29 Jan 2007
On meat and dairy: Personally, I prefer to make it a very rare treat (once a month or so). Dairy and eggs are so close to vegetables in terms of ecologic impact that I don't worry about eating them (vegans---pile on, right here), or the milk in my coffee. There's a reason the UCS focuses on meat first.
Finally, it's important to cut yourself some slack. If sometimes you just want that lasagne from Trader Joe's, then so be it.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 8:03 am
29 Jan 2007
It doesn't matter what other people think. Vegetarians will need a lot of help if their contribution to global warming mitigation is going to mean anything at all. Do they get carbon credits?
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 8:13 am
29 Jan 2007
Second point. There is no doubt that many vegetarians and vegans are self-righteous and annoying, but you know what, so are most people, period, including people who eat meat. Bottom line: I don't think it's unique to one group, it's just that opposing groups always see the others as more annoying than they are.
Anyway, I applaud your efforts to reduce animal products in your diet; I, for one, never ever demand that people do anything nor do I even think that everyone needs to be vegetarian, just that a move in that direction would do great things for the environment.
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Gregory Dicum Posted 8:23 am
29 Jan 2007
As I'm sure you know, there are lots of vegan products out there readily obtained by anyone living in Seattle and shopping at Trader Joe's that can be slipped right into your existing diet totally seamlessly.
I've had great success giving kids vegan hot dogs and vegan meatballs (both avaialbe at TJ's) -- to the extent that two of my nephews in non-veg families now insist on the vegan versions because they like them better.
As for butter, try this stuff:
http://www.earthbalance.net/
I get the kind in the...
And as for cheese... please stay away from the vegan cheeses. They're not ready for prime time in most applications, in my opinion. I was a cheese lover before becoming vegan too, and for a while it was a challenge for me to give it up. So for now, just cut down; think about some other yummy things you could eat. At TJs, check out those ready-made spreads -- the Artichoke and the Sun Dried tomato ones are both vegan, as are others.
In fact, check out every label anywhere you go. I think you'll find you have easy access to a lot more vegan options than you might assume. (as an added benefit, reading lots of labels makes you eat better more generally)
As for your meat, how about limiting yourself to local organic meat only, and going meatless when you can't get it.
So how about that for week 1:
make easy substitutions
refuse meat that's not local and organic
explore your surroundings for vegan options you might not have thought of
shrilly berate friends and family who "just don't get it" and stomp out in a huff if anyone dares serve you a meatless patty that contains whey
oh wait... that last one is from week 2...
my books: The Coffee Book | Window Seat
Permalink
Gregory Dicum Posted 8:24 am
29 Jan 2007
(no idea how that turned into an ellipsis when i posted...)
my books: The Coffee Book | Window Seat
Permalink
Gregory Dicum Posted 8:34 am
29 Jan 2007
Have you tried soymilk in your coffee? Another strategy that can help you reduce cream in your coffee is to get heavy-bodied, "creamy" coffees like the Gayoland from Zoka in Seattle:
http://www.zokacoffee.com/product.php/11/3/sumatra-gayola...
it really is excellent.
my books: The Coffee Book | Window Seat
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 8:45 am
29 Jan 2007
www.grist.org
Permalink
bookerly Posted 1:00 pm
29 Jan 2007
David,
Try some things like whole wheat pizza, also consider cooking more with beans. A lot of vegan recipes are low fat, but a nice piece of fresh bread dipped in organic olive oil may give you that heavier feeling you miss. Add some hummus to that as a possiblity. Pasta is also helpful.
In terms of the kids, try some of the commercial products, like the vegetarian chicken nuggets to add to the hot dogs (I loved those as well when I was in the US, some junk food once in a while doesn't kill anybody!).
Veggie Burgers!! Some are pretty good (darn I forget the brand names, it has been too long!), maybe folks can suggest them. Experiment to see if the kids like any of them, let them look for things they might want to try. Remember, you can still eat french fries (smile).
In terms of cooking, stir frying is one of the easiest and quickest ways to cook. Add some mushrooms for bulk as well (heavy feeling).
Consider stir frying some veggies, then putting them in sub rolls with ketchup, salsa or mustard (whatever you and the kids like). A quick and easy meal.
Make change only as you are comfortable with it, don't be driven by the demands of others (including any of us!).
I agree with Jason that if people eat less meat, that is a good goal.
I eat mostly vegan, but also eat an egg or some cheese once in a while. Sorry Gregroy, I am not an animal rights person. If we are going to rant about self-righteous vegetarians and vegans, I have a different take on it (smile). When I lived in San Francisco and was active in vegetarian and other politics, it was very rare for me to find an animal rights person who cared about poor people.
(Obviously, this is not aimed at any one here, since I don't know any of you that well!)
My experience was that the very people who cared so much about animal suffering were largely indifferent to human suffering. It turned me off so completely that even now, years later, it still influences me. While I agree in theory that we should care about animal suffering, it seems to me that we should care about human suffering as well, and frankly, I don't see many animal rights advocates who really do.
So, thats my rant!!!
Basically, though, I believe the world is better served by as many people as possible eating as little meat as possible. However, I have no interest in condemning any individual for what they do or don't eat.
Better to seduce people like Roz does with her lovely recipes than to nag them to death.
Please, David, take the advice we all give here as loving suggestions, but not nagging. And whatever you and your family eat, enjoy it!
patrick
Permalink
tico89 Posted 1:01 pm
29 Jan 2007
Living as I do in a country where it is practically impossible to get decent beef, I have never developed much of a liking for it and would have no trouble cutting it out of my diet, although chicken would be much more difficult. However, it seems to me that if people could be persuaded to eat small amounts of good-quality meat, rather than endless amounts of garbage, it could be healthier for people and the environment, without having to make such radical lifestyle changes. It is not possible to concentrate just on the animals, and then skip to the steak on the plate.
As for those who talk about the (non) humanitarian side of eating meat, I appreciate their viewpoint, but I just say this: the day that everyone on earth goes vegetarian, most livestock will have to be slaughtered.
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 1:09 pm
29 Jan 2007
Definitely Earth Balance margarine- the whipped version is best
The Goddess dressing is my favorite- Annie's has lots of other great flavors
In terms of milk substitutes, hemp and oat milks are also great- different tastes but worth a try- also, soy milks that have kombu in them are supposed to be better for people who have a hard time digesting soy
Sunshine burgers are great for people who don't like fake meat as much- they are pure vegetable
As to desserts- all of the rice cream bars covered in chocolate are excellent- not the pints- I had Dominican kids who eat nothing but meat and dairy loving those things and not knowing they were made of rice
As to deserts, Dave, since you're in the Bay Area Black China bakery stuff, which you can get at Whole Foods is the best, people who are not vegan think that their vegan chocolate cake is better than with dairy
Not many good cheese substitutes, but nutritional yeast is amazing and has an almost parmesan flavor- if you make vegan pizza with sundried tomatoes, olive oil, sauce, and nutritional yeast it's the best- you can put this on rice and beans, pasta, everything- it's pure vitamins, minerals, protein, and B-12- amazing stuff- everyone should have a jar off it in the kitchen- the large flakes are the best
For making breaded cutlets use egg replacer as a coagulant- works perfectly- vegan eggplant cutlets are amazing
I could go on and on....what else on the quick tip? Most of the fake sausages make for excellent sausage and pepper sandwiches with onions and sauce, a boca burger with a grilled portobello on top will fill you up...
To be continued...
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 1:33 pm
29 Jan 2007
1 can black beans
1 cup cooked lentils
1 cup soyonnaise
1 cup leftover cooked vegetables, any, finely chopped (beets are great)
1 cup breadcrumbs
herbs/spices to taste
coarsely chop beans in blender. Mix with remaining ingredients, make up into patties and bake on oiled cookie sheet. Cool and wrap individually, place in freezer bag and freeze.
Microwave burgers as needed to make a great quick sandwich.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 1:49 pm
29 Jan 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Laura K Posted 2:20 pm
29 Jan 2007
What I object to is the way animals are raised as commodities with no respect for their needs or feelings, no ability to have anything resembling a natural life. I choose not to eat meat because it is not strictly necessary for my health, and therefore it is not worth the trade-off to my ethics given the circumstances in which I live, where even humanely-raised animals by law MUST be sent to the same horrific slaughterhouses featured in PETA videos.
That said, I do understand the reasons why people eat meat, and why they might be conflicted about it. Rather than focusing on eating less meat, I'd rather have any sympathetic omnivores out there help sway public opinion and policy to demand more natural and humane conditions for animals. Animal cruelty, like slavery, is in my mind not the sort of thing you should let the market decide. Rather, I believe a change in law and policy is necessary.
Mandating truly humane and natural conditions for animals, including adequate range upon which to feed themselves, would necessarily put an end to intensive factory farming and make meat more expensive, both of which would serve to reduce livestock populations and their accompanying environmental impact. I would be perfectly happy to see a world with ethical animal husbandry integrated into organic farming. Okay, so I would prefer that animals only be slaughtered when their own decreasing quality of life (rather than human appetite) dictates, but I would applaud any system in which slaughter was done with thought and respect.
Would a system like this be able to feed the world cheap meat? Nope. But please correct me if I'm wrong, don't we currently lose an awful lot of food value by cycling grain through livestock? It seems logically correct that we'd have an easier time feeding the world with plant foods than meat. (I could go into the reasons why hunger is a distribution problem rather than a supply problem, but that would be a digression. For now, let's assume that the human population will increase to the point where pure supply might someday be an issue).
A switch to small-scale and humane animal husbandry (which is actually the normal practice now for multitudes of rural / poor families and communities across the globe) would benefit planetary health, human health, and the evolution of the human soul. I believe we can get past this unfortunate period in which so many feel compelled by circumstances to participate in a system that is currently, at least to my way of thinking, terribly broken. Victory gardens and backyard chickens for all!
