With Science about the collapse of the world's fisheries, I think it's appropriate once again to examine a topic that doesn't get enough attention: our diets. Not only does eating fish exacerbate the collapse of marine ecosystems and lead to the death of millions of other creatures, including turtles, dolphins, and whales, but the energy used to catch deep-sea fish is equivalent to factory-farmed beef.
That wasn't a typo. Eating most types of fish is like eating Big Macs in terms of the environmental impacts, and probably worse.
People get very defensive when you talk about food because it's so personal. But this new study from the University of Chicago shows that diet produces differences in energy consumption equivalent to the differences in energy between driving a hybrid car and an SUV -- and that's aside from all the other horrible environmental effects of animal agriculture, which include deforestation, polluted water, animal cruelty, and soil erosion.
Vegetarianism isn't for everyone, but if you care about the environment you owe it to yourself to examine your diet and think long and hard about whether meat, poultry, and fish are really all that important to you. Even reducing them in your diet makes a big difference. With amazing vegetarian food available virtually everywhere, you may come to realize you don't even have to sacrifice eating pleasure and satisfaction.
Sorry, the poll you are seeking no longer exists. If you’re in a voting mood, suggest a poll and you might just see it on the site.
A tasting of four meatless “turkeys” for the holiday table
Gourmet’s conscience, Gopnik on cookbooks, and other tasty morsels
It’s Getting Ha! in Here: Maria Bamford
Comments
View as Threaded
Heidi Posted 1:35 am
04 Nov 2006
My husband and I eat a 95% vegetarian diet with a tiny bit of seafood here and there. We are very careful about the amount of seafood we eat and where it comes from. Every week we have a few vegans meals, a raw meal or two, and plenty of tasty vegetarian options. Once a month or so, we will indulge in a sustainable seafood meal. In the beginning, I had to put a lot of time into researching the fisheries, but now it is second nature.
I know we could be doing even more by becoming vegan again, but now I don't experience the same kind of environmentalism burn-out I did when we were so limited in our diet. Instead of focusing constantly and solely on my diet, I have more time and energy to devote to spreading the message to others. Instead of one little Heidi making huge changes, I am making pretty darn big changes while encourgaing lots of other people to do the same. I believe that by being very conscious of the impact of what we eat, we eat more responsibly and enjoy it more.
I think for most people, very careful moderation would be possible, while deprivation will lead many to feel like they can't make a difference. Even if meat-eaters just limited their meat and dairy intake, the results would be huge!
Sorry about the ramble - I'm just always trying to think of ways to engage more people and get them heading down the right path before we scare them away with guilt!
http://groxie.com
DIY Environmentalism
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 2:35 am
04 Nov 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
JMG Posted 4:50 am
04 Nov 2006
So relax, nothing to see here, move along.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 5:54 am
04 Nov 2006
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 5:59 am
04 Nov 2006
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Zarkov Posted 10:21 am
04 Nov 2006
It can be muscle, bone, fat etc.
Food can contain nutrition and it can also contain toxic substances.
If food was all nutrition, then no worries.
But toxic substances induce physical problems, such as wasting illnesses. Not too much to worry about, we have to die one day.
Toxics can also blow your mind, slowly.. Mmmmh not too much to worry about, because basically you are no longer capable of awareness.
Toxics can also affect your genetic material passed onto offspring, creating physical and mental problems for them, right from word go.
One generational decline to the next.... now that is something to worry about but only if you are still aware and not a casualty.
If you are not a casualty then you will be different, abnormal to the masses, and you will be persecuted for being sane and healthy.
mmmh, interesting times indeed.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 7:17 pm
04 Nov 2006
E.g.: "Chapulines," one or more varieties of small crickets, or other related members of Order Orthoptera, are a characteristic part of the cuisine of the currently troubled Mexican state of Oaxaca. I ate them with great pleasure in restaurants in that state's capital city, of the same name. (Probably very close to where the demonstrations have taken place.) But I also observed them being sold by a vendor with a small cart at the foot of the pyramid of Quetzalcoatl in Cholula, Puebla, where they were happily consumed at once by her clients. (Not by me; I passed, that time.)
