Meat Manifesto part II: Political Reasons

When I was writing my senior thesis in college, my advisor grilled me, as usual, during one of our meetings, “Melissa, you need to talk about the politics of this.”

I was writing my thesis on the newspaper coverage of the debates around oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve, and I was struggling with a section of my paper that I did not perceive as political. I merely thought it was coincidence, happenstance--simply “the way things are”. My advisor then said to me, “Melissa, everything is political.” She pulled a tomato out of her bag of groceries sitting next to her desk, and she said to me, “This tomato is political. Tell me how.”

I started to think. At first, I thought she was off her rocker. It was a freakin’ tomato. Some people like tomatoes; some people don’t—what is political about that? But then I thought, and I said, “Well, the sticker on it says it is from Mexico. Who picked that tomato?”

“Yes!” she said. “And how much did they get paid? Who is their boss? How much is he getting paid? How did this tomato get to the supermarket where I bought it? What determined how much I paid for this tomato? You see, everything is political.”

The lesson I learned that day in college stuck with me. I find that indeed, everything is political. I promised that the word “politics” would foreshadow an upcoming post about meat. Well dear reader, finally, here it is.

Part one of my meat manifesto explained the rational (and to some extent, moral) reasons why I eat meat. When I think about whether or not to eat meat in an intuitive, thought-out way, it makes sense that eating meat is perfectly kosher. I am acting in the natural order of the universe. However, the most crucial point I made in that post is that this particular realization is not the end of the meat discussion; it is just the beginning.

So here we get to the politics. How do I define politics? For now, let’s define it as, “assumptions or principles relating to theory, or thing, especially when concerned with power and status in a society,” to borrow from the Oxford English Dictionary. Look back at my tomato example. How does the tomato relate to the people or institutions that hold power and influence in our society? A tomato is not just a tomato—there is a whole story behind it. So what is the political story behind meat that convinces me it is politically a good idea to eat it?

I consciously eat meat for two distinct political reasons that intertwine with each other. First, I believe in eating meat in order to support the farmers and ranchers who raise domestic animals in a way that upholds both our “domestication contract” and our environmental duty to ensure that we leave behind a planet that provides for future generations. As I explained in Part I of my Meat Manifesto, eating meat that is reared in the correct way is both morally OK and environmentally sustainable. I believe in using my money to support the small guys; it is a political statement, and it means that I enjoy the tastiest and most excellent meat there is.

The second political reason I choose to eat meat is because I believe that the mainstream alternative to meat eating—a diet and food industry based on soy and corn—is just as harmful to the livelihoods of others, and to the environment, as the mainstream industrial meat industry. Although it is easy to be repulsed by the intensive and industrial way that the majority of our meat is produced, simply cutting meat out of our diet does not absolve us of the atrocities of the industrial food system. As I said before, in this day and age, even the vegetarian diet need serious examination.

Let me explain further…

The problem with current day, mainstream vegetarianism is that too many non-meat eaters replace the meat in their diet with highly processed soy products. Logically, this makes sense. Soy is high in protein, and food items made from soy (tofu and not to mention the countless fake “meat” products like fakin’ bacon, soy lunch “meats,” Tofurkey, soy “sausage,” etc.) feel “meaty” and satisfying—they fill you up. It seems easy to give up meat if you can still eat “bacon”.

However, if we examine these soy products a little further we find that the soy (and corn) industry is just as ethically and ecologically irresponsible as the industrial meat industry.

I do not want this post to turn into a rant against the soy industry and the problems with excessive human soy consumption, so I will try my best to stay on track here and keep this as directly related to the meat debate as I can, but bear with me as I veer off the meat-track for just a bit. Don’t worry; this will come full circle. But first, I need to give you a little political background to genetically modified crops, because most of the soy that mainstream vegetarians base their diet on comes from GM soy crops.

Genetically modified crops are a very, very new phenomenon in the global food system. In 1990 there were no GM crops on the market. However, in 2008, 90% of soy grown in the United States was from a genetically modified (GM) strain of soybeans. We still have yet to learn of the possible benefits and consequences of this scientific breakthrough. Never before have humans been able to alter the genes of a living species, let alone eat the results. However, this debate is ongoing and based on predictions and still-yet-to-be-determined scientific evidence. I see the major problem with GM food as something that is not related to nutrition, but to politics and power. Let me illustrate my point with a specific example.

A decade ago, two European biotech plant researchers found a way to splice a daffodil gene into a rice plant. When this plant matured, the rice grains turned a translucent yellow color. That yellow color (from the daffodil plant genes) was due to beta-carotene. Beta-carotene is the same nutrient that makes oranges, carrots, bell peppers and most other yellow or orange foods yellow or orange color. In humans, beta-carotene becomes the essential nutrient known as Vitamin A. Vitamin A assists our bodies in all sorts of ways, many of which we know (like eyesight—remember your mom told you to eat lots of carrots so that you could see in the dark??) and many of which we are only beginning to understand (like how it is related to cancer prevention).

Left: conventional white rice. Right: Golden Rice. Image from Macalester University Environmental Studies homepage.

When we discovered that we could put an essential nutrient into a rice grain, it seemed as if we had a scientific miracle—viola!—a possible answer to world hunger and malnutrition. Vitamin A deficiency causes blindness and death in millions of undernourished populations in Asia and Africa, where rice is also a staple food. This new breakthrough seemed as if it could save millions of lives.