Permalink
Laura K Posted 2:57 pm
29 Jan 2007
I have two words for you. Crock pot. Two more. Bread machine.
You didn't really expect I could keep this to just two words, did you?
If I were you (or your wife) I'd go for stews, chili, casseroles, and hearty breads. All of these are easy--you just chop or measure stuff and then throw it in to the device of your choosing. Use beans, nuts, seeds, seitan, tofu, tempeh, tvp, and whole grains to make the meals filling. And greens. It's amazing how filling a big plate of cooked greens can be.
Use your microwave to zap veggies and then puree them in the blender for soup bases.
Or use your blender to make fruit smoothies with frozen fruit, protein powder, and soy / rice / or nut milk. I particularly like almond milk.
Cook up a big batch of whole wheat pasta or brown rice pasta and make a big casserole with the sauce of your choosing, meatless meat balls (I like Nate's brand), and whatever veggies you like.
Make a big pot of hot cereal with rolled oats or other rolled grains (for example, quinoa flakes or kamut flakes), nuts, frozen or fresh fruit, and some kind of sweetener like molasses or maple syrup. This is great reheated for quick breakfasts (quicker than a bowl of cereal!) or office lunches.
Thinking about it, I bet you could get some really good advice on mass vegan meals from any of the multitude of vegetarian cooperatives around here. (I live in the Bay Area too). No one knows more about stretching a dollar and feeding a pack of hungry veg*ns than those commie greenies.
Re: tasty vegan convenience foods, there are oodles.
Trader Joe's has big calorific semi-organic vegan bean burritos. They come in a two-pack in the frozen section. They also have yummy black bean and corn enchiladas, also a frozen two-pack, but these are less filling. For a big tray of vegan enchiladas, look for the 8 enchilada frozen pack, Amy's brand, at Whole Foods.
Health is Wealth makes vegan chicken nuggets breaded in whole wheat flour that are muy yummo. I get these at Rainbow Grocery in SF.
Whole Foods has a house-brand box of frozen breaded eggplant cutlets that make a great casserole layered with mashed tofu and vegetables / greens with tomato sauce.
Starlite Cuisine makes delish frozen rolled tacos in three or four different varieties from soy chorizo to garlic "chicken." I also get these at Rainbow.
For a treat, Amy's makes a frozen vegan pizza with carmelized onions, shitake mushrooms, red peppers, and artichoke hearts that is to die for. However, it is relatively small and has a low satiation to calorie ratio. I would use this as an appetizer or a side dish for a family of four.
I could go on, if this is helpful...
Permalink
Laura K Posted 3:05 pm
29 Jan 2007
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 9:13 pm
29 Jan 2007
Translation: "I'll eat as much industrial meat as I darn well want to because some of the people who don't are annoying me."
Enough already with the cheap shots and straw man arguments. Again the attempt to control the breadth of the discussion by mockery. Of all the posts in this thread there's hardly a one with a taint of vegan self-righteousness, but many that are clear and thoughtful and compassionate and inclusive.
Thank you Laura K for a wonderful contribution to the discussion.
Permalink
evanvoo Posted 11:53 pm
29 Jan 2007
Having said that, I greatly admire your openmindedness and your decision to try to shift towards a more plant-based diet. Yes, having a spouse and kids who regularly consume animal products certainly can make it more difficult. Perhaps it might be best to tell them about some of the discussions you've been having, and your thoughts on the environmental and animal welfare impact of one's diet. That way they might come to the same conclusions you have, and it will feel more like a communal decision and not like you've imposed a new family order.
As far as more tips to make the transition as easy as possible:
Try all the fake meat products on the market, and try to replace "real" meat with the fake ones you like best. My favorites are Morningstar Chikin' Strips, fake meatballs (great for spaghetti), Boca Burgers, Vegan Gardenburgers, Gimme Lean Sausage, and TVP (which tastes like immitation ground beef -- great in lasagne or chili).
Cook with a lot of fat (e.g., olive and canola oil, Earth Balance). I could be wrong, but I think the heaviness and richness of a food lies more in its fat content than the fact that the protein is animal instead of plant derived. Remember that a ground beef burger has about 10 times as much fat as a veggie burger, and this is one of the reasons the former tastes better and is more satisfying. So I would liberally use oil and margarine and Vegenaise on just about everything, especially when you're cooking with fake meats.
As other people have mentioned, try to make a couple of huge meals on the weekend, so you can have leftovers a couple days during the week.
Try to think about veganism less as a deprivation, and more as a way to open yourself up to many new and different foods. It becomes sort of a fun challenge, and you end up learning about and trying more foods than you probably ever would as an omnivore.
Just remember that every lit bit you can do helps, and it's not some major failure if you opt for a non-vegan food. If you ever feel like just giving up, then back off a bit and let yourself take it more slowly. At the same time, remember it's important to gently push yourself, just as you might encourage people to push themselves to drive less, even though it can be inconvenient and difficult at first.
Mihan: It is not true that transportation "accounts for many, many more times the greenhouse gas emissions than does agriculture." Agriculture creates more greenhouse gases than all forms of transportation combined. The most recent support for this is found in the FAO's report, which can be read at: http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/.... That being said, I completely agree and hope that environementalists would seek to eliminate cars from their lives. If I actually did have to choose between the two, though, I would choose to eliminate animal consumption, both because it has more of an environmental impact and because of the ethical issues involved.
And, lest I disappoint, I'll respond to your claim that dairy is similar to vegetables in ecological impact. The manure and gas of dairy cows are no less detrimental than those of beef cattle, and, given their longer (unnatural) lifespans, and the fact that they are kept constantly pregnant in order to continue lactating (and thus creating more cows), I would think that dairy cows are actually even worse for the environment.
--Erin
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 12:15 am
30 Jan 2007
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 1:21 am
30 Jan 2007
On slaughterhouses which PETA condemns (many others too): I do not know how accurate it is to say, as you do, that all animals, no matter how humanely raised, must be slaughtered in the same horrific way, sans glass walls. Kosher slaughtering is an entirely different thing. Here is an interesting discussion of the principle (in brief) of shechitah, with a comment on PETA's criticism of a major Kosher slaughterhouse:
http://www.jewfaq.org/peta.htm
Dear Erin/EVanVoo, I felt a pang of guilt when I read this sentence of yours: "As anyone who belongs to a minority will tell you, it sucks to bear the responsibility of being an entire group's spokesperson." Since I always sign off with a zoophilic slogan, perhaps it was my responsibility to join the several (you are hardly alone here!) vegetarians and vegans who have so valiantly promoted the cause on this thread.
(Being a gay man, by the way, a member of another minority group not well thought of everywhere, I have given up complaining about the vaguely homophobic connotation of "it sucks." But I still cry out against "that is so gay!")
In fact, you are all doing so well, and anyway this is not at all the first time that the issue has been raised. Plus, I am not competent to comment on all the specific food items that many of you have recommended.
Moreover, I firmly believe persuasion does not come quickly, and it certainly does not come by haranguing and shaming the person to be persuaded. We should lead by our example and our witness.
And there is no one whom I respect more than David, and whom I trust more to make a good ethical decision in his own time.
Meanwhile, I think we can all join in celebrating George McGovern's "profile in courage" moment (well, if that is what it was, and not a mere blunder), back in 1977, which Michael Pollan (in Sunday's NYTimes Magazine) clearly admires. The Senate Select Committee on Nutrition, which McGovern headed, "drafted a straightforward set of dietary guidelines calling on Americans to cut down on red meat and dairy products." A huge industrial counter-attack ensued, McGovern backed down, and still lost his Senate seat from rancher-rich SD. Nevertheless Pollan thinks that original simple advice is a fine place to start, in talking about what all of us should eat.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 2:09 am
30 Jan 2007
From my perspective, you are the one attempting to control the breadth of discussions with humor free diatribes against individual posters (your rapist analogy fell pretty flat) backed up with one-line cheers for those who share your viewpoint.
Mockery, which you have repeatedly called a tool of bullies, is just a form of humor, along with satire, and sarcasm. Grist is a funny place. You will see those things being used to critique Bush, and lots of people and ideas. My remark wasn't aimed at any individual. If it happened to hit a little too close for comfort, my apologies.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Laura K Posted 2:12 am
30 Jan 2007
To JS, I am glad we agree in large part. Your arguments make sense to me too. For many years I also thought the world would be a better place if everyone were vegan. However, these days I'm not so sure. As tico89 pointed out, there is precious little place in the world for livestock animals if humans don't raise them. ("Hey Mavis, what happened to your camelias?" "Wild cows got 'em. Dang things come out into the suburbs at night.")
So is it better as a species to be extinct, maybe with a few token representatives in a zoo, or to live a good life and be humanely put down at the end of it, as we do for pets? Really, how does an animal die in nature? By disease, infection, predation, intra-species fighting / murder, or starvation, right? Not very pretty. In contrast, having a human respectfully take the life of an animal and then use its parts (compassionate predation?) seems like a good option. Better really than how we treat our own elderly whose lives are extended by modern medicine until the bitter end, often whether they like it or not since easy, painless assisted suicide is not yet much of an option.
To caniscandida, you are right that not all slaughterhouses are the same, and some are worse than others. Thank you for your link. Kosher slaughter is among the best since compassion is an active guideline, and I agree that cutting the throat is probably one of the most humane methods. My comment that all animals end up in horrific slaughterhouses was overstated, but was directed toward the fact that organic / humane small-scale farmers are not, by law, allowed to personally butcher their own animals on the farm as was done in the past, so they are not in control of how the slaughter is performed.
