Spaceshaper and I have debated whether the word "sustainability" has any real positive practical meaning, he defending it, I poo-poo-ing it.

Within his botanical specializations, I allow he has the edge.

But when it comes to fisheries, I continue to believe the term "sustainable" is a fraud.  We simply do not know enough about aquatic/marine ecosystems, on two important levels:

we do not know as much as we should about the ecosystems that support the aquatic/marine animals whom we like to plunder;

we do not know as much as we should about the residents of the entire community of any aquatic/marine ecosystem, who they are, how many of them there are, and what their effect on their community is.

When it comes to seafood, sure, the Monterey Bay Aquarium color-coded guide may be fine for now; we have one, stuck up with duck-shaped magnets, on our refrigerator (not that we ever eat seafood).

But the use of the word "sustainable" to describe OK-at-present fisheries is simply a lie.

I don't really agree with his statement about it being better to work for better treatment of animals that to stop eating them.  That may be the case for him, considering his viewpoint on the subject, but I do not feel the same way.

As for sustainability, even if all animals areraised by small farmers, meat and dairy products will always (yep, always) be less efficient than eating plant foods.  It's called the food chain... and the higher up you go, the less efficient it is, even in nature, where it's about as sustainable as it gets.  

Furthermore, and most importantly (to me), I personally don't care if all animals get world-class treatment and live in condominiums with butlers until the ripe age of 50-- the fact remains that they are raised, unnecessarily, for the sole purpose of slaughter.  It doesn't matter how "sustainable" or "organic" or "humane" you make it, that's how it is.  Fundamentally, it clashes with my personal philosophy.  If he is okay with it, then that is fine.  

And he can say what he thinks doesn't make sense, but I feel that it doesn't make sense to eat animals when it's unnecessary (especially for Westerners), in most cases less healthy, always less energy efficient, and lowers the general food supply rather than raising it.  I do not see the point in taking a life when I do not need to.  It provides me with little (or no) comfort to know that the animal's life was good up until the its death.

Anyway, I feel deeply that everyone is welcome to have their point of view.  But I also feel deeply that I should be able to express mine.  I hope I do not come across as an asshole, because I certainly don't mean to.  I just strive to create an intelligent argument for compassion towards animals that is far from any of the extreme, stupid shit that PETA and it's allies do.  Thanks!

...Is not the domain of Greenpeace, who, though noble in their efforts and of whom I've long been a supporter, spend most of their time calling attention to and raising consciousness in regards to environmental issues through "direct actions" like unfurling banners from buildings and bridges and playing cat and mouse harassment games with illegal fishing concerns. If you want to support some folks that actually WILL go sink the Japanese tuna, whaling, etc. fleets, then your money is best spent with Sea Shepherds. Paul Watson, in addition to having co-founded Greenpeace Canada back in the 70's, is one gnarly son of a bitch and will RAM the greedy buggers, thus introducing the crew of said vessel to less than comfortable sailing conditions. God bless you Paul Watson and to all the crew and staff of the organization!

-Doc

Glad to hear he'll be turning his show to cover issues of sustainability. His show has always been a wealth of information. I never would have known what a nutritional anthropologist was without him.

"Yay AB" not!  Hugging dead vertebrates with gestures of affection is way weird.

Let us move on, to a better way of relating to sentient fellow-creatures, than exploiting them and eating them.

Meanwhile, AB is worth listening to, when it comes to threatening fishing fleets, among whom the Japanese are just one.  The Spanish (to my great sorrow, because I love Spain) are just as bad.

You could get a lot farther in helping animals if you actually realized not everyone is going to go vegan and supporting methods that actually raise awareness of where food comes from to the average person.

I'm really tired of the all or nothing attitudes. Awareness of where are food comes from and what it takes to get it is something I support. I support reducing meat consumption. I support paying real prices for food and for eating seasonally and trying to as much as you can locally. (I'm not giving up coffee) I'll even campaign that anyone who only eats boneless, skinless chicken breasts b/c they can't stand the idea of bones should be forced to become a vegetarian if not vegan. Or anyone else not willing to face up to the idea that they're eating an animal. I don't understand why all groups can't first work together to raise awareness of where our food comes from and the sustainability of it. And then we can split into our various religious (er I mean dietary) sects.

I agree with entirely.

I fear that you didn't read my entire comment.  Else you would've seen my disclaimer at the end.  

Either way, I can make my argument, just as you can make yours.  Everyone will not become a vegetarian, much less a vegan, but that does not stop me from trying to make an intelligent case for it.  I became one, and so have many others, after years of eating meat, wearing leather, etc...  It's not impossible for people to change of their own accord.  

And it's not about "converting" someone... it's about being passionate about what you feel is right to your very deepest core.  I do not like people who try to push their beliefs on others-- I tried to make that clear in my comment.  All I ask is that you respect my beliefs and I will respect yours.  But two people can still respect each other while disagreeing and having a rational, intelligent argument about something.  If they couldn't, then we wouldn't be where we are today.

If you had read the comment above mine you would have realized I wasn't actually responding to you.

If you had read the comment above mine you would have realized I wasn't actually responding to you.

I've been a huge AB fan for years.  Despite not having cable or satellite TV, we still have AB videos.  I adore his show, and have learned more about cooking from him than anywhere else (well, perhaps a combination of him and Cook's Illustrated).  But it just hurt me every time I saw him hyping the industrial supermarket stuff, sidestepping all issues of sustainability.  I'm glad to see that he understands that these issues are integral to cooking today, and is willing to step up and do his part to help his audience understand as well.  Now, if he could only get with the folks at Cook's Illustrated, who are equally behind the times on these issues (bizarrely, I might add, given the professed lifestyle of the Chief Editor).  And I hope FoodTV doesn't shut him down, too.

Fully support Alton and the use of his legitimacy and popularity to spread the word on sustainability in fisheries!  My family and I have been Food Network fans for years and it is great to see such a credible voice like Alton Brown speaking out for the fish!  Hmmmm....how do we make it a Food Network standard to only purchase sustainably caught fish?

AREAD,
there is no such thing as a "sustainable fishery."  The well-known lists of recommended and not recommended seafood published by the Monterey Bay Aquarium and the Blue Ocean Institute (and perhaps there are others) are a bit misleading in that regard.  At present, it does indeed happen (fortunately) that many fish and other marine animals are caught not in excess, and the same numbers of those animals can be counted on to be present and available for catching in the next few years.  But in fact we do not know enough about what affects marine ecosystems -- or about human demand -- to make solid predictions about "sustainability."  And in this age of global warming, marine ecosystems are even less certain.

LateNac,
eat what you want.  I am not pushing you to do anything you do not want to.  All I am saying is, embracing a dead animal, whose flesh you intend to feed upon, is not very classy.

There are many definitions for sustainable seafood, the one that I was referring to and the one that the Seafood Watch cards (and others) refer to is: "from sources, either fished or farmed, that can maintain or increase production into the long-term without jeopardizing the affected ecosystems."  There are several sustainable fisheries by these standards.  I agree that there is much uncertainty in what affects marine ecosystems, but as many scholars have pointed out, if we waited for certainty prior to making management decisions....we would be waiting a long long time and there may not be any fish left at that point.  I am all for increased awareness, precautionary management and providing information to consumers so that they can make informed choices on the seafood they purchase.  I do think it is awesome that Alton Brown is making use of his legitimacy and media outlets to promote awareness.

understanding where your food comes from and embracing it. To me, it's actually very classy and not weird at all. But then I actually usually meet the meat so to speak before I buy it from my local farm. So I've met the chickens, pigs, lambs and beef that I purchase there on a regular basis. Best way to know how the meat I'm eating was raised.

Honestly, Caniscandida  and Askantik, its not worth the time. - I have read both of your thread here and on other posts, and I am always so amazed how people react on this forum.

This is meant to be an environmentally consciousness mag. I see so many words/phrases like "green", "sustainability", "locally grown", "support your local farmers", "factory farming is bad" blah, blah, blah. But as soon as someone suggests not eating animals. Well now that becomes fights words.

On the one hand these and other articles alike want people to change. Yet when there are questions about changing ones own ethical eating patterns. - There is such a abrasive fight, (often turning into personal attacks).

As a conclusion, I think these authors and readers only want change, - to a certain extent. A change that only supports their current way of eating, but allows themselves to feel better about the dead animals they eat.

Now, here is the real kicker - When a vegetarian or a vegan wants that same platform to ask for change, they are called hypocrites, preachy, self-righteous, --- and all sorts of other names!  - Just because they are pointing out a more ethical way of eating!

Oh and by the way - "Chicken Moment" - what the F is all that about. Whether you personally know your chicken, or you don't, do you really think the animal cares either way? I mean, seriously do you think the chicken, says "Well, now that I have seen the face of my killer, I feel so much better!"

F'ing hilarious!

If this article were about Alton Brown going vegan and using his show as a platform to shed light on animal issues, I wouldn't stomp in and say "yeah what a bunch of hypocrisy eat animal, eat animals! That's the only way to go green!" And I would be against anyone who did.

That's the problem no real discussion can take place apparently on this site that includes all types of dietary lifestyles without vegans apparently coming in and say "you call yourself environmentalists? you can't be an environmentalist unless you're a vegan."

As for the "chicken moment" it has nothing to do with the chicken feeling better. It's the act of recognizing where you're food comes from and what it takes to bring it to your plate.

Do you recognize all the field animals that might have been killed bringing your dinner to your plate? I mean the mice, squirrels, rabbits, insects, etc., etc? Do you recognize the migrant labor that goes into your food? Unfortunately or maybe fortunately every dietary choice comes with a list of sacrifices that we need to recognize. It's not like a vegan lifestyle absolves you of all guilt about your groceries. Just as an omnivore diet doesn't absolve me of all guilt.

Your question: "Do you recognize all the field animals that might have been killed bringing your dinner to your plate? I mean the mice, squirrels, rabbits, insects, etc., etc?" -

My answer: Yes. I grew up in Orthodox religious family. And every year we had days (usually one or two) where we fasted to absolve the sins of causing the death of the field animals for our foods. Now, as an adult I do not belong to any religious infrastructure. But I still dedicate one day of fasting to acknowledge this. The fasting is not a self denial, but rather reorganization, of the lives that were lost. And the importance of being grateful for what I have on my dinner plate.

