I love bacon.
Sure, meat is murder and all that, not to mention it's contributing more emissions than most of us slightly green carnivores would like to admit, but it is tasty.
And filling. I learned that last bit in June when my family gave up meat at the slight urging of vegetarian Gristmillers responding to my query about the best ways to green my family life. It took me about three tummy-rumbling weeks before I learned veggie burgers satisfied my craving for hearty food.
In a month's time I came away with conflicting thoughts about meat.
For instance, kids can be easily converted to vegetarians.
Mine devoured pesto made from farm-fresh arugula, a new staple at our house thanks to the handy recipe from my community supported agriculture farmer, who helped me realized kale is more than just a back scratcher. And even if my kids hated pesto or sautéed kale, I could always hide it in their potato pancakes the next morning.
A vegetarian diet seems perfectly fine for children. I'm not sure how the vegan crowd does it, but my daughters' pediatrician shook her head at the idea of not giving my children milk or eggs.
I was surprised at how tough a vegetarian diet was for my husband and me. We ate more foods from the middle aisles of the grocery store -- breads, pastas, and crackers -- and my husband reverted to frozen meals for his work lunch because lettuce-based meals don't travel well. By the end of the month, I started craving fast food, which I hardly ever eat. I finally satisfied my hunger with fake meat sandwiches, which seem unnatural and are expensive -- but ooh, were they delicious.
So we returned to our meat-eating ways in early July. I was full once again, but I came away unsatisfied. This could be because we resumed eating meat with a series of gluttonous Independence Day celebrations, but even good cuts of meat left me a little sluggish.
So I made a deal with myself. I'm not a vegetarian. My family just bought $20 in pork ribs from an organic farmer for this weekend. I won't lie. I'm pretty excited about it.
But my family's health is a top concern, leading me to make more vegetarian meals and buy mostly locally raised meat. And in case any mom out there is considering going vegetarian, I'm here to let you know: cycling around town plus more veggies is a great way to get back into those pre-baby clothes.
I'm just saying.
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 Flat
ChristianHGross Posted 7:56 am
22 Jul 2007
Then I realized what was my problem in that I actually like meat. So I did some research and learned people have preferences and their weights are due to their biases.
My answer is a low-carb diet, BUT, not an atkins diet. I call it the low-car natural food diet. I stay away from almost all processed foods, flour based, sugar based stuff. Our food bill went up by 20% because we cut out almost all carbohydrates and end up double or triple fruits and vegetables.
The diet I devised focuses on eating unprocessed natural foods. Plenty of vegetables, fruits and lesser amounts of meat. We eat bread that reassembles pumpernickel and is mostly made up of natural grains. Interestingly enough wholesome bread has very little carbs, but provides the fiber that my wife and I need.
What was hard about this diet is that we eat no Italian (yes there are lo-carb noodles, but we want to focus on un-processed foods), Asia without the rice, and no potatoes. Staying away from Italian was hard as that was my favorite cooking style. Though eating meals with two or three courses of vegetables is actually quite nice. Most folks eat one course of vegies, one meat, and one carb.
My wife and I have been doing it for 8 months. The result is that my wife and I have more energy, and we have lost weight. For me I can now finally keep my weight off.
Switching into this diet was hard because both my wife and I had headaches for about two weeks to a month. It was not funny to wake up every morning with a headache that just would not go away. Though the headaches went away.
One weird thing that happened to me is that I have developed a dislike for the taste of fat and fried food. While I eat beef, and pork, my preference has definitely steered towards the lighter meats such as poultry and fish. I actually crave fish. I had no intent on this, and my wife thinks that it is a fad. I am not so sure because my body literally wants fish and lighter meats.
Do we miss candy bars, processed foods such as doughnuts, Fruit Loops, french fries, etc? Not at all, which does amaze us. I used to have a REAL BAD sweet tooth that runs through my family. During my vegetarian stint I wanted meat. But in this diet I don't crave noodles (even though I adored Italian), nor rice or potatoes. Though I will admit outside of pasta I was never a carbohydrate fan, so I guess it was easier to adopt this diet.
My point is not to convince you of this diet, but that I think everybody needs to listen to their inner voice and adopt the diet that suits them best.
What is ironic about my wife's and I diet is the food bill of the vegetarian and us is similar with one exception. A vegetarian buys carbs, we buy meat.
NOTE: If you are going to adopt this diet be prepared for your food bill to go up by at least 20%. Carbs are cheap, fruits and vegetables are not.
Permalink
Sage Posted 8:39 am
22 Jul 2007
I recommend getting yourself a good Indian cookbook and seeing what you find in there. It's not even so much about the Indian food itself as it is a matter of getting ideas on how to cook without meat.
The lack of "fullness" you complained about can probably be fixed with more fiber. Legumes and other high-fiber foods ought to be able to fix that. Do some research on the various kinds of more exotic grains beyond the generic corn, wheat, or white-rice to see what you'd like.
Permalink
caniscandida Posted 9:01 am
22 Jul 2007
Good for Christian H. Gross, for trying. As a person of Italian origin, I would not recommend either Italianivory or Italianolatry: in the first place, you never know where an Italian has been, you could catch a disease; in the second, you never know whom and for what he has had to pay real bucks.
Good for Christine Gardner too, for trying.
But of course, we are overlooking the real ethical issue. Is killing animals in order to feed on their meat "murder and all that," or not? If it is, and if we recognize it as such, then why in the world should we be allowed to get away with this fluffy post?
In fact, the great majority of animals whose flesh people eat suffer greatly as they are raised, suffer greatly as they are slaughtered, and could have lived longer lives, but for the tyranny of Christine Gardner, Christian Gross, and all sorts of other carnivorous, self-righteous Christian friends.
If you are going to raise this issue at all, Christine Gardner, be serious. You need to explain right away why the exploitation and killing of animals is morally justifiable. And it is extremely offensive to dismiss opposition to the exploitation of animals as a kind of joke or whim or fancy.
Chickens are our cousins!
So are other sensitive animals!
Enough is enough!
No more factory farms!
Permalink
jscorse Posted 11:27 am
22 Jul 2007
As for veganism for kids, your pediatrician doesn't have a clue and doesn't deserve to be a medical practitioner. It's relatively easy and healthy and advocated by some of the top doctors and pediatricians in the world. Doesn't mean anyone has to do it, but for a doctor to tell you it's impossible is unbelievable. I have friends with vegan kids that are some of the healthiest kids in the world.
http://www.newsobserver.com/105/story/603236.html
J.S.
J.S.
htt://voicesofreason.info
Permalink
Philos Posted 12:23 pm
22 Jul 2007
But here's some additional motivation for those who aren't quite convinced.
The American Dietetic Association says at their website:
"Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation,
infancy, childhood and adolescence. Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber,magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass
indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer."
And Dr. Frank Oski, former director of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University said:
"There is no reason to drink cow's milk at any time in your life. It was designed for calves, it was not designed for humans, and we should all
stop drinking it today, this afternoon."
