Like a lot of rational people, I've been on a sustained pause around definitive diets. Diet methods and a lot of rigidity around whole foods in general always gets my "fake out" antenna up. I've generally taken a judicious tact toward eating. As vegetarianism, veganism and unrefined plant food (UPF) trends have been on the rise over the last couple of decades, I've been paying attention, reading the literature and increasing my vegetable intake accordingly. I haven't given up meat, although I don't eat a lot of it. I've been a little embarrassed to admit that killing animals for food is not in my mind, a horrific thing. I've seen it (in my mind's eye) as part of a whole cycle. But lately, I've had the occasion to see some films on sustainability and I am beginning to realize that what has been in my "mind's eye" has been an old-world European or 1950's image (an "old McDonald's farm" scenario, ei ei ohhh) on how farm animals are raised, treated and killed for consumption. The worn denim overall'd grandpa chewing on a straw strand isn't out milking the three cows in the barn and wringing a few chicken necks for supper afterall.
There have been several concerns for me as of late around animal flesh. A few years ago I happened to be visiting FDR's family vacation home in New Brunswick (charming and unostentagious by the way, worth a visit) and wandered down to the little beach on the bay where some fish farms were underway; salmon as a matter of fact, a fish I admire and esteem almost more than any other. There was a whole description at the beach side as to how salmon farming is conducted, which by the time I finished reading, vowed never to eat farmed-raised fish again. The methodology is so scientifically calculated it is kind of horrific. Part of the wonder of salmon (reflected in their flesh) is their vital essential need as a species to do the incredible acrobatics that they need to do in order to spawn and survive. They are remarkable beings. These farms are science laboratories that in no way take in account the species essence, and that this essential aspect of the salmon, is contained in the flesh we eat. It is not considered. We are eating from an industrialized fishing industry. The lack of consciousness around the food processing in this environment at a basic level (from cultivating fish eggs to harvesting fully grown fish) that produce our food sources is alarming.
The second cue which happened over the last year, has been practically subliminal for me. I've had a sense the fish I have been eating is different than fish I was eating 5 or 7 years ago. There's something not right about it, which I can't put my finger on and which would be easy to dismiss. The flesh is different. The taste is not ---- alive?(missing the essence of the animal?) Not like it used to be. I've seen, tasted and known this about beef and chicken for over two decades. One could parallel it to the difference between an organic egg you buy and the one your friend gives you from their chicken coop. The difference isn't freshness so much (although I'm sure that's a factor), it's something else. And I'm beginning to believe it's the way these animals who give their life for our benefit are treated prior to being killed. We are living in a world of high technology, where exponential masses of animals are "processed" at enormous rates with shear brutality and in shockingly short periods of time. (A chicken is ready for slaughter now in 27 days as opposed to the 47 days it was ready decades ago, and weighing often twice as much in present day as in the past making them unable to stand up over their short life span.) There is a subtle but very serious lack of regard (completely discounted as being important at all) in this process, and which must effect what gets to our plate and into our bodies.
I think I've been able to assuage my alarm over the years around the animal flesh issue because I go primarily organic, free-range, "humanely treated", etc. I've calmed myself thinking what I was buying and consuming was better. But organic farms supplying Whole Foods and other supermarket chains conduct their food business practically the same way as the other producers. Albeit, their chickens are given 3 feet of space a piece instead of being crammed into cages. But they still discard the male chicks or grind them up for organic pet food since they won't be laying eggs. "Organic" farms are also generally mass producers of food (3K-30,000 chickens harvested every month). Organic beef suppliers also castrate the bulls, destroy cows who get utter infections instead of give them rest and antibiotics. It evidently doesn't pay to appreciate what these animals provide to the masses. No straw-chewing grandpa there.
 |
| King mushroom, grown in Maine, tons of protein! |
This mindless approach to food production is of course due in large part to overpopulation. The market must meet the demand. According to the United Nation's Food and Agriculture Organization, raising animals for food on these huge scales is grossly inefficient and hugely polluting of the environment. Raising livestock for consumption is a larger polluter than the transportation (cars, trucks) industry. How is this? To raise cattle for consumption, an enormous amount of energy has to be expended to plant and grow the grain, irrigate it, harvest it, ship it and store it. (For one pound of beef, it takes 6-10 pounds of grain; one cow drinks 50 gallons of water every day.) To keep cattle, bring them to slaughter, process, ship and store the butchered meat requires a further outlay of energy. Consider cattle naturally put out large amounts of methane gas (which is 23 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide--whala, global warming) and animal based protein releases much higher amounts of carbon dioxide than plant based protein. Well, the benefits (and past pleasures) of animal protein begin to be outweighed by the little talked about sustainability downside. The United Nations concern on climate change has irrefutably made the statement: "Eat less Meat." It leaves a huge carbon footprint. If the SAD (Standard American Diet) was replaced with a plant based diet by most people for a year, it would equal the energy saved if everyone drove a hybrid vehicle. (The SAD diet by the way is 40% animal protein, 50% processed foods (anything in boxes, bottles or prepared), 3.5% unrefined plant food (greens!) and 3.5% starch (potatoes/grains).
Animal consumption is big business. And big business tends to attract lobbyists and lean toward corruption practices. Science and public policy around dairy for one, have people chairing committees on the Food and Nutrition Board (sets dietary guidelines) who are also consultants for the dairy industry (it is now recommended we drink 3 eight ounce glasses of milk daily up from two from a few years ago; any correlation?). This is obviously a conflict of interest which seems to be under the law radar.
 |
| More fabulous Maine mushrooms! |
As in healthcare, we are approaching the need for a paradigm shift in the way agriculture is grown in this country (but of course, there is a solid relationship between the two). Obviously, we are not going back to becoming a non-industrialized agriculture society. Too many people have to be fed. But the trend to grow part of one's daily intake and use local small farmers for much of the rest is growing, a more environmentally sustainable possibility for some of us. It is almost convenient to buy local eggs now and raw milk from smaller farms. CSAs have expanded to include humanely raised animals which families or individuals can buy a portion of the slaughter (still have to freeze the bulk of that portion, which is more energy use). Personally, I don't think the inhumane, mechanical processing of animal protein is good for my health and soul (or anyone elses?) or the environment. We need to look at our consumer and eating habits with this in mind, bring more consciousness to the way we purchase, grow and sustain ourselves. Saying NO to the technology-based food production in this country will in time shift the paradigm (and everything else) on how we feed ourselves and respect the action of self sustenance and planet sustainability. If we don't do this, but continue to consume food in America the way we do, according to experts, by 2030 we will need 2-5 other planets to feed all of us. This is 2013, 16 years to go. Earth is all we've got (at the moment).
resources gleaned from:
No comments:
Post a Comment