Re: kosher slaughter specifically, I confess I do not have enough information about the current state of kosher slaughter. In the past I have read about a significant problem due to US law that requires that animals not be killed on the ground. Because of this law, large animals like a cow must be hoisted and shackled (upside down) to a wall, fully conscious as required by kosher law, suspending her full weight on one (possibly now broken) leg, causing the animal great distress and pain as it waits for the knife. And for efficiency and safety for the guy with the knife, many animals may be hoisted in a line, extending the time of their suffering. I would welcome more data on whether this is still the practice.
Permalink
willa Posted 2:46 am
30 Jan 2007
The world is unlikely to go vegan in one day. Simply reducing (eventually to zero) the breeding of animals intended to be slaughtered for food would do it. And if the world did become vegan tomorrow, and all those animals were to become superfluous, they'd either (ideally) live out as normal and healthy a life as possible, or else be slaughtered...but they were slated to be slaughtered anyway, as are millions of animals not yet born or even conceived. So how, exactly, would the (extremely farfetched) scenario you bring up be worse?
LauraK,
I agree with you that humane treatment of animals is the important thing, but I think you're giving the rural poor more credit than they deserve. Not to knock the rural poor--I certainly prefer them to (most of) the urban rich, and understand the need for attention to social justice issues.
However, I've also spent a fair amount of time observing how the rural poor actually treat their animals, and it ain't always pretty. For background, I've worn a number of hats, including that of cruelty investigator, for a horse rescue in New Mexico, and I've spent over twenty years as part of the largely rural, largely poor community of horsepeople in northern and central NM. What I've learned is that people, in general, are abusive to animals when they think it benefits them to do so.
Rich people do it too, don't get me wrong--the $20K horses drugged so they can compete despite their injuries, etc--but when people are struggling to feed their families, not very many of them are going to come up with extra cash when their animals' injuries require veterinary treatment. If their animals can produce whatever commodity (meat, eggs, transportation, etc) with less care and less expensive feed than what's optimal for the animals' happiness, then that's what they'll get.
Also, many of the world's more traditional cultures lack any tendency to view animals as having emotions or mental needs, thus taking away any motivation to attend to animals' wants in addition to their bare physical needs.
Having few enough animals that you can actually pay attention to each one is certainly a precondition for humane treatment, but when you add other stresses like poverty and lack of education, not to mention lack of availability of veterinary care, etc, in rural areas, the picture is not rosy. Just like rich people, some poor people have a special love for animals, but being poor and living in the country certainly doesn't guarantee it, and if anything makes it less likely, given that, when something has to give in a subsistence economy, it's most often something, like an animal, that can't fight back.
Check out this HSUS page for more on efforts to combat these problems, at least for horses (and it seems they also aim to help other draft animals)
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 3:05 am
30 Jan 2007
Meat eating can be done in small quantities, like in chinese food, or in Indian food...or even Italian food. The meat is eating in small slices or bits, or is in a sauce.
The debate here is of words and definitions, not of proteins and lifestyle:
Slider Bar Nouns
The Texeme Construct offers international text memetics construction and textcasting services.
Permalink
willa Posted 3:09 am
30 Jan 2007
There are some really good canned veggie chilis (that is, tex-mex "chili", which is different from actual chile :) ) out there.
Short-grain brown rice, cooked to be just chewy, with kidney beans. Yum. Better w/cheese, of course, but you can put some nutritional yeast and only a little cheese for texture.
Soup. Mmm, soup. Start by sauteeing onions and/or garlic in plenty of olive oil. My two favorite soups are green chile and butternut squash. For the chile, I add the (roasted, chopped) chile to the onions and sautee a bit longer, then add water, salt, pepper, and cubed potatoes, cook till the potatoes are almost done, then add corn, tomatoes, and Quorn chicken tenders.
For the squash soup, I start with the onions, and once they're partly cooked, add the squash (and fennel, sometimes--it's great with fennel [bulbs only--save the tops for garnish]), cooking until the squash is slightly tender. Then I add water, salt, pepper, a potato or two (helps make it thick and creamy), and whatever spices I deem necessary. You can also add the spices to the onions and oil as they cook, which works especially well if you're using red chile powder (yes, chile, it's an obsession. I miss home.). I then cook everything till it's tender, and puree it. I have a stick blender--a blender on a stick, really, which sounds weird, but is incredibly useful, and everyone who makes creamed soups should have one--so I puree it right in the pot. I add a little milk, because I can't stand soy or rice milk, and I think almond milk would taste weird in soup, but of course YMMV.
Creamed soups are wonderful served with Frontier veggie bacon bits, and/or nutritional yeast, and/or chopped herbs (and fennel tops!) and/or a sprinkle of real, dairy parmesan.
And fwiw, I have tried some of the other stuff people recommended, and some of it's good, but some of it's gross (to me, that is). The non-trans-fat margarine I found weirdly gelatinous and not at all buttery. The soy mayo, however, has convinced me to give mayonnaise, which I've always loathed, another try. The morningstar chicken strips did nothing for me, especially compared to Quorn products. So, all I'm saying is, it takes some experimenting; don't give up on an entire family of vegan (or nearly vegan) products just because one brand is gross. Clearly we all have strong preferences, which is why there are so many brands, and you may find the stuff I like gross and the stuff someone else recommeded quite yummy.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 3:17 am
30 Jan 2007
From Michael Pollan's latest NYT Mag piece:
Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.
That, more or less, is the short answer to the supposedly incredibly complicated and confusing question of what we humans should eat in order to be maximally healthy. ... And you're much better off eating whole fresh foods than processed food products. That's what I mean by the recommendation to eat "food." Once, food was all you could eat, but today there are lots of other edible foodlike substances in the supermarket. These novel products of food science often come in packages festooned with health claims, which brings me to a related rule of thumb: if you're concerned about your health, you should probably avoid food products that make health claims. Why? Because a health claim on a food product is a good indication that it's not really food, and food is what you want to eat. Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.
From above-mentioned vegan chef Isa Chandra Moscovitz:
I think vegan cooks need to learn to cook vegetables first...Then maybe they can be allowed to move on to meat substitutes."
Victual Reality
Permalink
Laura K Posted 3:23 am
30 Jan 2007
I like the model of small scale animal husbandry incorporated into family and community life, combined with an educated, compassionate approach to animal care and end of life. Best of both worlds. What can I say, I'm a dreamer.
Of course, economics always figures in to how animals are treated, whether those animals are livestock or pets (or human family members, for that matter). This is where policy and education can be helpful in moving toward new (or is it old?) cultural practices and standards. You'll never convince or be able to police all people to be kind, caring, and respectful, but you can encourage it.
Permalink
evanvoo Posted 4:05 am
30 Jan 2007
Renowned animal scientist (and enthusiastic meateater) Temple Grandin, who has visited numerous ritual slaughter plants, has written: "After visiting one plant in which five steers were hung up in a row to await slaughter, I had nightmares. The animals were hitting the walls and their bellowing could be heard in the parking lot. In some plants, the suspended animal's head is restrained by a nosetong... [S]tretching of the neck by pulling on the nose is painful. Suspension upside-down also causes great discomfort."
--Erin
Permalink
kevcon Posted 4:44 am
30 Jan 2007
Food choice is a challenging issue as there is obviously a great deal of sensitivity to such personal issues as eating, health, and long-held cultural assumptions and religious perspectives of the human/animal relationship and a very strong inclination/reluctance to change views and behaviors not to mention the great many barriers to informing one's self and making informed food choices and to understanding our modern food systems' health and environmental impacts, such as the price supports and corporate control of government agricultural policies and school lunch programs, etc. and commercial brainwashing and psychological manipulation in our schools and on TV by the corporate medical establishment and corporate agribusiness who spend big $ to perpetuate the status quo of unhealthy food and chemical pharmceuticals to address the cancer and disease from over-meat consumption and petro-chemical and GMO laden plant foods and processed 'food.'
As I've evolved my own understanding of these relationships it is often challenging to share information and challenge well-meaning but misinformed individuals as evidenced in this and similar discussions about eating animal flesh and their secretions and the impacts of their mass production on our land, water, air quality and their underestimated impacts on global climate change, as each of us are on our own evolution of understanding about these matters.
This is particularly challenging when one works in the context of non-profits focused on promoting human and planetary well-being and justice such as I do. The cognitive dissonance of the denial of the impacts from our individual and societal food choices on our environment does prove exasperating at times. I have to remind myself to respect other's views and not get to a place of resentment, mental anguish or rage and to an extent I've come to realize that we can only really ever change ourselves and can't expect a radical or immediate transformation of views and behaviors in others who are on their own paths of discovery and growth or of passive acceptance and stagnation.
In the end we can only be empowered and healthy through our own decisions and behaviors and perhaps to serve as an example of other possibilities and potentials to others and to cajole with information and fun and encouragement rather than dictate with negativity.
To the 'environmentalists' who rage against perceived vegan intollerence and an apparent overzealousness in promoting their views; when you feel this way or seek to cast stones at them because it makes you feel uncomfortable about your choices and the role your food choices are playing in diminishing the quality of life and our environemnt, instead of attacking these 'straw men' you may want to consider how those who aren't as 'enlightened' as you are say about carbon emissions, for example, when you rant about travel choice and seek to enforce a 'no car' rule or other such behavioral choice/lifestyle changes that you percieve as having value in protecting our environment, but which irritate their cultural norm, religous view and/or their ignorance of the 'facts' willful or as genuine as their ignorance may be.
And actually in this example of carbon emission and global warming if you only ever walk or ride a bike but still consume industrially produced animal flesh you are only part of the way to making any meaningful contribution to reducing your impact on global climate change. (See UN and numerous other reports on the climate impacts of meat eating.)