Dr. Spock agreed, saying, "[T]here was a time when cow's milk was considered very desirable. But research, along with clinical experience, has forced doctors and nutritionists to rethink this recommendation."
And finally, The World Health Organization (WHO) says that western nations that consume a lot of meat/dairy have the highest levels of osteoporosis, which is caused by eating a lot of animal protein. It says, "...hip fracture rates are higher in developed countries where calcium intake is high than in developing countries where calcium intake is low...fracture risk has recently been shown to be a function of protein intake in North American women."
Anyone concerned about osteoporosis should read the WHO report here:
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/9241546123_cha ...
And those are just the health issues. When you add the moral issues and the environmental issues, the reasons for "going vegan" are overwhelming!
Permalink
Philos Posted 12:30 pm
22 Jul 2007
http://tinyurl.com/vr8vn
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:38 pm
22 Jul 2007
Her pediatrician "...shook her head at the idea of not giving my children milk or eggs."
Which somehow got translated into:
"As for veganism for kids, your pediatrician doesn't have a clue and doesn't deserve to be a medical practitioner ...for a doctor to tell you it's impossible is unbelievable."
I also know a pediatrician who also shakes her head when a vegan parent decides to have children and raise them on a vegan diet. Sure it can be done without compromising a growing child's developing brain, but if the parent does not take supplements, or the kid decides not to eat beans or the parent doesn't know the kid must eat lots of pulses, you could get this. Pediatricians are child advocates. They worry about vegan diets for kids because not all parents are created equal.
An uneducated vegan parent can harm their kid's brain development. This disclaimer at the end of a vegan article sums it up nicely. Even Spock didn't want parents to attempt it until the kid was at least two years old.
Educating parents who want to go vegan and have children is a real good idea but advocating that parents in general should raise their kids on a vegan diet would harm a percentage of the children of the poor and uneducated who tried.
"I have friends with vegan kids that are some of the healthiest kids in the world."
They are healthy because they had educated and disciplined parents who took specific precautions to protect their children's growing brains during pregnancy and in their first few critical years.
I can just see doctors around the world telling Masi or reindeer herder mom's to leave milk, meat, and dairy out of their diet. America is a melting pot of genetic clusters. There are five main genetic clusters on the planet. The genetic mutation allowing adults to digest lactose arose independently around the world in all pastorialist cultures in just a few thousand years because it imparted such a powerful selective force (protein).
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
David Roberts Posted 6:41 pm
22 Jul 2007
If not, then it does seem weird for a pediatrician to single out vegan diets for disapproval. Indeed, it seems to me overwhelmingly likely that parents who are moving their families to a vegan diet are just the parents who are conscious and careful about food choices.
That said, you're right that discussions of diet quickly become theological, to no one's benefit.
grist.org
Permalink
Christine Gardner Posted 11:53 pm
22 Jul 2007
And frankly, I think she's right. Just because you can provide a vegan diet to a toddler doesn't mean you should.
My family opted for a more natural diet by eliminating high-fructose corn syrup and making a lot of home-cooked food.
It's not crazy restrictive but it keeps us from buying in the middle aisles of the grocery store, where all the evil lives. Plus we buy a lot of local food.
Local fruits, vegetables and meat. I'll take that over fortified cereal.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 12:16 am
23 Jul 2007
I'm a bit tired of the demonization of milk and milk products. There is remark somewhere above indicating that no one should be consuming dairy products.
Well... I'd like to point out that some of us are descendents of Northern European stock and are probably genetically inclined to consume dairy products. IT'S NATURAL FOR US. Our particular combination of genes probably survived because our ancestors consumed dairy products.
I agree that animals should not be abused to obtained milk, but I disagree with the notion that we should ALL stop consuming dairy products because there are some human populations that can't consume dairy.
Why must we all consume the same diet?! The suggestion that it is wrong to consume milk, to me, amounts to disrespect for my cultural history and is essentially racism.
I want to add, befor the inevitable knee-jerk response to my comment, that it is important that efforts to market dairy products take into consideration that a significant number of people should not consume milk and that if a parent chooses to not raise their child as though milk is essential for their very survival, schools should present alternatives.
There is no perfect diet for all of humanity. Each person (or parent) has to identify what is important for them (or their children) and what should be avoided. And as long as animals are not abused, we ought to show some respect for each others choices. There might be very good reasons for those choices.
Forward!
Permalink
jscorse Posted 12:50 am
23 Jul 2007
Like I said, people can do what they want but not to recognize the contradictions in how our culture approaches food is simply choosing to ignore the blatantly obvious.
J.S.
htt://voicesofreason.info
Permalink
cmurthi Posted 1:17 am
23 Jul 2007
Just as ridiculous is to label eating meat 'murder'. I eat only organic meat, and am quite comfortable with doing so. As long as animals are not tortured while alive, I can live with it.
Obesity is a problem with eating too much and eating bad food. But if you think vegetarianism cannot lead to it, let me introduce you to about 10 million upper-class Indians.
A vegan diet is extreme. If you like it, I have no problem with it, but please, don't try to foist it off as holier-than-mine.Extremism in any form is simply counterpriductive. Not to mention boring.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 1:33 am
23 Jul 2007
Also, for those who wish to eliminate meat and dairy from our diets, no more cheap beef, chicken, pork, or other animal products.
Forward!
Permalink
mihan Posted 1:49 am
23 Jul 2007
I do feel hungry sooner after a vegan meal. I think it's mainly animal protein that makes you feel full, though, not necessarily meat. If I have a long day ahead, a couple of eggs for breakfast are delicious and keep me going.
Donuts and fries aren't "processed" by definition. Anything can be processed, but we can choose not to purchase them. Michael Pollan's definition of "food" is something your grandma would recognize as food; mine is that if you could make it at home (bread, yogurt, jam, sausage, etc.) it's food; if not, its not (anything containing HFCS, "hydrolyzed soy protein", or hydrogenated oils). My sweet potato-bourbon donuts are definitely not processed, but they are both delicious and bad for you.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 2:10 am
23 Jul 2007
Forward!
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 2:25 am
23 Jul 2007
The tone of this discussion was set by the stunningly callous second sentence in the original post, "Sure, meat is murder and all that....."
Regarding India's recent obesity epidemic, Indians are becoming fatter for most of the same reasons Americans are - a horrible junk food diet and sitting around.
Here are several articles on India's new obesity problem ~
India's Newly Rich Battle With Obesity
http://www.indiaresource.org/news/2005/2063.html
Asia Grapples with obesity epidemic
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/326/7388/515/a
UNC Study: Obesity found to be new, growing health threat among Indian women
http://www.unc.edu/news/archives/sep01/brantley100101.htm ...
And here's information from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine:
http://www.pcrm.org
The PCRM on vegetarian diets for children
http://www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/vegetarian_kids.html
Permalink
jscorse Posted 2:27 am
23 Jul 2007
However, to call veganism extreme is such a cop-out- another easy smear by those who don't want to look at facts.
