A Cloven Hoof

Meat.

In the last few days it has been revealed that large quantities of foodstuffs common in the European markets were labeled clearly as beef when they were, in fact, horse.  Many people have found this upsetting; especially those that have eaten it.

A few observations:

Most religions of the world place dietary restrictions on their practitioners.  Buddhism and other religions object not to the eating of meat per se, but to the needless and dis-compassionate taking of life.  Judaism and Christianity have dietary laws clearly intended as practical guides to food safety, avoiding the ingestion of blood or decomposed meats; the animal must have a cloven hoof.  The Hindus hold the cow in sacred reverence.

We form intimate working and recreational relationships with horses, not with cows.  Horses are easier to ride.  Some cows have horns.  Neither species speaks English.

It takes far more resources to fatten a cow for slaughter than it does to fatten a horse, though neither is especially more or less nutritious.  There are lots of countries, due to climate and resources, that historically have and continue to raise horses for meat.  Many of these countries are modern, and European.  Americans typically pretend they do not know this.

So.

There is neither a better reason to not eat a horse than a cow nor a better reason to eat a cow rather than a horse.  Eating animals is eating animals, at least to some extent.  Cows and horses bear a good resemblance to one another, certainly more so than a fish and a horse.  If you can eat one, you can probably eat the other.

The controversy that is unfolding this week is not about whether or not it is gross or morally and ethically reprehensible to eat horses or even horses versus cows.  This is the illumination of the modern food system.  What should really be making us feel uncomfortable about about this is how difficult it is to determine the original source of the meat.  That the food industry even in such a small geographic region as continental Europe can be so convolute so as to have obscured both the source and the end product.  The real argument no longer lies in how we eat, vegetarian versus carnivore, but in the industry that has come to feed us.

This is what we eat.  This is not happening across the world right now, its happening right here.  We just haven't shined the light.  Be impeccable with your food.  Understand where it comes from and vote with your dollar.  Buy locally, and trust small food handlers.  

To watch video of the wild horses of Oregon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=30QgYVaHqQQ

To watch a truly distressing portrait of the American cattle industry:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhlhSQ5z4V4

Let Them Eat Cake

agroterrorism.

There are a lot of great, albeit traditionally left-winged reasons to eat locally. Eating locally supports small family owned farms and food producers, decreases the carbon footprint of your meals, discourages industrialization of farming practices and therefore the prevalence of pesticides and herbicides, supports your local economy, increases community sustainability, decreases dependence on the migrant workforce and foreign energy sources, and generally results in healthier meals and fresher/tastier food on your table. And we wonder why more conservatives haven’t hopped onto this bandwagon.

But there are a couple of reasons for eating locally that the conservative right can get behind. Eating locally is the best protection against food-related outbreaks of illness and diesease and eating locally is the best way to combat agroterrorism. That’s right, agroterrorism, the malicious use of plant or animal pathogens to cause devastating disease in the food supply.

In 2006 Michael Pollan wrote an article for the New York Times discussing the role of industrialization in the prevalence of food-related outbreaks. While his article was written in the context of a spinach-related E coli outbreak, the recent problems with the peanut industry and the worldwide outbreak of swine flu have brought the issue back into focus. In his article, Pollan argues that the centralization of food processing and distribution centers leads to more frequent and widespread issues of infection and contamination, whereas food grown, processed, and distributed locally decreases the reach of food-related outbreaks and allows for faster and more efficient identification of sources and solutions to food-based illnesses. Pollan further goes on to note that when Tommy Thompson retired from the Department of Health and Human Services in 2004, he said “For the life of me, I cannot understand why the terrorists have not attacked our food supply, because it is so easy to do.” This sentiment was reiterated by the G.AO. in its 2003 Bioterrorism report to Congress, “The high concentration of our livestock industry and the centralized nature of our food-processing industry make them vulnerable to attack.” And they’re right, in 2006 eighty percent of beef in the United States was slaughtered by four companies and seventy-five percent of all precut salads were processed by only two companies. The implications of these numbers when viewed in the context of the spread of disease and our current healthcare crisis is terrifying. And the proof, at least lately, is in the peanut butter.

What this means is that food consciousness is no longer the proprietary holding of the liberal left, but a necessary and immediate change that must be made in the daily lives of ordinary citizens for the protection of public health and safety. Take back your health from the hands of industry, eat locally, and with compassion.


To read Michael Pollans article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/15/magazine/15wwln_lede.html

For more information on farmers markets, eating locally, and CSA food shares:
http://www.localharvest.org/
http://100milediet.org/
http://www.animalvegetablemiracle.com/

This Little Piggy

bacon.

Its been 16 years since I've had a piece of bacon. For more than half my life and to varying degrees, I have eliminated meat and dairy from my diet. When I was younger it was a choice based on the loosely formulated ethics of myself and my peers. And then it became about nutrition. Now if I'm asked for a reason for not eating meat I say that it's some combination of ethics, health, and habit. A lazy answer at best. But the real reason to not eat meat or dairy, or at least not very much and certainly locally raised, the reason that most accurately encompasses all of the repercussions of this aspect of modern diet, is really very simple.

Not eating meat may just result in world peace.

Meat production and consumption is tied to global hunger, deforestation, soil loss, water quality, class wars, and global warming. As just one example, 70% of U.S. grain and 80% of corn goes to feed cattle, not people, and the World Watch Institute tells us that "Continued growth in meat output is dependent on feeding grain to animals, creating competition between affluent meat eaters and the world's poor."

Not to mention the distressing karmic consequences of our collective and ongoing abuse of the very animals we depend upon for sustenance.

In his essay "The Only Diet for a Peacemaker is a Vegetarian Diet" Fr. John Dear discusses both the tangible and ethical connections between peace and food consumption and ties his discussion to the Christian directive to pursue and propagate peace. He notes that Mahatma Gandhi, Albert Schweitzer, Thich Nhat Hanh, Tolstoy and St. Francis of Assisi all agree, vegetarianism is a keystone to humanity, compassion, and peace.

To read Dear's entire essay:

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/07/10/10250

To watch the veggie world's response to Paris Hilton's Carl's Junior Ad:

PETA's banned Superbowl Ad

http://www.peta.org/content/standalone/VeggieLove/Default.aspx

Photo Courtesy of: http://www2.journalnow.com/

The Only Diet for a Peacemaker is a Vegetarian Diet, John Dear, Published on Thursday, July 10, 2008 by the National Catholic Reporter