Food is of obvious vital importance to human health and well-being, and the over consumption of animal products is at the nexus of current and future concerns involving:
human health issues (cancer, heart attacks, childhood obesity, diseases from bio-accumulated toxins in the environment and from the naturally occurring and added hormones and chemicals in industrial meat. etc),
environmental (soil erosion/loss, water contamination, air pollution, over fishing, species diversity loss, global warming, role of key species in environmental vitality etc.),
animal welfare (animal kindred-ness, individual right to life of not just species but individual animals; our role in the pain, suffering and killing of fellow beings, etc.) and
spiritual (karma, ahimsa, non-violence, well-being, bodily incorporation of pain and suffering, disease and death, vampirism - eating of flesh and blood manifests in the bloodlust quest for more flesh and blood inherent in violence against others, such as hunting, domestic violence, war.).
I certainly relate to discussing these challenges to our own and our environments health in regard to long-held views and eating behaviors of those with whom we love and hope will understand the consequences of their choices and actions. These are vital considerations but obviously tricky to promote within our social and work contexts without stirring upset, resentment, ridicule, attacking the messenger, etc.
Here's to all who are at least aware enough, interested enough and concerned enough to even engage in the conversation about best approaches for personal, organizational and societal transformation necessary for our and the planet's health and well-being.
Good luck to all of us.
Here are a couple articles that I came upon recently that relate to these matters of diet, human health and the environmental impacts (in this example of global climate change) of the human animals' mass consumption of other animals.
STUDY OF THE WEEK:
HUMAN GUINEA PIGS EAT APE DIET
In a British experiment filmed for television, nine volunteers agreed to set-up camp in a zoo and eat an ape's diet for 12 days. The goal of the experiment was to create a visual documentary of the types of reactions that would take place from giving up standard processed foods in favor of a diet eaten for hundreds of millions of years by our ancestors. The diet included 2,300 calories of fruits, vegetables, nuts and honey each day. Fish oil was introduced part way through the experiment to reflect a hunter-gatherer's diet. Once getting over withdrawal symptoms from caffeine and excitotoxins in their standard diets, the volunteers reported increased energy levels. Experiment volunteers all lost weight and substantially decreased cholesterol and blood pressure levels.
Learn more: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_3847.cfm...
TIP OF THE WEEK:
THE MEAT YOU EAT IS CRANKING UP THE HEAT
The United Nations has sent tremors through the livestock industry with a new report that states, "The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." The report shows that livestock production accounts for more greenhouse gases than automobiles. For every calorie of meat consumed, at least ten calories of fossil fuels were required to produce that meat. Animal agriculture takes up 70% of all agricultural land, and 30% of the total land surface of the planet. Today, 70% of "slash-and-burned" Amazon rainforest is used for pastureland, and feed crops cover much of the remainder. The ultimate ramifications of the report suggest that the average American can do more to reduce global warming emissions by adjusting their meat eating habits than by switching to driving the most fuel efficient car currently on the market. Negative environmental impacts can be greatly reduced by reducing (or eliminating) meat consumption and buying locally grown and sustainably produced meats, dairy and animal products.
Learn more: http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_3853.cfm...
and since Michael Pollan's essay was cited and his writings discussed in this thread you may also be interested in:
Engaging with the Omnivore
The Satya Interview with Michael Pollan
http://www.satyamag.com/sept06/pollan.html
Pollan: "Where I have the utmost respect for vegans and vegetarians is, unlike most of us, they give a lot of thought to the implications of their eating decisions. That's the big step, to pay attention and play out the ramifications of what happens when you eat this and not that. If you come out at a slightly different place--willing to eat a certain kind of meat under certain circumstances, or no meat or no animal products at all--that matters less to me than the fact you've undergone that exercise. If more people were conscious about their eating decisions, many problems would end. I feel a lot of solidarity with vegetarians because they've taken the biggest step, which is to start thinking."
Permalink
Gregory Dicum Posted 4:58 am
30 Jan 2007
Yes, it's true; it's all-too-easy for a veg diet to be a diet of over-processed industrial aliments.
Not long ago, our household acquired one of these:
http://www.fagoramerica.com/fagor/express.htm
And our diet has been transformed. Imagine going from dry beans to hearty, delicious chili in little more than half an hour. Or raw potatoes and leeks to warming soup in under fifteen minutes. It's just amazing; an actual magic wand.
Everyone should have one in their kitchen, for both the time and energy savings. I wish someone had turned me on to pressure cookers decades ago!
my books: The Coffee Book | Window Seat
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 5:11 am
30 Jan 2007
Mockery, which you have repeatedly called a tool of bullies, is just a form of humor, along with satire, and sarcasm. Grist is a funny place. You will see those things being used to critique Bush, and lots of people and ideas.
I guess we must agree to disagree on whether mockery is "just a form of humor". And are you seriously comparing vegan proselytes to George Bush and his cronies? I don't say there's not a place for mockery at least in the political arena, but please, save it for your enemies.
Moving right along, Tom Philpott aptly refers to Pollan and Moskovitch in a note of caution on the ersatz "meatless meats". I agree, and prefer my own veggie burgers (recipe above) to the store-bought kind. I know what's in them and I can make each batch a little different.
I stopped eating meat in 1983 because of distaste at industrial production and don't miss it a bit, other than that I get an occasional yearning for a BLT. Any suggestions for a meatless version which does not use faux bacon?
Permalink
Pandu Posted 5:24 am
30 Jan 2007
At this point the main reason is probably that meat eaters like to bash vegans, either because they think its fun or to suppress any guilt about their own diets, and so they continue perpetuate an outdated stereotype.
One afternoon fifteen years ago I handed out anti-meat flyers in a McD's parking lot. I haven't even seen or heard of such a thing since that day.
Commenting on a blog is not exactly the same as shoving slaughter photos and facts in people's car windows.
I just don't see any of this in-your-face sort of stuff, either in real life or online. Mostly it seems like the thing that's upsetting meat eaters now isn't the vegans themselves (I'm lacto-veg, not vegan), but the facts themselves.
Unfortunately, those facts are not pretty. Animal slaughter is brutal. Animals feel pain, both physical and emotional. It's hard to avoid sounding condescending when reminding people that an animal was unnecessarily, forcibly killed for their dinner. (The word "duh" comes to mind.)
In the minute I spent wondering how to conclude this comment, about 20,000 more animals were killed for food in the USA. No doubt a lot more will die while I am trying to think of a way to say all this without offending anyone.
Permalink
KathyF Posted 5:25 am
30 Jan 2007
I'm a very lazy person, so trust me when I say you will eventually find cooking a vegan meal is a lot easier than cooking with meat. The vast majority of the meals I cook are on the table in less than 30 minutes. And I don't own a crock pot.
Realize that a plate of plant food has a lot fewer calories than meat. Eat more, and yes, add lots of oil--you can afford it, calorie-wise.
Stop thinking of your plate as being divided into three parts, like one of those Chinet plates. Instead, think of it as a circle, with grains on the bottom, heaped with vegetables and other things on top.
I hear what you say about cheese and dairy--but when you haven't eaten butter in several months, you will find it tastes rancid. I can now detect its presence in a cookie, and it's pretty awful.
BTW, I'm not a 100% vegan--I call myself a "don't ask, don't tell" vegan, meaning if you give me a cookie I don't ask if it's made with eggs, mainly because I don't want to offend. I figure that by following a 98% vegan diet, I'm getting 99% of the benefit, with only about 10% of the effort. It's that last 2% that takes 90% of the effort. (Especially here in England, where restaurants rarely have anything vegan on the menu.)
I post recipes every Wednesday on my blog. Tomorrow will be the red beans and rice we've been eating the last two days. Tonight I served it with bread pudding. (Yes, made without milk or eggs.) I'm stuffed!
To everyone else who's commented, especially about the way vegans are always assumed to be obnoxious: Yes, it does get tiresome to always carry the burden of that obnoxious, pale and sickly vegan everyone else seems to know! Personally, I've had it with meat eaters whose first reaction to learning I'm vegan is to sneer, to brag about how much meat they eat, to shove their steak in my face, to make the same unfunny jokes repeatedly--yet I recognize that these people are, thankfully, in the minority. Most people could care less what I eat.
For LauraK, a book recommendation: Peter Singer's The Way We Eat: Why our food choices matter. There's a lot in there about slaughterhouses, poultry farms, and other issues. He goes way beyond Pollan in examining where our food comes from.
And Patrick, I may be the exception to your experience with vegans who don't care about human suffering. I can't watch my daughter's basketball games without crying every time one of the girls gets hurt. It's so bad I have to wear dark sunglasses now to hide my tears.
Happy eating, everyone!
Permalink
Gregory Dicum Posted 5:26 am
30 Jan 2007
Try this, from "The New Now & Zen Epicure"
8 oz pressed or firm tofu
2-3 tbs oil
3 tbs nutritional yeast flakes
3 tbs soy sauce
1 tsp liquid smoke
Slice tofu into bacon-shaped pieces. Heat oil in skillet, cook tofu over medium-low flame until golden and crispy on one side (can take a while, due to low flame). Flip and brown other side. It should be very brown and crispy. Sprinkle with nuturitional yeast, add soy sauce and liquid smoke, and stir quickly to coat evenly. Cook a bit more, and serve!
I recommend "The New Now & Zen Epicure" very highly, by the way. It has tons of innovative uses of japanese ingredients (miso, umeboshi, etc) in western dishes (pesto, gravy, casseroles) that really makes for delicious and not-very-hard vegan cuisine. The author is Miyoko Nishimoto Schinner.
my books: The Coffee Book | Window Seat
Permalink
Laura K Posted 5:32 am
30 Jan 2007
*
I found this recipe on vegsource.com
Cut tempeh or thawed (previously frozen) Tofu
into thin strips. Fry in a little oil until crispy
on both sides. Put on a plate.
Sprinkle on both sides with:
Hickory smoked salt, Nutritional yeast, Sugar or other dry sweetener
Serve immediately.