However, there was a huge catch. This grain could not be distributed free to poor farmers because biotechnology companies owned more than forty different patents on the various methods and lab tools that are necessary to create the new variety of rice. While the actual strain of rice, known as Golden Rice, was discovered with public money and thus was free, the process necessary to make the rice was patented. This “invention” was essentially owned by agribusiness—anyone planting Golden Rice would have to pay royalties on the patent.

The story of Golden Rice is not the first having to do with GM crops, and Golden Rice was certainly not the first GM food invented. However, the story illustrates what I see as the major shortcoming of genetically modified organisms—a problem of ownership. Once the United States Supreme Court determined that GM crops could be patented, biotech companies started a GMO-race to invent as many patented crops as they could. Within a matter of years we had new strains of frost resistant tomatoes (made by splicing halibut genes into the tomato plant), potatoes that had pesticides spliced into their genetic makeup, (causing any bug to eat their leaves to wither up and die), and Roundup Ready soy and corn (I’ll get to this one in a bit). Huge multi-billion dollar companies held the patents to each one of these new plant species. Agribusiness owned plants—living organisms. Agribusiness owned food. The top executives saw world hunger as an enormous business opportunity. Recently, an executive from a large food company said, “The solution to global hunger is to turn malnutrition into a market opportunity.”

(There is more here to be said about the story of Golden Rice and the patenting laws around GM crops, but this would steer my discussion farther off course into the benefits vs. risks of genetically modified foods. I want to try to keep this discussion reined in and related to the meat debate.)

The GM patent race continued, and the US patent office granted two of the most influential GM patents to Monsanto for their Roundup Ready soy and corn. In 1996 Monsanto made Roundup Ready Soy available for the market. Roundup, the most commonly used herbicide in the world, was (and still is) the shining star of Monsanto. Essentially, their scientists discovered a way to splice the herbicide into a soy plant’s genes, making that soy plant resistant to the effects of the Roundup herbicide. A farmer could plant a field of Roundup Ready soy and spray his entire field with Roundup; every living thing except for that soy plant would die. Easy-peasy farming. No more weeds, no more pests.

Now, here is the major the problem with the fact that Monsanto owns the patent for the Roundup Ready soybean: any farmer using Roundup Ready soybeans must pay royalties to Monsanto. This means that farmers cannot save the seed from a Roundup Ready crop to plant the following season—that is patent infringement. Farmers must purchase Monsanto Roundup Ready seeds year after year. However, the problem is not so cut and dry. Plants, even genetically modified plants, are living, breathing, and breeding species. Left to their own devices, plants will cross-pollinate, spreading their genes to ensure the survival of their own species. If Farmer A purchases Monsanto Roundup Ready soybeans and plant them in his field, there is nothing stopping bees, birds, and the wind from carrying the pollen (and hence, the plant’s genetically modified genes) down wind to the fields where Farmer B has planted a field of organic, non-GM soybeans. The next year, when Farmer B plants the seeds that he saved from his organic soy crop, unbeknownst to him, he plants a genetically modified, Roundup Ready crop.

There are countless cases in which Monsanto’s representatives sought out farmers such as Farmer B, accusing them of patent infringement. Monsanto reps (and their lawyers) came and tested the fields of farmers in the area of where Roundup Ready soy had been planted. Naturally, cross-pollination took place, and Organic Farmer B is now being sued by Monsanto for patent infringement. Often these farmers have no choice but to settle the case, and destroy their entire crops and all of their saved seed. It has happened time after time in the past fifteen years.

Here is a YouTube Clip from a fabulous documentary, The Future of Food, in which a farmer explains his run-in with Monsanto:

And if you are interested, here is another YouTube Clip of Vandana Shiva, an Indian food activist, explaining some of the major problems with GM crops (including Golden Rice)

As I said before, at least 90% of the soybeans produced in the United States are now genetically modified. There are no laws that require food manufactures to disclose that they use GM soy to make their products, so there is a good chance that if you are eating soy that is not USDA certified organic, you are more than likely eating genetically modified soy.

I said I would bring this full circle, back to the meat debate. What does this all mean in relation to my meat manifesto? Well, the fact that many modern day vegetarians base their diet on soy means that they are, consciously or not, supporting this industry. This money all goes back to Monsanto, and by eating GM soy your dollars support a company that is bankrupting small farmers and creating massive mono-cultures of soy fields that are in turn doused with herbicides. In a field of Roundup Ready soybeans, every living thing on that plot of land is dead except for the soy plant itself. I believe that this “farming” practice is far more detrimental for our planet than a system where cows, chickens, and pigs graze on open grass pasture.

I refrain from entering the debate over whether or not GM crops are good or bad for human health from a nutritional science standpoint. I can see that a crop like Golden Rice could save the lives of millions of people. However, it does not matter how nutritionally superior that crop is if it is owned by agribusiness and requires farmers to be indebted to a large corporation. The fact that GM crops are controlled by multi-billion dollar biotech companies that bankrupt small farmers is reason enough for me oppose such a system of farming.