Presumably the chapulines are bred in captivity, and encouraged to reproduce in great numbers, as a form of mini-livestock. Typically, the manner of preparation is to fry them. Their bodies, legs and all, are easily discernible when they are served, but they are very tiny, and I could not distinguish the different body parts in my mouth. No, they do not taste "like chicken"; more like peanuts, but with a quite different texture and crunchiness. Whether there is much food value in them, I would not know. But crickets and grasshoppers are important food items for many insectivorous animals.
Termites are a definite possibility as a food source (though probably not ants). And cockroaches are the Holy Grail.
Well, until that happy day of cricket burger and cockroach pie arrives, technology might set out to accomplish two other goals: how to make aquaculture environmentally harmless; and how to get such fish as salmon, cod, catfish and carp to thrive on an insect-based diet. My guess is, the latter would probably not be a problem with catfish and carp. Salmon and cod are another matter. But clearly, as it is, the aquaculture of salmon and cod is not sustainable, since the current phenotypes require smaller fish as food.
The quality of the meat is another matter. The meat of "farm-raised" salmon is quite different from that of "wild, fresh-caught" salmon, we are told. Most observers say, it is inferior. I believe them, though I cannot make the comparison myself. (I do not remember ever eating farm-raised salmon. My only vivid memory of eating wild salmon was during a too brief visit to Vancouver Island, when I had it every night, and loved it.) Probably the captivity of the farm-raised salmon has something to do with it, physically to be sure, but not inconceivably also psychologically.
An insectivorous diet would surely alter the meat even more. But the point of my proposed technological development is not to preserve the taste of wild salmon, which seem doomed to disappear before long, but to ensure a sustainable nutritious meat source, for those who must have meat. Then it is up to the culinary technicians, i.e. the chefs, to make it palatable. Or, if it is not too much to hope, even better.
There are ethical problems, of course, regarding the confinement of very mobile fish such as salmon and cod (probably catfish and carp are more placid). Whether those problems would ever be widely recognized, let alone solved, we shall see, but that will take a lot of effort. Every day, we should take a moment to consider all the cattle, having been raised in misery, that are driven to their horribly frightening deaths in slaughter houses, hidden from public scrutiny, in order to remind ourselves how little our society regards the interests of animals, and how highly we regard the interests of the small class of human beings who can afford a hamburger at McDonald's.
The manner of death of the fish that we eat is another important ethical issue. When we consider all the different kinds of animals that are caught in drift nets, for example, those of us who are concerned about violations of animal welfare tend to concentrate on the marine mammals and sea turtles in that catch, which drown in terror in those deadly nets. But we should not forget the fate of the fish: When the full net is hoisted quickly to the surface, the rapid decrease in pressure must be painful; when the contents of the net are dumped on the deck of a fishing boat, the fish are left to thrash about until they die of asphyxiation, a death as frightful as the drowning of the dolphins and the turtles.
In aquaculture, how are fish extracted from the water?, and how are they killed? I do not know the answers to these questions. My guess is, the water in which they are kept is not very deep, so the pressure issue is not great. But once they are hauled out with a pole net, very possibly they are dumped out, and allowed to asphyxiate.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
atreyger Posted 1:36 am
05 Nov 2006
Permalink
mihan Posted 2:16 am
05 Nov 2006
It's like telling someone who lives in a 750 sq' apartment and uses CFLs to reduce their electricity consumption. Sure, they could move in with a dozen of their closest friends and go off the grid, but c'mon.
Also, if I recall correctly from the UCS, vegetable-based protein is about as energy-intensive a way to get protein as eggs and poultry.
An interesting tidbit I remember from health training in the Peace Corps: our bodies incorporate (literally) protein more easily the closer that protein is to human protein. Thus, the easiest protein to incorporate is pork (excluding cannibalism).
Please, vegans, note that I'm not saying everyone should get all their protein from pork.
Permalink
KathyF Posted 7:41 am
05 Nov 2006
And as for pork being the easiest to absorb, that's, uh, hogwash. Protein is made up of amino acids, and it doesn't matter where you get your amino acids from.
Incidentally, do you know what percentage of protein is in breastmilk, which presumably is the perfect food for the most protein-needy of humans?
It's nothing near what Atkins recommends. It's around 5-6 percent protein.
Permalink
Bart Anderson Posted 10:29 am
05 Nov 2006
I think Jason is right about the importance of one's diet choices. Meat, as currently produced, sucks up a huge amount of resources.