Experiment with different thicknesses of slices to see which you like best.
*
This one is from fatfree.com
1 pkg. LF tofu
2T low sodium shoyu, tamari, aminoes, etc.
1t liquid smoke
2T nutritional yeast
Mix the shoyu and liquid smoke and set aside. Slice the tofu lengthwise very thinly, and then in half again lengthwise to make a poor approximation of the shape of bacon (g). Fry in a non-stick pan on medium-high until it's as close to 'crispy' as you have patience to make it (I gave up after 30 mins). Take pan off the heat and add smoky shoyu mixture. Stir thoroughly and place back on the heat. Sprinkle yeast over and continue to stir until the liquid cooks away and you have a sticky mess. It looks icky but it really tastes a lot like bacon - put a BLT sandwich back on the menu!
*
Here's another variation from allrecipes.com
INGREDIENTS
* 1 (7.5 ounce) package smoked firm tofu, frozen and thawed
* 1 tablespoon nutritional yeast
* 1 tablespoon water
* 2 tablespoons maple syrup
* 1 dash liquid smoke flavoring (optional)
* 2 tablespoons low-sodium soy sauce
* 1 teaspoon onion powder
* 1/2 teaspoon garlic powder
* 2 tablespoons butter or margarine
DIRECTIONS
1. Slice the thawed tofu into very thin slices (like bacon). In a medium bowl, stir together the yeast, water, maple syrup, liquid smoke, soy sauce, onion powder and garlic powder. Place the tofu strips into the bowl to marinate for at least 10 minutes.
2. Heat butter or margarine in a large skillet over medium-high heat. Quickly fry tofu strips until crisp, turning once, about 5 minutes. Drain on paper towels, and serve immediately.
*
Good luck!
Permalink
anthony11 Posted 6:37 am
30 Jan 2007
Hillside Quickies in Seattle / Tacoma have a VLT on their menu which is quite good.
Quorn is meat in disguise. If you don't consider eggs to be meat, you either haven't thought about it, or are a weasel of the highest order.
I'm on the board of an AR 501c3, and I hand out anti-meat and pro-veg literature all the time. I tend to not be in-your-face, but do lots of outreach with a positive slant.
Permalink
mihan Posted 6:38 am
30 Jan 2007
Olive oil is Food.
Walnuts are Food.
Beans are Food (and I've made black bean burgers; they were delicious! but delicate).
Carrots are Food.
Chicken is Food.
If you make the vegan "hotdogs" yourself from Food, then you can call them Food. If you extracted them from a cocoon of cardboard and plastic, they are not Food.
Elizabeth David said, "Cooking well is trouble." I might paraphrase her, "Cooking Food is trouble." But, just like choosing whether to drive or not or choosing whether to eat meat or not, you choose whether to eat Food or not. And I (and Dr. Pollan) maintain, a chicken that lived and died dozens of miles from my house is more Food than a vegan "hotdog" purchased at Whole Foods.
Permalink
Laura K Posted 7:34 am
30 Jan 2007
I was curious, so I checked the ingredients in a Smart Dog vegan hotdog. Here they are, per their website.
"Made from water, soy protein isolate, wheat gluten, evaporated cane juice, salt, yeast extract, soy sauce (water, soybeans, wheat, salt), granulated garlic, carrageenan, spice extracts, natural flavors (from vegetable sources), vegetable gum, natural liquid smoke flavor, potassium chloride, tomato pulp. No nitrites. No MSG."
I think reasonable people can debate whether these and other vegan convenience items are "food." I can pronounce all the things on the above ingredients list. I know what they are. I have had most of them in my kitchen. Nothing on the list scares me, although I was surprised to learn via Wikipedia that potassium chloride is one of the components used in lethal injection! Still, in my mind, what is "processed" vs. "food" is not black and white, but more of a continuum.
Reasonable people can also debate which is preferable in terms of environmental impact, soy dogs or non-soy chickens. I suspect it's largely a wash, with the soy dog processing and transportation and the cultivation of cheap GMO soy beans balancing out the hormones and antibiotics and cultivation of cheap grain feed and the pollution caused by the concentrated waste of your locally produced chicken. --Actually now that I think more about it, my money is on the soy dog. Would love to see a detailed analysis. I have a feeling something similar has already been done.
I think Michael Pollan makes a provocative and sage argument about what we eat that is compatible with either a vegetarian/vegan diet or an omnivorous one. We'd all do well to take his message to heart. But just as I don't think giving up all meat is necessary for planetary or personal health, I suspect neither is giving up all processed foods.
Permalink
Laura K Posted 7:57 am
30 Jan 2007
Amy's Kitchen California Veggie Burger
INGREDIENTS : (VEGAN) ORGANIC MUSHROOMS, ORGANIC ONIONS, ORGANIC BULGAR WHEAT, ORGANIC CELERY, ORGANIC CARROTS, ORGANIC OATS, ORGANIC WALNUTS, WHEAT GLUTEN, ORGANIC POTATOES, SEA SALT, EXPELLER PRESSED HIGH OLEIC SAFFLOWER OIL, ORGANIC GARLIC. CONTAINS WHEAT & WALNUTS
Morning Star Farms Grillers Original.
Ingredients:
Textured vegetable protein (wheat gluten, soy protein concentrate, water for hydration), egg whites, corn oil, calcium caseinate, contains two percent or less of modified tapioca starch, onion powder, canola oil, triglycerides from coconut oil, hydrolyzed vegetable protein (corn gluten, wheat gluten, soy protein), dextrose, salt, soy protein isolate, autolyzed yeast extract, sugar, natural and artificial flavors from non-meat sources, caramel color, cultured whey, maltodextrin, garlic powder, spice, cellulose gum, disodium guanylate, disodium inosinate, soy sauce (water, soybeans, salt, wheat), vitamins and minerals (niacinamide, iron [ferrous sulfate], thiamin mononitrate [vitamin B1], pyridoxine hydrochloride [vitamin B6], riboflavin [vitamin B2], vitamin B12), sesame seed oil, celery extract, soy lecithin.
Permalink
evanvoo Posted 8:07 am
30 Jan 2007
It turns out that meat loses in every category--even versus GM, conventional, highly processed soy products. So if you wish to follow the least harmful diet for the environment, it's best to forgo the meat in favor of anything, in any form, that is plant-based.
That being said, please opt for non-GMO, organic, local soy products when possible!
--Erin
Permalink
kevcon Posted 9:55 am
30 Jan 2007
the Nation's reviewer, Daniel Lazare, was not nearly as chairtable as Tom and a whole lot more missinformed and downright crude, you can read it here: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070205/lazare
It wa...
and their comment/rants number over 400 covering similar and even more hyperbolic rhetoric as posted here,
and there is vegan writer's reply to the Nation's book review, at: http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/
Meat-eater's State of "The Nation" by Mickey Z
So it seems that Tristram Stuart's history book has tied all manner of carnivorous "progressives" and "environmentalists" small intestines into a knot.
To paraphrase Nick Lowe: What's so funny about peace, love, animal compassion, environmental values and understanding?
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 9:58 am
30 Jan 2007
Let's be careful not to make the situation too black and white, though. Life-cycle analyses can help separate and elucidate factors at play, but they also raise questions. There is some indication in these studies that sustainably raised, locally procured meat-based diets can hold their own, environmentally, against heavily processed, far-shipped veggie diets. So I prefer to believe that eating my local bacon is better than eating frozen veggie burgers, not just gastronomically but ecologically. Of course, we still may eat veg for a multitude of other reasons. Like, for example, baby sheep are cute.
Victual Reality
Permalink
kevcon Posted 9:58 am
30 Jan 2007
It was also posted on AlterNet
http://ww.alternet.org/story/47007/
and their comment/rants number over 400 covering similar and even more hyperbolic rhetoric as posted here,
sorry
Permalink
tico89 Posted 10:11 am
30 Jan 2007
My comment about 'the day the world goes vegan' was actually meant metaphorically, not literally. What I meant was that as more and more people stop eating meat, eventually the situation will reach a tipping-point where there is not enough demand to make livestock breeding worthwhile. If the past and the present are anything to go by (climate change?) no one will take any action until it is too late to humanely reduce the breeding of livestock, and from that time onwards there is no return for the breeders for every blade of grass the animals eat. Therefore, it will make much more economic sense for them to slaughter the animals, or alternately drive them off their land and into the wild, where they will be in a totally foreign environment which they cannot cope with (and will be killed by predators) or alternately will completely mess up the ecosystem. So, lose-lose situation.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 10:19 am
30 Jan 2007
http://www.notmilk.com/carageenan.html
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 10:27 am
30 Jan 2007
Do your body and farmers (who get pennies on the dollar for money spent TVP): make time to cook and eat real food. Also, unless explicitly stated, know that all such crap as TVP, including "isolated soy protein,soy protein concentrate, soy-based milk products, soy flours and soy protein meat substitutes
(Harvest Burgers and Harvest Burgers for Recipes" come from GMO seeds.
Here's that bit from an ADM doc:
Oilseed meals supply more than one-half of the high protein ingredients used in the manufacture of commercial
livestock and poultry feeds. Soybean meal is further processed into soy flour and grits, used in both food and industrial products, and into value-added soy protein products. Textured vegetable protein (TVP), a soy protein product developed by the Company, is sold primarily to the institutional food market and, through others, to the food consumer market. The Company also produces a wide range of other edible soy protein products including isolated soy protein,soy protein concentrate, soy-based milk products, soy flours and soy protein meat substitutes
(Harvest Burgers and Harvest Burgers for Recipes). The Company produces and markets a wide range of consumer and institutional health foods based on the Company's various soy protein products, including soy-derived isoflavones. The
Company produces cottonseed flour which is sold primarily to the pharmaceutical industry. Cotton cellulose pulp is manufactured and sold to the chemical, paper and filter markets
Victual Reality
Permalink
evanvoo Posted 11:29 am
30 Jan 2007
I would like to note for those who might not know, if the soy or soy product is labeled organic, it is not GMO. Relatedly, a frighteningly high percentage of corn and corn derived products--which seem to be as ubiquitous as soy products in processed foods--are also GMO (unless, again, they are labeled organic). Luckily, such a large proportion of vegan foods--such as many varieties of veggie burgers--are organic, so it's really quite easy to avoid GMO soy. Of course, I completely agree that it is almost always best to stick to whole foods, and to keep consumption of processed foods to a minimum.
