iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Ellen Kanner

GET UPDATES FROM Ellen Kanner
 

Meatless Monday: Nourishing The Planet One Person At A Time

Posted: 07/09/2012 8:07 am

Getting a healthy meal into yourself and your family can be challenging enough. Try multiplying that by seven billion. Now we've got issues every step of the way -- what food we produce, how we produce it, how we distribute it, what we eat and how we waste it. By 2050, our population is predicted to grow by two billion more. That's nine billion people on the planet and all of us hungry. The planet will not be getting any bigger. Or any more fertile. So it's up to us to be smarter about growing, sharing, eating and preserving our food.


Worldwatch Institute
and the Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition are working together to grapple with these grand scale issues. At "Eating Planet," a recent symposium in New York, they gathered sustainable farming and food policy experts to share their findings along with some other sobering stats.

Among the seven billion of us, one billion are overfed and obese and suffering all the attendant miseries -- cancer, diabetes, heart disease, rocketing medical costs, plus impacts on the family and the workplace which are distinctly not fun. On the other side of the continuum, the world has one billion underfed people, those struggling with poverty, food insecurity and outright hunger. Also not fun.

Here's what's amazing -- these two problems have a single solution. "Agriculture is the answer," as Danielle Nierenberg, director of Worldwatch Institute's Nourishing the Planet project, put it. Growing indigenous crops empowers the people who need it most. The foods that best sustain the planet, with the highest yield and the lowest carbon footprint are the same foods that best sustain us -- vegetables, fruit, whole grains, beans, nuts, seeds -- your plant-based diet greatest hits.

The prime contributor to obesity and obesity-related illnesses is the same one that sucks up land and water and grain -- grain that could feed us. We're talking meat. As Nierenberg and Edible Manhattan publisher Brian Halweil said in a recent New York Times op-ed, "Meat remains the most energy- and resource-intensive ingredient in our collective diets." So rather than raising more beef that will make more people more obese at a cost to the environment, how about we dedicate that precious land and water to benefit another precious resource -- us?

"Produce is the most important thing to grow and eat," said Ellen Gustafson, of Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition's advisory board and founder of 30 Project, the sustainable food nonprofit.

Eating Planet's numbers are staggering, but what really moved all the members of the panel are people, from an African woman who put aside her dignity to pick up a few grains of maize to feed her family to the women of SEWA, who organized their own labor force, giving voice and power to India's vast numbers of impoverished, self-employed women.

We take abundant food for granted here. We take our own power for granted, too. We shouldn't. As the One Campaign's sustainable agriculture and food aid policymaker Kelly Hauser said, when you call your congressman or even e-mail, Washington pays attention. Your voice makes a difference.

I'll add what you choose to eat makes a difference, too. All seven to nine billion of us deserve to be nourished. If just a fraction of the seven billion of us speak up more and eat meat less, we can save -- and nourish -- the world. It all starts with you -- your plate, your voice, your choice.

Missed the "Eating Planet" symposium? Read the book -- Eating Planet 2012.

Feed the Planet Pasta with Celery, Kale and Walnut Gremolata

Gremolata is a mess of chopped herbs, lemon zest, olive oil, breadcrumbs or nuts, with a nubbly texture somewhere between a relish and sauce. Here it's tossed with nutrient-rich kale, celery and whole wheat angel hair for a summer dish bright with flavor, color and crunch.

7 ounces whole wheat angel hair pasta (approximately half of a 13.25-ounce package)
3 tablespoons olive oil
1 pinch red pepper flakes (about 1/8th teaspoon)
3 cloves garlic, chopped
1/2 bunch flatleaf parsley, chopped (about 1 cup, loosely packed)
1/2 cup walnuts chopped
zest of 1 lemon plus 1/4 cup fresh lemon juice
1-1/2 cups celery -- stalks and leaves -- sliced thin
1 bunch kale, chopped into skinny ribbons
sea salt and freshly ground pepper to taste

In a small bowl, mix together the chopped garlic, walnuts, grated lemon zest and chopped parsley.