What interests me is an ecological analysis of how food is produced. In some cases meat is more ecologically responsible than vegetables - for example, meat that comes from local mixed farming is better than vegetables and fruits flown from Africa (where the UK gets much of its produce).
Some animals can be sustainably raised for food on a very small scale, such as chickens, rabbits and guinea pigs.
In college, one of my jobs was to get the scraps from the cafeteria ready for pig farmers to feed their stock. Great way to recycle.
I'm fascinated with the idea of using so-called pests as a source of food. In our area, the snails that are the bane of gardeners are prized as escargot in Europe. Many weeds are edible and nutritious. Deer, squirrels, etc. are prone to over-population and should be harvested.
Having said all of this, I find that I eat less and less meat as I get older. No beef at all and only occasional fish and chicken. Knowing how intelligent pigs are, I can't touch pork.
Permalink
pyewacket Posted 5:09 am
07 Nov 2006
For example, I buy my pork from a fellow who raises his pigs in the woods. Really, you walk through the woods and suddenly: Pigs! He uses a moveable eletric fence to create an area for them to forage in, which he moves every week or two. He raises about ten pigs at a time. Their food consists of forage, the whey from a local organic yogurt manufacturer, leftovers from a local health food restaurant, plus some small amounts of feed. Sometimes he uses the pigs to clear brushland - they are followed by the hens, which clear small plants and leave nourishing droppings, and then the land is ready for planting (with some added manure, of course). The woodland area remains woodland, the cultivated areas are minimized in size (no large equipement brought in to clear), and he doesn't have to buy lots of fertilizer, because the animals make it for him. I buy 1/2 pig at a time from him, which he drops off when he is coming into the city anyway. So, which is more environmentally friendly - the pork from my farmer's pig or soybeans grown on vast "organic" monoculture farms somewhere in the Midwest and then shipped thousands of miles for me to eat?
The point is that it's actually harder than most people think to have a truly sustainable farm without animals. When "factory-grown," meat is much worse for the environment than vegetables - but not when raised properly.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 5:13 am
07 Nov 2006
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 5:53 am
07 Nov 2006
Permalink
Pandu Posted 6:04 am
07 Nov 2006
"The point is that it's actually harder than most people think to have a truly sustainable farm without animals."
Actually this is true. However, having animals doesn't have to mean killing animals.
I operate a small farm; not sustainable, though. Actually it's more like a hobby. But anyway, not counting regular pets, we have 1 cow, 4 sheep, 2 goats, 8 guineas.
The cow provides manure for the garden. Next year we plan to breed her, and then she'll provide milk and her calf will give more manure.
The sheep and goats give wool and mohair, and fertilize the pasture with their little pellets. The guineas eat bugs and also fertilize.
In return for their services, we take care of their food, shelter, hygeine, and protection.
Why kill if we don't have to?
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 6:18 am
07 Nov 2006
If in fact closeness of evolutionary relationship correlates with quality of food value, something that KathyF denies ("Hogwash!"), then we should go with munching on rats and bunnies -- and even better, bats! -- , according to the American Museum of Natural History, where, in the cladistically arranged Hall of Mammals, primates are thrown into the same alcove with bats, rodents and lagomorphs.
To say nothing of the hedgehogs.
On cannibalism: Personally, for the record, I have never had much of an appetite for any of my neighbors. Well, OK, every now and then a certain inclination, which could metaphorically be called an "appetite"; but that would generally not be considered a species of cannibalism.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 6:49 am
07 Nov 2006
Would it be possible for the United States to switch entirely from our current mix of agriculture to some form of sustainable organic agriculture AND reduce the consumption of meat?
Please consider the following issues in your response...
Sustainable organic agriculture needs nitrogen. This can come animal manure or green manure. If we reduce our consumption of meat, will we have enough nitrogen for 100% organic agriculture? Does anyone have numbers for this?
If you are going to rely on nitrogen-fixing cover crops, isn't productivity instantly cut in half, as you would need twice as much acerage for a given amount of food? This would be VERY bad for the environment. I'm assuming you really shouldn't eat the nitrogen-rich legumes from your green manure crop, but till all of the growth into the earth to restore the soil.