Your question: Do you recognize the migrant labor that goes into your food?

My answer: Being an immigrant myself, I do recognize the hard labors my counter parts have to endure. I am lucky to have a professional white collar job, but I know many immigrants that work on the fields as well as the slaughter houses. The people that work in the fields would rather pick vegetables and fruits than the work in the slaughter houses. Slaughter house have accidents are at an alarming rate, but are not reported due to illegal immigration status or legal lower economic status.

Anyway, this veering off the point. --

to hear from you!  For an immigrant, for whom English is perhaps a second language, you use the F-word very nicely!  : )

LATenAc,
the density of your anthropocentrism is amazing.  "Knowing where my meat comes from" is indeed more than most carnivores know -- so congratulations.  Surely, though, you realize there is more to the ethical big picture than what satisfies merely your nutrition and your health?

But go ahead, eat what you want to eat.  There is always something inhumane, when we eat without considering the true cost of our meal.

AREAD,
so OK, go with Alton Brown, the Monterey Bay Aquarium (who have notably become more permissive lately -- one wonders why), and Seafood Watch.

But your observation is telling, that there are a few definitions of "sustainable" floating around out there.  Pardon me, for suggesting that only the strictest of those definitions be considered worthwhile.

LATenAc, AREAD, and Alton Brown,
Bon appe'tit.  : (

A vegan isn't really going to throw that charge at me, really? Are you sure you know what that word means? Placing all animals as being equal and worrying about animal suffering above all else is anthropomorphism in the extreme. I'm part of the food chain and don't think that my cats or the chickens I eat are human or even equal to. Singer's speciesism argument doesn't hold much weight with me.

And btw, I'm not a carnivore, I'm an omnivore. My cats on the other hand are all obligate carnivores.

- latenac  -

I hear "I am part of the food chain" a lot. And I have always wanted to ask, - who eats you?

I can understand humans being eaten by bears and lions in the jungle, if we did not use any weapons or machinery. But really in comparison that occurs so infrequently that's not even worth considering. - Example 10 billion animals slaughtered per year, 10 bear attacks. - bear usually than killed.

Also when people are buried maybe worms feed on dead bodies, but many people are getting recremated. So Again who eats you?

So technically its not really a chain, - its more like we use all the dominance we have against animals that are mostly defenseless against our guns and agriculture machines.

Somehow it does not seem fair, - or maybe for some people being fair is not that crucial. - Just an observation!

LATenAC?

Here is a curious statement:

<<
Placing all animals as being equal and worrying about animal suffering above all else is anthropomorphism in the extreme.
>>

Watch out, LATenAC, those solecisms will accumulate to dangerous levels in your brain in time, and become a serious problem.

But before the disease disables you quite, please explain this remarkable suggestion of yours, that concern for animal welfare, and promotion of animal rights, are anthropomorphic "in the extreme."

You might also add a comment on why this conversation merits being continued.  You carnivores (or "omnivores," if you think that hides the embarrassing truth better) will go on eating meat as you like, and will always find fine justifications for carrying on with that ancient traditional pointless cruel practice; and we others will continue doubting your thoughtfulness.

So, let us cease and desist.

Carnivores only eat meat. I don't only eat meat. I eat meat, fruit, veggies, grains, etc. I eat everything much like my chimp relatives. I'm an omnivore.

A chain isn't a circle. Hence the phrase, top of the food chain.

At least I haven't resorted to personal attacks. If that's all that you are down to then I understand why you wish to stop the conversation.

Anthropomorphism n.   Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena.

If you can't see how you attribute human characteristics or motivation to animals by setting animals as the same as humans then you're right we have nothing to talk about.

For the record the conversation at least for me was more about being able to meet halfway. Alton Brown promoting sustainability will bring a lot more people to understanding where their food comes from than calling people diseased or thoughtless unless they become a vegan. And it's not just because he has a television show.

Heidi Swanson has done more to make increasing my vegetarian meals by just showing tasty, veggie, whole foods and not preaching. And maybe one day I'll find the vegan equivalent and I'll understand veganism as more than just a religion or political movement but as also joy in food and something that takes everything into account not just animals.

I really think that if people became more aware of where their food came from they would actually consume less meat. Plus if meat is produced in a sustainable manner and not "mass-produced" there won't be as much and people will eat less of it. Back in the day...wasn't it that eating steak and such were for "special" occaisons? I think that before arguing the "all or nothing" point you should sit back and see what happens. I can honestly say if I raised chickens I would be eating no chicken. That is me and other people will be different, but there can still be a positive outcome. This is not a one size fits all world and it would suck if it was. I think any steps people take to live a more sustainable existance is fine with me!

Go Alton!

ps - to whomever said it earlier...I miss the two fat ladies even though they made gross stuff sometimes ;) they were the best.

well, eventually, unless I am cremated, the worms and the plants do...

Great article, I love this chef.  Awesome site!  We use your content for our blog site, thanks!