I do, however, still tend to believe that, if deciding between local meat and highly processed vegan food, the latter is preferable from an environmental point of view. I have yet to read the UCS book, though, so perhaps I'm wrong. I was a little confused with Umbra's post, as after laying out all of the science and numbers that demonstrate meat's enormous toll on the environment, she asserts (with no science or numbers) that:
"There is some indication in these studies that sustainably raised, locally procured meat-based diets can hold their own, environmentally, against heavily processed, far-shipped veggie diets. So I prefer to believe that eating my local bacon is better than eating frozen veggie burgers, not just gastronomically but ecologically."
Perhaps this would be more convincing if I knew what "some indication" is, and what the phrase "can hold their own" means. But if the facts to which these phrases refer are less than compelling, then it would seem the "I prefer to believe" part sums up the basis of her claim. But, again, I still have yet to read the report.
--Erin
Permalink
Laura K Posted 12:49 pm
30 Jan 2007
If Umbra chooses to eat her bacon, that's up to her. It's no worse than my choice to eat TVP. And even if it were worse, I imagine Umbra offsets her impact in ways I've never even contemplated.
Permalink
Karen Orr Posted 1:09 pm
30 Jan 2007
I've put together links to reports, articles, websites and books about the effects of animal agriculture on the environment and health. I hope there's something here of interest to you.
EarthSave Report: A New Global Warming Strategy:
How Environmentalists are Overlooking Vegetarianism as
the Most Effective Tool Against Climate Change in OUr
Lifetimes by Noam Mohr
http://www.earthsave.org/globalwarming.htm
Sustain...
Diet, Energy and Global Warming - University of Chicago report:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~gidon/papers/nutri/nutriEI.pd...
Livestock's Long Shadow - U.N. report
http://www.virtualcentre.org/en/library/key_pub/longshad/...
The Poor Get Stuffed by George Monbiot
We cannot feed the world's livestock and the world's people:
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/12/24/the-poor-get-s...
Veganism in a Nutshell by Bruce Friedrich:
http://www.drstevebest.org/papers/book_reviews/vegannutsh...
Rainforest Destruction: What's Meat Got to Do With It? by Steven Best:
http://www.drstevebest.org/papers/vegenvani/rainforest.ph...
The Coming Crisis: Environmental Disaster, The Global Meat Culture,
And Your Health by Steven Best:
http://www.drstevebest.org/papers/vegenvani/crisis.php
Permalink
Karen Orr Posted 1:22 pm
30 Jan 2007
Sustainability of meat-based and
plant-based diets and the environment
by David Pimentel and Marcia Pimentel
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/660S#FN2...
PCRM on Vegan & Vegetarian Diets:
http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/
NC State Unive...
Permalink
KathyF Posted 11:31 pm
30 Jan 2007
Permalink
willa Posted 1:12 am
31 Jan 2007
I respect your point about tvp and Quorn not being food, but, as I must have said several times by now, I never held myself up as a person who cares about what I eat for my own health. I do eat mostly things you would consider "food", but when I crave meat and can have a Quorn patty instead (cooked in the toaster! I love that I can toast them like slices of bread...), the environment and the animals definitely win, and my body, well, who knows, but I'm not so sure Quorn is worse for me than dead chicken flesh. I am one of those unfortunate vegetarians who still struggles after years and years; I love animals, I spend lots of time trying to help them, I know all about the meat industry, and yet I can drive past Burger King and start salivating at the scent. So it's very important for me to have substitutes that satisfy the cravings, and if that means adding a little not-food to my diet every once in a while, well, so be it. I think that's an important for people to understand when they're considering stopping eating meat, that there are steps they can take to feel satisfied without eating meat.
KathyF,
Yeah, that website does seem a little...biased, perhaps?
I'm not an advocate of eating non-food things, but I will say that "I can't pronounce it" or "the name sounds similar to a toxic chemical" are not good reasons to not eat something. Just because something has a chemical name, an awful lot of people assume it's "artificial" and "chemical"--Ack, oh no, sodium bicarbonate! Oh, wait, that's baking soda...
In general, making everything from scratch and not eating things with, for example, high-fructose corn syrup in them makes good sense, but I for one will never eat only things that make sense, so I try to keep some perspective on what's really important about the whole thing. To me, the order of things I care about regarding food is:
Animal welfare.
Environment.
Enjoyment.
Health.
Naturally, others have other priorities, but I think it's disingenuous to assume health and the environment are really priorities that always supsersede pleasure.
Permalink
sunflower Posted 1:40 am
31 Jan 2007
Permalink
oystercatcher Posted 3:47 am
31 Jan 2007
On the other hand, I have the greatest respect for the ability of arctic peoples to survive and thrive in the worlds coldest regions. From my readings, their diet is nearly all meat and they have lived that way for a very long time.
I agree with the philosophy not eating meat in our current overcrowded world but at the same time would never interfere with the culture or subsistence of arctic dwellers.
A book I can recommend is "the last kings of thule" by jean malaurie
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 5:28 am
31 Jan 2007
The ultimate ramifications of the report suggest that the average American can do more to reduce global warming emissions by adjusting their meat eating habits than by switching to driving the most fuel efficient car currently on the market
That didn't sound right, so I just ran some rough numbers based on the amount of feed it takes to raise two average hogs for market. If the average American were to eat 250 pounds of pork a year for their meat intake they would use the equivalent of about five or six gas tank fill ups. So, as far as CO2 is concerned, driving a car is far worse than eating pork. So the next time someone says his veganism trumps your bike riding, tell him he's full of spinach, especially if you eat only twenty pounds of meat (pork) a year and drive a Prius. This is called an ecological footprint pissing match.
I like ham sandwiches. I often keep a package of thinly sliced ham in the fridge (about 0.05" thick). I can slap a piece on multigrain bread with some mayo, a tomato, add some potato chips, wash two or three of these babies down with skim milk and be off doing other things in about twenty minutes. That thin piece of ham seems minuscule but makes a big difference in the flavor.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Pandu Posted 6:24 am
31 Jan 2007
I did the same sorts of calculations about 15 years ago, after which I became a vegetarian. My calculations produced conclusions that are consistent with what I read about the report. (I haven't read the actual report yet, but I hope to soon.)
One thing is that I did not, and do not, limit my concern to CO2.
.............
Mihan,
"...a chicken that lived and died dozens of miles from my house is more Food than"...
Did the chicken just die, or was it killed on purpose? Would you consider the hormones generated by the chicken's pre-slaughter terror to be Food?
If I had not developed a disgust for meat, I might be inclined to eat things like fresh roadkill, but I would not eat anything that was slaughtered.
Also, I find a small farmer's killing livestock to be as bad as the factory farms, for different reasons. I could not imagine betraying our animals' trust, taking care of them for years only to kill them when it seems economically benefical for me. Animals without much human contact don't have that relationship with people, but it's obvious that the animals I take care of trust me.
..............
Concerning the idea that livestock animals would not exist in a vegan society, the question is academic and the assumption wrong. Animals have value to humans beyond their meat. Otherwise, why would I, a vegetarian, take the trouble to keep a cow, sheep, goats, guineas, a dog, and cats. Each of them serves a purpose on our small farm, and none of them are intended to be killed.
Permalink
kevcon Posted 8:04 am
31 Jan 2007
"chicken is food"
Chickens are animals
This "food" contains a vast array of potentially harmful elements to your health and vitality not to mention the environmental impacts of contaminated waste (which when burned creates Dioxin) or the other impacts of the 8 billion+ chickens slaughtered each year in the US.
"Broiler" (nice term, eh?) chickens
a partial list of ingredients (of course not listed on the package of plastic shrink wrapped of 40 day old chicken flesh)
Chickens are fed a diet which includes the recycled blood, offal and feathers of dead birds,
Salmonella and campylobacter are frequent causes of food poisoning in humans.
Arsenic, Roxarsone, or 3-nitro-4-hydroxyphenylarsonic acid, is currently the most commonly used arsenical compound in poultry feed in the United States, Arsenic is more toxic than lead, arsenic interferes with hormones, making it a potent endocrine disrupter.
Arsenic (As) is a notoriously potent poisonous metalloid that has many allotropic forms and it is used as a component of various alloys, pesticides, herbicides and insecticides. Poultry feedstuffs, mainly broilers, can contain trace amounts of As in the form of organoarsenical feedadditives such as Roxarsone (3-nitro-4-hydroxyphenylarsonic acid) for its growth-promoting and disease-controlling properties, especially to combat coccidiosis.
Chlorine-
Chlortetracycline is a chlorinated growth-promoting antibiotic widely-used in the broiler industry. Also, at least seven other drugs most of them anticoccidials are chlorinated. One of the more commonly used anticoccidials is Amprolium.
In addition to Chlortetracycline, the following chlorinated drugs (the first five are used as anticoccidials) are used in poultry feed in the U.S.:
Chlorinated Poultry Feed Additive Other Names Chemical Formula Chemical Name
Amprolium Amprol (1-[(4-amino-2-propylpiridin-5-yl)methyl]-2-methyl-pyridimium chloride hydrochloride)
Clopidol Coyden C7H7Cl2NO 3;5-Dichloro-2;6-dimethyl-4-pyridinol
Diclazuril Diclazo C17H9Cl3N4O2 Benzeneacetonitrile, 2,6-dichloro-alpha-(4-chlorophenyl)-4-(4,5-di hydro-3,5-dioxo-1,2,4-triazin-2(3H)-yl)-
Halofuginone Hydrobromide Deccox C16H17BrClN3O3 HBr,DL-trans-7-bromo-6-chloro-3-(3-(3-hydroxy-2-piperidy) acetonyl)quinazolin-4(3H)-one hydrobromide
Robenidine Hydrochloride C15H13Cl2N5 HCl,1,3-bis[(p-chlorobenzylidene)amino] guanidine hydrochloride
Meticlorpindol 3,5-dichloro-2,6-dimethylpyridine-4-ol
Enrofloxacin (1 of 2 poultry fluoroquinolones) C19H22FN3O3-HCl 1-Cyclopropy1-6-fluoro-1,4-dihydro-4-oxo-7-[(4-ethyl)-1- piperaziny1]-3-quinolinecarboxylic acid,hydrochloride
Poultry are treated with copper sulfate to avoid a common disease called "aspergillosis." In fact, copper levels in chicken litter as high enough that cattle have died from copper poisoning from being fed chicken litter.
Iron and zinc are also used as feed additives.
A few of the other chemical feed additives include:
Calcium iodate
Calcium pantothenate
Choline chloride
Copper oxide
Dicalcium phosphate AKA monohydrogen phosphate
Ethoxyquin
Ferrous carbonate (siderite)
Manganous oxide
Menadione Diemethylpyrimidinol bisulfate
Methionine supplement
Monocalcium Phosphate
Nicarbazin, an antibiotic
Sodium selenite
Zinc oxide (zincite)
Occasionally, an antibiotic might be added to some of their feeds targeted at broilers. The common drug used is Amprolium (Amprol-25), and it is added to prevent coccidiosis, a disease in chickens caused by fungi of the genus Coccidioides that may be parasitic in humans.
stress and hysteria are two problems that must be monitored in modern confined animal production and it was common to use reserpine, a sedative in feed.
Permalink
kevcon Posted 8:27 am
31 Jan 2007
many other reports with better calculations than you cite are searchable on the web, one example:
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~gidon/papers/nutri/nutri3.pdf...
Diet, Energy and Global Warming
Gidon Eshel1 and Pamela Martin
Dept. of the Geophysical Sciences
The Univ. of Chicago
5734 S. Ellis Ave.
Chicago, IL 60637
Submitted to Earth Interactions, May 2005
Abstract
We compare the energy consumption of animal- and plant-based diets, and, more
broadly, the range of energetic planetary footprints spanned by reasonable dietary
choices. We demonstrate that the greenhouse gas emissions of various diets varies by
as much as the difference between owning an average sedan versus a Sport Utility
Vehicle under typical driving conditions. We conclude with a brief review of the safety
of plant-based diets, and find no reasons for concern.
(end of cite.)
You are to be commended for the actions you have taken, such as prius driving and bike riding and for even contemplating the consequences of your actions in regard to global warming and the environment. We all surely contribute to this and my biggest "footprint" is the several airplane trips that I take.
However, with all due respect, I do find many of my fellow "environmentalists" too in denial about the enivronmental impacts of their animal flesh taste sensation addictions (not to mention the health implications) to limit or cease their taste gratification behavior and often many carinvorous greens deem it too inconsequential to matter in curbing global climate change.
The reality seems to suggest otherwise.
The denial of "environmentalists" on this matter of the animal flesh trade's enormous enviro. impacts in the face of mounting evidence is akin to W's and the corporate petro-chem/pharma/ag. polluters denials and misrepresentation about the existance and scope of impact of global warming.
Why not do as much as we all can, ride bikes and drive prius and eat a predominately plant-based diet to limit our carbon and greenhouse gas footprints?
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 8:31 am
31 Jan 2007
As to the Burger King aroma, I'm a lifelong non-smoker that loves the smell of tobacco - so long as it's fresh, outdoors and not in the carpet.
Permalink
KathyF Posted 4:46 pm
31 Jan 2007
I guess I don't mind "non-food" either. I'm frankly more grossed out by raw tomatoes.
Permalink
willa Posted 11:40 pm
31 Jan 2007
Kathy, yeah, you've mentioned the tomato thing. And I think I told you I thought you were nuts at the time, so I won't do it again. :) To each her own, of course. More tomatoes for me!
Permalink
evanvoo Posted 3:10 am
01 Feb 2007
So I say you're full of bologna.
:)
I have to agree with Kevcon about what seems to be a majority of my fellow environmentalists. I guess what really irks me is the fixation on fossil fueled transportion (which is, inarguably, bad for the environment and should be avoided when possible), when scientific evidence points to the fact that animal agriculture is the environment's #1 enemy. If you count the number of times Grist writers advocate people getting rid of their car, versus eliminating their consumption of animal products, it's hugely biased towards the former. If I wasn't familiar with all the scientific research that supports that the consumption of animal products is worse than all transportation combined--as, I would think, the large majority of the public isn't--then based on Grist's and other environmental organizations' priorities I would be really surprised to find that out.
So I think maybe we should ask ourselves this: Are we using our time, energy, money, and educational outreach power in the best possible way, to help the environment as much as possible? I would say no, and I tend to think that the self-interests of many environmentalists--i.e., their reluctance to forgo certain gustatory pleasures--is responsible.
I don't mean to imply that it's an either/or proposition, or that people who aren't perfect environmentalists should not be allowed to dole out advice. I'm just advocating for as much focus on and recognition of the implications of a non-vegan diet as environmentalists give issues involved with car driving and other forms of transportation.
Erin
Permalink
Karen Orr Posted 4:21 am
01 Feb 2007
Corn has hit decade highs - around $4 a bushel.
High grain prices also mean increased feeding costs, making it more
expensive to fatten livestock like cattle.
The livestock industry, strained by rising grain prices, has turned to the
poultry industry for a new feed source - chicken manure.
Cows may be wintered on a mixture of 89% chicken manure and 20% ground corn
Guidelines for Feeding Broiler Litter to Beef Cattle
http://www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/publicat/wqwm/...
This manure is called "litter" because it is the main thing the birds bed in
from the time they are born--a mixture of fecal droppings,antibiotic residues,
heavy metals, cysts, larvae, decaying carcasses, sawdust, ground up chicken
heads, USDA condemned slaughter products, and themammalian nervous
system tissue responsible for Mad Cow Disease.
Tyson Foods, Inc. (NYSE: TSN), the world's largest poultry producer,
gave an Environmental Award at their Annual Shareholders Meeting to
Dennis and Ginger Stoneburner who raise 150,000 chickens at their Glen Hill
Farm in the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia and feed 200 tons of chicken manure
to their 300 head of stocker cattle. They mix the remaining 630 tons of manure
with corn and sell it as bagged cattle feed.
Poultry farms in Arkansas produce 5,100 tons of manure each day.
Arkansas cattle producers looking at emergency feed options - News - August 2006
http://www.uaex.edu/news/august2006/0825litr.htm
T...
In addition to poultry waste and corn (corn sickens cattle), feedlot cows are also fed any
or all of the following (all allowed by the FDA) feather meal, pig and fish protein, and
pesticide-laden citrus peels.
To protect against the spread of mad cow disease, since 1997 the Animal Feed
Rule prohibits adding most mammalian materials to ruminant feed. However, chicken
litter and restaurant scraps, which both can contain bovine proteins are still fed to calves.
While cows are being fed this concoction, designed to get them as heavy as possible as
quickly as possible, they're standing thigh deep in their own waste creating an even
bigger health problem.
After slaughter, these cows are then hosed off using high pressure sprays, which,
rather than clean the manure off the meat, imbeds it deeper into the muscle.
Factory farm operations put cattle manure in huge piles or storage pools that often
leak into nearby streams and ground water and exude stenches that make life miserable
for neighbors.
For feedlot operators, , manure isn't valuable fertilizer but a vexing disposal problem.
The need to deal with overwhelming amounts cow toxic manure has lead to another
source of air and water pollution - manure incineration for electricity greenwashed
and promoted as "sustainable, green" energy.
The push for electricity from manure gives these huge livestock operations a
subsidized way to deal with their manure problem -- and even gives them an
incentive to expand.
If possible, pigs might be treated more cruelly than cows and chickens.
After Hurricane Floyd hit the floodplain and drowned more than 100,000
confined pigs in North Carolina, a temporary CAFO moratorium followed,
Smithfield immediately looked for states that had no regulations - Virginia,
Kentucky and Florida.
Environmentalists worked on a pig amendment to stop CAFO's
(6,000 pigs in 1 barn) from coming into Florida. It passed in 2002.
The hog CAFO's have since expanded to Virginia and Kentucky and
are destroying water quality in rivers and neighboring farmers wells. The
Right To Farm laws prohibit nuisance lawsuits and prohibit individuals, groups,
cities or counties from challenging permits.
Jeff Tietz has an excellent article on the history of Smithfield Foods and the
horrors of hog factories in the December 8th, 2005 edition of Rolling Stone.
The article can be accessed at this Tree Hugger site:
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/12/boss_hog_rollin_1...
Permalink
Karen Orr Posted 4:28 am
01 Feb 2007
What many people do not know, however, is that the production of meat also significantly increases global warming. Cow farms produce millions of tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane per year, the two major greenhouse gases that together account for more than 90 percent of U.S. greenhouse emissions, substantially contributing to "global scorching."
