You know you're doing something right when you piss off the beef and pork people. The editor of Pork magazine recently decried the Meatless Monday effort on (wait for it) Cattlenetwork.
The pork and beef lobbies have a lot more power and money behind them than environmental organizations and health nonprofits like Meatless Monday, and the fact the editor saw fit to comment shows the plant-based effort has some punch. She's worried we're ganging up on her.
Her beef? She claims a Meatless Monday video likens working together to go meatless to supporting the war effort in World War II thus equating patriotism with being plant-based. What the video really says is what plant-based proponents of all stripes and flavors have been saying all along -- cutting back, cutting out meat once a week can only help the environment by conserving the natural resources used in animal farming. It can only improve our health by reducing our risk of cancer, heart disease and diabetes,three major health threats linked to meat consumption. Most Americans eat 45% more meat than the USDA recommends. Hey, it's only the truth.
The truth, though, can be dangerous turf. A decade ago, the Cattlemen's Association tried to bring Oprah -- Oprah -- to her knees. They sued her for defamation for a show in which she made claims linking mad cow disease to beef. The only reason the suit didn't stick is, she was right. She explained 10 people had died eating tainted beef. It isn't libel if it's true.
The animal industry is looking for meatless pushback and they have found Paul McCartney and the UN International Panel on Climate Change. In his paper "Clearing the Air," presented to the American Chemical Society, UC Davis air quality professor Frank Mitloehner says Sir Paul can't go selling meatlessness as a solution to global warming. No one can.
The heart of his argument is the way greenhouse gas emissions were calculated "Livestock's Long Shadow," the seminal 2006 UN report which links animal production to global warming. Co-author Gidon Eshel, a Bard applied mathematician, stands by his findings. "The basic analysis we did is so simple and relies purely and completely on uncontested information."
The problem is what some, in their zeal, have done with that information. "PETA did some kind of in-house analysis and reached high numbers of emissions that I thought were inflated."
The data went viral and the meat folks of the world seized on it as ammunition to dismiss our role in climate change. Mitloehner says the answer to global warming isn't less meat and milk, it's more. By way of factory farming. "The developed world should focus on increasing efficient meat production in developing countries, we should adopt more efficient Western-styled farming practices to make more food with less greenhouse gas production."
Eshel feels Mitloehner presenting his paper before the American Chemical Society is a little like the Pork editor ranting about the meatless movement to the beef folks. "It's more than enough to disqualify a person from engaging in an honest discussion about this, The pharmaceutical companies are the ones making a lot of money from supplying 65% of all antibiotics to healthy animals for weight gain and milk production."
Mitloehner's study also had $5 million in underwriting, five percent of which came from the beef industry. "Livestock's Long Shadow" was underwritten by "nobody whatsoever," says Eshel. "I am not beholden to anybody, financially, morally or otherwise."
He pulls out studies, graphs and charts which all add up to one thing -- "When you eat meat, you exert three times as much pressure on land demand and reactive nitrogen as you do with a plant-based diet."
Although plant-based himself, "I'm not an advocate of veganism or a plant-based diet," says Eshel "I'm a researcher whose findings always lead away from animal-based foods, environmentally speaking."
Mitloehner did not respond to requests for an interview.
The meat folks can take on Oprah, they can take on Paul McCartney, they can take on an applied mathematician or even a 97-pound vegan like me. But the meatless movement is gaining traction because the truth is still the truth.
True Meatless Farro and Spring Vegetables With Lemon and DillFarro is a chewy, nutty ancient whole grain high in protein and fiber. If you can't find it, barley or wheat berries makes a good substitute.
3/4 cup farro
1-1/2 cups water or vegetable broth
2 tablespoons olive oil, divided use
1 onion, sliced
4 garlic cloves, minced
2 carrots, chopped
3 ribs celery, chopped
4 ounces mushrooms, sliced
1 cup green peas, fresh or frozen and thawed
zest and juice of 2 lemons
1/4 cup fresh dill, chopped
sea salt and fresh ground pepper to taste
optional: 1/2 cup crumbled feta for garnishIn a medium saucepan, bring water or broth to boil. Add farro. Reduce heat to low, cover and simmer for 20 to 30 minutes, until farro plumps and most of the liquid is absorbed. Set aside.
In a large skillet, heat 1 tablespoon of the olive oil over medium-high heat. Add sliced onion, minced garlic, chopped carrots and celery. Stir occasionally and continue cooking until vegetables soften, about 5 minutes.
Add sliced mushrooms and continue cooking another 5 minutes.
Drain farro, reserving any cooking liquid.
Gently stir farro into vegetables, along with 2 tablespoons of the cooking liquid, if mixture seems dry.
Just before serving, add peas, lemon zest and lemon juice, chopped dill and sea salt and pepper to taste.
Stir gently and heat through.
Top with crumbled feta, if desired.
Serves 4.
Ellen Kanner: Meatless Monday: Still, Life With Eggplant
Ellen Kanner: Bloomsday: Celebrate James Joyce With A Meatless Recipe
"The sector also generates almost two-thirds of anthropogenic ammonia, which contributes significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems." (This is from the summary. I thought it might be a mistake, but it's in the full document as well).
It's hard to trust a document dealing with a geochemical issue that makes such a gross mistake in basic chemistry as this.
The study also appears to treat ruminants as if they were human inventions, counting methane from cellulose fermentation and nitrogen from manure as new anthropogenic inputs. In fact, there is little reason to suppose that either the net mass of ruminant or their contribution to the carbon and nitrogen cycles have changed much as the result of humans. The species composition is different, but bison and elephants produce just as much methane and manure as cows and sheep.
I am an avowed foodie! I love to really chow down, shop for ingredients, cook, and drink wine, eat desserts. I am a vegan for about 20 years. Nope, no boring food! Delicious, healthy for us and the planet, sound on every count! Yes,
And agriculture without animals would be an environmental nightmare. Are you really under the ludicrous impression that the vast majority of the vegetables that vegans enjoy are grown without animal products? If so, you are wrong.
As a matter of fact, sustainably pasturing ruminants massively increases biodiversity and exponentially increases soil vitality. Conversely, agriculture takes over animal habitats and wipes out entire ecosystems. The water runoff from a plowed field is not much better than a parking lot, but sustainably pastured grasslands are an amazingly powerful tool for controlling runoff and preventing soil erosion.
As for the "delicious" claim, that's a matter of opinion of course, but for most of us, meat tastes really good.
The fact is that only 0.5% of the population is vegan for a reason. The rest of the human species eats animal products and know that they are part of a healthy diet. I have to move cattle.
This is what one of the lead authors of the study, Pierre Gerber had to say about Mitloehner's criticisms:
"I must say honestly that he has a point - we factored in everything for meat emissions, and we didn't do the same thing with transport."
Also, Kanner and vegan activist Gidon Eshel's contention that Mitloehner, a widely respected scientist, skewed his results because 5% of his study was funded by the beef industry was a bit of a low blow.
In the above article, Ellen Kanner makes the fallacious claim that the vegan activist Gidon Eshel was one of the coauthors of the UN commissioned report, Livestock's Long Shadow, and then she repeatedly uses that false claim to support her argument. He was NOT. The coauthors were Pierre Gerber, Henning Steinfeld, Tom Wassenaar, Vincent Castel, Mauricio Rosales, Cees de Haan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Livestock%27s_Long_Shadow
Eshel coauthored a completely unrelated study on the environmental effects of meat while he was an assistant professor in the geophysical dept at the U of Chicago.
Along with her specious claim, Kanner apparently took a quote from Eshel about his unrelated study, and fallaciously applied it to the UN study in order to build her case for veganism:
"Co-author Gidon Eshel, a Bard applied mathematician, stands by his findings. "The basic analysis we did is so simple and relies purely and completely on uncontested information."
Considering that he wasn't actually one of the coauthors of the UN study, I can only assume that he was referring to his own study there, and Kanner misappropriated the quote for her own purposes.
cont...
This is what one of the lead authors of the study, Pierre Gerber had to say about Mitloehner's criticisms:
"I must say honestly that he has a point - we factored in everything for meat emissions, and we didn't do the same thing with transport."
Also, Kanner and vegan activist Gidon Eshel's contention that Mitloehner, a widely respected scientist, skewed his results because 5% of his study was funded by the beef industry was a bit of a low blow.
I grew up eating meat from minke whales in Norway. They are surely not farmed, and they can be quite delicious. There is also plenty of them, as far as I can understand, as the population is estimated at over 1,000,000.
How about minke Monday? I have a good, quick recipe for anyone who's interested.
P.S. Make sure you get good, fresh whale meat. Otherwise it can be oily.
I'd also have no problem with Pork Tuesday, Beef Thursday or Poultry Sunday. I'd also throw in Lamb Saturday and Fish Friday with a Wednesday left over for legumes.
That's actually a lot more meat than I'd normally eat. But I'm trying to increase my Omega3 with grass fed beef and lamb and free range chickens.
Better eating beef or pork once a week than 7 times a week. Or even six times. Once a week is doable.
To wit: angel hair pasta in tomato sauce. Dissolve two Roma tomatoes in olive oil per person for the sauce. Add some basil leaves if you want to be fancy. Cook the pasta. Distribute on deep plates and add sauce. Sprinkle with parmesan and grind hot pepper over each plate.
Ten minutes. Delicious.
A few weeks ago there was a piece on The Huffington Post that claimed one of scientists who worked on the "Livestock's Long Shadow" study agreed that Dr. Mithoehner raised some valid points in his criticism. Now we're being told that another scientist (or maybe the same one) who worked on this study disagrees with that assessment. So who should we believe?
That other scientist, which Kanner fallaciously claims worked on the UN comissioned Livestock's Long Shadow report, is NOT listed as an author of that report. He is a vegan activist named Gidon Esher that did an unrelated study on the environmental impact of meat when he was an assistant professor of geophysical science at the U of Chicago.
The disinformation in the above article is unconscionable. Hopefully the moderators will have the integrity not to delete this post, because the truth is important.
I have read that Mario Batali and Joe Bastianich are part of Meatless Monday and are doing so in their restaurants.
This is great news because making great meatless meals is a natural challenge for a great chef like Mario Batali and it brings a good deal of attention to the Meatless Monday campaign.
http://frenchpressmemos.blogspot.com/2010/05/confession-wednesday-meat-or-no-meat.html
look ill make it simple
1. nothing wrong with eating meat (meat not grown on chemicals, gmo food, injected with hormones, many other environmental reasons too much to mention here).. The american indians had it right. They killed only what they could eat and then they also respected what they killed. and no environmental damage. Many do not now a days.
2. nothing wrong with raising livestock as long as you treat the animals humanely. Many do not now a days...
3. I believe in the American Farmer. The one that has a good understand of his role and how important it is to feed our families and yet maintain a proper ecological balance. Many do not now a days.
Perhaps you are one of the few that does it correctly?
and I do not what I speak of since I am an organic professional as well as a vegan.
I did mention torture?
Also did I mention if you really want to be an environmental activists that you shouldn't eat meat unless you raise it yourself, butchered it yourself and prepared it yourself? since more damage is being done in raising cattle around the world then is being reported like cutting down the rain forest to raise cattle?
you smell the CAFO feedlot 2 miles before you get to it, on the east side of the freeway. Ugh!