Bring water to boil in a large pot. Add angel hair and cook according to package directions until just al dente -- not al mushy -- approximately 5 to 7 minutes. Reserve 1 cup of cooking water from the pasta -- it gets starchy and silky and helps thicken the sauce. Drain the rest of the pasta.

In the same pot, heat olive oil over medium-high heat. Add red pepper flakes and the garlic-parsley-lemon zest-walnut mixture, stir until it sizzles and smells toasty and terrific, about 3 minutes. Add the pasta and chopped kale. Remove from heat and toss. The heat from the pasta and gremolata will make the kale tender without additional cooking.

Add the quarter cup of lemon juice, the cup of pasta water and celery. Toss again to combine. Season generously with sea salt and pepper.

Serve warm, room temperature or slightly chilled. Simple but sturdy enough for a pot luck.

Serves 4 to 6. May be doubled, tripled, or do the math and feed 7 billion.

 

Follow Ellen Kanner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/edgyveggie1

FOLLOW FOOD
Getting a healthy meal into yourself and your family can be challenging enough. Try multiplying that by seven billion. Now we've got issues every step of the way -- what food we produce, how we prod...
Getting a healthy meal into yourself and your family can be challenging enough. Try multiplying that by seven billion. Now we've got issues every step of the way -- what food we produce, how we prod...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 325
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3  Next ›  Last »  (3 total)
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:46 AM on 07/31/2012
While our family does miss a nice burger on mondays, we usally don't have a problem going meatless substituting chicken or fish instead. Were having a nice chicken and dumplings instead of those greasy burgers and we're happy to know we're contribiting while eating healthy too!
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:07 AM on 07/15/2012
honeybear64 said:
"It's not that the laws of physics are subject to revision; it's that they don't tell you anything about HOW the body uses calories or WHY people get fat. Weight gain results from fewer calories being expended than are consumed, yes; but that tells you nothing we don't already know. Obesity is a disorder of fat storage, and fat storage is regulated by a complex system of hormones, most notably insulin, in response to food intake, and different foods have different effects on the amount of circulating insulin. It's no coincidence that a leading cause of non-compliance with insulin therapy among diabetics is the desire to avoid weight gain. I'm not questioning the fact that people get fat because they consume too much and don't burn off enough calories. But WHY do they eat too much, and WHY don't they burn off enough calories? We can go the puritanical route and chalk it up to the sins of gluttony and sloth. Or we can go the rational route and look at how certain foods create persistant hunger, and how those foods encourage fat storage rather than fat burning, so that laziness is the result of obesity, not the cause. When you can administer insulin to a patient and the pounds pack on with no conscious effort to eat more, and you can administer metformin and the pounds drop off with no effort to eat less, there's obviously more to obesity than just being a lazy pig."
I-US
Beware the monsters lurking in word swamps.
12:47 AM on 07/13/2012
The following studies discuss how increased meat consumption leads to obesity:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20592131
http://www.ajcn.org/content/81/6/1267.abstract
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v33/n6/abs/ijo200945a.html
http://www.ajcn.org/content/91/5/1525S.short (This finds that plant-based diets, because of their association with leaner body mass, should be encouraged to curb childhood obesity.)
http://www.jcdr.net/article_fulltext.asp?issn=0973-709x&year=2012&volume=6&issue=3&page=441&issn=0973-709x&id=1933
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3310004/
TomP100
Got elk?
06:11 AM on 07/13/2012
You're really trying hard to remain relevant aren't you? Citing speculative studies that suggest correlation but do not prove causation is your standard M.O., I-US. In as much as such studies do not prove anything, they are not grounds for absurdly sweeping claims like meat is the prime contributor to obesity. They are also a weak defense for such claims. You're going to have to do better than that.
I-US
Beware the monsters lurking in word swamps.
10:00 AM on 07/13/2012
Ah, trying to remain relevant would be those who have decided to ignore the CDC, WHO, UN, USDA, NIH, HSPH, and other organizations with researchers whose expertise goes beyond reading sympathetic, low-carb blog postings. But I see you didn't actually bother to look at the studies because you didn't bother to put forth criticisms of them. Sad.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
11:54 AM on 07/13/2012
Yes, and contrary to I-US's statement, none of these studies even attempt to address "how" increased meat consumption supposedly leads to obesity, except for the speculations in the last one listed. Just more associational woo woo.
I-US
Beware the monsters lurking in word swamps.
10:26 AM on 07/13/2012
I have to laugh at what's become an almost zombie mantra from people without the chops actually to tackle a study in part or entirely: "Correlation does not equal causation." It's a grand intellectual cop-out that ultimately leaves the study historically standing intact, a fact obviously elusive to the study's opponent or he or she would offer up sound criticisms if able. Additionally, it proves that quite a few people don't grasp the order in which scientific studies are carried out.
TomP100
Got elk?
06:46 AM on 07/14/2012
Correlation is not causation is one of the most basic rules of statistics. Anyone who has taken a college sophomore level class in statistics is familiar with this concept. It it not an intellectual cop out, but rather a fundamental logical and scientific truth. As I said, throwing out correlations and hoping that they stick is a favorite tactic of yours. What's really laughable here is that even if the correlations are statistically valid, they still do not prove the author's unsupported claim that meat is the PRIME contributr
TomP100
Got elk?
10:42 AM on 07/12/2012
In the article above article, Ms. Kanner makes the claim that meat is the prime contributor to obesity. Yet, she offers no evidence to support this claim. It becomes difficult to take an article seriously when the author does not support claims with facts.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:52 PM on 07/11/2012
I see that TomP100 has repeatedly been prevented from "speaking truth to power." Shame.
TomP100
Got elk?
08:25 AM on 07/12/2012
Indeed. Someone seems to want to protect the author' proposterously untrue statement from seeing the light of day.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
north of 60
Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati
02:30 PM on 07/11/2012
Industrial meat and processed 'food' are the biggest problems. It shouldn't be about choosing between omnivore or vegan. The healthiest diet combines small amounts of free-range grass-fed meat with organic whole foods in balanced proportions. Too much of any one thing can be nutritionally counterproductive.
photo
FaunaAndFlora
Daughter of Pan
12:39 AM on 07/11/2012
If only more people, including Ms. Kanner, took the time to research food production. Then they would know that the Haber-Bosch Process is the only reason why we can grow enough food to feed billions of people. Of course, there are unintended consequences, also known as the good intentions that pave the road to Hell, including the fact that there are now seven billion people living on this planet.

This is an excellent article on the Haber-Bosch Process.
http://lauradutoit.hubpages.com/hub/Artificial-Nitrogen-Dangers-Of-Mankind-Playing-God
TomP100
Got elk?
08:58 PM on 07/11/2012
Wish I could fan you again.
photo
FaunaAndFlora
Daughter of Pan
01:37 AM on 07/12/2012
Gracias. ;-)
10:38 PM on 07/10/2012
On the subject of sustainability and indigenous crops, where does that leave someone who lives in North America and loves to eat quinoa? Or how about all the folks in most of this country who think avocados, bananas, and lemons "grow on trees," as it were?
04:59 AM on 07/11/2012
I just KNOW there's a funny response to your post, but it is eluding me right now...
I-US
Beware the monsters lurking in word swamps.
11:55 AM on 07/11/2012
I'm kind of wondering if I should expect okra to grow off my lemon tree this year...maybe jalapeños will sprout from the lime trees and eggplants will grow off the kumquat.
08:07 PM on 07/10/2012
I don't eat meat and never will again. You couldn't pay me to do it. Its probably the most disgusting thing I could think of doing right now. Anyone who googles it can find out killing animals for food is bad for your health, takes years off your life and bad for the environment. How could killing things be good? All this advertising you see every day is because the meat industry is financially involved with many American companies. Our food pyramid is wrong. Even the Humane Society believes eating animals is bad for us.
05:00 AM on 07/11/2012
You kill plants when eat plants. And you kill animals when you eat plants.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:10 AM on 07/11/2012
Alvasrak,

You commented on a post of mine that growing plants uses more water than growing livestock (particularly cattle)

Anything to back that up?

From David Pimentel at Cornel:

"Animal agriculture is a leading consumer of water resources in the United States, Pimentel noted. Grain-fed beef production takes 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food. Raising broiler chickens takes 3,500 liters of water to make a kilogram of meat. In comparison, soybean production uses 2,000 liters for kilogram of food produced; rice, 1,912; wheat, 900; and potatoes, 500 liters. "Water shortages already are severe in the Western and Southern United States and the situation is quickly becoming worse because of a rapidly growing U.S. population that requires more water for all of its needs, especially agriculture," Pimentel observed
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:00 PM on 07/10/2012
Given how often opponents of meat like to claim that certain studies are unreliable because they are supposedly funded by the meat industry, I find it amusing that the author is touting work by the Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition, a body affiliated with an Italian PASTA company. No conflict of interest there, surely ...

If the author believes that the "prime contributor to obesity and obesity-related illnesses" is meat, she is in serious need of some "refresher courses" in biochemistry, endocrinology, and metabolism (assuming she ever had any training in those subjects to begin with, which I seriously doubt). For a start, she might look at the results of the "A-to-Z" study conducted at Stanford University, which showed that the Atkins diet (mainly meat, fish, eggs, and vegetables), compared to the LEARN, Zone, and Ornish diets resulted in greater weight loss and better improvement for the risk factors for cardiovascular disease than the other three. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/297/9/969.full The lead researcher on this study was a long-time vegetarian who has stated publicly that the results of the study were "a bitter pill" for him to swallow.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:00 PM on 07/10/2012
More weight loss does not equal better health.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:06 PM on 07/10/2012
Since the subjects were overweight and trying to lose the extra pounds it contributed to their better health. 
I-US
Beware the monsters lurking in word swamps.
09:36 PM on 07/10/2012
Exactly. And as this recently (June 2012) published study finds, low-carb diets are associated with cardiovascular risks:

http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e4026
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120627092206.htm

What most people confuse are healthy carbohydrates (whole grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables) with refined carbohydrates (donuts, Snickers, potato chips). Additionally, what the poster to whom you are responding confuses is a vegan or vegetarian diet with a high-carbohydrate diet.
11:01 AM on 07/10/2012
Here is Dr Andrew Weil on why "Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, is not a cause of obesity, heart disease or any other chronic disease of civilization."

His article also talks about how carbohydrate intensive meals are "propelling the epidemic of obesity and diabetes in America."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andrew-weil-md/healthy-eating_b_629422.html
09:44 AM on 07/10/2012
Here is what's amazing -- the claim that meat is the prime contributor to obesity and obesity related illness. Complete and utter nonsense. And to blame beef for obesity in the same breath that she recommends a meal of pasta?!? Seriously? The irony is absolutely mind-boggling.

In reality, there is no legitimate basis for Kanner's fallacious claim, but there is a mountain of evidence that carb based meals, such as the one that Kanner recommends above, can lead to obesity and a number of other health-related illness. In fact, in the China study cited by vegan health crusader Colin Campbell, wheat had a vastly higher correlation with cancer and other diseases than meat.

And in fact, study after study comparing people on diets high in animal protein to people on low-fat diets low in animal protein have shown favorable results for the meat eaters! Here is one such study:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2010/08/03/128958420/low-carb-diet-matches-low-fat-diet-results----with-a-heart-bonus

In other words, not only is meat not the cause of obesity, it can be a very important part of a diet to prevent it. Pasta on the other hand, tasty as it is, always puts you at risk.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:02 PM on 07/10/2012
The results of the "A to Z Study" conducted at Stanford University were the same: those who followed the Atkins diet lost the most weight, kept it of, and had better markers for cardiovascular disease risk.
05:11 AM on 07/11/2012
*sigh*...if ONLY pasta was a fat.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul108
09:15 AM on 07/10/2012
The problem is that eating meat 6 days a week instead of 7 is a very miniscule effort that can't possibly have meaningful impact in the face of our ecological challenges. Eating meat more than one day a week is unsustainable and will lead to severe environmental degradation, and even that realy needed to have begun as a worldwide movement at least ten years ago. This is too little, too late, though I appreciate the token effort for what its worth.