If we are going to switch from currrent agricultural practices to sustainable organic, it looks like we have to continue eating meat or double the area devoted to cultivation. And devoting more land to agriculture can only harm the environment.
Another thing to consider... under certain circumstances, it might be better to raise animals for protein than devote more land to vegetable protein. Native plants, animals, insects, birds, et cetera are surely more likely to survive in a responsibly tended pasture versus a cultivated soybean field.
What balance of meat, fruit, and vegetables maximizes nutrition from a given acerage? This would be the diet least harmful to the environment... and show just how much what we eat really matters.
Permalink
kmp Posted 7:17 am
07 Nov 2006
People eat because they are bored, stressed, anxious... in celebration and in mourning, to socialize with friends, to enjoy a movie, to power a long hike.
If eating were only about receiving adequate nutrition each day, we would long ago have all switched to a diet of protein shakes & multi-vitamins.
People eat what they like to eat, hence the difficulty in attempting to change eating patterns based upon logic, reason or scientific fact.
That being said, I like to eat butternut squash soup as much as I like to eat a grilled chicken sandwich. Knowing that the chicken sandwich, however humanely & sustainably raised, is likely more environmentally costly than my local organic farm's butternut squash gives me the knowledge I need to make an environmentally informed diet choice. Hence, I eat fewer chicken sandwiches and more butternut squash soup. But there are three keys here: 1) the knowledge that meat is more environmentally intensive, 2) the commitment to eat in an environmentally friendly way, and 3)really liking butternut squash soup. Sounds silly, I know, but you need to offer people a vegetarian/vegan option that they like just as well as a meat option, as well as giving them the knowledge, as well as instilling the commitment. For people who already have 2 out of 3, it should be an easy transition. It gets much harder if you are starting at zero.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 9:50 am
07 Nov 2006
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 12:47 pm
07 Nov 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 1:47 am
08 Nov 2006
As I understand it, breeding has to be managed carefully. Ordinary dairy farms breed cows each year to produce a maximum quantity of milk. However, that requres an aggressive slaughter program to control the population. When the cows live 12 to 18 years, the emphasis cannot be on milk but on the plow and manure. Milk is a bonus, when its available, but a protected family cow can give milk for several years after being bred. (Some friends of mine had a cow give milk for six years until they went to India for six months leaving the cow on the temple farm. The cow dried up but then started producing a gallon a day for over a year after they returned, finally going dry almost 8 years after its calf was born.)
Milk from protected cows ("ahimsa milk") costs the farmer about $9 per gallon to produce, when all costs of maintaining the cow into old age are included. This is a good option for those who avoid milk for ethical reasons.
Permalink
pyewacket Posted 2:03 am
08 Nov 2006
As idealistic as I am, I don't believe that 1) people are going to give up eating meat entirely or 2) farmers are going to keep lots of animals and not slaughter some for meat. To say that you are against killing animals for moral reasons is very different from saying that a meat-based diet is environmentally unsound. I would say that in general, there are three changes most Americans need to make in their meat-eating:
Eat less meat. No need for meat every day, certianly no need for meat at every meal. It would be a significant nutritional and environmental improvement for most Americans to replace a large number of their meat-based meals with vegetable-based meals.
Eat sustainable-grown meat from local producers.
Eat different kinds of meat. Squirrel, I was surprised to find out, is tender and flavorful. Venison is delicious and many areas are currently overpopulated with deer. Rabbit can be grown on small lots. Lamb and goat can survive happily where larger animals can not. We need to educate people to move beyond beef and chicken - it would be great for the country environmentally and culinarily.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 2:17 am
08 Nov 2006
Permalink
Pandu Posted 3:16 am
08 Nov 2006
The oxen are trained with voice commands, not beaten; and they act as eager to pull the plow as a powerlifter is with his sport.
The alternative is to be a veal dinner "for some schmuck."
Permalink
lovermine Posted 7:17 am
08 Nov 2006
And then there's the fact that, no matter what, if you eat meat and dairy, you're killing someone you don't have to, and who has done nothing to anyone; animals have committed the sole crime of being born into the wrong shape of a body. Reminiscent of Black slavery and pre-Civil Rights movement much?
Sorry, guys, but you're just fucking hypocrites. You could do something good, not just for the planet but for the oppressed, born without rights and who leftists -- traditionally the champion of the oppressed -- are fighting against simply because they profit from that oppression.
