Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.
Mirka and I started talking about vegetarianism in another thread, and I thought it deserved its own thread.
When we left off, Mirka was saying how she was a vegetarian for five years, but "then I went to Europe and fell off the wagon in Germany. The Brats got me. 
I'm pretty careful about the meat I eat anyway, and fish, as well as the produce I buy. Have you read Michael Pollan's book IN DEFENSE OF FOOD? I think it should be required reading in schools around the 9th grade."
Okay, now you're all up to speed.
I have not read In Defense of Food, but I have read about that book, and love the mantra from it: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." This is the same thing Mark Bittman advocates. Remember how I mentioned that meat eating is raising the price of food and is thus contributing to the food crisis? Here's some figures from a Bittman article,
Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens. This despite the inherent inefficiencies: about two to five times more grain is required to produce the same amount of calories through livestock as through direct grain consumption, according to Rosamond Naylor, an associate professor of economics at Stanford University. It is as much as 10 times more in the case of grain-fed beef in the United States.
And for bonus credit, here's a Bittman TED lecture, where he talks about the impact of eating meat on our health and the environment,
Great speech by Bittman. That's the book pretty much right there. Still worth a read though.
Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens.
First of all, the vast majority of corn that is grown is grown specifically for cows and pigs. It's called feed corn, and it's only fit for human consumption through products like high fructose corn syrup. Giving that corn to animals doesn't take it out of the mouth of human beings. Secondly, ugh, soy. I can't believe people even put that into their bodies.
The truth of the matter is, for BOTH corn (non-sweet corn, which is the kind you buy on the cob, in the can, etc.) and soy to be processed and fit for human consumption, they run through one of the most corrupt industries in the US: food processing and agribusiness.
My family may eat a hell of a lot of meat, which many people decry, but at least we're doing our part to lessen the amount of money poured every year into soul-less corporations like ADM and Tyson. My dad shoots his own deer, has his own locally raised beef butchered at a locker, and buys Nebraskan-produced dairy products.
There is hope, but not for us.
Agribusiness would be out of business if true free market economics were allowed to take hold. Farm subsidies have killed the American farmer.Thank agribusiness for that. Agribusiness has poured so much money into politicians pockets that the American farmer has no fighting chance. bill after bill has been passed to give agribusiness a HUGE advantage.
When it costs the American farmer more to produce the corn then to actually sell it, something is wrong, and that wrong is the govt dictating farm policies that benefit agribusiness.
And, I didnt even mention how agribusiness is completely ruining the environment!
Ross, I'm pleased to see you using "agribusiness" in the correct sense.
And YES on the environmental issues. Did you know in 2000, ADM was the tenth-largest producer of pollution in the US? They've also been sued for lysine price fixing and human rights violations overseas. And that's just one company, and just a handful of issues.
There is hope, but not for us.
And YES on the environmental issues. Did you know in 2000, ADM was the tenth-largest producer of pollution in the US? They've also been sued for lysine price fixing and human rights violations overseas. And that's just one company, and just a handful of issues.
The American farmer is being wiped out by Agribusiness, whose bottom line is the cheapest food possible by any means necessary.
Agribusiness is bad business. Their pollution records are criminal and should be treated as such. The hormones and antibiotics they are stuffing into our food supply is not natural and I believe Americas health is suffering for it.
If the grocery store gave me the option of the cow grown down the street and chinese genetic cows, I'll pick down the street. Let's pressure em to tell us!
"They sold you hippies grunge, hip hop, now liberty activism."
I wish that were the option everywhere, but lets face it, because of Agribuiness practices, the poor are forced to buy cheap products and that includes cheap beef and chicken.
Grocery stores, in efforts to keep customers, keep their prices down and buy the cheapest products possible. Where I live, the grocery stores have very little in the way of option for meat type products. I know where my options are,and I can afford them, but a lot of people cant.
I am lucky to the fact that where I live is an agricultural heaven. I get the freshest local produce you could ever imagine. The local farmers markets are packed with people and that tells me something, that tells me American people value local high quality produce.
Oh and there is a lady out here who is a bee keeper and produces the most divine honey you have ever tasted. I literally shed a tear at its goodness. She sells her honey at the local farmers market and literally cant keep up with demand.
lolololol
There is hope, but not for us.
did you know that honey is the only food that never spoils?
Though some 800 million people on the planet now suffer from hunger or malnutrition, the majority of corn and soy grown in the world feeds cattle, pigs and chickens.
First of all, the vast majority of corn that is grown is grown specifically for cows and pigs. It's called feed corn, and it's only fit for human consumption through products like high fructose corn syrup. Giving that corn to animals doesn't take it out of the mouth of human beings.
I think the issue is that these crops grown for animals divert land, water and other resources away from food production for humans, and thus raise the price of that food. But here's another article about the price of food rising because of increase meat consumption and biofuels,
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/business/increased-meat-consumption-...
That article mentions Jeffrey Sachs, whose book Mirka is currently reading.
My family may eat a hell of a lot of meat, which many people decry, but at least we're doing our part to lessen the amount of money poured every year into soul-less corporations like ADM and Tyson. My dad shoots his own deer, has his own locally raised beef butchered at a locker, and buys Nebraskan-produced dairy products.
That makes me happy to hear. Sounds like he has that Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall thing going on.
I did not know that. Explains why its always in disaster kits.
"They sold you hippies grunge, hip hop, now liberty activism."
Your Dada rocks, Jane!
And Bug beat me to it, not the article which I'll read shortly, but the diversion of crop land from food to crops to feed animals.
I don't think I could ever be a vegetarian again, I'll just pay more for quality meat and eat less of it.
Hey Mik, can you post that link you mentioned about environmental vegetarianism here. I can't remember in which thread you posted it. I'd also like to bump this thread to see if anyone else is interesting in continuing this discussion.
I just pre-ordered the following book: Just Food: How Locavores Are Endangering the Future of Food and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly
From the Amazon description:
JUST FOOD does for fresh food what Fast Food Nation (Houghton Mifflin, 2001) did for fast food, challenging conventional views, and cutting through layers of myth and misinformation. For instance, an imported tomato is more energy-efficient than a local greenhouse-grown tomato. And farm-raised freshwater fish may soon be the most sustainable source of protein.
Informative and surprising, JUST FOOD tells us how to decide what to eat, and how our choices can help save the planet and feed the world.
Oh sure, I think it was in that '^5' thread from last weekend, about burgers. But here it is again-
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/02/vegetarians_against_climat...
I'm a vegetarian for environmental and economic reasons. I think that gaining energy and nutrients from meat is a very inefficient use of land, resources and energy. I occasionally make exceptions for renewably caught fish and certain meats. Some animals, like lamb, are raised on ground that would be no use as farm land.
The problem is there's a lot of different factors to consider, like cost of transport for food. I'm not sure which is more energy efficient, local meat or foreign veg. Another issue that might be troubling for some people is factory-farmed animals versus meat substitutes. Just say it turned out that battery chicken meat was more energy efficient than an equivalent amount of meat substitute, I think a lot of people who choose environmental vegetarianism might still have a problem with eating farmed animals. Of course, there's still the issue of economies of scale, so it shouldn't mean giving up on Quorn.
Anyway, yeah, I'd like to see what other people think of this.
!
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/02/vegetarians_against_climat...
I'm a vegetarian for environmental and economic reasons. I think that gaining energy and nutrients from meat is a very inefficient use of land, resources and energy. I occasionally make exceptions for renewably caught fish and certain meats. Some animals, like lamb, are raised on ground that would be no use as farm land.
The problem is there's a lot of different factors to consider, like cost of transport for food. I'm not sure which is more energy efficient, local meat or foreign veg. Another issue that might be troubling for some people is factory farmed animals versus meat substitutes. Just say it turned out that battery chicken meat was more energy efficient than an equivalent amount of meat substitute, I think a lot of people who choose environmental vegetarianism might still have a problem with eating facory farmed animals. Of course, there's still the issue of economies of scale, so it shouldn't mean giving up on Quorn.
Anyway, yeah, I'd like to see what other people think of this.
Thanks!
In regards to the bolded part, I personally don't like meat substitutes because they are too processed for the way I like to eat. I try to minimize packaged foods as well. I don't eat factory farm raised animals, but I do know that pastured beef creates more methane than factory farmed. It's a bummer. I won't stop eating meat, but I eat it rarely now, and use it more as a condiment than a main course, or as an ingredient rather than a big slab of steak. Though I do eat the occasional big slab of rib-eye.