As I said before, I believe that basing one’s diet on soy is just as environmentally and ethically detrimental as basing one’s diet on industrially farmed meat. The impact upon the earth and the lives of other humans and animals is just as great. That being said, just as we can eat meat in an ethically and environmentally responsible way, so can we lead a vegetarian lifestyle in an ethically and environmentally responsible way. However, we must not believe that by cutting meat out of our diet we are being environmentally responsible eaters. Today, every type of diet needs to be consciously examined.

Unfortunately, our food system is not transparent, and to understand what exactly we are eating takes a fair bit of research. I hope that this changes. I believe that first and foremost we need to institute labeling laws, forcing food processors to disclose where and how the ingredients in their products are grown, farmed and produced. The European Union already has such laws in place. The United States is pathetically behind on this front.

Everything that I mentioned thus far is reason enough for me to refuse to pay for, and eat, the vast majority of soy products that I come across. And this leads me back to my first political reason for eating meat: to support the farmers who are raising meat in an ethically and environmentally responsible way. With every dollar that you spend on food, you are voting for the food system that you believe in. Twenty years ago, organic food was scarce. Many people did not know what the term “organic” meant. Because of consumer awareness, which quickly resulted in consumer demand, organic food is now a $20 billion industry. Consumers do have the power to change the system. If more and more people use their money to support small ranchers and farmers, more small ranches and farms will be able to survive.

Support farmers like this guy with your food dollars

I realize that Monsanto and other large biotech companies will never become obsolete, but I am certain that if enough people choose to spend their money on ethically and environmentally good food, we will ensure that there is a viable alternative for those of us who do not want to partake in the industrialized mainstream.

I also understand that at this point we enter the debate as to who has the money and the means to purchase environmentally and ethically “good” food, and that is a tricky debate—one that I certainly am aware of, and unfortunately do not have all the answers to. This is a debate that is best suited for another post. (However, you can read some related thoughts of mine that I wrote about in a previous post.)

Ultimately, I think the key is to remember the tomato lesson—that everything is political. The choices we make do affect the society that we live in. It may seem that we have no effect in shaping the system that we are a part of, however, the reason that I can buy organic grass-fed meat from a small farm in Missouri is one hundred percent due to the critical mass behind the food movement—one hundred percent due to the political choices by everyday consumers. Politics seems like a daunting and bad thing, but politics can result in good things also. That is why I hope that if we have the luxury to make a choice, we do so in the most educated and conscious way possible.

The conclusion to my Meat Manifesto is yet to come. I promise that it will be more optimistic and a bit easier to “digest” than this behemoth of a post.

***The first image of this post is from the blog, Surviving the Middle Class Crash, where you can read further about Monsanto and GM crops

Pot Roast and Happy Pigs

I have things to tell you.

I just have not been in the mood to think about food politics lately--and I know that I need to finish telling you about meat. Unfortunately, this discussion gets so political, and I want to figure out a way to discuss the issues without sounding like I am standing on my soapbox screaming into the void.

So for now, a brief anecdote and......drum roll please........a recipe {gasp!}. Yes, I previously said that I do not write about recipes, and I do not intend this to be a recipe blog, simply because there are so many recipe blogs out there in the bloggosphere. However, I have been talking about meat, thinking about meat, dreaming about meat (and cheese, actually), and cooking lots of meat, so I thought that I would share my new most favorite way to eat beef.

First, my anecdote.

Happy animals really, really, really do make wonderful meat. The day before yesterday, Ben and I and two of our friends drove four hours to Ann Arbor, Michigan for lunch. Now, we did not just go anywhere in Ann Arbor for lunch. This was a pilgrimage--a pilgrimage to Zingerman's Deli, the most amazing specialty food shop in North America...in my humble opinion. As my friend Charlie put it, "If I had to spend eternity in any one place, it would be Zingerman's." Yes, it is that amazing.

Not only does Zingerman's import the best of the best of the most amazing food products in the world (think 115 year old balsamic vinegar, for a mere $700 for the 2 oz bottle), but they have a policy that states, "What you see, you can taste" (the only item in the store this policy does not extend to is that 115 year old bottle of balsamic vinegar).

Well, so what does this have to do with happy animals and amazing meat? Well, Zingerman's was one of the first places in the United States to sell Jamon Ibérico when it finally became available in the the US in 2007.

Jamon Ibérico is cured ham made from the cerdo negro (black pig), native to southern Spain. After weaning the pigs, the producers of Jamon Ibérico feed the piglets barley and maize for several weeks before they are let loose to romp around the oak forests of Southwest Spain. During their lives, they mainly feed upon acorns--which are like ice cream to pigs,their absolute favorite food--roots, herbs, and anything else they can forage for on the forest floor. For several weeks before they are slaughtered, they are fed solely on acorns.



The curing process begins by salting the hams from the slaughtered pigs and leaving them to dry for two weeks. The producers then rinse the hams and leave them to dry further for another four to six weeks, at minimum. The curing process for premium hams takes at least twelve months, although some producers cure their jamones ibéricos for up to 36 months.

The result is like no meat you have ever tasted. It is sweet and nutty. The fat on the ham is snow white, and melts like frosting on your tongue. If you ever have a chance to try Jamon Ibérico, I highly recommend it. It really shows you how the lifestyle and diet of an animal affects the way the meat tastes. As I said, these pigs are some of the happiest pigs in the world. They are left to roam free and be social, dig and burrow in the earth, eat and bath in the sunlight. And when that inevitable time for slaughter comes, they are slaughtered in the most humane and least stressful way--a far cry from the way pigs are slaughtered at industrial meat packing plants.


OK, so onto a recipe. A friend recommended that I post the recipe for my new most favorite way to eat beef: pot-roast.

When you are living on a tight budget, rib-eye and New York strip steak are just not a feasible option. Chuck roast, on the other hand, we can work into the grocery list. I strongly believe that it is so well worth it to eat meat far less often, and spend more money on the good stuff when you do. This means asking for 100% grass-fed beef, preferably from a ranch or farm that you know about and have done your research on. A good butcher will be able to tell you where he gets his meat from. So, for this recipe, really try to use only the best quality beef you can find. I bought 100% grass-fed beef raised on a farm in Michigan--I bought it at Whole Foods, for $5.99 a pound. A 4.4 lb chuck roast cost me just about $25.00, but I cut it in half, freezing the other part, which means that dinner for Ben and I was just $12.50, for some damn good meat. And we have the other half of the roast to look forward to another time. So the following recipe is for a 4 lb roast, I used a 2 lb roast and halved the recipe. Just make sure that if you do half the recipe, you use an appropriate sized pot--one that fits the roast snugly and is not too big.

Red Wine Braised Pot Roast
adapted from Molly Stevens' Zinfandel Pot Roast with Glazed Carrots and & Fresh Sage (All About Braising, W.W. Norton & Company, 2004)

Serves 6--Braising time: about 3 hours

A 3.5 to 4lb boneless, 100% grass-fed beef chuck roast

coarse (or kosher) salt and freshly ground pepper

2 tbsp olive oil

1 large onion, coarsely chopped

2 carrots, coarsely chopped

1 celery stalk, coarsely chopped

2-4 cloves of garlic (depending on how much you like garlic), peeled and smashed

1 cup of robust, dry red wine (only use wine that you would want to drink--don't use 2 Buck Chuck). I have used Cabernet, Malbec, Zinfandel, and Tempranillo, all with fantastic results. Just remember that all the flavors and nuances of the wine are going to be concentrated in flavor in your final roast, so really only use wine that you would want to drink--this does not mean expensive wine, just decent drinkable wine.

1 cup beef, veal, or chicken stock (I always use chicken stock, just because that is what I always have on hand)

A handful of fresh, leafy sage sprigs (about 3-4)

A handful of fresh parsley

8-10 black or green peppercorns


1. Heat the oven to 300 degrees F

2. If your butcher did not tie your meat for you, tie some kitchen twine around the meat so that it holds together in a nice shape that is easy to pick up with tongs.

3. Pat the meat very dry with some paper towels (this is very important to get a nice brown crust). Season very well with salt and pepper, all over. Heat the olive oil in a heavy, Dutch Oven pot. With the heat at medium-hot, add the the beef and DO NOT MOVE it for at least 3-4 minutes. This will ensure that you get a nice brown crust. If you move it around, it will not brown properly. Repeat this on all the sides of the meat until it is nicely browned. Remove the meat from the pot and set it on a plate to catch the juice. If there are any charred bits in the pot, wipe them out with a paper towel, but try to leave the lovely dripping in the pan, because they will add lots of flavor to your roast.

4. Return the pot to medium-high heat and add the onion, carrot, celery, and garlic. Season with salt and pepper. Cook, stirring often, until just starting to brown--about 5 minutes. Pour in the wine, scrape the bottom of the pan with a wooden spoon to release all the delicious brown crusty bits that were stuck to the bottom. Breath in the wonderful aroma of red wine and browning onions (you must savor this whole process). Boil the wine, and wait for it to reduce by about half--about 6 minutes. Add the stock, return to a boil, and boil to reduce this by about one third--about another 5 minutes. Return the meat to the pot, and throw in the sage, parsley, and peppercorns. Cover with a piece of parchment paper, pressing down so that it nearly touches the meat and the edges of the paper overhang the pot but at least an inch. Cover the pot tightly with the lid. (The parchment paper ensures that the moisture distributes evenly as it evaporates and condenses inside the pot.)

5. Place the pot in the lower third of your oven and braise until for tender, about 3 hours. You should turn the roast over about half way through, but I have forgotten to do this before, and it still turned out OK, so don't freak out if you forget.

6. Remove the pot from the oven. Life the beef out with tongs and set on a carving board with a well to catch the juices, and cover with foil to keep warm. Strain the cooking liquid, pressing down on the solids to remove as much juice as possible. Discard the solids and return the juice to the pot, set over high heat. Let the juices come to a boil and reduce until you like the consistency and flavor--should be about 1-2 minutes. You can adjust the flavor with a little salt or pepper.

7. Remove the strings from the roast and cut into 1/2 inch thick slices. Pour juices over the meat and serve with roasted vegetables and mashed or roasted potatoes. Pass remaining sauce around the table, along with a bottle of red wine--of course. Savor every bite.

**Bonus** Don't forget to make roast beef sandwiches with Dijon mustard, arugula, and blue cheese the next day with your leftovers!!!

Sorry, I don't have a photo--we ate it too fast for me to remember to take any pictures.

Snack Time?? Americans may be shooting themselves in the foot

photo from the New York Times


I thought this article in the New York Times was very poignant and interesting.

I love snacking just as much as the next person. In fact, I love snacking TOO much. I am prone to eating too many handfuls of pretzels and then feeling a bit bloated come dinner time. I know that I feel my best when I eat three healthy meals a day and don't snack in-between. My food tastes better, and I actually eat less at meals.

However, common American nutrition wisdom expounds that snacking is key to staying in control of one's eating. While this may be true for some people (and I know many people who consider themselves "grazers"), we may be taking this snacking wisdom to the extreme. And according to this NY Times piece, we are conditioned from a young age to reach for the cookies and crackers between meals.

This article brings up a number of issues: the loss of the family meal, the food industry targeting children in their advertisements, questionable parenting techniques, and the lack of cooking going on in American homes, just to name a few. However, I find it very interesting that the author asserts that the food industry responded to the American demand for more pre-packaged, easy to grab, snack food.

"Indeed, this nation consumed $68.1 billion in packaged snack foods in 2008, up from $60 billion in 2004, according to Packaged Facts, a consumer research group. One of the newest concepts — and among the best sellers, Ms. Nielsen said — are 100-calorie packs of cookies and other junk foods. They are targeted at parents, who are always looking for something to toss into the backpack for after-school time."

Yes, I agree that parents are looking for these easy to grab snack foods. However, I wonder how much of the snacking phenomenon is driven by consumers and how much is driven by the advertisers. This is a difficult thing to determine--much like the chicken or the egg conundrum. And I certainly do not know the answer to this myself. Did the food industry see a demand and respond accordingly? Yes. Or do the pervasive advertisements and culture around snacking in the US create the demand in the first place? Perhaps??

I do not have children, so I am not one to speak authoritatively on this issue. Are snacks necessary for young children? If they are necessary, is it easy to make sure that your child eats healthy snack foods, like fruit, vegetables, and cheese? It seems that no matter what your best intentions are as a parent feeding your child, he or she will get "junk" snack foods from outside sources. When I was young, my brother and I were only allowed fruit between meals if we were hungry. But then again, I know that I did not grow up in the average American household. And I definitely remember scarfing down, and thoroughly enjoying, Oreo cookies and Hi-C after basketball games--both snacks that other parents provided. My mom always brought the homemade granola bars and 100% juice boxes.

Anyway, food for thought. I thought the article points to some interesting phenomena happening around the way that Americans eat.

Still more to come on meat....

Meat Manifesto, Part One: Rational reasons and right

If I were a koala bear, I would not think about what to eat; I would nosh on eucalyptus leaves all day. Unfortunately, we simply cannot pick one food to exist upon. We require many different nutrients from a variety of sources in order to survive.

Being omnivorous has its benefits and its drawbacks. Unlike koala bears, our existence does not depend upon one particular species also staying in existence. However, being omnivorous means that we must think about what to eat. Genetic coding does not program our brain to eat only one specific food. We learn from our parents, our grandparents and our peers what good food is (mmmm, ripe mangoes) and what to stay away from (those weird mushrooms).

Ironically, although our human food system has advanced drastically in the past one hundred years, we still have a similar, “omnivore’s dilemma” to deal with on a daily basis. This is the main idea behind that famous book by Michael Pollan. While one hundred years ago we struggled to determine whether or not this particular potato would nourish or poison us, today we look at any item in the supermarket and experience the exact same quandary, but on more modern terms. While we used to ask, “Is the purple potato or the red potato better to eat? Will one of them poison me?” We now wonder, “Is the Balance bar or the apple better for my health? Which one help will ward off cancer, heart disease, and diabetes?”

So, while the question of eating meat used to be one type of rational question, “How did this animal die? Will eating this meat make me sick?” Our new rational question may be, “How was this animal treated, raised, and killed?” and “Is eating this animal right?”

And this is the first point of my meat manifesto: Is eating meat right? Are humans in this day and age supposed to eat meat? Is eating meat a sustainable practice for humans, the animals we eat, and our planet?

Well, let’s start from the standpoint of a “vegetarian utopia,” whereupon everyone stopped eating meat. This concept is borrowed from a personal hero of mine, Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall, an English food writer and sustainable food advocate. As Fearnley-Whittingstall says, a vegetarian utopia is a nice idea, but in the end it is too simplistic and naïve. “It misunderstands the nature of our connections with other species and amounts to another form of denial of our shared moral sphere…”

The undeniable fact is that any species’ pursuit of its interest to survive and breed will result in impact on the rest of the planet. The whale eats plankton; the shark eats the seal; the tick feeds off the dog; the maggot eats dead flesh. Animals are supposed to eat other animals, and this is a fact of life that humans are not exempt from. We are here today because our ancestors ate other animals. Life with no death does not exist.

However, this fact of life does not exempt us completely from moral obligation. The bottom line is that humans have a greater impact upon this planet than any other species. It is hard to think of another species that is not affected by our presence. I think that it is crucial to remember that vegetarian humans are no exception to this rule. To think that NOT eating animals makes us exempt from the moral weight that we carry in affecting life on this earth is just being ignorant and hypocritical. The claim that the vegetarian is in some way morally superior to the meat eater needs serious examination.

Domesticated animals (cows, chickens, pigs, sheep, and goats) exist because we raise them to eat. Their lives and livelihoods are dependent upon us. We control almost every aspect of their lives—when they breed, how they give birth, what they eat, when they eat, and ultimately when and how they die. We are responsible for their happiness and their health, their pain and their suffering, and their freedom from it. We have done this for thousands of years, and because of this relationship—these responsibilities we have taken on—these animals could not exist without us. They have evolved to be dependent upon us. It is all down to us.