Sustainable, Free-Range Farms and Other Tall Tales: Factory Farming's Not the Problem -- It's Animal Farming http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Nov05/Hall1118.htm
Permalink
kmp Posted 7:37 am
08 Nov 2006
Eating meat, eggs, and dairy, no matter how often, produces more pollution than a vegan diet, even if the animals are locally raised; methane, which all animals and no plants produce, is 25 times more powerful than carbon dioxide.
The question, which no one seems able to answer, including myself, is whether the methane from a local, sustainable pig farm is more environmentally damaging than the CO2 that is generated/released by flying soy, legumes and other vegetable protein sources to your table.
No one is arguing that there aren't fine, upstanding moral reasons not to eat meat, even though some of us choose to eat it anyway. We are discussing, of late, whether or not there is evidence that one diet is necessarily, in all instances, more damaging than another.
Kaela
p.s. Maybe it's just my ebullient mood today, but doesn't "Fucking Hypocrite" sound like a naughty Greek play?
Permalink
Jason D Scorse Posted 11:13 am
08 Nov 2006
J.S.
J.S. teaches environmental economics and blogs at http://www.voicesofreason.info.
Permalink
Pandu Posted 2:15 am
09 Nov 2006
I do like how when someone else tries it, it makes me look moderate.
Permalink
SMLowry Posted 3:06 am
09 Nov 2006
I know how I respond when I feel attacked (with words). Either I want to attack back (with words) or I retreat because I know that I won't "win" - I know I won't convince the other person to agree with me and I'll only end up getting angrier. And I've had plenty of experience with this being a "green" columnist for our local paper (the Conway (NH) Daily Sun).
Permalink
atreyger Posted 5:07 am
09 Nov 2006
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 5:29 am
09 Nov 2006
The chorus of Aeschylus' "Agamemnon" are a bunch of Old Men of Argos, who stayed home instead of going with Agamemnon to fight in the Trojan War, and they do a lot of hand-wringing about the evils that befall the House of Atreus. But would it not be interesting, to interpret them as a chorus of Fucking Hypocrites, who really could not give a fuck about the House of Atreus, and just want them all to kill each other off, so that then they have the place to themselves.
Or perhaps "The Eumenides" could be re-named "The Fucking Hypocrites": The Furies really could not give a fuck about the murder of Clytemnestra; from the beginning, they have their eye set on the fancy new house in Athens that Athena ends up giving them, so that they can finally move out of that squalid apartment of theirs in Hell; and meanwhile they are paying Orestes under the table, and his supposedly being driven mad by them is all an act.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
kmp Posted 5:43 am
09 Nov 2006
Final curtain, kids. Time to start waiting tables again!
Permalink
willa Posted 6:02 am
09 Nov 2006
Yes, it is very hard to maintain dietary restrictions of any kind when you don't have a well-thought-out reason and access to satisfying food that falls within the restrictions. This is why, as I keep saying, I'm not vegan; I read the vegan cooking magazines, and the recipes they call "satisfying" (ie "meaty" although obviously that's not their usual word) would usually not do it for me without some cheese, milk, or butter. So I add cheese, milk, or butter. It's still better to eat butternut squash soup than chicken, even if it has some milk in it or is topped with a spoonful of sour cream. For some people, though, that doesn't do it (my fiance is one of them), and I don't think it's horrendously wrong to eat meat every once in a while as the price of maintaining a vegetarian diet that doesn't drive you up the wall the rest of the time. My theory is, before I met him he ate meat three times a day, every day, so he's made a 9000% improvement if he only eats it one meal, once a month.
Clearly, in this society--where most of us can eat whatever we want, basically--it is important to come up with something that doesn't feel like deprivation, or else it will never work. I for one envy those vegetarians who are disgusted by the thought of meat, because after many years, I still drool at the smell, which is kind of embarrassing and incredibly annoying.
CC:On cannibalism: Personally, for the record, I have never had much of an appetite for any of my neighbors. Well, OK, every now and then a certain inclination, which could metaphorically be called an "appetite"; but that would generally not be considered a species of cannibalism.I evidently have been reading too much Dan Savage lately, because this has me snickering.