We're just beginning to feel the effects. That little thing called global warming, which is whipping our a$$es more and more, is mostly due to meat eating: www.worldwatch.org/node/6294
photo
FaunaAndFlora
Daughter of Pan
01:02 AM on 07/11/2012
How much meat we eat should be determined by where we live. The same goes for vegetables, fruits, nuts and grains. The bottom line is that most people live in regions where large-scale crop production is impossible for much of the year because of climate or for all of the year because of climate and topography. That's why 70% of the produce in North American grocery stores comes from California and Mexico, arid regions that use intensive irrigation to grow these crops.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:21 AM on 07/11/2012
If you think global warming is "mostly due to meat eating," you are seriously misinformed.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul108
12:57 PM on 07/11/2012
When I provide reputable citations for the facts I state ( http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294 ), how can you accuse me of being seriously misinformed? You're wasting my time.
photo
rodjard
I Update my brain frequently
09:14 AM on 07/10/2012
I will make it a point to eat more meat on monday.
The universe must be kept balanced in all things.
Someone has to do it.
07:26 AM on 07/10/2012
This is a silly article. If you're worried about the state of the PLANET then start speaking out against OVER-POPULATION. Just trying to squeeze more and more food out of the planet is not really clever when it's dying from the human infection. And suggesting we finish off what environment there is by continuing to grow more MONOCULTURE CROPS just makes me feel like this article was sponsored by Monsanto...who actually DO sponsor a great deal of vegan acitivity.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Paul108
08:58 AM on 07/10/2012
No, it's not silly at all. What can you do about overpopulation? War works great for that, so do disease epidemics. We could try to force sterilize people, and close the hospitals. Basically to address population requires ghastly violence, tyranny, etc. And considering the way humans treat animals, that kind of miserable world is just what we deserve.

On the other hand, if we quit raising animals for meat, we would dramatically raise the carrying capacity for humans on earth and solve most of our environmental problems simply by stopping the horrific violence of animal slaughter. How can anyone object to this?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
12:21 PM on 07/10/2012
How can anyone object to this? Anyone who knows anything about sustainable agriculture can object to it vociferously. You are revealing yourself as a person who knows nothing about agriculture, sustainable or otherwise, if you think that not raising animals for meat would dramatically raise the earth's carrying capacity for humans, given that only a small percentage of the earth's surface is suitable for growing crops.
04:54 AM on 07/11/2012
Certainly if we stopped using animals for meat the resultant strain on the Earth's resources WOULD cause a catastrophic collapse of the environment and probably the demise of the human race, along with most of the rest of the Earth's creatures. No doubt about it, that is one way to destroy the planet. I was thinking more of things like reducing family sizes and increasing average wealth through the education and empowerment of women...things like that.
photo
plantbasedpunk
live from the PHX
12:05 PM on 07/10/2012
Monsanto sponsoring vegan activity? Can you back that up? And I do agree with you about the overpopulation thing. We'd probably do a lot more in the long run by dropping off condoms in 3rd world countries than rice. It also needs to be said that these impoverished countries DO grow a lot - and often enough - crops to feed those who need it. But, they're too poor and it's much more profitable for these farmers to sell their grain to animal agriculture for cheap, grain fed meat. Perhaps, if the global consumption of meat goes down than maybe they'd be forced to sell their crops to the poor, not big agribusiness.
04:48 AM on 07/11/2012
Your argument is all red herring. We do not need to feed animals grain to produce meat.
05:17 AM on 07/11/2012
I suggest you start looking more closely at those who can afford to be out there full time spreading the suggestion that we eat more crops. Where DO they get the money to support themselves?