I also don't much care for pasta. I ate too much when I was a vegetarian so now I can barely stand it. I never got sick of beans though.
The idea of only eating meat that was raised on land that is not suitable for crop land appeals to me, so I will look into it here. But then the issue becomes how much fossil fuel was used to transport it.
I have no compulsions about eating meat or eggs. Ethics doesn't come into play for me. I've been berated for caring how an animal is treated before it's "MURDERED" for my consumption, and I can live with that. I just try to do my part to lessen my impact on the environment without being a zealot or being so strict with my diet that eating is a chore and not a pleasure.
It's really confusing. Check this out:
Incorporating these measurements into their assessments, scientists reached surprising conclusions. Most notably, they found that lamb raised on New Zealand’s clover-choked pastures and shipped 11,000 miles by boat to Britain produced 1,520 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per ton while British lamb produced 6,280 pounds of carbon dioxide per ton, in part because poorer British pastures force farmers to use feed. In other words, it is four times more energy-efficient for Londoners to buy lamb imported from the other side of the world than to buy it from a producer in their backyard. Similar figures were found for dairy products and fruit.
From this article:http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/opinion/06mcwilliams.html
Hey that's a pretty interesting article. One of the things that I was going to mention was that even though I live in Wales, which is reknowned for it's lamb, it's often quite hard to find local lamb in the supermarkets. If these results are right it might make it a lot easier to eat environmentally. I guess one thing to consider is that the price we pay for food often reflects the energy/resource cost of producing that food, so perhaps just being thrifty as possible when buying our food is the most environmentally sound way of eating.
It's a shame newspapers don't give references, I'd very much like to read the article they're basing this on but they don't even seem to give a corresponding author. I really don't see why online editions of newspapers don't give refs more often.
!
I share your frustration. I like to be able to dig deeper into the subject by exploring reference materials. When I get the book, I'll be sure to post some of his references.
The author had another piece recently in the NY Times regarding pork. When I just looked it up to post it here, I saw that a note had been added:
Editors' Note: April 14, 2009
An Op-Ed article last Friday, about pork, neglected to disclose the source of the financing for a study finding that free-range pigs were more likely than confined pigs to test positive for exposure to certain pathogens. The study was financed by the National Pork Board.
This article.
My local and favorite butcher sells American Lamb from Iowa which bothers me because there is a great lamb farm less than 150 miles away from me!
Well perhaps it's like the previous article says, maybe distant lamb is more energy efficient overall than local lamb.
As for the second article, is the National Pork Board necesserily protecting the factory farmed pork industry, or is it just looking at all the pork produced in america?
!
As for the second article, is the National Pork Board necesserily protecting the factory farmed pork industry, or is it just looking at all the pork produced in america?
I'd like to find out. Because I actually prefer New Zealand lamb. It's scrumptious.
The National Pork Board is very much all about factory farming, yes. Check out their Environmental Steward Awards. I totally support that all these farms are doing great things to keep water clean and recycle manure etc, but they are feeding them corn and keeping them enclosed.
These updates made me want a burger, and I'm going to get one.
I'm not doing it in spite of vegetarianisme, just being honest, I was made hungry for beef.
"They sold you hippies grunge, hip hop, now liberty activism."
I'm not doing it in spite of vegetarianisme, just being honest, I was made hungry for beef.
^5 if you make that a cheeseburger.
^5 it is.
The cornerstone of any nutritious breakfast meal.
"They sold you hippies grunge, hip hop, now liberty activism."
I myself have not touched meat for a little over a year now.
"My hopes lay shattered like a mirror on the floor
I see myself and I look really scattered
But I lived my broken dreams"
- Daniel Johnston
Conversely, meat has not touched you.
Is this truly the relationship you want to have with meat?
Don't reject its glory, embrace it.
"They sold you hippies grunge, hip hop, now liberty activism."
Care to share why? There's no real need, but this is a thread about the various reasons to eat less or no animal products.
I LOVE Mark Bittman. I have given copies of his How to Cook Everything so many times, you wouldn't believe. I'll do the bonus credit now.