Atreyger:
Whether the oxen mind plowing more or less than they mind getting killed and eaten depends, I suppose, but they almost certainly do prefer plowing. If their humans are kind and understanding, then they certainly prefer plowing. My horses generally enjoy being ridden, and when they don't it's on the same level at which I sometimes don't want to go ride--that is, general laziness--and certainly not on the "Please kill me now!" level.
Permalink
CrosbyMacDonald Posted 10:26 am
09 Nov 2006
There is an environmental impact to everything we grow - transportation of food, tilling of soil, energy inputs for industrial farming, application of pesticides, etc. Which is environmentally more sound - a locally raised animal (a cow, say), or a piece of tofu made of Amazon soy? (note that much of Brazil's soy goes to feed Europe's livestock)
Worldwide, there is enough food capacity to feed everyone well. Unfortunately, as with nearly everything, it is inefficiently distributed, creating a glut of food in developed countries and starvation in less-developed nations.
The film asks interesting questions, as in how do millions of people in India starve while the country supplies Switzerland with much of its wheat? Or why do a majority of the tomatoes in Europe come from one region in Spain?
How do we promote more sustainable agriculture, fishing, and livestock? I think it starts with our consumer choices, so try to demand quality products from local suppliers when you can - it may mean a slight cost premium, but I'd rather have a tomato relatively fresh of the vine than one that was shipped thousands of miles. The more people that do this, the more that food production will change. For many, price will remain an obstacle, and for those in poverty it's hard to advocate that they spend their few resources on organic foods. But a solution to that poverty is to encourage more local food production.
There are enormous political issues here - food subsidies are huge. From one perspective, they should be all eliminated, as subsidies inherently create inefficiencies, and allow the US and EU to produce cheap grains. From another perspective, if you make the North American/european farmer unable to survive financially, this means that food from developed countries will supply them. This means more food transportation, and possibly an even worse situation for the poor. And what to do with all the farmland that can no longer be harvested economically? Sure, some of it would be able to be productive, but likely not all. What of the farmers that depend on the land? Better to convince them to operate sustainably..
This is a very important issue, thanks for raising it Jason.. many aspects which can be discussed, and I don't have a solution.. I just know that the way some food is produced now is entirely unsustainable, and provides little or no net environmental and social benefits.. so what do we do?
Economenvironmentalism
Permalink
bookerly Posted 11:53 am
09 Nov 2006
You made some very good points, but I have a small quibble. Are millions really starving in India? What do you mean by that? Can you document it? It's news to me....
patrick
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 10:44 pm
09 Nov 2006
Here is a Discover Magazine article describing the use of the rest of the cow...
http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-01/features/featcow/
Check out the list of products at the end.
Plywood adhesive?!
Jet engine lubricant?!
There are other sources of some of the ingrediants, but it is more complicated than that. When we purchase, use, or indirectly rely on any of the described products are we propping up the meat industry? If they could not sell the rest of the animal, would meat just be too costly for the average consumer?
I am not voting one way or the other at the moment, but I never realized how thoroughly some animals are used. Sure, the Native Americans used every part of a bison, but modern industry has taken this concept to a new level. Not a single molecule appears to be discarded.
Permalink
atreyger Posted 12:20 am
10 Nov 2006
Is death animal abuse? How do we work on preventing death?
Permalink
CrosbyMacDonald Posted 3:34 am
10 Nov 2006
The info in India comes generally from the UN FAO - I was able to track down one FAO report - google "india 214.5" on the FAO site, it won't let me post a PDF link here. I also have this quote here: " This unhappy trend has been confirmed by the Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO), which estimates that over a fifth of India's population still suffers from chronic hunger and that the number of undernourished people in the country increased substantially in the second half of the 1990s. "
India has experienced tremendous economic growth during this period, and hopefully this will allow many people to rise out of poverty and malnutrition.
I am not sure if the situation in India - or other countries - is due to a lack of available food, but more likely it is due to a lack of resources to buy food. Basically, developed countries that import food from poor nations are willing and able to pay a higher price, so for the farmer or agribusiness that is growing crops in India, it makes sense to sell it in export markets.