This relationship would not end if we were to suddenly stop eating them. Fearnley-Whittingstall observes that if we ceased to kill these animals, they would still rely on us to live. What would we do with them?, he asks. Would we release them into the “wild”? Would we create refuges for them, like wildlife parks, where the “wildlife” is not actually wild? We would still be responsible for their well-being; so does this mean that if they were sick and suffering it would be our responsibility to put them down, in order to ease their pain? Then are we allowed to eat them? Or do we need to bury them, in which case we would eat the plants that their bodies nourished, so would we still be eating them anyway?

So in this vegetarian utopia, what would our new food growing landscape look like? Yes, it takes MUCH more energy to produce a pound a meat than a pound of grain. But also, to produce that pound of grain, the grasses need the symbiotic relationship of the animals in order to survive. Each time that a blade of grass is grazed down by an animal, it sheds an equal amount of its root. The roots that the grass sheds composts into the soils, putting nutrients back in order to ensure the healthy growth of more grass and plants. If the grass is not grazed down, it continues to grow and take more and more nutrients from the soil, which are not replenished. Thus, even the grass cannot survive without the ruminant. We need plenty of these grazing domestic animals to ensure that we have an adequate supply of grain, fruits, and vegetables.

But if these grazing animal populations are not kept in balance, their populations will expand beyond their food supply. If we do not maintain the populations by killing some of the animals, they will eat the grass quicker than it can replenish itself. Not only will these animals eventually succumb to starvation and suffering, but it will also cause our own starvation as we no longer have any means to grow our own vegetables, fruits, and grains on nutritionally depleted soil.

Thus, not killing these animals directly, we still have the responsibility for their well-being. If we do not kill them directly, we are still killing them indirectly. As Fearnley-Whittingstall asks, is it “better to have their blood on our hands only metaphorically, not literally?”

So then, when we reduce this vegetarian utopia down to its fundamental tenant, that killing animals is always and absolutely wrong, we see that rationally, it does not actually make that much sense. If we look at the other aspect of the vegetarian argument, that not eating meat is more environmentally friendly for the planet, we can also see major inconsistencies. These inconsistencies are supplemented by the fact that many vegetarians today rely on soy as the major source of protein in their diet (whether this be the soy-based fake “meats,” soy in the form of tofu, or straight up soy beans). I will not go into this issue in this post, but today’s soy industry is arguably just as environmentally detrimental as the cattle industry, especially when you consider that as of 2008, 90% of soy in the United States comes from genetically modified (GMO) soybeans. But as I said, this is the discussion for another whole post.

Back to our discussion on the rational reasons for meat eating, we can see that by eating meat, we are not acting outside of the natural order of things. If we don’t kill domesticated animals to eat, something or somebody else will. It is a fact of nature—a fact of life. Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall also points out that, of all the available deaths for an animal to face, being killed in order for another animal to eat it is among the least traumatic and painful ways to die. In nature, dying of old age really does not exist. Animals who are weak, old, and sick are killed first by other species for food, far before it succumbs to the disease or injury itself. Humans do not act outside of this sphere. We kill animals for food, animals who would eventually die another way. If done correctly and humanely, the deaths that we inflict upon these animals is far quicker and more painless than any other death that they may be subject to. The key here is, “if done correctly.”

So, this brings us to the crux of this argument. Just because rationally we have determined that eating meat is in fact a natural thing to do, does not exempt us of our responsibilities towards these animals. This rational decision to eat meat does not end this discussion. No. Quite the opposite. This is only the beginning of the discussion. Because we now have made the decision to raise these animals so that we can eat them, we have entered upon a contract, a moral obligation, to care for these animals and make sure that they lead happy and healthy lives until the point of their death. In exchange for protecting them, feeding them, helping them give birth, and ensuring that they are protected from other predators for the span of their lives, we get to nourish ourselves off of their milk, their eggs, and their flesh.

Unfortunately, this contract is not being upheld. We are not holding up our end of the bargain. Rather, many of these animals are subject to more pain, more stress, more sickness, and more torture due to our own greed. In the end, this breach of contract will come back to bite us. It already has in the form of E coli, Salmonella, and heart disease. The breach of contract is not sustainable for us, the animals we eat, or for our planet.

So, once again, we come back to our omnivore’s dilemma. We look at the ground beef in the supermarket and think, “Am I upholding or breaking my contract to the cow in eating this meat? Will this beef make me sick? Did this cow live a good life so that ultimately I can nourish my body on his flesh?” How do we know? Well, unfortunately it is not all that simple. It really is a dilemma. In many ways, it would be so much easier to be that koala bear.

Winter in Chicago--a photo ethnography

Coming from California, people always ask me how I handle the Chicago winters. My dirty secret is that I love Chicago in the winter. I feel that the true character of Chicago shows its face during the depths of the winter months.

Max Weber once likened Chicago to, "a human being with his skin removed." I know that sounds vulgar, but there is something also beautiful about it--about the ugliness and rawness of the image. That is Chicago in the winter--naked, ugly, raw, and yet beautiful and elegant in the way that it carries this ugliness. The city speaks to me in the winter. The clatter, voices, and bustle of tourists and suburbanites evaporates with the last days of above freezing temperatures. The veil of green leaves and sandy beaches disappears. The ice, snow and frozen mud encroach upon the shoreline; the trees show their skinny, bare, naked form; and the lake...the lake is a monster--a beautiful monster--rearing its head back, spitting and snarling.

And then there are the thaws. The random, magical days during the depths of winter when the sun comes out and the temperature rises above freezing. The snow melts. The birds come out of hiding. The sky is so blue, and the lake is so calm, quite and pacified. The little bits of life you see coming out on these thaw days are so vibrant--soaking up as much sun as possible, knowing that it will turn back to grey, snow, and ice soon.

So here are some photos that I took last week, followed by photos I took two days ago. Today the sky is grey again. It is not that cold, but it is a good day to stay inside and write. I promise, more on meat is coming, but for now, enjoy the beauty of Chicago winter.

And then the thaw....

Drink wine. Improve your football performance

I am still working on the second part of my Meat Manifesto, but in the meantime, I wanted to share this story. Ben is a huge British football fan; he read this story and emailed it me. Personally, I think it is awesome.

Roberto Mancini, Manchester City football team’s new Italian coach, is not only changing up his players physical routine, but he is also coaching them at the dinner table. The players’ new diets include Italian classics like pizza and pasta, and every meal will be served with a glass of wine. The coach believes that sipping alcohol at mealtimes (and refraining from guzzling beer and spirits in pubs and nightclubs) will not only make their meals more enjoyable, but will boost their game performance as well.

“I will calmly make corrections to what they eat before matches," City's manager told the Italian newspaper Corriere dello Sport. "You need more chicken, pizza, carbohydrates. As well as a glass of wine, which isn't being served.”

The article mentions that the new coach instructed his players to drizzle olive oil over their greens rather than douse a plate a fries (chips, as the English say) with ketchup.

The Italians sure know how to live.Viva Italia! Oh, and um, Manchester City football team!

On the Topic of Meat--Paleo Diet makes a stir

Photo from the New York Times

Last night Ben and I attended his work's holiday party. We got to talking to Patrick, the boyfriend of a girl Ben works with, who happens to be a personal chef. As we scarfed down the best pizza in Chicago (in my opinion) and guzzled the house brewed beer, Patrick explained why he was sitting there sipping water and twiddling his thumbs--it was his first day on the Paleo Diet.

What? Yes. You heard correctly. The Paleo Diet. Basically, Patrick can eat anything that our caveman ancestors would come across in their hunting and foraging for food. He can eat meat (LOTS of meat), fruit, and vegetables--no grains (there was no agriculture or domesticated crops in caveman times), no dairy (cavemen did not have cows). The only part that did not make sense to me is that he can eat egg whites but not the yolks. Weird. I can see that Paleo Man may have come across bird eggs in his hunting and gathering expeditions, but I would assume that he found the yolk along with the white.

When I hear that people are on a new fangled diet, I am always curious as to the reasons. Patrick is skinny as a rail and a personal chef to boot. He knows good food--he makes it everyday. He said that he is doing this thirty day diet in order to GAIN weight. He told me that he eats "tons of crap" everyday. On a daily basis he eats huge plates of pasta and ice cream. Just because he cooks "good" food does not necessarily mean that it is healthy food. He believes (as do I) that these fasts and cleanses that everyone goes on every January are not very good for your body. He is trying to cleanse his body by eating only clean food. Interesting. This includes mainly meat, and he hopes that by eating large quantities of meat and nuts, he will actually be able to put on weight.

So I was pondering Patrick's new diet today, thinking about how this eating regiment fits in with my overall "Meat Manifesto," when I came across this article in the New York Times. Low and behold, there is a whole tribe of cavemen like Patrick in New York City. Patrick is not nearly as extreme as these guys--he is not training to outrun a mammoth or saber tooth tiger, and he is planning on cooking all of his meat, but it is the same diet.

As I said, I have anecdotes to share regarding my thoughts on meat, and this article is one of them. As mentioned before, one of the reasons we eat meat is because we are hard-wired to eat meat. Our ancestors ate meat--they survived on meat, but the world changes and all species evolve. Just because our ancestors lived on meat thousands of years ago, does that make it the ideal diet for humans today? The cavemen tribe in New York obviously think so. I think that such a diet is much better than eating all processed foods, but it also appears to me to be the opposite extreme.

Arguably, you could say that the earth's population benefited from the advancement of agriculture. However, the opposite side of that coin is that too much food is not necessarily always good for a species as it disrupts the balance of the food chain. This debate, whether we humans have disrupted the natural order of the earth, is one that I do not feel fit to take part in, and to tell you the truth, it is a debate that I see as quite pointless.

However, I DO see one of the greatest advancements in human evolution to be the fact that we have evolved to take great pleasure in our food. This part of evolution I think is something to embrace. Personally, I don't think that I would find much pleasure in eating raw ground beef everyday. To me, food is more than fuel. Food is pleasure, food is communication, food is sharing, food is love, food is...politics.

And I will leave that word..."politics"...to foreshadow an upcoming post.

Until then,

Peace and carrots (and a steak).

Meat Manifesto: An Introduction, THINK about meat

Meat. It’s been on my mind lately.

This time of year Americans guzzle more meat than usual. Turkey for Thanksgiving. Prime rib for Christmas. Chilies. Beef Stews. Chicken Pot Pies. So many classic winter dishes revolve around meat, and for good reason. Back when the vast majority of humans engaged in agriculture and/or hunting and gathering for a living and/or survival, meat tide families through the winter when most vegetables, fruits, and grains succumbed to the winter season.

Vegetarianism was not a fad or a lifestyle hundreds of years ago as it is today. People ate meat to survive. People ate meat due to genetic hard wiring—we have canine teeth, after all. For hundreds of thousands of years, humans hunted meat. For thousands of years still, we raised animals to slaughter and, in turn, nourish our own bodies. We played our part in the food chain, as every living species does.

Times have changed. We have evolved and so has our relationship to the earth and the other species on it. Now we have the luxury to choose not to eat meat. And somewhere along the way, we developed the capacity to make moral judgments on whether or not we should eat meat.

Meat no longer means killing the family’s old dairy cow or chasing a chicken. Meat no longer means deciding which lamb has the best genes to breed for next years flock, and which one is the weakest—to put on the table for Easter dinner. Meat no longer means eating the tripe, feet, kidneys, brains, liver, and blood, to ensure that you reap every bit of profit out of your hard earned animal capital.

Meat now means going to the supermarket. Meat now means finding what cut is on sale, or what cut your recipe dictates. Meat could be an afterthought on your frozen pepperoni pizza or in your Ham and Cheese Hot Pocket. Bones are now worthless, thrown away or maybe given to the dog. We only want the best, leanest, “healthiest,” cuts. We are no longer carnivores. We are damn picky carnivores.


While the debates between today’s vegetarians and carnivores become heated and last long into the night, in the end, both sides have something to learn. The conversation is key. The thought is essential. That is just it…the THOUGHT. People no longer stop to THINK about their meat.

I am an unabashed omnivore. I love vegetables. But I LOVE meat too. I will not try to convert a vegetarian to a carnivore, nor will I espouse the moral greatness of a vegetarian utopia. People can lead a happy and healthy life on a vegetarian diet or an omnivorous diet (when I say carnivore, I really mean omnivore because I still to this day have not met any human who subsists solely on meat). And, both an omnivorous diet AND a vegetarian diet can be extremely detrimental for the earth, depending on what one chooses to eat, whether that be meat or vegetable.

So the purpose of my next few posts is to explain my view on meat. These next few posts are my personal, “Meat Manifesto,” if you will. As someone with a reputation for knowing a lot about food, one of the most common questions I get is, “Are you vegetarian?” And, “Do you think vegetarianism is better for health and the environment?” These are not simple questions…at all.


I will meander a bit in my explanations and thoughts on the matter. I have a few anecdotes to share. So stay tuned…

Quick Thought Wednesday: Homemade pasta is a life changing experience

Getting married is pretty awesome, for many reasons. However, my friend Erin believes that reason “1A” to get married is to get a KitchenAid stand mixer. Well, my dear mother gave me a (bright red!) KitchenAid mixer as a bridal shower present, and Ben and I received the amazing pasta roller attachment as a wedding gift from a family friend.

Our first foray into homemade pasta was technically in 2009, but I vow to make much, much more fresh pasta in 2010. I had never made pasta from scratch before. I always thought that pasta could not get much better than it already was. I thought the secret to good pasta was how you prepared it and what sauce you put on it. Not. True. At. All.

The difference between fresh pasta made from scratch and the pasta you buy in a box is the difference between fresh baked artisan bread from your favorite bakery and Wonder Bread from the supermarket. Yes, I am serious. We made linguine and tossed the fresh pasta in sage butter with chopped bacon and a grating of Parmigiano Reggiano (only use the real stuff, it is so worth it). Incredible.

I recommend making your own pasta, ASAP. It truly is a life changing experience. I can't describe it. Just do it.

Oh, and you don't need a KitchenAid mixer (or to get married) to make fresh pasta. Hand crank pasta rollers work great; plus you build muscle while you make your dinner! It really is a win-win situation.

New Beginnings

2010 is going to be a good year. I can feel it.

First off, welcome back. No... I am welcoming MYSELF back, to my formerly dead blog.

I promise that this year I will be better about paying more attention to my writing endeavors. I promise to get my thoughts down on “paper” and not let them swirl around in my head as hundreds of “possible articles” and “possible blog posts”.

So, dear reader, if you are still here and still randomly checking into this formerly defunct blog now and then, please check back more regularly. We’ll see where my mundane observations and thoughts take me this year.

First, however, I better briefly explain my absence and give a small update regarding my life (even if this is just to remind myself when I look back at these posts years later).

My last post on here was in June—eek! In March, Ben and I got engaged. We married on September 5, 2009—it was wonderful (Yes, I am Melissa Beresford now). So part of my absence was due to the craziness of wedding planning that somewhat took over my life for six months. However, I really cannot fully blame the wedding planning for my lack of writing. The wedding was a lot of work, but generally people make far too big of fuss and nonsense over planning a wedding. The process is not THAT hard, just a lot of busy work.

No, the other part of my absence was due to general life quandaries and existential questions in my own mind as to what I want to do with my life, which put a damper on the creative blogging juices. But I will spare you (and myself) the details.

So with that re-introduction, I end the first post of this decade. More to come…I promise