Veganism includes 99% of all food and vegans probably eat the most varied diets of all. What is extreme is the junk food, animal-laden diets of most of the U.S.
As to obesity, anyone who thinks the ranks of the obese in the world are filled with vegetarians and vegans or the ranks of those with heart disease, cancer, and diabetes is simply in denial. And once you add the environmental impact this denial has global implications that are devastating.
J.S.
J.S.
htt://voicesofreason.info
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 3:13 am
23 Jul 2007
Substituting a soy patty in place of the meat patty in your typical fast food meal (a Coke, order of fries, and two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun, would have little, if any impact on obesity. The topic is veganism. Obviously one does not need the extreme of veganism to eat a healthy diet.
Americans have been eating meat and potatoes for a long time. The sudden obesity epidemic has little, if anything to do with meat consumption. I have two in-laws who got skinny on the Atkins diet, which is another example of an extreme diet that a responsible pediatrician would not promote to the general populace. My guess is that people are getting fat because they are eating too much high calorie food. Profound thought, I know.
[obesity] ...is costing us thousands of lives, billions of dollars, and harming millions of children...
I hoped you wouldn't make that argument again. I didn't address it preemptively because I was hoping to avoid more typing. But you did, so....
Every sane pediatrician in this country is aware of the childhood obesity epidemic. A significant percentage of the kids they see are overweight. They all try to educate parents to:
Ban junk food from the house.
Provide lower calorie meals with a heavy emphasis on fruits and vegetables.
Set a limit television and computer games.
Get your kid out and involved in physical activity.
Few are going to say,
Cut your child off from all meat and dairy.
Feed them exclusively on beans, vegetables and grain.
Spend long hours after you come home from your shit job to prepare delicious vegan meals from scratch.
"... a vegan diet is scoffed at by medical practitioners when it's the healthiest option out there. That's not theological, that's straight out crazy."
There is a difference between scoffing at a diet and not promoting one. Pediatricians are having little success curbing obesity with the four basic rules mentioned above. Veganism is even more extreme and totally unnecessary to be healthy. What success will they have promoting veganism? Some anecdotal evidence to match your vegan friends would be my daughters, who are not vegan. They are slim, active, healthy and happy.
"Like I said, people can do what they want but not to recognize the contradictions in how our culture approaches food is simply choosing to ignore the blatantly obvious.
I don't disagree with your comment above. But as I stated earlier, replacing the meat on the buns with soy won't fix the problem. Veganism is more than a diet. It is a quasi-religious mindset.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
meadow20 Posted 3:21 am
23 Jul 2007
Permalink
C4nier Posted 3:26 am
23 Jul 2007
I've been a vegan for 11 years, vegetarian for 15. I think that the hardest time people have with gonig vegetarian or vegan is in the required paradigm shift. You can't eat like you did before, but just cut the meat. First of all, I recommend eating only whole grains. They stick with you longer, are more nutritionally complete and their nuttiness will really grow on you. Second, you really should try breaking out of your dining paradigm. Look to other types of foods - think Middle Eastern, South American, Asian. Explore grains you may not have tried before - quinoa, amaranth, buckwheat, etc. And eat lots of beans. They really are the miracle food! And as long as you don't overeat the bit of additional gas that comes along with vegetarianism won't be a bother.
Even though my husband and I are vegan and plan to raise our children vegan until they can decide for themselves, I don't try to advocate it for everyone. In fact, I try to avoid the conversation when people ask me about it because they are often feeling defensive, or just trying to punch holes in your way of thinking. If you do the research and decide it's for you, more power to you!
Otherwise, I think the most important thing is to shun the hyperconsumptive lives and diets we as modern Americans have embraced. It's good for the Earth, good for your waistline, and good for your pocketbook. Don't accept the current way that we eat, or live, as the unquestionable way things have always been. As my grandmother once told me, "after eating beans all month that one chicken we had on the last Sunday of the month always tasted so good!"
Permalink
C4nier Posted 3:34 am
23 Jul 2007
Think WHOLE FOODS. Eat beans, instead of bean patties.
And as to the comments made by doctors above. I think it's worth noting that looking at the curriculum for a medical degree only incorporates a single nutrition class - sometimes none at all. They are able to talk broadly about nutrition, but I've had plenty of doctors not know what kale, collards, bok choy, or quinoa are. Then I had one tell me that I shouldn't be avoiding beef liver because it contains the iron a woman needs. Now, how many people in the world don't want to or can't eat beef liver? I really doubt that they're walking around chronically anemic! If you want a nuanced opinion on diet, talk to a nutritionist.
Permalink
Chris Schults Posted 3:56 am
23 Jul 2007
Few are going to say ... Spend long hours after you come home from your shit job to prepare delicious vegan meals from scratch.
While, as with all diets, there are some meals that might take hours to make, on average most of the vegan meals that I make from scratch take no more than one hour to prepare and cook -- often less.
Veganism is more than a diet. It is a quasi-religious mindset.
This might be true for some, but not everyone, which this statement suggests.
Permalink
jscorse Posted 4:00 am
23 Jul 2007
If you want to keep calling veganism extreme it is your choice- I just happen to think it's a stupid label with no content that is only meant to disparage and smear a lifestyle that is extremely healthy and good for the environment. But again, if you want to use ridiculous language like that go right ahead.
J.S.
htt://voicesofreason.info
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 4:00 am
23 Jul 2007
I'm posting a list of studies and articles on the effects of the global meat culture on the environment.
If the links don't make it and you'd like have them, just write me at (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
//
var l=new Array();
var output = '';
l[0]='>';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[28]='\"';l[29]=' 116';l[30]=' 101';l[31]=' 110';l[32]=' 46';l[33]=' 104';l[34]=' 116';l[35]=' 117';l[36]=' 111';l[37]=' 115';l[38]=' 108';l[39]=' 108';l[40]=' 101';l[41]=' 98';l[42]=' 64';l[43]=' 56';l[44]=' 52';l[45]=' 117';l[46]=' 97';l[47]=' 101';l[48]=' 98';l[49]=' 105';l[50]=' 104';l[51]=' 116';l[52]=':';l[53]='o';l[54]='t';l[55]='l';l[56]='i';l[57]='a';l[58]='m';l[59]='\"';l[60]='=';l[61]='f';l[62]='e';l[63]='r';l[64]='h';l[65]='a ';l[66]='
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:07 am
23 Jul 2007
"When you purchase and eat meat, you are essentially saying yes- I approve of all the waste and destruction, do it some more."
Not the best way to win converts. That remark did not instill a burning desire in me to become a member of your monkey troop.
Meat is processed food, like bread. Grain is almost always processed into another more palatable form of human food, which always takes energy. Livestock processes grain into protein. Some foods take more energy to process than others.
It is a good idea to promote eating less meat but insisting on veganism is not necessary and probably counterproductive because it is a form of extremism, which will be popular with a few, but unpalatable by the majority, by definition.