Often, the international community will believe that making developing countres increase their exports is the best path to growth. Loans will help install modern irrigation, buy hybrid seeds that are more productive and expensive fertilizer inputs, so that local farmers can increase production and gain access to world markets. Economically, this makes sense, and there are cases where it has helped reduce poverty. But not in all cases. I generally believe that growth can be achieved through the application of economics, but (and this is a big but*) with a social and environmental conscience, which economically could be shown by incorporating social and environmental costs in growth models.
I'm not sure what the solutions to global food production are - there are problems in distribution, poverty, and environmental impacts. I'd be interested to hear from an expert on agricultural trade on what the impacts of removing all agricultural subsidies would be on world markets.
crosby
Economenvironmentalism
Permalink
bookerly Posted 2:50 pm
11 Nov 2006
Hi Crosby,
Great link!! Thanks.
I didn't realize things were so bad in India.
But I want to vote against just removing agricultural subsidies. There are many problems and abuses, but we should be careful not to make things worse.
Certainly, something needs to change so that the poor can be fed. There is no current need for people to starve.
(I have long considered it a crime that so many Haitians are facing starvation, while living only 90 miles offshore from the wealthiest nation on earth. One which feels free to remove any Haitian government it doesn't like, but feels no obligation to address the consequences of such actions).
I am inclined to be wary of macro solutions (one size does not fit all).
patrick
Permalink
meander Posted 1:41 am
12 Nov 2006
Insects might have to become a more important diet in the future, either as a primary food or as an input to fish farming (as pointed out by caniscandida above). Most of the world has no problem with insect eating; Europe, the U.S., Canada, and Japan seem to be the largest exceptions. From a rational point of view, if the insects come from a clean source, there is nothing dangerous or "dirty" about eating certain kinds of insects. In fact, they are highly nutritious, and (so I read) delicious. Attitudes in Europe and America about eating insects derive from societal reactions to the varieties of food and the natural landscapes of Europe and North America (excluding parts of Mexico), according to anthropologist Marvin Harris. I cover the topic here in more detail, and include links to insects as food web sites.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 3:55 am
12 Nov 2006
I hope you get to try chapulines at some point. It would surprise me if Mexicans, from Oaxaca or elsewhere, re-settled in California, have not tried to reproduce the cultivation of them in their new home (que era parte de Me'xico originalmente, ?no?).
(Digressively, my Californian husband and I recently saw Sergio Arau's brilliant Californian dark-comic epic of 2004, "A Day Without a Mexican," and loved it. Michael wanted to send a copy to Lou Dobbs.)
When I had chapulines, I did not eat them straight off a spoon. They were always mixed with some other food, e.g. spooned onto a piece of soft, warm tortilla. But the people that I observed buying them in Cholula ate them as they were, as I recall. Possibly the vendor had some condiment to throw on them.
Also: the ones that I ate were very small. Larger ones are available; I did not encounter them, but would have no objection to trying them.
To people who recoil in disgust, it should be pointed out that insects are really close relatives of crustaceans, which have been called "the insects of the sea," and which many people eat with great delight: e.g., shrimp, crab, lobster. True, insects are so much smaller, generally, that eating them requires the consumption of the exoskeleton and limbs, which are discarded in the case of crustaceans. (Well, the claws of crabs and lobsters are cracked open, and the insides are eaten. I never did that: too much work for too little profit. As a sort of scientific experiment, I ordered a lobster, once, in Bar Harbor, Maine, and made a fool of myself.)
As I mentioned before, it is not clear to me how significant chapulines are as a part of the diet of Zapotecs and Mixtecs (the predominant native Oaxacans) and any other Mesoamerican people. What I am envisioning, however, is that insects should become a major protein source.
My feeling is that they will become acceptable, initially, if their nature can be disguised. I.e., they will probably need to get the mortar-and-pestle treatment, and then poured over rice, or mixed in cream-of-wheat, or something like that.
On kashrut and reservations about pig-flesh: It is not reasonable to think, as your quoted author seems to, that there is something inherent in the nature of pigs which should make them disgusting. As I said on another thread, many ancient Mediterranean peoples loved pork. So why were they not disgusted, as allegedly the Israelites were?
Anecdotally, here on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, I have observed Jewish friends, in delicatessens, look with disgust and horror at the shrimp salad. Not that shrimp salad is my favorite food, but I have eaten it, and many people seem to like it. So, clearly, in the case of my Jewish friends, we are dealing with a deep-seated cultural prejudice.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink