Stewart David, you should really visit a local farm sometime instead of just reading PETA pamphlets.

And let me guess, all your ‘vegan’ food is grown in your front yard? all that flax oil and avocadoes and brown rice and soy? yeah, that’s ‘local’.

I eat local vegan food when possible, and I’ve visited many farms.  The scientific studies I noted are worth reading.

Um.  Did you even read the commentary, PKFaP?

The point of it, as I gather, is that in considering the environmental impact of the foods we choose, the greenhouse gas emissions involved in transporting a food item from the point of production to its final location (retailer/consumer) are NOTHING compared to the emissions involved in the production process itself. 

I checked out the Carnegie Mellon study (here’s the link for you: http://psufoodscience.typepad.com/psu_food_science/files/es702969f.pdf

“Shifting less than one day per week’s worth of calories from red meat and dairy products to chicken, fish, eggs, or a vegetable-based diet achieves more GHG [greenhouse gas] reduction than buying all locally sourced foods.”

So it seems that red meat and dairy in general necessitate remarkably high GHG emissions, REGARDLESS of how local they are (since final delivery transportation costs contribute only 4% of total emissions).  So comparatively, in consideration of greenhouse gases, Stewart’s avocados and soy produced elsewhere and shipped here seem to be FAR preferable to beef raised down the road at a local family farm.

So comparatively, in consideration of greenhouse gases, Stewart’s avocados and soy produced elsewhere and shipped here seem to be FAR preferable to beef raised down the road at a local family farm. [\b]

damn bold function…  the first paragraph is a quote. the following three are my commentary…

I’ve been to Hickory Nut Gap Farm and other local farms.  They seem impressive until someone looks at the big picture, which is the point of my commentary.  We could only feed a miniscule amount of people using these methods, the land use requirements are astronomical.

Either you haven’t closely read the Greenwashed commentary, haven’t been paying attention or you simply are not retaining the data for whatever reason.  Are you not getting that grass-fed beef is NOT a sustainable process?  Go back and re-read the facts laid our clearly in the article. 

I can understand your disgust with the messenger (Stewart David) but this does not diminish the absolute validity of the message.

“Plant-based agriculture is clearly healthier for the earth”

Umm, actually, the “agricultural revolution” that occurred about 5-6000 years ago in the fertile crescent is exactly why we are in this global mess right now.  This “revolution” is what has led to the overpopulation of the planet to the extreme… and is why you now tell me I can’t eat meat. 

I can’t eat meat because it’s more sustainable to live off a plant-based diet, so we can continue to overpopulate the planet.  No thanks.

Not to mention the fact that none of these “foods” (rice, potatoes, wheat grain, legumes) were ever intended to be a staple of the human diet.  These are foods that MUST be proccessed to be consumed.  All high glycemic-index carbs that are too easily broken down by the body, what’s not used for energy is immmediately stored as fat.  Just look at how overweight americans are…. it’s not just laziness.

“Are you not getting that grass-fed beef is NOT a sustainable process? “

i’m ‘getting’ that that is your opinion, but i am not agreeing with the conclusion.

Can you ‘get” that?

Trey,

Overpopulation is indeed the problem, you’ll get no argument from me on that.  My wife and I chose not to have children. 

We use much of the earth to grow plants so that we can feed them to animals.  I suppose I could have stated it better and said “Plant-based agriculture is clearly better for the earth than animal agriculture.”

I don’t suggest that people consume less resources so that we can continue to overpopulate the planet.  I’d never suggest that.  The major reason we are cutting down rainforests at an incredible rate is to graze cattle and grow soybeans to feed chickens.  A switch away from animal agriculture could slow or stop this horrific destruction of mother earth.

Linking the pseudo-science of greenhouse gas global warming to local sourced vegan lifestyles is just plain idiotic. Why stop at food? Convert your life and possessions to local only if you are truly passionate about this. Otherwise, this is just pandering to the eco-nut crowd for the sake of your personal palate.

Travelah,

It’s hard to talk to someone who is anti-science.

A thoughtful commentary (much better than recent veggie letters to the editor), though laden with false dichotomies and suspect logic.

I might or might not like to get into this topic yet again, but before I even try, let me ask you two questions, Stewart:

1. Who’s your farmer?
2. How do they maintain soil fertility?

If you can’t answer those questions, I would really like to know how you envision we fertilize all those vegetable crops on our non-animal farms and how that integral aspect of dirt farming plays into the whole reductionist greenhouse gas argument you’re making.

And for extra credit: What happens when cheap oil is gone?

The one-world-diet you are promoting is the very antithesis of sustainable in that it relies on highly subsidized transportation models that will not possible provide food for future generations without huge economic and environmental costs.

It isnt about whatever potentially politically biased “carbon footprint” numbers you can come up with. It’s about nurturing food production models that will provide for our region when the planes, trains, boats and trucks are no longer feasible options for delivery from remote locations. We have an opportunity right now to shift resources into areas that will feed us in the future, without the help of regions thousands of miles away from us.

With gas-prices still rising, and no clear alternative in sight for petroleum replacement, where do you suppose you’ll get those ‘sustainable’ avocadoes and soy from in ten years? Certainly not from our region of the planet.

“We use much of the earth to grow plants so that we can feed them to animals. “

-once again, the PETA-types attempt to paint the worst-case examples of intensive factory-farming conditions as the only possible way to raise animals, despite all evidence in our local area to the contrary.

Debating with you folks would be more fun if you didnt merely parrot what the PETA website tells you to say, and actually engaged in thoughtful, considered discourse that addresses the actual issues instead of preconceived notions and prepared talking points.

Your sense of ‘sustainability’ is incredibly skewed, and presumes far to much about the human digestive system, the history of agriculture, and the direction of the planet socially and politically.

Wouldnt you rather be working with local farmers to ensure a bioregional food network is strong for future generations, when the infrastructure of the 20th century crumbles beyond repair? Or will you be privileged enough to pay $40 /lb for avocadoes and flax while the rest of us hunt for our food, or grow what little we can in our mountain hollars?

Yet again, P2K, or whatever…you continue to miss the whole message of the original commentary and follow-up points.  May I suggest you re-read it AGAIN?  It’s seeming like you’ve never really read it to begin with.  You’re just not getting it.  Maybe it’s all that cholesterol and saturated fat coarsing through your ever-constricting veins.

Debating with you would be more productive if you would actually stay on point.  Your obsession with flax oil, avacados, brown rice and soy is silly.  How can anyone have a conversation with you when you assume you know what they eat?  As noted in my commentary, local vegan food is the best answer.  You’d know that if you took the time to actually read the commentary.  And check out the Audubon piece I noted, The Low Carbon Diet, at http://audubonmagazine.org/features0901/viewpoint.html

PFKaP (what does this stand for, anyway?),

There are nearly 7 BILLION people on the planet.  Most live in cities, so few have the ability to grow food in their mountain hollars.  We are cutting down rainforests at alarming rates to grow soy to feed to animals.  Conversion rates vary depending on conditions and species.  But whether it takes 3 or 12 pounds of soy to produce their pound of flesh, isn’t it better, all things equal, that they just eat the soy?

Buying meat, dairy and eggs from local farmers may make people feel good, but it doesn’t address the big picture.  If you do the math, you’ll see that if humans continue to eat animals at the current rate, we’d have to deforest the entire planet if it were to come from pasture-raised animals.  No one ever seems to want to address this simple fact.

There are nearly 7 BILLION people on the planet.  Most live in cities, so few have the ability to grow food in their mountain hollars.  We are cutting down rainforests at alarming rates to grow soy to feed to animals.

and, again, i dont live in a city, and the meat i buy/hunt/trade for isnt grown in the amazon. So WHY do you insist on applying your false dichotomy on a model where it isnt appropriate.

As for the “avocadoes, soy, and flax”, it was in direct response to “xvelourioa’s” above claim that it is more sustainable to ship these things from far away than buy local meat- perhaps you should read the thread.

Buying meat, dairy and eggs from local farmers may make people feel good, but it doesn’t address the big picture.  If you do the math, you’ll see that if humans continue to eat animals at the current rate, we’d have to deforest the entire planet if it were to come from pasture-raised animals.  No one ever seems to want to address this simple fact.

No. that just isnt true. As i’ve ALREADY STATED, you are taking the worst case example and extrapolating it out, when the reality is, there are far more sustainable models for producing food than massive factory farms. Of course, to admit that would require a fundamanetal shift in your myopic world view—one that might be better tempered by actually working on a farm.

There is no food shortage, people are starving due to geopolitics-not food models. Again, where do you suppose these city folks will get their ‘vegan’ food when transportation costs become to limiting?

You are promoting, unawares it would seem, a far less sustainable model based on unrealistic expectations born from a lack of understanding of agricultural practices. If you spent as much time actually working with farmers as you do digesting PETA talking points, you might have a more grounded understanding of these issues.

I know a lot more about agriculture than you give me credit for.  If you read the studies I’ve noted, you’ll see that I am relying on science, not PETA or any animal protection group.  The major scientific journals are all talking about the need to eat less meat or no meat, the mainstream environmental groups are all talking about the need to eat less or no meat, etc. 

The “sustainable” models you note don’t account for the land use requirements.  Again, you seem unwilling or unable to address this topic.  Where, exactly, is all of the “free range” you would need?

To Joeinmadco:

Sorry, I overlooked your comment!  To answer your questions:

1. Who’s your farmer?
Verious sources.  I try to buy local, because I am pro-local!  But local shouldn’t be the only measure of what we consume, which was the point of my commentary. 

2. How do they maintain soil fertility?

Unfortunately, I’m sure most use animal fertilizers.  Veganic is a great option, but relatively new when it comes to larger scale operations.  See http://www.GoVeganic.net if you are interested. 

And for extra credit: What happens when cheap oil is gone?

The sooner cheap oil is gone, the better, as far as I am concerned.  Again, I am very pro local.  A lot of local farms that raise animals rely on cheap, subsidized grains shipped in from afar.  They won’t be raising animals when cheap oil is gone.

“A lot of local farms that raise animals rely on cheap, subsidized grains shipped in from afar.”

You keep saying this, despite it not being true for most of the folks growing free range. nobody in WNC is producing factory farmed cattle. take your fight to somewhere relevant.

these people like Stewart think they can live on veganically grown carrots? let them try. When oil prices make shipping pretty veggies from massive California farms completely unaffordable, they will be knocking on our door, begging for same “slave-animal” manure.

PFKaP,

First, what does PFKaP stand for, and why do you feel the need to hide behind a moniker?

Second, you don’t need to produce factory farmed cattle to rely on grains from afar.  As but one example, where do you think most chicken feed comes from?

Third,you keep trying to make this about plant-based diets versus local diets.  I’m talking about local plant-based diets vs. local meat diets.  You know this but ignore it because your argument is based on making false assumptions.

Forth, the overwhemling body of scientific knowledge supports my comments, but you ignore that, too.

PFKaP,

My math skills are pretty good, but since you won’t believe anything I say, give it a try yourself.  Ask local farmers how much land they need to pasture raise cows, chickens, and pigs.  Then run some calcualations about how much land we would need to feed the 230,000 people Buncombe County. 

Here’s some help.  We have 656 square miles in the County, and there are 640 acres to a square mile.  So we have just under 420,000 acres,  which is less than 2 acres per person.  When you do the math, you’ll see the impossbility of everyone eating local, pasture-raised meat.

Which was the entire point of my commentary.

“As for the “avocadoes, soy, and flax”, it was in direct response to “xvelourioa’s” above claim that it is more sustainable to ship these things from far away than buy local meat- perhaps you should read the thread.”

And my using those items was in direct response to your using them in the first comment on this thread.  I was, as I presumed you were, using them as an example of plant foods that tend not to be or are difficult/impossible to grow in our region.  Not saying that all vegans/vegetarians eat them.

But yeah, I was saying it was more sustainable to ship them from far away than buy local meat.  At least, that’s what I gather from the Carnegie-Mellon study that we’re referencing…

Stewart, when you are able to source the majority of your ‘vegan’ diet from ‘local sources’, all produced without ANY input from animals whatsoever, let me know.

In the meantime, i’ll continue to eat eggs from the coop 100 feet from my house.

Thanks Stewart. Veganic fertilization is practiced by all good small diversified farmers to an extent. But it only goes so far. The link you posted makes it sound like using mulch, compost, and residue would provide all the nutrients crops need to grow. Don’t get me wrong, compost is an amazing soil amendment, but most small farms do not and could never produce enough compost to cover their fields. Mulch and cover cropping, while also great for capturing and securing soil nutrients and adding organic matter, unfortunately produce short-lived fertility when it comes to NPK—meaning that the process must be repeated despite crops already sitting in the field. The logistics of what the link proposes would be impossible except on the smallest of scales (i.e. tiny home gardening). But don’t take my word for it; ask one of your farmers.

Up until the use of petrochemical fertilizers, manure was a staple for maintaining soil fertility around the world. Keeping animals as part of field rotation or composting manure on site and spreading it on the field mimics the natural fertilization that has maintained soil fertility in bacterial ecosystems since creatures first started walking the earth. It is the most proven and truly sustainable way to grow our food.

Stewart, the studies you site are colored by myopia and tunnel vision and assume current meat consumption and animal production. It is a logical fallacy to take a generalization and extrapolate it to every individual like you did in your commentary. No doubt, animal consumption in general in the U.S. is way too high. But today, we’re trying to rebuild local food systems so people realize that we can’t continue on like we have. We need to eat less meat. We need to get rid of the chemicals. We need to stop shipping our food and inputs halfway across the world. I know farmers who are feeding their animals with locally produced stuff (on-farm crop grade-outs, spent grains, locally-produced grasses/grains, existing pasture). The deck is stacked against a truly local foodshed because agribusiness is so entrenched in our economy and politics. But it would be a mistake to think everyone currently lines up with the flawed generalizations of your studies.

Things are slowly changing. If we continue to reconnect our local economies in several ways (more than just food), it wouldn’t even be close when comparing the environmental impact of a vegan lifestyle and a local food lifestyle.

When oil is no longer cheap, you will not be able to live vegan year round. The teleology of veganism is completely unrealistic. It’s best to help rebuild your local foodshed and get to know your farmers. Beyond the positive environmental impact, it’s invaluable knowing where your food comes from and how it is grown.

Local food producers do not look for a return to some quaint bygone era but instead try to again harness the best of what’s been lost in our globalized economy and apply it anew in order to once again nourish our neighbors.

It’s about a lot more than just greenhouse gases.

PFKaP stands for People For Knowledge and Protein

Professional Farmers Kreating a Perma-Culture

Permaculturists Fermenting Kraut and Pickles.

Passionate Farmers killing animals for Pleasure.

Ah, so you kill for pleasure.  That explains your aversion to science and unwillingness to do math!

Thanks, Velouria.  The Carnegie Mellon University study was pretty amazing!  If only people would pay more attention to science.

“Stewart, when you are able to source the majority of your ‘vegan’ diet from ‘local sources’, all produced without ANY input from animals whatsoever, let me know.

In the meantime, i’ll continue to eat eggs from the coop 100 feet from my house. “

So you only eat food grown/raised and processed locally?  No oils, sugars, flour, chocolates, shipped in from elsewhere?  When you eat out you grill the server on the source of every component of your meal?

I find this terribly hard to believe, and therefore I fail to see the point of your comment.

Also, just because it is currently IMPOSSIBLE for a person to guarantee no animal “input” was involved in their diet, no matter how carefully planned and researched it was, doesn’t mean that a person arguing in favor of a 100% animal-free diet has any less of a valid argument…

I think it’s safe to assume that “local plant-based diet” or “local meat diet” insinuates eating locally WHEN POSSIBLE, and striving to choose local over non-local… as opposed to eating STRICTLY local foods and refusing anything non-local… which, while certainly an impressive feat, is also pretty much impossible for most people today, I think.

PF,

I’ve answered your questions.  How about responding to this one?

Ask local farmers how much land they need to pasture raise cows, chickens, and pigs.  Then run some calcualations about how much land we would need to feed the 230,000 people Buncombe County. 

We have 656 square miles in the County, and there are 640 acres to a square mile.  So we have just under 420,000 acres,  which is less than 2 acres per person.  Do the math, and tell me if it’s possible fore everyone to eating local, pasture-raised meat.  Which was the entire point of my commentary.

I look forward to your answer.

Joeinmadco,

Thanks for your thoughtful response.  The impacts of our food choices are indeed about a lot more than greenhouse gasses, but I only had about 800 words and focused on one aspect of diet and the environment.  There’s also water use and global hunger.  And the ethics of killing our fellow earthlings when we don’t need to, since I don’t think that “might makes right.”  And there’s the societal burden of increased health care costs because people eat way too much meat and other junk that causes dis-ease.  But let’s stick to the environment.

We agree about a lot.  You say people need to eat less meat.  I think that people get that warm, fuzzy feeling about eating locally-raised meat, and that makes them miss this very important point.  Oh, they may pay some lip service to “eating less,” but consumption needs to drop significantly, and that’s not happening.  So those who can afford it eat their “sustainably-raised” meat and feel like they have done their part, even though we’d need to deforest the planet for everyone else to do the same.  What should everyone else eat? That’s why I say we need a paradigm shift towards plant-based diets. 

Sure, local farmers can feed some animals with locally-sourced feed.  But, again, you ignore the fact that we could only feed a small percentage of people using these methods.  What do you say to the masses, “Let them eat cake?”  While we both might agree that the planet would be better off with about 6 billion less people, that’s not the situation, and we need to deal with reality.

Nothing happens overnight.  No, we can’t switch to veganics now, but little by little.  As you are well aware, that animal fertilizer you are so fond of also carries E.coli bacteria.

They are not “my studies,” and they appear to be good science.  I just don’t see how you can dismiss them so easily just because you don’t like their findings.  They don’t assume anything, they look at current behavior, assess the impact, and make comparisons. That’s exactly how science should work.

The Chinese are emulating our diets with disasterous results.  They never used to import soybeans, but now are buying Brazilian beans at an alarming rate, and using them to feed chickens.  The Amazon rainforest is being destroyed so that Chinese people can eat way too much meat.  We need a change in thinking. 

I understand why people buy local meat as opposed to factory-farmed meat.  But how do we get people to understand the need to eat less meat, wherever it comes from, rather than feeling good about gorging themselves on local meat?

Speaking of science, here’s something from Science Daily, July 3, 2009

Vegetarian Diets Can Help Prevent Chronic Diseases, American Dietetic Association Says

The American Dietetic Association has released an updated position paper on vegetarian diets that concludes such diets, if well-planned, are healthful and nutritious for adults, infants, children and adolescents and can help prevent and treat chronic diseases including heart disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes.

ADA’s position, published in the July issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, represents the Association’s official stance on vegetarian diets:

“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life-cycle including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence and for athletes.”

ADA’s position and accompanying paper were written by Winston Craig, PhD, MPH, RD, professor and chair of the department of nutrition and wellness at Andrews University; and Reed Mangels, PhD, RD, nutrition advisor at the Vegetarian Resource Group, Baltimore, Md.

The revised position paper incorporates new topics and additional information on key nutrients for vegetarians, vegetarian diets in the life cycle and the use of vegetarian diets in prevention and treatment of chronic diseases. “Vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle,” according to ADA’s position. “There are many reasons for the rising interest in vegetarian diets. The number of vegetarians in the United States is expected to increase over the next decade.”

Vegetarian diets are often associated with health advantages including lower blood cholesterol levels, lower risk of heart disease, lower blood pressure levels and lower risk of hypertension and type 2 diabetes, according to ADA’s position. “Vegetarians tend to have a lower body mass index and lower overall cancer rates. Vegetarian diets tend to be lower in saturated fat and cholesterol and have higher levels of dietary fiber, magnesium and potassium, vitamins C and E, folate, carotenoids, flavonoids and other phytochemicals. These nutritional differences may explain some of the health advantages of those following a varied, balanced vegetarian diet.”

The position paper draws on results from ADA’s evidence analysis process and information from the ADA Evidence Analysis Library to show vegetarian diets can be nutritionally adequate in pregnancy and result in positive maternal and infant health outcomes. Additionally, an evidence-based review showed a vegetarian diet is associated with a lower risk of death from ischemic heart disease.

A section in ADA’s paper on vegetarian diets and cancer has been significantly expanded to provide details on cancer-protective factors in vegetarian diets. An expanded section on osteoporosis includes roles of fruits, vegetables, soy products, protein, calcium, vitamins D and K and potassium in bone health. “Registered dietitians can provide information about key nutrients, modify vegetarian diets to meet the needs of those with dietary restrictions due to disease or allergies and supply guidelines to meet needs of clients in different areas of the life cycle,” the authors said.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090701103002.htm

Thanks again, Velouria, for keeping the conversation where it belongs.  My commentary was about making better individual choices while considering the bigger picture.  Whether I or someone else eats 30%, 50%, or 75% local food doesn’t change the conclusion of the study, which is that consumers should modify their diets by eating foods that require less energy to produce in the first place.  When these foods come from local sources, that’s an added plus.  I’m not going to fall into that trap again of responding to “My food comes from here, where does your food come from?”  It’s a waste of time and is designed to obfuscate the topic at hand. 

One of the reasons I went into accounting was that I liked the certainty of numbers.  Funny how people keep avoiding the math questions I pose because they know the answers don’t support their arguments.

It continues to amaze me how so many people blindly refuse to accept the benefits of a plant-based diet.  The science is there supporting it, yet so many argue against it…all for a mere palate preference.  Shame on you for your lack of compassion and lack of concern for the earth and all sentient beings.

Stewart, I disagree with the numbers because they are painted with a broad brush. Your studies are not representative of new grassroots local and regional food systems where people eat mostly fruits and vegetables but also realize that sustainable survival depends on long-established relationships between humans and animals. I’m ok with the conclusions the researchers make based on the variables given, but these studies are completely blind to the many varied food systems thriving in localities around this country. You see, science is useless without reason and interpretation. It ain’t all just pure objective numbers. Nothing is.

We can’t switch to veganics even little by little, unless someone comes up with some new amazing method that I or the farmers I’m familiar with have never thought of. Possible? I guess anything is. Reality? Not in the foreseeable future. But feel free to tell me all about it in detail, including the numbers; I’m fairly interested in soil fertility.

People will eat less meat when they find that their local economy will not support large amounts of meat production. That’s part of what rebuilding a local food system is all about. It’ll never get all the way to vegan, because that’s practically impossible, but it will get us part of the way to where you want to go, Stewart, all without shipping crap across the globe and back.

I know you’re arguing for something that’s dear to you. But the premises cannot be fudged to generate the desired conclusion. We need animals and they need us; we’re not very different. Same as it ever was.

getreal, It really has little to do with palate preference, at least for a good amount of the people I know. One day you may wake up amazed with yourself when you find out that either: 1. you’ll need to eat some flesh to make it through a winter; or 2. you realize that animals indeed have died as part of an intricate, delicate, and elegant system to grow the plants you devour.

>“We have 656 square miles in the County, and there are 640 acres to a square mile.  So we have just under 420,000 acres,  which is less than
2 acres per person.  Do the math, and tell me if it’s possible foreeveryone to eating local, pasture-raised meat.  Which was the entire point of my commentary.”<

sure. but i`m not saying <everyone< <needs< to eat meat. I`m justsaying that eating meat, or raising animals on a small farm, is not
destroying the planet, and is actually part of a very old, well-studied practice of farming<gardening that helps reduce the level
of input for the average farm.

It is entirely possible for people to continue to practice animal husbandry without contributing to the systemic problems you are addressing in regards to globalized food models.

I have never defended large-scale factory farming methods, of either animals or vegetables, or maybe even fungi (although i may make an
exception there). I only question why you insist on attacking the few small farms we are so lucky to have here in WNC, when they are
actually on their way to becoming even more localized, as they wade their way through labyrinthine paperwork and regulations that require them to hop through hoops and ship food to far-away processing plants.

To attack them is counter-productive, because what they represent is the forefront of a movement of people willing to enact proactive
change to our food system by creating functional alternatives here and
now.

The small chicken farmer, or folks with a regional cattle operation, are a a much more viable attack on `The meat industry`` than a notion that you can fundamentally change the way humans have farmed and eaten
for thousands of years. Your right, many of the larger, streamlined operations contribute negatively to the environment, but someone with
a few hogs, a handful of cattle, is really not requiring the kind of input you are speaking of. It is entirely possible to continue to
raise animals for consumption within our region, to serve a portion of
the population.

Should we eat at mcdonald`s? No. But can we barter with a farmer for a
side of beef for the winter? Of course. That beef provided manure for
the fields it grazed it, which were more than likely land not suited
for traditional crops rotation anyway.

Again, if a meatless diet works for you, fine, but recognize that for
a large percentage of the population, your own personal choices arent
necessarily applicable.

There is a tendency within the anti-meat groups to want to
characterize the small, family farms as a myth. I find that outlook
disturbing, because it reflects our culture`s lack of historical
perspective in relation to food production. As long as we continue to
build and grow in a way that disregards the need for localized,
decentralized food systems, we will continue to see the problems
associated with a public who doesnt know or value where their food
comes from.

The general theme I notice from you, Stewart, is that you insist on
overlooking the small peculiarities of a local food system, and
instead seem to prefer an outlook that favors heavy-handed, top-down
regulation—My fear is that this kind of regulation generally tends to
favor large, entrenched corporate interests within the so-called `food
industry`. Instead of focusing upon these problems on such a large
national or international scale, I would prefer to see local regions
empowered to figure out what types of food systems work best for them.

And since, historically, farms have been most efficient when operating
within an essentially closed-loop of vegetable and animal inputs, I
tend to want to defend that as a viable option. One of many viable
options, really.

I completely agree that the current food system we really upon is
severely flawed, and that one of the unfortunate side-effects of
industrialized agriculture is the commodification of many aspects of
Nature-be it farm animals, farm land, or grains and vegetables. But
where we diverge quite dramatically, is in the assumption that by
attacking one aspect of a destructive, fatal food system, you can
achieve any kind of healthy balance. I would prefer to work on a local
level to encourage proactive alternative models instead of merely
protesting existing ones.

In all sincerity, and in that vein, let us get together in ten years
and discuss how productive our different approaches have been in
establishing sustainable food systems for future generations.

Joe and PFK,

Okay, so there are some things that we do agree on.  Progress!  I think you will both reluctantly agree that some folks use local, “sustainably-raised” meat as an excuse to eat 200 pounds of flesh a year rather than recognize the need to eat A LOT less.  That was a big point of my commentary.  As a tax accountant, I’m all too familiar with people looking for “loopholes.” 
:-) 

PFK, I don’t think I attacked anyone.  I support local agriculture and buy local.  I just don’t think it should be the only standard we use when making our choices.  I ask that you re-read my commentary and not be so defensive.  Last night I spoke with someone close to ASAP who thought my commentary was respectful, interesting, and thought-provoking.  I’m sorry you see it that way. 

I’d just like to see more than lip service to eating less meat from those who talk about sustainability. Heck, even Michael Pollan is endorsing “Meat-Free Monday,” (see below).

From http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/es900427m?cookieSet=1

Food writer Michael Pollan has embraced the authors’ ideas and recently suggested that President Obama lead the country in enacting “Meatless Mondays” at the White House (no word on whether the president has taken up his proposal). The idea of meatless Mondays first arose during World War I as a conservation effort, and it has reemerged as a health and environment saver. According to Pollan in a recent interview on Bill Moyers Journal, if all Americans eliminated meat from their diets one night per week, the environmental effect would be equivalent to taking “30 to 40 million cars off the road for a year.” Although Pollan did not mention the ES&T paper or authors by name, those numbers are consistent with, and in all likelihood drawn from, Weber and Matthews’s work.

What I object to is being critical of locally-based farms who are working very hard to create sustainable alternatives to the kind of products of industrial agriculture you are obviously working against. Criticizing them for the limitations of a system they must conform to seem incredibly counter-productive to building a grassroots network of sustainable food systems.

In addition, I do not support the notion that animal husbandry is inherently unsustainable, and that the ONLY way for people to eat is ‘meat-free’. I support viable options that are suitable to different locals and micro-climates, which will always include the possibility of animal husbandry as part of the cycle of a small farm ecosystem.

I don’t think I am being critical, and I said some good things about local farms.  I am simply asking people to look at the big picture.

Supporting a meat-based diet requires five times as much land as a plant-based diet, and smaller farms use even more land per animal.

Stewart, what about the people who harvest wild game? This can, and in many cases does, support a meat-based diet and is much better for the environment than any suggestions you have put forth.

“Stewart, what about the people who harvest wild game? This can, and in many cases does, support a meat-based diet and is much better for the environment than any suggestions you have put forth. “

not to mention that the assertion made by stewart that a meat-based diet requires “five times as much land as a plant-based diet” is based on large, factory-farm models, and is in not applicable to the small family farms he is speaking of in the above commentary or following blog responses.

As joe and I have previously stated, Stewart uses national and international figures to paint with a very “broad stroke”. The amount of inputs required for small family operations are in now way comparable to the massive factory farm operations that require huge amounts of corn and soy as feed. And yet, he continues to make the comparison over and over.

“What I object to is being critical of locally-based farms who are working very hard to create sustainable alternatives to the kind of products of industrial agriculture you are obviously working against. Criticizing them for the limitations of a system they must conform to seem incredibly counter-productive to building a grassroots network of sustainable food systems”

Are you suggesting local farms should be beyond criticism just because they’re offering an alternative?

No, I’m suggesting that the specific farms mentioned or implied can not be compared to the factory farm figures quoted by Stewart, and that to criticize them for aspects of regulations they have no direct control over seems incredibly unfair.

I sincerely doubt any farmer wants to have the added expense and paperwork of having to ship their product hundreds of miles away, merely because of flaws inherent in a system that favors streamlined, industrialized production.  But i applaud them for working within the system to enact change that will lay the groundwork for more practical infrastructure in the near future.
Every dollar they make takes them a step closer to having the capital to bring their production models back here to WNC.

I recognize that to someone who views animal husbandry and meat consumption as inherently “wrong” this is difficult to accept—But I still know that for myself and many others this is not a view we choose to have. And, therefore, for us, it makes far more sense to support those farms who are doing what they can to contribute towards a more localized way to consume a ‘reasonable’ amount of meat. Every dollar I spend that goes to a farm making these efforts is a dollar that doesnt go to conagra and big meat lots. That to me is a POSITIVE contribution to the struggle.

But, again, if the debate for you ends at animal husbandry and meat consumption as being inherently “wrong”, then we are unable to reach an understanding because neither of us will except the others’ parameters of the debate as being “reasonable”.

PFK,

Providing people with information is different than attacking.  Information is a good thing.  You put “local” on such a pedestal that you are overly-defensive.  People who question religion are often accused of attacking religion when they just want to ask some questions.  Why stifle dialogue? People should know as much as they can about the products they buy, from food to clothing, building products, etc. 

As an example: You must be aware that some local farms that sell eggs let their chickens run around outside while others keep them inside all of the time. The only legal definition for “free-range” birds is that birds have access to the outdoors.  No other criteria—such as environmental quality, size of area, number of birds, or space per bird—are included in the term.  Many chickens and eggs are sold as “free-range” when the birds never saw the light of day and were crammed into buildings with thousands of others.  Should consumers be aware of this, or should we worship ALL local food, even local factory farmed food? 

There are things consumers should know about animal agriculture.  Even chickens raised in the “best” of conditions face issues that most are unaware of.  Most local farmers order their egg-laying birds from commercial hatcheries that debeak the chickens.  This painful mutilation is routinely done shortly after birth so that chickens won’t peck at each other when crammed into cages.  Most hatcheries do it to every female chicken born there, no matter where they are being shipped.  A lot of birds die in transit.  And most local farmers kill their hens at one year of age because their production drops a bit.  Is that good, compassionate animal husbandry?

Male chicks born into the egg industry are byproducts.  They can’t lay eggs and don’t grow as large as genetically altered “broilers,” so they are killed the day they are born.  Over 250 million chicks meet this fate every year, usually by being ground up alive or suffocated.  No matter how well (or poorly) an egg-laying chicken is treated, she was most likely born at a commercial hatchery where her brethren were killed that day. 

I noted in my commentary that animals raised on small farms usually suffer less than their industrial counterparts.  I think it’s important to be truthful and let people know the facts.  I give credit where credit is due.  But to call their treatment humane is marketing, not fact.  The term “humanely raised” will always be an oxymoron.  Profit motives keep most local farmers from using anesthesia for painful mutilations; castration is but one example.  Many local farmers send animals to commercial slaughterhouses, some of which have slaughterhouse lines that move at breakneck speeds, where animals are regularly dismembered while fully conscious or boiled alive.  There are countless more examples, but this has gotten too long already.

Again, I think people should have access to information and make their own decisions.  Check out “The Truth Behind Labels: Farm Animal Welfare Standards and Labeling Practices” at http://www.farmsanctuary.org/issues/campaigns/truth_behind_labeling.html

Clearly, everyone engaging in this debate cares enough about food and farming issues that they are not the problem. You need to take a step back and realize that you are all allies, regardless of vegetarian status.
I eat meat, but I also eat a vegetarian diet about 3 days a week. There can be a happy medium.
The problem is Joe American who feels the need to eat meat to the extent that they become one of the 25% of NC that is obese.

tatuaje,

RE: “what about the people who harvest wild game? This can, and in many cases does, support a meat-based diet and is much better for the environment than any suggestions you have put forth.”

From an environmental perspective (ethical issues aside), I don’t necessarily disagree with you.  Surprise!  But can you imagine what would happen if all of the 6.7 billion people on the planet headed into the woods armed to kill?  It would be pretty ugly.  My commentary is about looking at the big picture and making appropriate choices when buying food.  Most people buy the food they eat, at least most of it. 

Hunting, however, usually destroys the balance of nature.  Hunters want to kill healthy animals to eat.  I don’t blame them.  Meat is unhealthy enough: our bodies aren’t designed to eat it.  So who would want to eat a sick animal?  In nature, it’s the opposite.  The sick and weak die first, When big cats chases a herd, the slower, weaker animals get caught.  The lion doesn’t care how many points there are on the buck’s rack.  True carnivores feast on their prey and don’t get sick because the animal is unhealthy; they have the proper body chemistry to defend their bodies.  They also don’t get heart disease, but that’s another story.  Human hunting of animals destroys these natural predator/prey relationships, and there are a lot more problems with hunting.  Of course, humans have screwed up most of nature. 

We are supposed to keep on topic on these forums, and hunting is getting off topic, so I’ll stop now.  The goal of my commentary was to arm consumers with more information so that they can make informed choices when they buy food.

From an environmental perspective (ethical issues aside), I don’t necessarily disagree with you.  Surprise!

So you obviously don’t think hunting is ethical. Is all hunting unethical? Certain forms? Only if it’s done by certain people?

But can you imagine what would happen if all of the 6.7 billion people on the planet headed into the woods armed to kill?  It would be pretty ugly.

That’s a silly extrapolation. The conversation is about local food. To me, hunting, combined with small scale agriculture and animal husbandry, is the ultimate local answer for where I live. It is foolish to try to take what works for one very localized setting and try to force that model onto an entirely different locale. In fact, that ‘globalization’ is one of the major problems facing our world today.

My commentary is about looking at the big picture and making appropriate choices when buying food.  Most people buy the food they eat, at least most of it.

And here is the crux of the problem. This has only been the dominate model for 60 years or so. To find a solution to food sourcing you need to get to the route of the problem and stop dealing with the symptoms. Cities are unsustainable by definition. We have cities because of overpopulation and inherently unsustainable models of economy and commerce. Deal with the root problems and the aggregate symptoms, such as food sourcing, pollution, poverty, etc., will start to shake themselves out.

Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is that these root problems will never be dealt with. Why would some fat banker (to use one example of many available) give up a life of idleness and economic vampirism to go back to feeding, clothing, and sheltering himself when he can force others to do it for him?

As long as you have people like this ‘banker’ you will have unsustainable methods of food sourcing. Period.

Hunting, however, usually destroys the balance of nature.

Wow. That statement is, pardon me for saying so, ridiculous. Are you seriously saying that the act of me harvesting two deer a year from the valley I live in is going to “destroy the balance of nature”!?!

The native people of this land mass, from the northern parts of what is now referred to as Canada, all the way to Tierra Del Fuega, have always, throughout their history, hunted animals as part of their natural diet.

They did it in a way that was sustainable and ethical, like many people still do today. They combined their hunting with sustainable agriculture and a very un-anthropocentric attitude that enabled them to live on the land for millennia without causing harm.

tatuaje,

You are the one not dealing with reality.  Your solution calls for the dying off of perhaps 6 billion of the 6.7 billion people on the planet.  I’d rather we find ways to feed the hungry.  While I didn’t add to the population of the planet, I think we have to deal with reality.  Nostalgia for the past isn’t a solution for the future.

Sport hunting definitely destroys the balance of nature, and I doubt you’d seriously defend it. 

But this isn’t a forum on hunting, so enough said.

Franklin,

Good comments.  You are indeed correct: the big problem is that, unlike the folks on this forum, most people don’t give much thought to where their food comes from. I wrote my commentary to provoke thought, and specifically to call attention to a few aspects of food that are seldom discussed.  Like the fact that only a small percentage of the amount of animal products currently consumed can come from small farms. They use way too much land, and clear-cutting the planet is not an environmentally-friendly approach.

There is already a good deal of demand for products from small farms, we don’t need to use greenwash to sell them.  Much of this demand comes from people concerned about their health, not the environment.  Aside: Yes, it’s better to eat products without antibiotics and hormones, but to call animal products “healthy” is silly.  Our bodies aren’t designed to eat them.  Cow’s milk is designed for cows, who have four stomachs and grow to 1,000 pounds in a couple of years.  And humans are not carnivores or omnivores!  See “The Comparative Anatomy of Eating” by Dr. Milton Mills at http://www.earthsave.ca/articles/health/comparative.html

Because of limited supply and plenty of demand, every time someone purchases animal products raised on a small farm, someone else will buy a similar item produced on a factory farm.  There’s no way around the basics of supply and demand. 

My one commentary won’t stop small farmers from selling their products, and that is not my intent.  Soe can all agree on that and relax.  I’m simply suggesting that environmentalists look at the big picture and consider substituting plant-based foods for animal products to the extent they are willing to do so.  Something you are doing three days a week, you are way ahead of the curve.  This is becoming a mainstream issue, as noted by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health’s “Meatless Monday” campaign,
http://www.meatlessmonday.com/

Stewart,
I am certain you do not realize that substantial portions of the white-tail deer populations in northern climates die each year as the result of starvation, especially during the harder winter years.

Stweart, you certainly do a good job of avoiding every point i make in my last post, while attempting to characterize my response in a light it was not cast.

I dont put “Local” on a “Pedestal” beyond criticism-I visit the farms i buy my food from, and therefore dont have to rely upon ‘marketing’ to know how my food is produced.

I agree with you that many farms, and businesses in general ‘greenwash’, but the exception i am taking to your commentary is your insistence upon painting with such broad strokes. Yet again, you discuss national figures to make vague generalizations about how food is produced in our region—all with the hope of painting animal husbandry and meat consumption as inherently unsustainable and morally ‘wrong’.

Again, stick to the issues being debated, or agree that we see this from opposite sides of the camp, but dont avoid EVERY POINT i painstakingly layed out in favor of your prepared peta talkign points about factory farm conditions. If people are too lazy and uneducated to see where there food comes from, no amount of lecture from you about your “moral value system” is going to change that. And you will NEVER be able to convince the entire population to share the diet you choose for yourself.

Also, as tatu and travelah have pointed out, your statement that hunting “Destroys the balance of nature” belies a certain ignorance to how ecosystems actually work. Might I suggest the agriculture sections of Thomas Mann’s “1491”, or perhaps a sustainable ag. course at Warren Wilson?

You might be shocked at what you discover about how this land was managed previous to European Settlement.

It is truly unfortunate that self-described vegeterian/vegan ‘activists’ such as yourself appraoch this issue of diet from such antiquated ideas of land management, and arbitrary ‘moral’ values. The entire way we practice agriculture, down to every grain bean and veggie, is environmentally destructive, by definition. Not just Factory Farmed meat.

Only within the past few decades has Western Culture really begun to learn to dismantle this odd, destructive world view and learn from natural systems utilized by many ‘indigenous’ peoples for tens of thousands of years. Look at the “Milpa” in the Amazon, The forest and prairie burnings in most of North America-hunting practices all over the globe that date back tens of thousands of years. These are all part of the “balance of nature”-not walling off “nature” and preserving it as some product of a by-gone age.

Interesting points. I do believe that there is a lot of greenwashing these days, but there is also the issue that we sometimes just can’t see the big picture. It definitely “sounds good” to eat locally, but unless we take under consideration all the factors that go into production, as pointed out here (such as transportation of grain for locally raised meat), it is next to impossible to quantify if our efforts are really doing any good.

Here’s an example: If I buy mushrooms that are imported from a great distance, but which are sold in bulk with little or no packaging, is that better or worse than if I bought local mushrooms packed in styrofoam containers that I put in the landfill each time?

Or what if they were imported from a great distance, but in an electric vehicle, or if they were grown locally and then sold in bulk with no packaging? There are SO MANY FACTORS to consider.

Who really knows what is best, and who is able to collect, analyze, and quantify all the data necessary to make an informed decision?

Animal products fed to the population are recalled with surprising regularity; but only after the mutilated cadaver parts have been sold and fed to the all-too-eager-to-eat-misery corpse-munching consumer.

THIS IS A HUGE SECRET! “Recall” does not mean you’re safe… it only means “You’ve Been Warned”

How can this happen? How can so many toxins make it into the mainstream food supply? One person knows and has the power to do something about it! But Barack Obama doesn’t care:

Read all about how the Evil Obama is doing nothing:

“In February of 2008 Barack Obama released a statement on the United States Department of Agriculture’s decision to recall 143 million pounds of frozen diseased tumor feeds from downer cows. The consumption of downer cows poses high risks of illness and death from E. Coli, Salmonella and/or Mad Cow Disease. Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (the human varient of Mad Cow Disease) is incubating in children’s brains as we speak.” http://veganschool101.blogspot.com/2009/06/liar.html

http://negotiationisover.blogspot.com/2009/07/fda-non-vegans-eat-cancer-shit-worms.html

You are the one not dealing with reality.  Your solution calls for the dying off of perhaps 6 billion of the 6.7 billion people on the planet. 

Please point to where I said the solution was “the dying off of perhaps 6 billion of the 6.7 billion people on the planet.”

The thing is, I never said that. One of our problems, indeed, is overpopulation and the current stratagem of ‘globalization’.

I believe I said that the solution, for where I live, is hunting combined with small scale agriculture and animal husbandry.

I’d rather we find ways to feed the hungry.

All for it. You do realize however that people starve not because there is not enough food, but because of politics and economies, right?

While I didn’t add to the population of the planet, I think we have to deal with reality.  Nostalgia for the past isn’t a solution for the future.

So you’re saying we can’t learn anything from history and that there is nothing to learn from people who lived here for millennia without harming their environment?

That is a dangerous, and all too prevalent, way of thinking indeed.

Sport hunting definitely destroys the balance of nature, and I doubt you’d seriously defend it.

When did I ever mention sport hunting? In fact I was very clear about precisely the kind of hunting I had in mind.

But this isn’t a forum on hunting, so enough said.

Good try at avoiding a very integral part of local food sourcing just because it doesn’t agree with your personal ethics.

The questions I asked weren’t rhetorical, so I’ll ask them again.

Is all hunting unethical? Certain forms? Only if it’s done by certain people?

While I didn’t add to the population of the planet, I think we have to deal with reality.  Nostalgia for the past isn’t a solution for the future.

So you’re saying we can’t learn anything from history and that there is nothing to learn from people who lived here for millennia without harming their environment?

Yes, that is what is being said. Any notion that agriculture can be regionally based and environmentally sustainable, to a PETAfile, is considered “antiquated”. Just like they consider all small, family farms to be a “Myth”.

It’s always struck me as odd how these “everybody must be vegetarian” people seem to have no idea they are pushing for further globalization and homogenization of our food supply.

I see a koo-koo bird koo-kooing out of the koo-koo clock.

tat,

Thanks for the lecture.  I’d gladly engage in a long debate on hunting, but I don’t feel that this is the appropriate place.  Since you demand an answer, here’s a short one.  I think the animals have enough problems.  We’ve overpopulated the planet and are crowding the animals out, the least we can do is to stop shooting at them and let them enjoy their lives a bit. 

So, yes, I do find most hunting unethical.  If someone was starving, that would change the equation.  But that’s seldom why people hunt.  The worst are those who do it for the thrill of the kill.  Did you ever notice that the hunting reports are usually in the “Sports” section?  Why is that?  Most hunters also promulgate the myth that they are helping to “manage wildlife.”  In truth, all of the state Wildlife Resources Commissions are dominated by hunters and their main goal is to manipulate populations so that there are plenty of game animals to kill.  They don’t give a damn about the other species.  The lowest form of hunters are those who use bows and arrows.  They wound as many animals as they kill, all so they can get their kicks.  No, I don’t watch the Discovery Channel or have some stupid anthropomorphic views about animals, so spare me that response.  I just don’t think we need to kill our fellow earthlings just because they are different than us.  I’ve lived much of my adult life in rural Kentucky and rural NC, and I’ve spent a good bit of time in the woods.  I just don’t need to kill to enjoy myself.

I’m not telling you what to do.  I wouldn’t bother trying, I don’t see you changing your ways.  At least you’ve given them a lot of thought, and I commend you for that.  I’m just informing the public about a lot of greenwash, like “local” meat being shipped 1350 miles for processing.  And hoping that the more people learn about their food, the better choices they’ll make.

PK,

Yes, we can learn from history, but we can’t go backward.  You’re silly: quit twisting my words. 

Michael Pollan says: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”  Sounds like a good idea.  But some people think it’s okay to gorge themselves on 200 pounds of meat per year as long as it’s from a local source.  Would you please reread my commentary and quit putting words in my mouth?  I suggest greater awareness and a paradigm shift towards plant-based diets I don’t expect everyone will become a vegan.  I hope that, once informed, some will make more compassionate choices for the animals and the earth.  Yes, I’m a vegan, and yes, I have compassion for animals.  Deal with it and quit making everything about you.  In a lot of ways, we are on the same side.

Stewart, your commentary is really good.

And to the locavore community:
locally raised and slaughtered is still slaughtered.

Killing is killing.  How can people not see that?

“Killing is killing.  How can people not see that? “

Oh, we see that. And if that is p[art of your moral value system, so be it. But When you try and move out of that realm, and claim eating vegetables from 3 thousand miles away is more “Sustainable”, well, then we have a “debate”...

“I’m just informing the public about a lot of greenwash, like “local” meat being shipped 1350 miles for processing.”

AGAIN, this is to satisfy outdated regulations, and is a temporary step in the process.Period. Just like some local breweries used to have to their product bottled in Pennsylvania, until they could afford a processing center here in WNC. Very different than shipping in exotic foods from California, Stewart.

And the scientists concluded:

“Accordingly, they suggest that consumers modify their diets by eating foods that require less energy to produce in the first place. Eating an all-local diet, they found, saves the greenhouse gas equivalent of driving 1,000 fewer miles each year, while eating a vegetarian diet one day per week is equivalent to driving 1,160 fewer miles per year.”

Local vegetarian diets are even better for the environment.  I don’t know why you keep insisting that I eat exotic foods from California, it’s silly and just a way to obfuscate the issue at hand.

“Local vegetarian diets are even better for the environment.  I don’t know why you keep insisting that I eat exotic foods from California, it’s silly and just a way to obfuscate the issue at hand.”

If I may step in—it IS part of the issue Stewart. What do you eat in the cold months?

And, once again, about the study: they define “eating local” as consuming meat on par with what the average American consumes. This is a disingenuous definition, as it goes counter to what most local food movements and consumers are all about. Though I don’t have numbers to back it up, it seems reasonable to me that someone who makes local meat a small part of their diet mainly during times of the year when it makes sense to eat meat (for lack of other locally grown sustenance) will have a carbon footprint far smaller than a vegetarian’s, who has to have a good amount of their food shipped in from far away during the non-growing season. This scenario will especially be true when local farmers gain an even playing field and can once again nourish and process their animals locally.

“And to the locavore community:
locally raised and slaughtered is still slaughtered.

Killing is killing.  How can people not see that?”

Simcha, is that the best you’ve got to support your moral system? Because, you know what, I’m one who thinks reluctantly killing animals to survive is part of a long-standing and, if done ethically, mutually beneficial relationship.

You folks with your soundbite pamphlet-slogans: what you’re mindlessly repeating wouldn’t even have had any real meaning before we started brutally raping the earth through mass extraction of fossil fuels; and if you think that’s progress, well, let us know so we understand where you’re really coming from on this issue.

So its back to how much ‘better’ vegetarians are, and how everybody should eat vegetarian, as usual.

Am i just a ‘bad’ environmentalist because i eat a moderate amount of meat, primarily from very local sources? I guess you get to be morally superior to me.

congratulations on that.

i’ll see you in ten years to share some beer and talk about sustainability.

Again, from what i can tell based on the vegetarian’s ‘argument’ on this thread, they all support globalized, top-down food production models, just not ones that contain animal products. They still support the notion that it is relatively ‘inexpensive’ to ship produce in from far away, and STILL claim that small, pasture-raised farms require the same input of corn and soy that massive factory farms do, despite all evidence to the contrary.

If you want to be veggie, fine. But PLEASE, for the love of sustainable local food systems, please stop twisting the numbers to try and place a moral value system upon your diet of choice.

Hopefully, soon, we will be able to support a meat processing center in our region—but in the meantime i will continue to eat meat supplied by the folks who are at least located here, and are re-investing that money in insuring their presence in the region, and our diet, for decades to come.

And, yes Stuart, when you can no longer afford to have gourmet vegan food shipped in from far away, i will let you come over and share dinner. you wont even have to admit you were wrong-your grateful devouring of our supper will say enough.

PF,

You read things into my comments that simply aren’t there.  No matter how many times I tell you that I think people should buy local food, you say I support globalized, top-down food models and the shipping of gourmet vegan foods across the planet.  That’s just so silly.  And you won’t deal with the fact that no matter what pasture-raised animals eat, we’d need to clearcut the planet for everyone to switch to eating pasture-raised corpses unless everyone eats a lot less flesh.  Yes, of course, some individuals can follow a certain “sustainable” model, but I am talking about the big picture, and I don’t think it’s invalid to do so.  Science is science.

We are obviously talking at each other, rather than to each other.  Such, I guess, is the nature of forums.  I usually avoid this venue because I find it hard for meaningful discussion and often a place where people level personal attacks from the safety and anonymity offered by a fake name and computer keyboard.  So let’s quit while we are ahead and the tone is still somewhat civil.  I’d rather spend my time on activism than sitting behind a computer.  We don’t need to wait 10 years to continue the dialogue.  I’m easy to find.  Feel free to give me a call, as long as you are willing to identify yourself.

Several people, vegetarians and non-vegetarians, have gotten in touch to tell me they liked my commentary and found it thought-provoking and respectful.  Mission accomplished.  I would think you’d be happy about this, too.  The more people know think about where their food comes from, the better off we all are.

oh, this is fun!

where have i said “everyone” has to eat meat, and that if they do, they should eat it in obscene quantities?

In addition, you are aware that vegetables and grains also require the clearing of land, yes?

See you this winter at the grocery store!

Also, did you really mean to use the term “pasture raised corpses”?  Yeah, that’s not a morally loaded phrase at all. Do you eat vegetable corpses?

Good luck with that Veganic Farm!

Wow, you local food lovers have really slammed it to the author here. Is it because something you have come to at least partially base your identity on the topic in question? Do you feel guilt? I wonder…

The thing I find so amusing about people who move to this town is that they are close-minded in their own peculiar way. Transplants here fully believe that they are “right.” They are ‘liberal’ and the MOST ‘progressive’ people out there and don’t you dare try to say otherwise. A bit backwards if you ask me.

It’s also amusing to me how worked up some individuals become over veganism and PETA. Wake up, carnivores…YOU are the MAJORITY by FAR. Get a life and stop worrying about a small minority taking away your grass fed beef and free range chickens. Oh, and please start to realize just how main stream you actually are.

ah, right, i always forget cullen is a veggie.

I agree with the author’s “there are good reasons to support local farms”.

For the most part, I want to buy local food because that local dollar has a better chance of getting back to me, or one of my neighbors or friends, than a dollar I spend on non-local food.

It IS cheap (in terms of dollars) to ship food all over the country.  If that food distribution network significantly increased the cost of foods, then consumers would buy the local stuff (instead of that expensive California food!) instead.  People are buying food shipped in from remote locations like the Central Valley, largely because that food is cheaper than their other options. 

If there’s a “hidden cost” in that a lot of energy is being used to get that food from CA to NC, then look at the article.  What does it say?  Four percent of the GGEs associated with that food are being emitted during the transportation phase.  In other words, getting that food from CA to NC doesn’t greatly increase the GGE emissions associated with that food.

Right on, Mehgan!  The defensiveness of these meatheads speaks volumes.  It seems but a waste of time to try and reason with those whose minds are truly closed or to attempt to touch the heartstrings of those whose hearts are, sadly, quite calloused.  We aren’t the first to be ridiculed by the masses for advocating peace and harmlessness.

For more info on hunting, check out the excellent book, “The American Hunting Myth.”  And also be sure to go to http://www.HumaneMyth.org for more info about so-called “humane slaughter,” “free-range,” etc.

While it remains true that Stewart is known for his abrasive style, this doesn’t in the least negate the message and the Truth of the facts herein presented.

Peace out!

Fantastic article.  A study at Carnegie Melon proved that one DAY of eating vegan is better for the environment than a WEEK of eating local, so there you go!

Right on, Mehgan!  The defensiveness of these meatheads speaks volumes.

so sayeth the sock puppet to himself.

Ah, yes. The number-twisting vegetarian moralists.

Myth:    A significant portion of soybeans grown worldwide goes to feed cattle – and would be much more effectively used if fed to people instead.

The primary products derived from soybeans are soy protein products and oil. Soy protein products are made with the flakes that remain when beans are crushed to extract soy oil. The extracted soybean oil is used for human food and industrial products, with 100 percent of 2002 domestic soybean oil being used or consumed by humans. The flakes, which cannot be used for human food, are made into meal, which is primarily used for animal feed, or other soy protein products. Although 90 percent of the soybean meal is consumed by animals only 11 percent of soybean meal is consumed by beef cattle (2002 USDA and U.S. Census Bureau data). But regardless, the use of soybean meal as livestock feed is an efficient and effective use of this soy protein product and does not impact human consumption of soybean oil.

Myth:    Number of people who could be fed by the grain saved if Americans reduced their meat intake by 10%: 60 million.
This is an old quote from Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute. It should be noted that Brown has been predicting food security crises for more than 20 years and has yet to be correct in any prediction. Further, in the 1990 Current Issues in Food Production: A Perspective on Beef as a Component in Diets for Americans, Dr. Harry Kunkel, professor of human nutrition at Texas A&M University, noted that this claim is based on a simplistic arithmetic exercise. If one accepts the figure quoted by activists of 12 million tons of grain ‘saved’, this would work out to about a pound of (unprocessed) grain per day for about 60 million people. But this ignores logic and reality. First, the grain in question is feed grain, not the higher quality food grain consumed by humans. Second, if there were no market for this grain as livestock feed, it simply would not be grown. Farmers are not going to grow grain and give it away. Unless, someone was willing to buy this lower quality grain and ship it to third world countries, it would not even be produced.

PFKaP,

You keep spreading myths and ignoring science.  Here’s what Greenpeace has to say about soy production:

“Deforestation, slavery, use of toxic chemicals, land theft, illegal farming and the extinction of rare species are a recipe for disaster in the Amazon rainforest, but they are ingredients in KFC’s quest for cheap animal feed,” said Greenpeace International Forest Campaign Coordinator Gavin Edwards. “Fast food companies like KFC must take Amazon deforestation off their menu before it is too late for the world’s greatest rainforest.”

“Soya, which is mainly grown to feed animals, is a leading cause of this destruction.”

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/releases/kfc-exposed-for-trashing-the-a

Oh, i see. An unattributed quote beats actual numbers based on verifiable evidence.

“Science”, indeed, stewie.

Such a strange, convoluted discussion.  And through it all, what we forgot, and left out completely, is the ethics of slaughtering billions of sentient, living beings who have souls.  Given the choice between continuing to sacrifice animals on the altar of our preference or realizing their sentience and moving away from this mass killing (which might just have some compassionate ramifications for our fellow humans, as well) which do you suppose will help us reach an more enlightened state? 

I would not be as worried about our bodies, the continuation of our physical selves through ecological sense as I would be regarding the state of our souls, quite frankly.  Where are the animals in all of this dicussion? Nothing more than the choice between a rock and a stick, I suppose, but those of us who have taken the time to know all sorts of animals, not just typical “pet” animals, know that if we were the ones being discussed as “food”, our perspective would be mightily different.

PFKaP,

The science showing that plant-based diets are better for the environment is overwhelming.  In fact, it is now common knowledge in the scientific community.  I’ve given many references to good, peer-reviewed science, and you’ve ingored them all.  So it’s useless to give you any more.  You won’t discuss the facts because they clearly don’t add up in your favor, so instead you make silly statements that obfuscate the issue and shoot the messenger.  How very mature.  I can’t call you a silly name, of course, since I don’t know your name.  You conveniently hide behind a moniker and refused my invitation to have an intelligent discussion on the topic.

Leslie,

Well said.  If you’ve read my previous letters to the editor, you know I am an ethical vegetarian.  As someone who has been an environmentalist for decades, I wrote my commentary in an attempt to motivate people who may care about the planet but show no kindness or concern for animals.  I raised the ethical issue early on the forum, but PFKaP and others mocked my words and exhibited their total lack of compassion for other living beings, so I gave up.  Thanks for expressing it so well.  Too many people believe “might makes right” and support the senseless slaughter of animals.  I truly think many of them suffer from EDD (Empathy Deficit Disorder).
  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2007/12/24/ST2007122401220.html

There are so many reasons that people should stop eating animals.  I tried presenting the science fo those who might give a darn about the environment.  I suppose I could post some links to the overwhelming science showing that animals suffer in ways similar to humans.  But I don’t think people with EDD would care.

Thanks for your commeent and for using your real name and not hiding behind a moniker. 

And now, let me share a quote that I think you will appreciate:

“The denial of rights to other animals by humans (speciesism) is analogous to the denial of rights to lesbians and gay men by heterosexuals (heterosexism).  Both these forms of oppression derive from a prejudiced and chauvinistic mentality which devalues ‘difference’ and ‘otherness.’  Likewise, animals deserve rights for much the same reason that lesbians and gay men deserve rights.  All human and non-human animals have a shared capacity for feelings.  This recognition gives society the moral obligation to confer the right to be spared physical and psychological suffering on all animals, irrespective of their species, race, sex, class, disability or sexual orientation.”  Peter Tatchell, cofounder of ACT-UP London and OutRage

The ethical aspect of vegan philosophy is, contrary to popular dogma, exceedingly anthropocentric. Veganism actually seeks to set humans apart from their historical, natural community by ignoring the tens of thousands of years of relationship building that has taken place among animals, humans, and our environment.

While we could potentially release domesticated farm animals to be slaughtered brutally and sometimes incompletely in the wild or by the bumper of a car, there are some of us out there who care enough to recognize our co-dependence with animals and seek to give them the best possible life until we need to kill them; and then, we use the best means available to us to make that death as quick and as painless as possible. While we humans get soil fertility and sustenance out of the deal, animals that grow up on most small family farms live relatively carefree lives wandering around pasture doing what animals do, and the best of them often pass on their genes to the next generation, securing their species’ survival, strength, and evolution.

I was vegetarian for 10 years. I eat hardly any meat. I understand where you folks are coming from. But when you nail all human omnivores into the same box and scream at us for being ethically bankrupt, you lose your voice and lots of potential support. You should be railing against the folks who run CAFOs and giant chickenslums, people who only see animals as commodities or things. Instead, you see it all as so black and white: all animal agriculture is bad; either we’re with you or we’re against you. If you wanna be that way, well that’s fine—you’ve got plenty of people who will agree with you before you’ve even said a word; just don’t expect to win any independent-thinking converts that way.

If you people spent even a fraction of the time working on a farm as you do cutting and pasting disinformation from PETA websites you might actually have some knowledge about how the “environment” actually works, not mention where your food comers from.

Until then, you will continue to be ungrounded zealots with no bearing on the real world. good luck!

Stewart, you continue to push your “scientific” studies while ignoring the holes we’ve pointed out where they concern local food systems. Then you dramatically state “our” position as “might makes right,” which is completely bush league and right out of the vegan extremist slogan book.

I know you want to make it simple, but it’s not. And you make your fellow vegans and vegetarians look bad when you fail to take a thoughtful look at this issue, instead relying mostly on dogma and a superficial understanding of local, small-scale agriculture to back up your arguments.

By the ridiculous things you two are saying, it’s obvious that neither of you even bothered to read my commentary.  So I give up, this is a waste of time.  If you ever want to have an conversation, get in touch.

Way to duck the issues there Stew.

Okay, Joe, I’ve found a few minutes.  I’m not ducking the issue.  You are the one who refuses to have an actual phone conversation or meet in person.

My commentary acknowledged that animals raised on small farmers lead better lives than those on factory farms.  Factory farms are horrific, and I’m all for animals having less miserable lives.  I’ve said before that we agree more than we disagree.  I’d gladly work side by side with you to shut down factory farms.

But when you say “there are some of us out there who care enough to recognize our co-dependence with animals and seek to give them the best possible life until we need to kill them; and then, we use the best means available to us to make that death as quick and as painless as possible,” you are spinning the story.  First, we don’t need to kill them.  Second, when you raise animals for a profit, profit motives often trump “humane” treatment.  Small farmers generally castrate pigs without the use of anesthesia.  They also remove their needle teeth without anesthesia.  They defend these practices by saying the procedures are quick, etc.  But imagine getting dental work done without the benefit of Novocain or having your testicles cut off while you are fully awake.  Vets use anesthesia when they do surgery on dogs and cats, and I don’t think you would argue that pigs, who are smarter than dogs and cats, don’t feel pain in a similar way.

Almost all local chicken farmers order their birds from commercial hatcheries.  Half of the birds born at these places (males) are unable to lay eggs.  They also aren’t useful for meat production since they don’t yield the quantity of flesh of the “broilers” genetically manipulated to grow to optimum slaughter weight in six and a half weeks.  So these “byproducts” are killed the day they are born.  Common methods include being ground up alive and suffocation in plastic bags.  So there is complicity with egregious suffering and killing.

Almost all egg producers “dispose” of their flocks annually.  As you know, this practice isn’t limited to factory farms, where hens spend their entire lives crammed into feces-encrusted cages, unable to spread a wing.  Local, “free range” farms do the same. That’s because, although hens lay for many years, production diminishes slightly when they become a year old.  Businesses are about maximizing profits, so cost/benefit ratios mandate replacement (death) at an early age. 

Many animals raised on small farms go to commercial slaughterhouses.  The Humane Slaughter Act doesn’t apply to birds, who often have their throats slit while fully conscious and may be boiled alive.  The Humane Slaughter Act does apply to pigs, but it is rarely enforced.  Line speeds are so fast that even well trained killers (not all killers are skilled) cannot consistently render the pigs unconscious before they are dumped into scalding water tanks for hair removal.  It is common for pigs to be boiled alive.  So much for quick and painless deaths.

Despite the continual assertions to the contrary, I know a good bit about farming.  And I don’t sit in front of the TV all day watching Bambi while eating Kiwi fruit.  I eat a lot of local food and have never watched the Discovery Channel.  I don’t have silly anthropomorphic ideas about animals.  I just don’t think we should be killing them to satisfy our taste for flesh, our desire to be entertained, etc.  Not only do we not need animal protein, it’s the cause of many degenerative diseases.
 
Yes, I don’t believe that “might makes right.”  I believe in the Golden Rule, and think it should apply across the species barrier.  I understand that it’s not always that simple, but I think when we can act with compassion, we should do so.  Teaching a child not to step on a caterpillar is as valuable to the child as it is to the caterpillar.

Your reference to releasing farm animals into the wild is silly.  You know that.  We just need to stop breeding them.

I’m surprised it took him this long to give up. Sometimes having a conversation on this site is like talking to a brick wall… or a robot.

again, if anyone wants to come work on our farm, so they can learn about how food is actually produced, contact myself via PM.

warning-we use bone meal on our kale and broccoli.
-dave

what does “contact myself via PM” mean?

Yes, it’s difficult if not impossible to have a non-judgmental conversation on this kind of topic.  I guess everybody decides for themselves.  And what they decide is, essentially, in the end, when it’s all over for us because we’re as mortal as the faceless animals we discuss, is a simple choice.  Do we wish to add to the already overwhelming violence in the world or do we instead want to find a way to add our voices to the side of compassion, empathy and kindness.  That’s all it really boils down to.

It has to do with legacy, and where we feel we belong in this world.  Of course I will be attacked for being anthromorphic, or a million other names, but I don’t care.  My short, pathetic life on this earth does not give me the right to exploit and abuse other beings, period. 
As far as I am able, as far as my awareness goes.  It is not necessary and therefore, since I have a choice,  I choose kindness. 

Stewart, always remember:  “There is not enough darkness in all the world to put out the light of one small candle.”

Stewart-Pm is a “Private message” and you can send me one through the MX system via this link:

http://www.mountainx.com/forums/member/4657/

(click on “PM”)

Leslie,

Your implication that those who disagree with you on this subject are ignorant, and ‘in the dark’ is the exact kind of self-righteous comments that you decry earlier in your post.

I know plenty of vegetarians who choose to not eat meat for their own, personal reasons. I myself was vegan for many years, and vegetarian for a few years prior to that. What I find annoying are those such as yourself who go out of their way to claim they are somehow more “moral” because they dont eat meat. Not eating meat is a personal, dietery choice. You are aware that even “vegan” food must be harvested mechanically, which kills animals, and must be transported, which kills more animals and contributes to a high energy footprint?

Again, this whole discussion began around the concept of “sustainability”, and didnt degenerate into the completely subjective concept of “morality” until the actual facts of local animal husbandry were brought up in contrast to stewart’s cut-and-paste PETA proaganda.

Do yourself a favor, Leslie, and visit area farms and discuss with them their methods for animal husbandry, instead of blindly accepting information promoted by a for-profit business like PETA. You may be very surprised to learn that very few farms in our area are “Factory Farms”. One of our many farmer’s market would be an excellent place to start.

Stewart-i just attempted to send you a “PM” but i cant cuz your box is full.

check it some time by going here
http://www.mountainx.com/forums/, and clicking on the red/orange “PM"button on the upper right.

”“Soya, which is mainly grown to feed animals, is a leading cause of this destruction.””

Not true. The majority of Soy fed to animals on massive feed lots is a waste byproduct of soy that is processed b=for human consumption.

Check your facts, stewie.

hey Joe, Stewart, etal.

Any of you folks ever read The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice and Sustainability By Lierre Keith?

it’s good. Derrick Jensen claims reading it “saved my life”.

I’d be curious to know what you all think/thought of it.

PFKaP,

I have, indeed, checked my facts regarding soy, and I disagree with your conclusion.  But, really, do you need to be so nasty and call me names because we don’t agree?  Get a grip.  Yes, I know that vegan food involves harvesting and transportation.  Duh.  I think we can make better choices, but I know there are no perfect choices, and everything we do has an impact.  You agree with making conscious choices that minimize your impact on the earth, which is why you are against factory farming.  So, again, we agree more than we disagree.  But rather than try to find common ground, you mock my conscious choices and continually put words in my mouth.  You act like I am an idiot, but I’d be willing to bet you a few dollars that my I.Q. compares favorably to yours. 
I did scan “The Vegetarian Myth,” and heard Keith on the radio recently.  She was pretty much incoherent.  She calls herself an environmentalist but commutes between the East and West coasts, pretty funny stuff.  But I digress.  Her “solution” is to go back to hunter-gatherer mode and raise a few animals.  What’s funny is that people call animal activists misanthropes, yet we deal with the reality of having almost 7 billion people on the planet that need to be fed.  Ms. Keith wants to end all industrialized agriculture tomorrow and readily admits that for this to happen most of the people on the planet would need to die from starvation.  And she clearly doesn’t care.  She is privileged to have 2 homes and land, so she can survive, so damn everyone else!  I agree that overpopulation is at the root of all problems, but I don’t advocate mass death, I seek solutions.  And I’m the misanthrope?

She seems to have written her book to appeal to and profit off of the people who want an excuse to eat meat.  She refers to the research of the Weston Price Foundation, yet most of it was done 70 years ago and has been debunked over and over.  Dr. Price was a well-intentioned dentist, but a lot of research methodologies from the 1930’s have failed the test of time.  She also references Dr. Atkins, a man who died of heart disease and was obese at the time.  He became wealthy telling people what they wanted to hear, namely, that they should eat a LOT of meat.  If you are open to reading criticism of the Weston Price Foundation, see http://www.vegsource.com/articles2/fuhrman_dietary_myths.htm
Atkins has been so thoroughly debunked I won’t even bother including any info.

As noted previously, Science Daily recently reported the following: “The American Dietetic Association has released an updated position paper on vegetarian diets that concludes such diets, if well-planned, are healthful and nutritious for adults, infants, children and adolescents and can help prevent and treat chronic diseases including heart disease, cancer, obesity and diabetes.”
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/07/090701103002.htm
But Ms. Keith doesn’t seem to care about science when it gets in the way of selling her book.

ah, i see, you ‘scanned’ the book in question.

Is that how you get all your info? by skimming through things until you find something that fits your predetermined conclusions and dogmas?

Like madisoncoJoe, I was Vegan/veggie for years, and i currently only eat a very small amount of meat or dairy, nearly all from my own farm or other local sources. I am all for people who choose to be veggie for their own health, but get very annoyed when they folks such as yourself and others in this thread attempt to inject relative moral values into a discussion about environmental sustainability.

Of course, this has been said repeatedly, and all you do is attempt to twist words and create enemies where you should be creating alliances with local farmers who share your dislike and mistrust of Industrial Agriculture in all its manifestations.

PFKaP,

I listened to an hour interview with Ms. Keith and I spent an hour reading excerpts from her book.  You think I should have read every word, so you mock me for it, even though you obviously still haven’t read my commentary. If I recommended a book and you didn’t read every word, I wouldn’t mock you.  You are a nasty individual, unable to write one post in a civil tone.

Joe,

The average American eats over 200 pounds of flesh every year, and the point of my commentary is that people who care about the environment shouldn’t use local meat as an excuse to continue to do so.  Since you (and PK, but he’s incapable of carrying on a civil conversation) both eat so little meat, you probably agree.  Again, we agree more than we disagree.

I think I laid out a pretty clear case in my commentary for the environmental reasons to eat a plant-based diet based on the best science available.  Not a vegan diet, a plant-based diet.  I don’t expect environmentalists to necessarily become vegans, but I think they need to eat less meat rather than deluding themselves with feel-good “alternatives,” like pasture-raised local animals.  That’s not a solution for the masses.  If we shut down CAFO’s tomorrow, either everyone would need to eat a lot less meat or only those who can afford it could eat meat.  That sounds a lot like a NIMBY attitude.  Or a YBTV attitude…you be the vegetarian, I can afford meat.  As someone dedicated to social justice, that rubs me the wrong way.  Since I was born the US population has doubled and world population has almost tripled.  I’m sure you’ve also done the math and know that there isn’t enough “free range” for everyone to eat over 200 pounds of flesh annually.  Again, the very point of my article, and something on which we probably agree. 

Yes, I understand that certain parcels of land can’t be farmed but can be grazed, so in specific instances raising meat makes sense from an environmental perspective.  But we need to act globally, and promoting pasture raised-meats gives people the loophole they are looking for rather than face the facts and consume less meat.  I think we all win when people take a closer look at their consumption patterns.  That’s why I am encouraging people see to Food, Inc., even though they don’t mention vegetarian diets, let alone vegan diets, and perpetuate the myths and greenwash we have been discussing.

Speaking of the movie, Evergreen school recently held a benefit showing of the movie, and had a panel discussion of ‘food experts” after the show that included someone from a local natural foods grocery store and someone from the farm that sends their “local meat” on a 1350 mile round-trip for processing. 

The grocery store had a full-page back cover ad in the same Mountain Xpress issue as my commentary that promoted a “grillout sampling” event made up exclusively of animal products, including tuna and shrimp.  I hope the people they buy seafood from use methods other than trawling, or in the case of some shrimpers, bottom-scraping dragnets that haul up 10 pounds of life for every pound of shrimp caught.  Most of the by-catch is discarded, it’s a lot like gathering wild mushrooms with a bulldozer.  But even if they use better methods, not only are these foods not local, the very idea that there is such a thing as sustainable seafood is the epitome of greenwash, considering how humans have decimated aquatic populations.  And factory-farmed fishing is another environmental disaster.  Couldn’t they have promote at least one plant-based item to put on the grill?  Or is this mostly about money for them, not the environment?

When we hold up merchants as experts on sustainability, isn’t that a lot like letting the military-industrial complex dictate foreign policy?  Eisenhower’s famous 1961 speech made dire warnings about this, and it’s only gotten worse.  Including these folks as experts and never discussing eating less meat and not giving an advocate of plant-based diets a seat at the table leads me to believe that some people just aren’t very open to thinking outside of the box.

I think you will probably agree with that, too.

PF,

We all make moral judgments.  I’m a proponent of universal health care, and I think it’s immoral that American’s die because they can’t afford to see a doctor or get the treatment they need.  That doesn’t mean that I don’t work with others for more moderate measures, too.  But I have an opinion, based on my values.  We all do.  Get over it.

Joe,

Bobby Kennedy recently interviewed Nicolette Niman, author of Righteous Porkchop, Finding a Life and Good Food Beyond Factory Farms.  You can listen at http://www.ringoffireradio.com. 

The interview was a scathing indictment of factory farms, and made a great case that they should be outlawed immediately.  I’m sure we agree.
When asked what the industry had to say about small-scale, free-range meat, Niman’s attempted to rebut what she said are their two most common criticisms:

1)  factory farms provide less-expensive food
2)  factory farms provide quantities that cannot be matched by farmers
In response to #1, she noted that TRUE COST of factory-farmed foods is higher than those produced by small farmers.  Yes, of course, when you consider the environmental costs, take subsidies into account, etc. that’s correct.  But I don’t see that happening soon considering the power of big agriculture.  In the meantime, to the poor family struggling to put food on the table, paying the premium price of Niman pork instead of buying cheap Smithfield pork is virtually out of the question.  Isn’t there more to the discussion? 
Regarding the industry claim that family farms could never match the volume of production of factory farms, Ms. Niman’s counter argument is that we raised as many pigs on family farms at the turn of the 20th century as we do on today’s factory farms.  But it’s not a valid comparison, because US population has quadrupled in that time, and today’s genetically-altered pigs grow bigger and faster.
One answer she completely ignored is eating less meat   I think raising this point shouldn’t threaten small farmers, and it would actually help their case.  Unless and until demand for meat products drops precipitously, family-farmed meats will never be able to produce the quantities desired, and it will be more difficult to relegate factory farms to the history books.  We need to take away this argument from big agriculture.  I wish more small farmers would bring this up; it would give them more credibility.  Again, that was the point I was making on my commentary.  I’m guessing that you’ll agree with me on this, too.

I listened to an hour interview with Ms. Keith and I spent an hour reading excerpts from her book.  You think I should have read every word, so you mock me for it, even though you obviously still haven’t read my commentary.

So, when you dismiss the book you merely ‘skimmed’, you think I should take that as some kind of informed stance?

As for your original entry, I have indeed read it, and have references specific parts of it in this thread. You, though, have already taken the conversation way beyond the initial debate of “Environmental Sustainability” with most of your preceding posts.

If I recommended a book and you didn’t read every word, I wouldn’t mock you.  You are a nasty individual, unable to write one post in a civil tone.

If you recommend a book, I would refrain from critiquing it until I had actually read it. “Skimming” or basing an opinion of a book based on an interview with the author that may or may not have covered all the issues the book does
not really count as a reliable refutation of the Book itself.

As for being “Nasty”, I really dont see where you get that from, unless you choose to avoid tangible issues in favor of character assassination. After all, i have repeatedly invited you to my home to discuss the issues and speak with my housemates chickens to discuss their enslavement. That hardly seems rude to me.

I look forward to the day when you can live on oxygen alone, so as to not contribute to any kind of ‘death’ in any way. Until, good luck…

Bobby Kennedy recently interviewed Nicolette Niman, author of Righteous Porkchop, Finding a Life and Good Food Beyond Factory Farms.  You can listen at http://www.ringoffireradio.com.

The interview was a scathing indictment of factory farms, and made a great case that they should be outlawed immediately.

Again, who here has defended “Factory Farms”? Nobody, from what I can tell.

It sounds like you desperately want to have an argument with someone defending Factory Farms and can not fathom that there may be some logic found in a middle ground where people are free to choose sustainable, local alternatives to these factory farms.

What alwasy strikes me about you, Stewart, and other PETA-aligned folks is that you seem to subvert your own cause with your close-minded militancy. If your real goal is to fight Factory Farms”, I would think aligning yourself with local farmers who provide a tangible alternative those companies would certainly be in your political intrest.

But since it appears your real “Cause” is to declare animal husbandry completely “Immoral”, you do not chose this path of co-operation. This is highly evident in how quickly you abandon your original thesis of “Sustainability” in favor of your own sense of “Morality”.

Despite whatever skewed national and global statistics you post, the FACT remains that small family farms remain the only real option for a Secure food system for the future. And your original latter bashes local farms for working within the system to make changes that will move us, as a region, closer to that kind of sustainability.

Stewart, I’ve never refused to meet you in person or talk on the phone. But I’m not sure what that has to do with anything.

Yes, we agree that the average American needs to eat less meat. We agree on several things. And I appreciate the fact that you’re now saying that you’re not advocating folks go vegan or vegetarian. I realize you used the words “plant-based diet” in your commentary, but when you rail against the small animal farm for using too much land and complain that animals on pasture produce so many greenhouse gasses, you underhandedly attack the basis of good local agriculture, and it gives the reader the impression that you are anti-animal husbandry and by consequence ultimately talking about eliminating animals from the equation altogether (not to mention several of your follow-up comments that are more up front about how you really feel). We’ve had this discussion before. You see, animals produce manure, which I guarantee helped grow some of your local veggies. Manure and other animal byproducts are the building blocks of good soil around here. We need animals on our farms, because we don’t want to kill our soils and ourselves with petrochemicals. Those animals have to die at some point, like everything else. And while it’s not pleasant to have to kill them, it’s part of our history and survival, and we try to be humble about it. In turn, domesticated animal species thrive like no other (in certain circumstances, of course), when they likely would have went extinct long ago. But I forgot, you want to remove them from the planet anyway, so I’m not sure the history will interest you. Of course, the offer is still open for you to show me how veganic agriculture works on a real farm feeding real people.

So, look, if you really want people to switch to a plant-based diet I recommend, instead of attacking local farm practices in the paper, you get to intimately know a farm and its farmers. Learn how everything is done there. See how hard it is. See how poor most of them are. Then, as a community member with a direct interest in that farm, tell them what you want and help them get there. Maybe less meat production. More humane killing and herd management. Also, if you don’t want “high” meat prices, maybe you can advocate for more localized control of the slaughtering process. Allow farmers to once again do it themselves; or make it easier to establish and run local processing plants. Local agriculture should be about complete transparency, so the consumer knows exactly what is going on with their food. Help exempt our small farmers from all the red tape meant for the agribusiness slashers. Do you think you could actually help farmers kill better?

I have my doubts that you are serious about wanting people to eat merely less meat, and instead your real agenda is to push for people to eat no meat. Feel free to have that agenda, just don’t try to hide it underneath something else (or, if I’m wrong, maybe try to be a bit more straightforward with your stance in your commentaries and follow-up comments). Then we can talk more plainly about our positions in this debate.

Stewart has contradicted himself multiple times in this thread as he peruses the PETA website for talking points to attack all of our valid arguments in favor of sustainable agriculture. Merely reading the above letter and subsequent posts will verify this as he jumps from calling animal husbandry inherently unsustainable to falling back on his moralist argument that eating meat is ‘wrong’.

there is no common ground the be reached with PETAapiles. It is all or nothing for them, which is the definition of an ‘extremist’.

makes me think of a recent PETA program that looked to boycott maple syrup in response to Canada’a Seal Hunt. really. those damn seal hunting maple tappers.

Joe,

Thanks for your response.  I never said that you refused to meet or talk to me.  But you accused me of ducking a question, something I’ll never do.  At times I feel that forum conversations in general and this one in particular deteriorate into people talking at each other rather than talking to each other.  So I encouraged you to pick up the phone if you were interested in a better dialogue. 

I am very serious when I encourage people to eat less meat.  It’s the right thing for the environment, and I’ve been an environmental advocate for a very long time. 

I worked as part of a coalition with small farmers to pass Proposition 2 in California, which put some restrictions on the worst abuses of factory farming.  I am all for animals suffering less, as noted in my commentary.  But I’m an honest person and won’t hide my beliefs.

It’s no secret that I think people who buy their food should stop buying dead animals.  The ethics get murkier when you get to hunter/gather societies or cultures where people rely on fishing and have few other food sources, but that’s a topic for another day.  I don’t find historical precedent for raising animals to be fair justification for killing them.  Humans have done a lot of things that society has deemed no longer be acceptable.  I just don’t believe that we have the right to do whatever we want to animals.  Philosopher Peter Singer put it well when he said “It is easy for us to criticize the prejudices of our grandfathers, from which our fathers freed themselves. It is more difficult to distance ourselves from our own views, so that we can dispassionately search for prejudices among the beliefs and values we hold.”  But you don’t need to be a philosopher to share the vision.  Andy Rooney said, “Most of us think of vegetarians as nuts and I’m not a vegetarian but I wouldn’t be surprised if we came to a time in 50 or 100 years when civilized people everywhere refused to eat animals. I could be one of them.” 

But I am very pragmatic.  I know that we live in a society based on meat-eating, and that won’t change anytime soon.  Environmentalists should eat less meat, and yet I seldom hear that from “your side.”  I am glad you acknowledge it.  Right now we are awash in manure, it’s killing our planet.  Right now, IMHO, the most meaningful environmental action someone buying food can do is to buy little or no meat.  Small farms can only produce so much, and their markets are pretty strong.  I don’t think small farmers should be defensive and worry about losing business.

My commentary didn’t bash anyone.  I didn’t rail against anyone.  Many people (from both “sides”) have told me it was respectful and thoughtful.  I’m sorry that you don’t see it that way.  As you will recall, I encouraged people to buy locally.  I just put out some information and exposed some greenwash.  And ask some questions that no one has answered, which will be in my next post.  And that will be my last post.  Feel free to get in touch if you wish to carry on the conversation.  I appreciate your comments.  I am not your enemy.

Again, a main point in of my commentary is that people must eat less meat if we are ever going to see an end to factory farming.  Again, we agree more than we disagree.

PFKaP,

I don’t contradict myself at all.  Someone can be against the death penalty but also work for better conditions on death row and work to limit the death penalty to specific crimes.  We can work in coalitions while we keep our beliefs intact.  Your desire to reduce me to a single soundbite and stereotype is silly. 

You spend your time tossing out insults, pre-judging me, putting words in my mouth, etc., because you don’t like my values.  We both advocate for the environment.  A lot of people are offended by that, but it’s a moral judgment we’ve made.  I’ve advocated for an end to wars, racism, sexism, homophobia, feeding the poor, etc., and every time I have, it offended those that disagree.  Without moral judgments, we’d have nothing.  Deal with it, move on, and agree to disagree once in a while.

You accuse me of not answering questions.  Yet I haven’t heard answers to the questions I posed, which included the following:  How do family farms feed today’s population?  Should everyone who can’t be fed by family farms die of starvation?  Do family farms give people an excuse to eat all the meat they want rather than eat meat sparingly?  Should the poor become vegetarians so that the privileged can eat meat with a clear conscious?  Should small farms that raise animals encourage people to eat less meat, or should they promote gluttonous barbecues?  Should people in the business of selling meat be held up as experts?  Should we ignore their greenwash, like when they sell “local” hot dogs that make a 1350 mile round –trip for processing?  Who do you believe uses better scientific methods, the money-grubbing Dr. Atkins who was obese when he died of heart disease, or the American Dieticians Association, which tells us that vegetarian diets are healthy?  When someone says they treat animals “humanely,” is it okay to ask for details?

I don’t know how to enable the “private message” system on the Mountain Xpress website, and am not interested in doing so.  Your e-mails on this public forum are nasty enough:  I can only imagine what you’d send privately.  I usually stay off of forums because they often end up this way, especially when people who don’t know each other are “arguing.”  I’d rather talk to someone rather than talk at them.  I see that you comment on most of the forums, you apparently thrive on this sort of thing.  I’m in the phone book; I don’t hide behind a moniker.  If you are ever interested in an actual conversation, give me a call and we can talk on the phone or meet somewhere.  Of course, you’d have to be willing to identify yourself.

So I’ll sign off now.  I know you’ll need to have the last word, so have at it. 

Thanks, though, for keeping my commentary in the “Hot Topics” section on the Mountain Xpress website for so long.  I hope all of our comments got read by a lot of people who then made more informed choices.  That’s what it’s all about!

That’s cool Stewart. I know you think you’ve been fair, and your friends “from both sides” agree with you. You’ve told us several times. I’m just telling how your commentary and follow-up comments come off to me, someone who only recently moved to this area and doesn’t have any direct financial stake in this issue. I merely care about building good local and regional foodsystems to ensure a sustainable and secure future for my neighbors and my family. While you think you’re simply putting out information and exposing “greenwash”, you completely fail to acknowledge the holes in your “science” and don’t seem to realize that you offer no real, sustainable alternative to the practices you ultimately condemn.

You think eating less meat is the best thing you can do for the environment. I think eating locally and regionally is the best first step—because it helps build a system and an infrastructure for a sustainable future. Eating less meat is only one piece of the bigger picture of eating seasonally and locally. I hope you’ll understand this one day and learn to help our local farmers succeed.

Too bad Stewart has chosen to ignore this letter -to-the-editor that calls him out on his twisting of the facts in the name of vegetarian hysteria:

http://www.mountainx.com/opinion/2007/keep_veg-diet_stats_in_context/

Thanks, though, for keeping my commentary in the “Hot Topics” section on the Mountain Xpress website for so long.  I hope all of our comments got read by a lot of people who then made more informed choices.  That’s what it’s all about!

Yes, i’m sure lots of people saw you contradict yourself and manipulate statistics in the name of fundamental fanaticism. Good Job!

Without judging one another, I think we can all realize every effort towards a more sustainable asheville is great.  Fair enough, a human race of carnivores is not sustainable, but we won’t go from walmart shoppers to Gandhi’s overnight.

An excellent article debunking the myths that wrongly connect small scale livestock to climate change:
http://www.grist.org/article/2009-08-07-debunking-meat-climate-change-myth/

great link, entop…