When you have children, live in a single occupancy house, drive a car, have pets, take hot showers, and travel, you are also essentially saying yes- I approve of all the waste and destruction, do it some more.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 4:19 am
23 Jul 2007
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
suniru333 Posted 4:30 am
23 Jul 2007
I wholeheartedly agree with you that we all need to respect each other's dietary choices - it is entirely counterproductive to trod on one another for the things we eat, just like the things we choose to believe in. However, I have to say that your statement about "as long as animals are not abused" is a bit outlandish. Animal abuse and mistreatment, not to mention the fact that domestic animals raised for slaughter are treated and fed much differently than is natural for them, is at the EPICENTER of the meat industry, and there is no possible way anyone can deny that in their right mind. Read the article about Smithfield Pork posted above, and visit PETA's website to watch the 'Meet your Meat' video. No, I do not believe it is right to trod on someone else's lifestyle, UNLESS it is posing threat to other lives. Eating meat - supporting factory farms, which is what the majority of meat eaters do (even the 'free range, organic' chicken you can buy at Whole Foods is not truly free range or organic)is in itself an act that promotes abuse and suffering for the benefit of the human population. So, unless one raises their own cow, chicken, or pig, suffering supports meat-eating, sadly said. By no means do I wish to critize, but this should really be something to think about...
I've been vegetarian for 9 years and vegan for 4 - I love it, and I would not ever label myself as an extremist. I know extremists, and I am not one of them...
Permalink
cmurthi Posted 4:47 am
23 Jul 2007
There's been plenty of noise about air travel and its carbon footprint, for example. But when it finally comes down to it, does anyone seriously think that mankind is going to give up air travel? That way lies the stone age.
So the goal should be to mitigate bad effects. Control air travel. Eat less meat. Eat more fish. Or whatever. Find new paradigms.
And food is such a visceral issue that it would be basically impossible to convert any meaningful number to vega(taria)nism. Eating well is a joy in life. So it should be. And it's not anti-environmental.
Permalink
amc89 Posted 4:54 am
23 Jul 2007
That's a sweeping generalization and very unfair. To me, being vegan is a pragmatic way to help reduce animal suffering and environmental destruction and improve my health. There's nothing religious about it. A vegan diet doesn't have to be "boring" if you are willing to experiment every now and then and have an open mind about trying new plant-based foods. I think my diet is many times more diverse since I gave up meat 13 years ago and dairy and eggs 5 years ago.
Somebody brought up Scandinavians and dairy consumption. It's interesting that the incidence of hip fractures (a good indicator of osteoporosis) in countries that have the highest dairy consumption in the world (like Norway, Sweden, and the United States) is 50 times greater than in countries like New Guinea and South Africa that have extremely low consumption of dairy products (and animal products in general). The point being that you don't need meat and dairy to have healthy bones, despite all the ads from the U.S. dairy indusry telling us otherwise.
At any rate, I applaud Christine and anybody else who is eating more meatless meals and making sure to only buy locally raised and organic meat. I think people who are concerned about these issues (animal cruelty, environmental destruction and spread of diseases caused by factory farming), whether you're vegan, vegetarian, or flexitarian, should stop bickering and work together to make the public at large realize that our current diets based on factory farmed meat is harmful and that factory farmed meat (including fish from fish farms) is best left out of our diets.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 5:13 am
23 Jul 2007
Do you still regard my statement as "outlandish", even if it covers only dairy products?
Forward!
Permalink
GreenEngineer Posted 5:23 am
23 Jul 2007
Permalink
suniru333 Posted 6:24 am
23 Jul 2007
In my reference to meat products, I did fail to address dairy, and I apologize. But the dairy industry is included. Some would say it is even worse than the meat industry. Newborn calves are torn from their mothers (which is shown to be very traumatizing) and forced to drink formula that is not made for their full health. Indeed, the existence of the dairy industry actually supports one of the most low aspects of the meat industry: veal. Veal, as we all know, is baby cow. The calves are forced into tiny cages in which they can't hardly even move, to prevent muscle from building, which leads to the production of the tender meat that people are looking for when they purchase veal. After being traumatized right after birth due to separation from their mothers, their lives are cut short. In addition, dairy cows are often even worse off. They are pumped with antibiotics and hormones to produce more milk than they are meant to produce - resulting in frequent painful infections and sores on their udders. They have almost no relief from milking, and never see the outdoors. Surprisingly, despite the terrible shape they are in after their milking 'careers' are over, they are sent to the slaughterhouse to go into the central stream of meat production. Again, unless you're raising your own cows and milking, abuse and suffering is virtually unavoidable within the confines of factory farming.
I'm really not trying to step on anyone's toes, just voicing my honest opinion. To me, it's a conundrum to hear meat or dairy industry without suffering involved. I speak only for the animals, and indeed am not trying to judge anyone for the way they live. All I seek is to share what I know about the topic.
Permalink
Biodiversivist Posted 6:58 am
23 Jul 2007
I of course have nothing at all against those who choose to eat a primarily vegan diet like yourself. I don't care for the proselytizers. I think they hurt the cause. I ride a hybrid electric bike and I like to tell people about it. I don't condemn those who choose not to ride one.
We rarely spend that much time preparing a meal, including the time spent eating it. We don't emphasize eating as a way to obtain life's pleasures. Time spent shopping and preparing meals can be spent reading or exercising or any number of other things. Americans don't have to spend most of their waking hours growing their own food anymore and it is nice not to have to process it all also. To each his own of course. Our meals are typically diverse (usually containing some dairy or eggs along with vegetables), short and simple with very little or no meat. Our culture, like many wealthy ones before it has become obsessed with food. I also agree with you that a vegan diet would not qualify as a quasi-religious mindset, but I would argue that veganism, the lifestyle, might.
Jason,
If you want to keep calling veganism extreme it is your choice- I just happen to think it's a stupid label with no content that is only meant to disparage and smear a lifestyle that is extremely healthy and good for the environment.
Nobody has smeared anybody. By "thinking" it is a stupid label you are saying to me you don't like the label. There is also a difference between simply eating a vegan diet and practicing a vegan "lifestyle," which is much more than a just a diet, isn't it?
"But again, if you want to use ridiculous language like that go right ahead."
Your permission, although appreciated, really isn't necessary. Calling all meat (Atkins) and no meat (vegan) diets extreme is hardly ridiculous language. Visualize a scale with the Atkins diet at one end and a vegan diet on the other. On the other hand, using words like smear, stupid, ridiculous, cop-out, and insanity might be considered a little extreme by some.
In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:12 am
23 Jul 2007
Just trying to establish boundaries of acceptability.
Forward!
Permalink
gmunger Posted 7:45 am
23 Jul 2007
Interesting perhaps, but hardly definitive. Consider that the average lifespan is much longer in Scandanavia than in New Guinea or South Africa. Age is also a good indicator of osteoporosis. Perhaps if New Guineans lived as long, on average, as Scandanavians they might actually have greater incidence of osteoporosis. Hard to say.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:47 am
23 Jul 2007
I wasn't going to return to this thread, but the dairy issue is a new angle not covered by the numerous other debates on the Grist website surrounding omnivorism.
I generally view dairy products as acceptable, but suniru333 has pointed out a severe problem... diverting calves to the veal industry. I figured organic milk was better for me (fewer chemicals), better for the animals (reduced pressure to produce, better living conditions), and better for the environment. But it never occurred to me that the calves still end up as veal. I don't eat veal because of how the calves are treated... and the fact that it is more expensive and nutrionally inferior... why would someone pay more for less???
Anyway, now I've realized that organic labeling does not preclude abuse of the animals. For instance, I'm not really afraid of the antibiotics and hormones used by the dairy industry as much as I object to the fact that antibiotics and hormones permit operators to further confine and abuse the animals... and that, in turn, results in potentially tainted products and harm to the environment.
But if I'm not really worried about the chemicals, if organic labeling does NOT preclude abuse of animals, and I suspect organic labeling does not even mean reduced harm to the environment, what's the point of buyiing organic milk?! Inorganic or organic... calves are being abused and turned into veal.
What should I do? What should all of us enablers of the veal industry do?
First, stop wasting money on organic milk and other dairy products. It is not reducing the overall extent of suffering in the world.
Second, wean ourselves, perhaps a few decades too late, from milk and other dairy products.
Third, encourage the United Nations and other organizations that provide aide to developing countries to cut all support for programs that support herding as a life-style. We really have to help those people. They're addicts. They should really settle down and grow soybeans.
Forward!
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 7:53 am
23 Jul 2007
It is also possible that the people of New Guinea and South Africa consume other very good sources of calcium, perhaps some leafy green vegetable that grows well in the tropics.
Or perhap the Scandanavians don't exercise enough, while the other populations cannot help but get enough exercise because of their lifestyle.
Or perhaps the Scandanavians have a lot of stuff crammed into their apartments and therefore are more likely to trip over something.
Or perhaps there is more ice in Scandanavia and there is simply a greater chance of slipping an falling when you go outside.
Forward!
Permalink
Christine Gardner Posted 8:06 am
23 Jul 2007
Biodiversivist's arguments on this matter have been thorough, but I will say buying local, even if meat and cheese are involved, seems like a better solution to the environment/obesity/overall-health than advocating a diet that less than 1 percent of Americans can follow.
Again, it's probably just me. And where's that donut recipe?
Permalink
PermieWriter Posted 8:11 am
23 Jul 2007
Mushrooms satisfy much of the meat-craving and leave one (at least this one) very satisfied. Agaricus brunnescens (brown mushrooms - button or portabello) have 30 percent protein. That's why they're an excellent burger - they're protein. And they're actually food, which is a hell of an advantage over those horrible patty things.
For years I've been convinced that the whole raison d'etre of the Morning Star product line is to convince people to go back to eating pork. Kind of like the actual business model of Lipton Tea: to get people to drink coffee instead.
But mushrooms are actually an excellent meat substitute, unlike processed meat substitutes.
I once made a lasagna with strips of sauteed porcini instead of noodles, and it remains one of the most ecstatic gustatory experiences of my life.
Plus, you can grow them yourself. You can do that with meat, too, but only the most dedicated will do so.
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:15 am
23 Jul 2007
Here is a list of by-products -- and how they are used -- from one part of the meat industry... cows. I'm not saying any of this justifies killing animals. (I personally find plywood a little creepy after reading this.) I simply want to point out that there is more to this issue than convincing people to no longer consume meat. There are more parties interested in the meat industry than one might realize at first glance.
There are probably alternative sources for many of these materials, especially with our ability to synthesize organic molecules or engineer organisms to produce just about any biological molecule. Also, some of the by-products are used for very nefarious purposes generally not celebrated by environmentalists or any other sane person.
From Discover Magazine... http://www.discover.com/issues/aug-01/features/featcow/
B L O O D
Cell culture laboratories
Bovine serum albumin provides a wide variety of macromolecular proteins, low-molecular-weight nutrients, carrier proteins for water-insoluble components, and other compounds necessary for in vitro growth of cells, such as hormones and attachment factors. Serum adds buffering capacity to the medium and binds or neutralizes toxic components in the growth milieu.
Home and industrial uses
Plywood adhesives, fertilizer, foam fire extinguisher, chemical fixer for dyes
T A L L O W S
(fat derived from meat, bone, hooves, and horns)
Edible tallow
Used in shortening for baked goods and in combination with vegetable oils for frying foods. Also used in chewing gum
Inedible fats and oils
Various industrial tallows: Top White Tallow, All-Beef Packer Tallow, Extra Fancy Tallow, Fancy Tallow, Bleachable Fancy Tallow, Prime Tallow,Special Tallow, No. 2 Tallow, A Tallow, Choice White Grease, Yellow Grease
F A T T Y A C I D S
(derived from tallows)
General uses
Plastics, tires, candles, crayons, cosmetics, lubricants, soaps, fabric softeners, asphalt emulsifiers, synthetic rubber, linoleum (metallic stearate), PVC (calcium stearate), jet engine lubricants, carrier for pesticides and herbicides, wetting agents, dispersing agents, defoamers, solubilizers, viscosity modifiers
Oleic acid -> pelargonic acid -> synthetic motor oil
Oleic acid -> fed into gel cultures to produce antibiotics
Azelaic acid -> high-performance coatings for planes and cars, food packaging, fishing line, acne medication, furniture
Stearic acid-> aluminum tristearate -> cosmetic gels, pharmaceutical additives, grease additives, toner adjuvants, antifoam agents, explosive additives, waterproofing agents
Fatty acid amides
Lubricants in industrial processes
Fatty acid amines
Rubber, textiles, ore floatation, corrosion inhibitors,metalworking lubricants
Fatty acid esters
Emulsifiers, coating agents, textile sizers, lubricants, plasticizers, defoaming agents, lithium-based greases, textile lubricants, rolling and cutting oils, metal-machining lubricants
Fatty alcohols
Sodium alkyl sulfates, ultimately made into detergents
G L Y C E R I N
(derived from tallows)
Glycerin derivatives
A wide range of pharmaceuticals including cough syrups and lozenges, tranquilizers, eyewashes, contraceptive jellies and creams, ear drops, poison ivy solutions, solvent for digitalis and intramuscular injection, sclerosing solutions for treatment of varicose veins and hemorrhoids, suppositories, gel capsules
Glycerol
Solvent, sweetener, dynamite, cosmetics, liquid soaps, candy, liqueurs, inks, lubricants, antifreeze mixtures, culture nutrients for antibiotics
Glycerin mist
Aftershave preparations, shaving cream, toilet soap, toothpaste, sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, bath salts, bubble baths, body lotions, cleansing creams, moisturizing creams, external analgesics and counterirritants, shampoos, hair coloring preparations (bleaches, dyes, rinses, tints), hair dressings (brilliantines, creams, pomades), hair mousse, hair and scalp conditioners, hairspray, topical antibiotic preparations, hemorrhoidal preparations, pharmaceuticals for veterinary use, liquid household hard-surface cleaners, laundry aids (ironing and dry-cleaning spotting solutions), agricultural chemicals, automobile body polish and cleaners
C O L L A G E N
(derived from connective tissues and beef skins)
Hemostats, vascular sealants, tissue sealants, orthopedic implant coatings, vascular implant coatings, artificial skin, bone graft substitutes, corneal shields, injectable collagen for plastic surgery, injectable collagen for incontinence treatment, meat casings, food additives, artificial dura maters, dental implants, wound dressings, antiadhesion barriers, platelet analyzer reagents, research reagents, antibiotic wound dressing, lacrimal plugs
G E L A T I N
(derived from collagen)
Food uses
Powdered gelatin, leaf gelatin, gelatin hydrolysate, instant gelatin, jellies, confectionery (jelly beans, jelly babies, gums, pastilles), aerated confectionery (marshmallows, meringues, nougats, fruit chews), caramels, sugarcoated almonds, desserts and dairy products (Bavarian creams, mousses, piecrusts, margarines, dietetic products, yogurts, ice creams and sorbets), clarification of wines (fining agent), decorations (garnishes, galantines, foie gras, eggs in jelly), gel reinforcement for cooked meats to improve slicing, gels for the liquor exuded from hams during cooking, gels to preserve pâtés, dietetic products (dietary breads, biscuits, powdered soups)
Cosmetics
Protective creams, beauty masks, lotions, shampoo basesHealth-pharmaceutical productsSoft capsules, hard-shell two-piece capsules, hemostatic sponges, biological adhesives, blood serum, binder in pills and suppositories
Industrial uses
Binder for flammable substances in matches, binder to improve "crispness" of banknotes, coating for microparticles of self-copying papers,glues for paper and cardboard cartons, bookbinding glue, electrolyticsurface treatment of metals
Photographic uses
Emulsion gelatin, dispersion gelatin, protective-layer gelatin, backing gelatin, baryta gelatin, modified gelatin
O R G A N S A N D G L A N D S
Lungs: heparin (blood thinner), pet food
Heart: pericardium patches
Trachea: chondroitin sulfate (arthritis treatment)
Tendons: elastin, peptone
Gall: cleaning agent for leather, paints and dyes
Intestines: glycosaminoglycans (for cartilage and joint treatment), sutures, musical strings, racquet strings
Liver: catalase, used in contact-lens care products
Pancreas: insulin, chromotrypsin, glucagons
Placenta: glycosaminoglycans, alkaline phosphatases, fetal calf serum
Testicles: hyaluronidase (cartilage and joint treatment) Umbilical cord: hyaluronic acid
Uterus: glycosaminoglycans
Spinal cord: pharmaceuticals, laboratory reagents, source of neural lipids and cholesterol
Bile: bile acids used to make industrial detergents, bilirubin to measure liver function
Nasal septum: chondroitin sulfate
Nasal mucosa: heparin
Bone: charcoal ash (for refining products such as sugar), ceramics, cleaning and polishing compounds, bone and dental implants
BETTER CHECK THE LABELS ON EVERYTHING IN YOUR HOME! Are you an enabler?
Forward!
Permalink
gmunger Posted 8:20 am
23 Jul 2007
You are assuming there are no suitable alternatives in between the extremes of the CAFO-raised livestock "industry" and backyard husbandry. In reality, there are many options for eating locally-, sustainably-, and humanely-raised (and slaughtered) meat. I am a died-in-the-wool omnivore that is committed to those three principles in obtaining my meat.
First, I hunt. It's the original (aboriginal?) means of obtaining lean, high-quality protein. I realize it's not always an option for everyone, but stop and think about how overrun most of North America is with deer. When the deer become scarce, we can revisit. And, to me, when done correctly, it's usually the most humane and ecologically sensible means of acquiring meat.
Second, I DO raise some of my own meat. I realize it's also not for everyone. But a lot more folks could be doing it. And ARE doing it. Ask the poultry hatcheries how their sales have been in the past 5 or so years. Simply keeping a few laying hens in a backyard coop is an easy and rewarding means of producing your own healthy food.
Third, almost all the meat I buy comes from a trusted, local source. The number of small, local producers of beef, pork, lamb, chicken, turkey, etc. is on the rise. More and more fresh, local meat is being sold at farmer's markets. This is the way it was done prior to the advent of Smithfield Farms, Cargill, and all the other chums of the USDA. It's not "industrial organic". It's real farming. And I can almost guarantee it's happening near you.
I recommend everyone pick up a copy of An Omnivore's Dilemma. It's a very worthwhile read, for vegans, vegetarians, and omnivores alike. Perhaps the majority of meat eaters still do support (monetarily) CAFO-style meat industrialists, sadly said. But it surely needn't be that way.
visit PETA's website
No thanks. In my world these people are shrill and unreasonable, and I have no time for their nonsense. I'm too busy tending my chickens and scouting for elk.
Permalink
rmcleod Posted 8:24 am
23 Jul 2007
http://www.who.int/countries/nor/en/
http://www.who.int/countries/zaf/en/
--
entropyproduction.blogspot.com
Permalink
mihan Posted 8:31 am
23 Jul 2007
Adapted from the new Joy of Cooking. Basically, I like to substitute bourbon for some of the liquid in recipes (in this case, buttermilk). I like to make these for my friend who hates sweet potato (she loves these).
1 c. mashed sweet potato (nothing else added)
3 3/4 c. flour (I use some whole wheat)
2 1/2 tsp. baking powder
1 tsp. salt
1/2 tsp. baking soda
1/4 tsp. grated nutmeg
1/2 tsp. ground cinnamon
(about 1/2 c. finely chopped pecans if you like)
2 large eggs
2/3 c. sugar and/or firmly packed brown sugar
3/4 c. buttermilk
1/4 c. bourbon
1/4 c. (1/2 stick) unsalted butter, melted
1 tsp. vanilla
Whisk flour, salt, soda, baking powder, cinnamon, nutmeg, and nuts (if using) in a bowl. In a separate bowl, whisk eggs until foamy. Add sugar(s) gradually, beating well. Stir in buttermilk, bourbon, butter, and vanilla until blended. Stir in mashed potato. Add dry ingredients and stir just until incorporated.
Drop into hot oil (360 degrees F) that is at least 3/4" deep (1" is better). Brown on both sides, turning once if necessary (they tend to turn themselves over part way through). Drain on paper towels. Dust with powdered sugar if you like; I just serve them right away.
This makes a lot of donuts---but you can always put the rest of the batter in the fridge and fry them up for breakfast the next few days. There's nothing like freshly fried donuts for breakfast.
Permalink
gmunger Posted 8:35 am
23 Jul 2007
Same for the dairy "industry". Here's where I buy most of my dairy. Look around, there may be a similar option near you.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 8:40 am
23 Jul 2007
"And, to me, when done correctly, it's usually the most humane and ecologically sensible means of acquiring meat."
According to the author of "The Bloodless Revolution: A Cultural History of Vegetarianism from 1600 to Modern Times", hunting might be the most humane and ecologically sensible means of acquiring PROTEIN. Though it really depends on population density. He admits it is not practical for the vast majority of people in today's world, but for those who have access to an opportunity to hunt -- definitely possible in the midwest and western states -- it is probably the most humane source of protein.
His logic is something like this... you can shoot a single deer for your family -- I have no idea how a far a deer goes for a family of four -- or cultivate several acres of perfectly good wildlife habitat, killing or displacing numerous mammals, reptiles, birds, and other organisms. I don't recall the precise numbers, but he concluded that the killing of a single deer is is a bit more acceptable than tearing up an entire ecological community, killing its inhabitants, and replacing it with soybeans.
Morally speaking, the decision to hunt for protein or grow protein should depend on population density and whether the land is suitable for farming.
Really... do those concerned measure suffering by the weight of the animals or number of animals? What's worse? Killing a single deer or killing dozens of small mammals and reptiles? Is it just that the deer is big? You don't notice the ground-nesting birds or snakes chopped up when the soil is tilled? You wish to save the deer, but not the animals that exist in a field along side that deer?
Forward!
Permalink
mihan Posted 8:43 am
23 Jul 2007
Oh. My. God. I have a new quest.
Mushrooms also taste "meaty" because they contain umami, the "fifth taste" (along with sweet, salty, sour, and bitter).
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 8:53 am
23 Jul 2007
Big agribusiness practises are harmful to the environment whether they are growing grains to feed animals who are not evolved to eat grain so they need anti-biotics to prevent sickness. . .or grain to feed people or grain to feed cars. Shipping food 1500 miles is harmful whether its apples or steaks.
But nothing need always be black-and-white. Very few things in life are "all or nothing." Some meat, in moderation, if raised on a farm like this
http://polyfacefarms.com/ (highlighted in OMNIVORE'S DILLEMA) may even be good for the environment.
I'm not a big milk drinker and never have been -- I missed countless recesses in elementary school for refusing to drink my milk. My children also don't like milk. But we do like yogurt and cheese and butter. I buy my milk products from a local farmer through a "cow share". "My cows" wander leizurely out in the pasture where they nibble on grass, are not fed grain, are certified "happy" and "healthy" by the local vet, etc. Calves are not separated from their mothers by my farmer, they "nurse" and naturally go out to the pasture with their mother's and the rest of the small herd. I know because I can drive by and see them and because I receive a much smaller ration of milk/milk products while the calves are young. I do not think my moderate consumption of locally raised and grazed milk is wrong.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 8:56 am
23 Jul 2007
The Café Odeon is a bustling Art Nouveau hangout around the corner from where the narrow Limmat River flows into Lake Zurich, in the shadow of the Alps. It hasn't changed much since it opened in 1911. The curved wooden bar with brass coat hooks underneath is surrounded by a few tightly arranged rows of polished marble tables around which the efficient servers twist and bend while holding aloft trays of drinks that never seem to spill.
Like most structures in Switzerland, there's a lot going on within a very small space. Lenin, Trotsky and Mussolini drank within these ornate walls, as did Mata Hari, the stripper who made exotic dancing socially acceptable in Paris before she was put on trial for espionage during World War I. "Harlot, yes, but traitor, never," she said before being riddled with bullets by the firing squad. During World War II, all sorts of spies met in neutral Switzerland at the famed Odeon to exchange information. Loving a theme, this is where I arranged my Sunday morning rendezvous with the prolific undercover agent behind many of PETA's intercontinental exposés.
Complete article
http://www.alternet.org/story/50933/
Here are links to the most recent press on A Rabble Rouser's Memoir -- from Atlanta,
Nashville and the Hipster book club:
http://southernvoice.com/2007/7-20/arts/feature/7240.cfm
http://tinyurl.com/27dq9y
http://www.hipsterbookclub.com/reviews/copy/committed_dan ...
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 8:56 am
23 Jul 2007
Victual Reality
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:01 am
23 Jul 2007
"Not including transportation of meat from farm to store, production of 2.2 pounds of beef (OK, yes, that's a big burger) also spews the same amount of CO2 as an average European car driven 155 miles, and uses enough energy to keep a 100-watt light bulb bright for nearly 20 days."
WHO EATS 2.2 POUNDS OF MEAT DURING A SINGLE MEAL?!
A quarter-pound burger spews the same amount of CO2 as an average European car driven 17.6 miles, and uses enough energy to keep a 100-watt light bulb bright for nearly 2.3 days. Still a lot, but how about avoiding exaggeration and letting the real numbers speak? Or doesn't it make it sound bad enough?
Forward!
Permalink
gmunger Posted 9:02 am
23 Jul 2007
I would be careful not to characterize hunting vs. domestic livestock as an either/or proposition. Agriculture certainly has an important ecological "footprint", but not all farms (and farmers) are alike. Pasture-based livestock rearing, when done correctly, can be relatively ecologically benign. Ironically, the land where we shoot most of our big game is a cattle ranch. And there is no shortage of deer, let me assure you. And this rancher is no greeny (though we're slowly working on him).
And let's not forget that agriculture that supports vegetarians and vegans has an ecological footprint as well. Where does the fertilizer come from to grow your organic broccoli, if not from animals? Petroleum?
Permalink
gmunger Posted 9:05 am
23 Jul 2007
"Not including transportation of meat from farm to store, production of 2.2 pounds of beef (OK, yes, that's a big burger) also spews the same amount of CO2 as an average European car driven 155 miles, and uses enough energy to keep a 100-watt light bulb bright for nearly 20 days."
See my comments following said post about livestock and greenhouse gasses.
Permalink
wiscidea Posted 9:06 am
23 Jul 2007
Can you even buy organic fish emulsion? Where does it come from?
Forward!
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 9:12 am
23 Jul 2007
Victual Reality
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 10:05 am
23 Jul 2007
For information on green manure, see links below
http://essenes.net/Vorganic.htm
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/
Wikipedia on vegan gardening:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegan_organic_gardening
Research ~
Permaculture/Tree crops/Agroforestry/etc. which doesn't inherently rely on animal waste to maintain fertility
Permalink
greaser Posted 10:25 am
23 Jul 2007
To address the folks who like see the vegan diet as otherworldly or extreme, consider this quote from Abert Einstein in the New York Post, 28 November 1972:
A human being is a part of the whole, called by us the 'Universe', a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security.
Permalink
Colin Wright Posted 10:53 am
23 Jul 2007
For me, it's not a dogma either. (I would have to be pretty hungry to kill an animal.) But definately the health and environmental benefits are secondary to the moral considerations.
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 1:08 pm
23 Jul 2007
And, here's the kicker: Nearly all organic farms of any scale use manure. So Scorse should dismount from his (manure-producing) high horse, and accept that pastured animals have a place in people's diets that isn't insane or idiotic, or whatever terms he used.