According to the United Nations Environment Program's Unit on Climate Change, "There is a strong link between human diet and methane emissions from livestock." The 2004 State of the World is more specific regarding the link between animals raised for meat and global warming: "Belching, flatulent livestock emit 16 percent of the world's annual production of methane, a powerful greenhouse gas."
Read the complete article at this Alternet site:
http://www.alternet.org/story/40639/
Permalink
sunflower Posted 4:51 am
01 Feb 2007
The biosphere is carbon-neutral and methane from rice paddies, termites, livestock, ... is sourced from recycled environmental carbon and not fossil carbon (excepting farming and their fertilizers).
Methane is not durable, decays into CO2. Fossil CO2 additions to the biosphere will exist in the air for many centuries. Fossil carbon additions are not the same thing as organic farts and bacteria emissions.
Permalink
Tristram Stuart Posted 9:49 pm
01 Feb 2007
Plants photosynthesise CO2 from the atmosphere and the carbon becomes part of their tissue; when ruminants (like cattle or sheep) eat those plants, bacteria in their guts ferment the plants and release methane (CH4). Methane emissions from this process, called enteric fermentation, are currently calculated at about 86 million tons of methane per year (H. Steinfeld, P. Gerber, T. Wassenaar, V. Castel, M. Rosales, C. de Haan (2006), p.97). (By the way, most of the methane is exhaled from the animals' mouths, not the other end; though farting does also contribute in a smaller way, as does anaerobic decomposition of animal manure).
So Sunflower is right that the carbon has been cycled from the atmosphere; but it has been transferred into methane, which has a global warming potential approximately 23 times greater than CO2 over a period of 100 years (i.e. taking account of the fact that it decays after 12 years). This process is therefore considered a net contribution to global warming.
Permalink
KathyF Posted 12:45 am
02 Feb 2007
I've actually been looking for information on that.
Permalink
Kira Posted 11:57 pm
05 Feb 2007
And if "livestock production emits fully 18 percent of global greenhouse gases," what if we replaced all those cattle with the original animals that used to be around, like the past numbers of bison, antelope, etc. Wouldn't they be producing gas too? Just because the gas is emitted from a domesticated animals, doesn't make it worse.
"Who are we to make other sentient creatures suffer and die painful deaths, so we can gain our sustenance. . ." Do away with war, and we'll talk.
Like most things we Westerners consume to excess, if we had to pay the true cost of meat production--its impact on the environment as well as the animal--we'd probably eat a whole lot less, because it would simply cost too much. That doesn't make it evil, per se.
If we think that somehow we can stop eating meat and therefore think of ourselves as pure in spirit, then, really, how about we start with ending the killing of other humans first. Isn't that much more profoundly monstrous?
Besides, chimpanzees, our closest genetic relative, eat meat. They also make war, rape, kill infants. Sigh.
For those who think animals suffer by being slaughtered, do you advocate getting rid of all predators? Don't wild animals suffer too? Not all, if any, are killed quickly and painlessly. Why are we the only bad guys? Just because we know better? I tried going vegetarian. I didn't feel well. Sometimes I think you just have to accept that it's a cat-eat-mouse world. Limit the environmental damage, pay the full cost, which would reduce consumption, and let's move on.
Personally, I treat meat as a side dish in my meals. Actually meal. I really only eat it at dinner and then very small portions. I like it. I think it's healthy (I don't buy Perdue or Tyson). And, something we Westerners seem unable to grasp, fine in moderation.
Right now I'm on a kick to eliminate high fructose corn syrup from my diet. Much worse than meat, I say.
Michael Pollan says "eat like an omnivore."
Permalink
Truly Scrumptious Posted 9:53 am
06 Feb 2007
I'm a mother, I work full-time; my partner (who also works full time) and my son are vegan. Here in Seattle, we have a group just for veg families. We have kids of all ages; we hold potlucks and other gatherings like Mama's Night Out and Kid-Free Night.
You can join us, as you begin your grand adventure. Wholesome, delicious meals await you and your family. And (although this may fly in the face of everyone's favorite stereotype), truth be told, we are nice to not-quite vegans, since we were all there once. We have an email list to chat and communicate and share recipes and struggles.
We can help.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/seattleveggiefamilies/
Hope to see you there.
Permalink
farmerkate Posted 11:22 am
06 Feb 2007
While many vegans and vegetarians may be happy and healthy, I do not believe that every individual can thrive on a vegan, or even vegetarian diet. For me, the healthy fats that come from pasture-raised meat, eggs and raw milk helped me recover from serious illness, and stay healthy. Every one of us inherits a genetic makeup that reflects our own personal family history, and the diets our ancestors evolved with. Through much experimentation, it is clear to me that my body thrives when I eat a variety of whole (unprocessed) foods, including meat and dairy.
For about ten years, I was a happy vegetarian, but not a healthy one. I loved the idea of being a vegetarian. I didn't miss eating meat at all. I loved how uncomplicated my food choices seemed. But now that I'm an omnivore again, I am much healthier. I am also feeling good about choosing to support farmers who are working hard to provide sustainably-raised, safe, clean foods to their local communities - an alternative to the industrial food system.
I also think it's important to point out that throughout human history, meat, eggs and dairy products have been critically important to the diets of traditional cultures all over the world. The Weston A. Price Foundation makes a fascinating study of this issue: www.westonaprice.org
My focus as an omnivore is to eat whole foods, in their healthiest, purest form, and avoid processed foods. For my own health, and for the good of our local agricultural economy, this makes sense to me at this stage in my life.
farmerkate
Permalink
KathyF Posted 3:37 pm
06 Feb 2007
Plus, the amount of meat ordinarily consumed by the typical Westerner (and increasingly by Asians) is nothing like the opportunistic meat eating that went on throughout evolution, right up until modern times.
In 1928 the average American ate 1/2 lb of chicken. Each American now eats 90 lbs.
In 1968 China produced 12 million chickens. They now produce 13 billion.
The average American consumption of meat has similarly gone up, along with rates of cancer and heart disease and diabetes.
What's natural about that?
Permalink
KathyF Posted 3:37 pm
06 Feb 2007
Permalink
Pandu Posted 1:09 am
07 Feb 2007
"Who are we to make other sentient creatures suffer and die painful deaths, so we can gain our sustenance. . ." Do away with war, and we'll talk.
How does a society that fills its bellies every day with the flesh and blood of slaughtered animals do away with war? Is it not obvious that eating meat makes people more inclined to war?
"I once read that no traditional society on earth is vegetarian"
I don't know what you consider a 'traditional society. Do the Hindus count? The Vedas promoted a vegetarian society, but some allowance of meat-eating was made for ksatriya class (military and police types) because it supports their fighting nature. The Puranas (histories in the Vedas) describe in many places about how kings would sometimes hunt to practice killing; and that even though this helps them perform their duty, they still must be punished under the laws of nature because the principle of ahimsa (non-harming) is required of all of the social orders. (Obviously, Hindu culture suffered immensely under British rule, and no longer adheres to its Vedic tradition.)
An example is Narada Muni telling King Barhisman (Bhagavat-purana 4.25.8), "These animals are waiting for you, remembering your butchery. When you have departed this world, they will slice you up with iron horns, for you have enraged them."
A king's duties required that he kill animals, and yet the principle of nonharming of innocent animals was so strong in this society that it was taught that one had to suffer time in hell for it.
For those who think animals suffer by being slaughtered, do you advocate getting rid of all predators? Don't wild animals suffer too? Not all, if any, are killed quickly and painlessly. Why are we the only bad guys?
It is not humans job to control all of nature. Wild, carnivorous animals are required by their bodily nature to kill and eat other animals. If humans want to justify our conduct by saying that animals do it, then we should understand them as no better than animals.
On the contrary, that which separates us from animals is our ability to understand higher principles such as the difference between vice and virtue. If, instead, we simply immitate animals or base our morality on their actions, then what is the use of our big brains?
Why are we the only bad guys?
There is a Vedic story narrated in Caitanya Caritamrita that answers this:
Narada said: "I am asking only one thing from you in charity. I beg you that from this day on you will kill animals completely and not leave them half dead."
The hunter replied: "My dear sir, what are you asking of me? What is wrong with the animals' lying there half-killed? Will you please explain this to me?"
Narada replied: "If you leave the animals half-dead, you are purposefully giving them pain. Therefore you will have to suffer in retaliation. You are a hunter, you kill animals. That is a slight offense on your part. But when you consciously give them unnecessary pain by leaving them half-dead, you incur very great sins. All the animals that you have killed and given unnecessary pain will kill you one after the other in your next life and in life after life." [CC 2.24.247-251]
In commenting on this story, Hridayananda Das Goswami writes, "Narada here undeniably introduces another Vedic moral principle: the gravity of a sin is relative, and is measured in relation to the status and consciousness of the sinner."
Here is another highly relevant quote from the Bhagavat-purana:
SB 5.26.17: By the arrangement of the Supreme Lord, low-grade living beings like bugs and mosquitoes suck the blood of human beings and other animals. Such insignificant creatures are unaware that their bites are painful to the human being. However, first-class human beings -- brāhmaṇas, kṣatriyas and vaiśyas -- are developed in consciousness, and therefore they know how painful it is to be killed. A human being endowed with knowledge certainly commits sin if he kills or torments insignificant creatures, who have no discrimination. The Supreme Lord punishes such a man by putting him into the hell known as Andhakūpa, where he is attacked by all the birds and beasts, reptiles, mosquitoes, lice, worms, flies, and any other creatures he tormented during his life. They attack him from all sides, robbing him of the pleasure of sleep. Unable to rest, he constantly wanders about in the darkness. Thus in Andhakūpa his suffering is just like that of a creature in the lower species.
So the answer is that to the extent that we are able to understand the principles of virtue, we are responsible to act accordingly.
Permalink
Fabulous2007 Posted 8:52 pm
04 Jul 2007
Permalink