A few weeks ago I told a correspondent that the thought of meat did not nauseate me. I was wrong, at least in some instances. Apparently this bacon and sausage bomb
http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2009/01/28/dining/0128-BACON_index.html
has been making the rounds of the internet. Wonder why no one sent it to me? Well, here's the truth - if I am going to consume 5000 calories, it is not going to be in the form of bacon and pork sausage. It's called the Bacon Explosion. Think about it.
Showing posts with label vegetarian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label vegetarian. Show all posts
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Sunday, September 14, 2008
More on less
I caught the tag end of an interesting interview with Professor David Pimentel (Cornell) on Living on Earth yesterday.
While driving home from the garden I learned that a 12 oz can of diet soda, which contributes 1 calorie of food energy to one's body, requires 2200 calories of energy to get to you. Specifically, it takes 600 calories to produce, and 1600 calories to put it in the aluminum can.
Pimentel and his colleagues have been coming up with figures like this for a number of the foods on our plates. He suggests that we could reduce the amount of oil that goes into our food system - about 500 gallons per person per year - and thus reduce what our food system contributes to greenhouse gases - by changing our habits. 50% - think about it. That may be the biggest prediction of possible change I've heard yet.
But think about it - while we can make changes as individuals, we also need to somehow make these changes in concert - by exerting real pressure on agribusiness and industrial food production and marketing. Just because I stop buying diet sodas doesn't mean they don't still take up half an aisle in most markets I visit. Just because I buy my pears from the grower doesn't mean the specials on pears shipped from hundreds of miles away that never ripen quite right will stop.
I also have been thinking - the diet soda example inspired me - that the American way of reducing diets probably increases the energy expenditure per calorie. Whether it's the prepared meals of some plans, or the pressure to eat out of season foods because they are diet foods, or the meat laden high protein diets - these strategies that reduce calorie consumption have got to increase planetary cost per food calorie.
And then there's the question of how we make the case for reform in our congregations. Shunning meat a few days a week and eating seasonally just isn't as sexy as buying a prius or maybe even changing the light bulbs. Maybe because it isn't a technological solution, but a set of choices must closer to our hearts, technically and metaphorically. People get emotional about their cars, not so much about their light bulbs - but less emotional about both, I'm thinking, than their mother's meatloaf (pro or con), their glass of milk or macaroni and cheese, their right to eat the foods they like most every week of the year. So - continuing to muse - shouldn't we in the religion business be able to touch those emotions somehow, to reshape attitudes and practices around our participation in our food systems?
Some things to do:
Work toward cutting the total amount of meat, dairy and eggs in our diets by 2/3. That's 2/3 of the average American consumption now. (And, yes, I recognize that there is room for some cuts in even my diet, without going totally vegan, by reducing my consumption of cheese and ice cream.)
And cut the amount of waste in our food purchases - both in overbuying and in reducing the number of shopping trips powered by fossil fuels.
Next I want to know if in Pimentel's team's interdisciplinary work they have compared the energy costs of methods of food preservation. As I've suggested before, I think freezing is probably the most energy greedy, but need to do some more searching for data.
You can read or listen to the interview which inspired this post here:
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=08-P13-00037&segmentID=5
While driving home from the garden I learned that a 12 oz can of diet soda, which contributes 1 calorie of food energy to one's body, requires 2200 calories of energy to get to you. Specifically, it takes 600 calories to produce, and 1600 calories to put it in the aluminum can.
Pimentel and his colleagues have been coming up with figures like this for a number of the foods on our plates. He suggests that we could reduce the amount of oil that goes into our food system - about 500 gallons per person per year - and thus reduce what our food system contributes to greenhouse gases - by changing our habits. 50% - think about it. That may be the biggest prediction of possible change I've heard yet.
But think about it - while we can make changes as individuals, we also need to somehow make these changes in concert - by exerting real pressure on agribusiness and industrial food production and marketing. Just because I stop buying diet sodas doesn't mean they don't still take up half an aisle in most markets I visit. Just because I buy my pears from the grower doesn't mean the specials on pears shipped from hundreds of miles away that never ripen quite right will stop.
I also have been thinking - the diet soda example inspired me - that the American way of reducing diets probably increases the energy expenditure per calorie. Whether it's the prepared meals of some plans, or the pressure to eat out of season foods because they are diet foods, or the meat laden high protein diets - these strategies that reduce calorie consumption have got to increase planetary cost per food calorie.
And then there's the question of how we make the case for reform in our congregations. Shunning meat a few days a week and eating seasonally just isn't as sexy as buying a prius or maybe even changing the light bulbs. Maybe because it isn't a technological solution, but a set of choices must closer to our hearts, technically and metaphorically. People get emotional about their cars, not so much about their light bulbs - but less emotional about both, I'm thinking, than their mother's meatloaf (pro or con), their glass of milk or macaroni and cheese, their right to eat the foods they like most every week of the year. So - continuing to muse - shouldn't we in the religion business be able to touch those emotions somehow, to reshape attitudes and practices around our participation in our food systems?
Some things to do:
Work toward cutting the total amount of meat, dairy and eggs in our diets by 2/3. That's 2/3 of the average American consumption now. (And, yes, I recognize that there is room for some cuts in even my diet, without going totally vegan, by reducing my consumption of cheese and ice cream.)
And cut the amount of waste in our food purchases - both in overbuying and in reducing the number of shopping trips powered by fossil fuels.
Next I want to know if in Pimentel's team's interdisciplinary work they have compared the energy costs of methods of food preservation. As I've suggested before, I think freezing is probably the most energy greedy, but need to do some more searching for data.
You can read or listen to the interview which inspired this post here:
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=08-P13-00037&segmentID=5
Friday, February 15, 2008
I think we already knew this
but it's nice to have it confirmed by careful research -
the best diet - feeding the most people with the most effective land use - is one that includes a little meat/dairy and the rest low fat plant foods.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Oct07/diets.ag.footprint.sl.html
When I saw the deer in the snowy suburban backyard where I am visiting here in Iowa, I commented that if I lived where game were that readily available, I might still eat meat.
Of course, if you have to plant a vegetable garden to feed the deer, then you might think twice, but these deer seemed to be browsing on shrubbery that would not be useable human food.
And don't you love the term "foodprint"?
the best diet - feeding the most people with the most effective land use - is one that includes a little meat/dairy and the rest low fat plant foods.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Oct07/diets.ag.footprint.sl.html
When I saw the deer in the snowy suburban backyard where I am visiting here in Iowa, I commented that if I lived where game were that readily available, I might still eat meat.
Of course, if you have to plant a vegetable garden to feed the deer, then you might think twice, but these deer seemed to be browsing on shrubbery that would not be useable human food.
And don't you love the term "foodprint"?
Sunday, January 27, 2008
The Minimalist Says It Better
There's not much 411 that's new here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?ex=1359090000&en=a9d80925d175d1b2&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
but somewhere near the middle of the continuum between vegan-PETA activists and Al Gore lies this articulate opinion piece by Mark Bittman.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/weekinreview/27bittman.html?ex=1359090000&en=a9d80925d175d1b2&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
but somewhere near the middle of the continuum between vegan-PETA activists and Al Gore lies this articulate opinion piece by Mark Bittman.
Wednesday, August 29, 2007
Why I don't eat meat
I've been meaning to write this piece for a long time, so here goes.
Today I followed a trail in a NY Times article - about aggressive pro-vegetarian ads, aimed at people concerned with climate change - to a United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization report Livestock's Long Shadow. (See link to right.)
I'll admit that I was more than a little annoyed when I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" (aka All About Al) that there was no mention of the contribution cattle make to global warming. Now it seems PETA is taking on our former Vice President, basing their billboard campaign on data in the the UN report.
So I tracked it down, and even though reading on line and reading sans serif is not easy, decided not to print all 408 pages. I read the introduction, skimmed the report (good pictures, better charts, graphs and maps!) and then read the conclusion.
The report outlines the impact of livestock globally on climate, water and biodiversity - and it's not a pretty picture.
There's a strong appeal for policy change - to move from the superficial nuisance issues related to livestock such as flies and smells, through the intermediate issues like local clean air and water, to consideration of the long term issues, like climate change and loss of biodiversity.
And it's not easy, since the social importance of livestock far outweighs its economic importance globally. Think about the way meat eating is used as a dividing line socially in the media here in the U.S. Think about Precious Ramotswe's father's cattle. (#1 Ladies' Detective Agency stories - and by the way, cattle in Botswana use 23% of the water) Think about using goats as dowries, think about sacred cows - and you begin to get the picture.
And over a third of the world's poor depend on livestock production for at least a piece of their livelihood.
The environmental impact of livestock is also grossly disproportional to their economic value (about 1.4% of global GDP). One third (33%) of the arable land in the world is used to grow feed for livestock. Eighteen (18%) of the global warming effect is due to livestock - that's larger the transportation sector worldwide.
Growth in production of livestock around the world is not in small scale farming, but in industrial production, usually near urban areas. Manure is a huge problem!
I am reminded of wondering, when listening to the keynote from Petaluma Poultry (Rockie and Rosie) at the Sustainable Enterprise conference, that they can't call themselves a sustainable enterprise until they solve the manure issue, preferably cycling it back into the system nearby to produce feed for R & R.
I'm not sentimental about animals (Okay - except the ones I know. Okay - I have watched the movie Babe half a dozen times.) And if I were much concerned about eating meat and health I would eat much less of everything. I stopped eating meat ten or twelve years ago for environmental reasons, and then I rather lost my taste for it. I might still eat a little if I were still working in rural Nevada, where range fed beef, backyard sheep, and venison from the annual hunt were common - and sustainable. But I live in a suburban/exurban area where good produce is much more readily available than sustainably grown or harvested meat, and most restaurants (and congregations) speak vegetarian.
Livestock's Long Shadow does deal with policy changes, not with consumption and lifestyle issues, yet it does note
"While not addressed by this assessment, it may well be agreed that environmental damage by livestock may be significantly reduced by lowering excessive consumption of livestock products among wealthy people."
I would assume that means us, and that it includes leather and fiber, too - though there was little about the latter in the report.
It's not my job to "convert" anyone to vegetarianism. It is part of my calling, I think, to remind environmentalists that livestock present very serious issues. The report says with great understatement
"Perhaps even among the majority of environmentalists and environmental policy-makers, the truly enormous impact of the livestock sector on climate, biodiversity and water is not fully appreciated."
We got the first environmental set of 3R's: reduce, reuse, recycle. Perhaps now it is time to consider another set: Reform farming practices, Reduce meat consumption, Replace meat in the diet with other things.
Today I followed a trail in a NY Times article - about aggressive pro-vegetarian ads, aimed at people concerned with climate change - to a United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization report Livestock's Long Shadow. (See link to right.)
I'll admit that I was more than a little annoyed when I saw "An Inconvenient Truth" (aka All About Al) that there was no mention of the contribution cattle make to global warming. Now it seems PETA is taking on our former Vice President, basing their billboard campaign on data in the the UN report.
So I tracked it down, and even though reading on line and reading sans serif is not easy, decided not to print all 408 pages. I read the introduction, skimmed the report (good pictures, better charts, graphs and maps!) and then read the conclusion.
The report outlines the impact of livestock globally on climate, water and biodiversity - and it's not a pretty picture.
There's a strong appeal for policy change - to move from the superficial nuisance issues related to livestock such as flies and smells, through the intermediate issues like local clean air and water, to consideration of the long term issues, like climate change and loss of biodiversity.
And it's not easy, since the social importance of livestock far outweighs its economic importance globally. Think about the way meat eating is used as a dividing line socially in the media here in the U.S. Think about Precious Ramotswe's father's cattle. (#1 Ladies' Detective Agency stories - and by the way, cattle in Botswana use 23% of the water) Think about using goats as dowries, think about sacred cows - and you begin to get the picture.
And over a third of the world's poor depend on livestock production for at least a piece of their livelihood.
The environmental impact of livestock is also grossly disproportional to their economic value (about 1.4% of global GDP). One third (33%) of the arable land in the world is used to grow feed for livestock. Eighteen (18%) of the global warming effect is due to livestock - that's larger the transportation sector worldwide.
Growth in production of livestock around the world is not in small scale farming, but in industrial production, usually near urban areas. Manure is a huge problem!
I am reminded of wondering, when listening to the keynote from Petaluma Poultry (Rockie and Rosie) at the Sustainable Enterprise conference, that they can't call themselves a sustainable enterprise until they solve the manure issue, preferably cycling it back into the system nearby to produce feed for R & R.
I'm not sentimental about animals (Okay - except the ones I know. Okay - I have watched the movie Babe half a dozen times.) And if I were much concerned about eating meat and health I would eat much less of everything. I stopped eating meat ten or twelve years ago for environmental reasons, and then I rather lost my taste for it. I might still eat a little if I were still working in rural Nevada, where range fed beef, backyard sheep, and venison from the annual hunt were common - and sustainable. But I live in a suburban/exurban area where good produce is much more readily available than sustainably grown or harvested meat, and most restaurants (and congregations) speak vegetarian.
Livestock's Long Shadow does deal with policy changes, not with consumption and lifestyle issues, yet it does note
"While not addressed by this assessment, it may well be agreed that environmental damage by livestock may be significantly reduced by lowering excessive consumption of livestock products among wealthy people."
I would assume that means us, and that it includes leather and fiber, too - though there was little about the latter in the report.
It's not my job to "convert" anyone to vegetarianism. It is part of my calling, I think, to remind environmentalists that livestock present very serious issues. The report says with great understatement
"Perhaps even among the majority of environmentalists and environmental policy-makers, the truly enormous impact of the livestock sector on climate, biodiversity and water is not fully appreciated."
We got the first environmental set of 3R's: reduce, reuse, recycle. Perhaps now it is time to consider another set: Reform farming practices, Reduce meat consumption, Replace meat in the diet with other things.
Take me out to the (meatless) ballgame
I'm not an animal rights activist - but while looking at the PETA site to find something else, I stumbled upon this.
http://www.goveg.com/f-top10ballparks_major.asp
Lo and behold! Even though the embattled Black Muslim bakery is no longer at the Coliseum, there is meatless fare. I can't wait for Stitch n Pitch with vegetarian lunch on Sunday, September 16.
If you're headed to an MLB game near you, you can check out the park here.
http://www.goveg.com/f-top10ballparks_major.asp
Lo and behold! Even though the embattled Black Muslim bakery is no longer at the Coliseum, there is meatless fare. I can't wait for Stitch n Pitch with vegetarian lunch on Sunday, September 16.
If you're headed to an MLB game near you, you can check out the park here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)