Victual Reality
Permalink
gmunger Posted 1:21 pm
23 Jul 2007
Assuming you didn't see my comments r.e. the carbon footprint of beef in the other post, I'll reprint them here for you, along with 2 others' that make good points.
I wrote:
is it fossil carbon?
I have brought this up before in several other discussions on this site. I contend that the methane produced by the bovine digestive tract is not inherently deserving of the designation greenhouse gas, because it does not necessarily represent carbon that originates from a fossil source. Just like forest fires, the carbon emitted represents C's that are simply being cycled in the global terrestrial carbon cycle. They represent C's that were already present in the pool, and they do not represent C's that are being added to the system. At least not neccesarily.
To the extent that cattle feed has a fossil carbon footprint, then yes, it IS contributing to the problem. There are many ways in which fossil carbon is added throughout this process, from tractor diesel and petro-based fertilizer to processing and marketing feed. But, I would contend, a locally-oriented, pasture based beef operation has a far smaller fossil fuel footprint than feedlot beef in the mainstream food system.
Don't articles like the one above oversimplify the situation? Isn't blaming the cow, per se, inaccurate?
Elizabeth Olsen Rowell wrote:
grass vs. grain
While not knowledgeable about the science of methane, every time I hear this statistic I have to wonder whether the science is being done on grain fed cattle or grass fed cattle. A cow has four stomachs for a reason; to digest the almost indigestible. When you feed it grain, which it does not in nature eat, it entirely inverts the good cholesterol and the bad cholesterol in the meat. (And that, by the way, can happen in the short 6 week "finishing" period) If grain does that to the meat of the animal, it surely affects the digestion as well. I neither advocate eating meat or avoiding it. I just know when we screw with mother nature, i.e. feeding grain to a ruminant, mother natures returns the favor. For more on this check out eatwild.com
rivergal wrote:
Ruminating on rumination
I think all ruminants produce methane as a byproduct of their digestion, which relies on fermentation to break down hydrocarbons. So, while there may be good reasons to avoid grain-fed beef, I'm not sure GG impact is one of them. Gmunger is right that we should differentiate between cycling carbon and fossil carbon, although I think the case could be made that carbon cycling between CO2 and plants has a lower impact than carbon cycling between plants and methane does. Methane is a really major GG.
I don't eat a lot of meat but I do like wool (produced by ruminating sheep) and other natural animal-based fibers. I also like the idea of restoring bison to the Great Plains, having moose in my yard, and protecting herds of ungulates elsewhere. If we can't have beef because of methane, does that mean we should also discourage large populations fo these other animals?
I will seek some more clarity on this topic from the scientific community. But I think the basics of what I'm suggesting will prove to be supported. That is, ungulate-produced methane is not, per se, adding to the global carbon pool.
Permalink
Karen Lee Orr Posted 1:39 pm
23 Jul 2007
"In the spring, it (CAFO manure) is spread on corn and soybean fields, or composted for use in organic industrial vegetable operations. Remember that next time you're buying something labeled "organic" in a super store."
Complete article:
http://www.populist.com/07.6.mcmillen.html
Is it true that poison CAFO manure is (legally) spread on vegetable fields, the vegetables from which will be labeled 'organic' in stores?
Permalink
Tom Philpott Posted 1:48 pm
23 Jul 2007
Victual Reality
Permalink
PermieWriter Posted 3:50 pm
23 Jul 2007
I certainly find animals indispensible in my backyard ecology, but I don't have any ethical problem with eating humanely raised meat, particularly from animals that I raised myself and looked in the eye while they were killed.
I'm sure it's possible to design sustainable agricultural ecologies without non-human animals, but it would be more challenging. Goats, rabbits, chickens, cats, they've all played vital roles in our agriculture for thousands of years. It seems like unnecessarily cutting off a part of our heritage to leave them out of the equation now.
Animals have been abused terribly and continue to be abused in industrial agriculture. We humans, as beneficiaries of that abuse, have a responsibility to stop it and to establish responsible relationships with these animals that we long ago pulled from their various ecological niches and shaped to suit human needs.
Not eating the flesh of the abused animals does not excuse one from that responsibility. I am not free to ignore CAFOs just because my meat comes from my backyard. No more is a vegan free from righting the wrongs of industrial agriculture because she eats soy rather than pork. We all have part of the system and need to do whatever lies in our power to change it.
Once all animals are living in conditions suitable to their natures, perhaps then a discussion of animal rights, rather than the more immediately applicable animal welfare, would be appropriate. For now, focussing on making the world vegeterian is sort of like saying, "I'd like to climb Mount Everest" while you're in the Sierras. Laudable, but not of immediate tractability.
There is also the issue that there is a wide variety of human physiology, as the various posts here have revealed. Some can do without meat. Some can't. I suppose at that future date we might also discuss retro-engineering the former so that they become the latter. That will also have interesting ethical implications.
For now, thank the gods for The Meatrix. Moopheus has probably done more for the state of living animals than Ingrid Newkirk ever will.
Eat what you grow, grow what you eat
Permalink
Green Granny Posted 7:19 pm
23 Jul 2007
I appreciate Tom Philpott's input on this thread.
"We must be the change we wish to see in the world." -- Mahatma Ghandi
Permalink
suniru333 Posted 11:09 pm
23 Jul 2007
Never once did I point out a lack of 'suitable' alternatives to CAFOs. When I said 'unless one raises their own cow, chicken, or pig, suffering supports meat-eating', I was referring to all local and sustainable agriculture. I know more and more people are jumping onto the trend of local agrictulture and buying their meat and dairy locally. I just hope people are realizing that they can't get this from places like Giant and Whole Foods, which claim to carry free range meat and dairy/eggs.
When it comes down to it, I really don't agree with any kind of raising animals for human consumption, but that's because I don't agree with exploiting them for our use. I would never kill an animal, so I would never purchase any product that results from an animal having been killed. However, I am glad that there are alternatives to CAFOs - we should ALL - vegans, vegetarians, omnivores alike - protest because there is EVERY reason to do so - vegans and vegetarians to stop the suffering (animals, workers, and surrounding communities), environmentalists to stop the environmental devestation, and democratic citizens to stop the huge corporate control.
Permalink
gmunger Posted 12:04 am
24 Jul 2007
I appreciate that you have made the very conscious choice to eat vegetarian (vegan? Sorry I ferget), at least in part because you couldn't bring yourself to cause the death of an animal for your sustenence. This is one point (I'm pretty sure the only point) on which I agree with Ted Nugent, which I suppose makes me a bit of a radical. I think if folks cannot face up to the death of their food animals, they shouldn't eat meat. Period. I'm not saying every carnivore must butcher all their own meat. That is obviously impractical. I AM saying that ereryone who eats meat should be CAPABLE of killing their own meat. To do otherwise is to defer an important part of being a carnivore and is, in my opinion, ethically lazy. Not unlike voting for war, but being incapable of sending your own child to fight it.
Permalink