babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: About the RPN | Become a podcaster
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2013 the authors
Syndicate
There is not a Babble consensus. This is Rabble initiative.
Respectfully - bullshit. I follow a vegan diet and trust me, my lifestyle is anything but privileged. I outlined above how I eat during the winter, and northern Alberta doesn't exactly have an extended growing season as compared to Newfoundland. When I gave up meat, my grocery bill went down -- so it's certainly not impossible or unrealistic.
What I meant was that it is rare for it not to be solved by supplementing. Vegans may need to supplement B12 after a number of years on a vegan diet, but there are very few who can't solve a deficiency with shots or pills.
Are you the same Polly Bee who just asked me why I think humans were designed to eat meat?
Or, to put it another way, where did the vegans of 300 years ago go for their supplement injections??
That's a false dichotomy. Why does it have to be about the politics of agribusiness and food security, and how does being aware of what you eat and how it impacts the planet only about those things? Being aware of what you eat and where it comes from is as relevent to environmental footprints and animal welfare as it is about agribusiness. It's not one thing or the other, and people will take from the challenge what they will.
Probaby 300 years ago the average diet contained a lot more dirt and feces than our current sterilized Safeway fare. As for the teeth thing, compare th inside of your mouth with both a horse and a lion. If your mouth looks like the lion, you need a better dentist.
The problem is it is being presented as if it WAS one thing or the other. A vegan diet is just as environmentally damaging, and in many cases more so, that a diet that includes meat. That has everything to do with how it was grown and the system in which the food was created. If the stated goals were really about examining the impact of our food choices a far better experiment would be to try to eat food- or heck even find- enough food for a week that was grown through the industrial food system. Because news flash most of the fruits, vegetables, legumes and so on that will be eating will have been grown under the same industrial food system as factory farms.
The more I read and think about this experiment the more I actually become offended, because it is really insulting to an awful lot of people who participate with rabble who have thought about food issues and have been activists on them and have come to dramatically different conclusions then what is stated in the OP piece. It is the basing of this action on a false set of assumptions that leads to this being something not only not worth supporting, but insulting to a number of people.
I disagree with this. I think the experience of experimenting with their diets gets people thinking about the politics of food much more than reading any text. For people who generally eat meat, going vegan for a week can be a huge eye opener--even if it convinces them that it's not a good dietary choice for them. This is the benefit of a challenge like Rabble's, and I think the specific ideas presented in the writeup matter little.
I do, however, agree with this. While many vegetarians and vegans have a good understanding of factory farming and animal cruelty, I think generally there is inadequate understanding of the havok being caused by agriculture. As I think you may have mentioned upthread, diverse, functional, interdependent habitats are being destroyed to get more and more land to produce crops.
I was vegetarian for 13 years, and dairy free for about a third of that. I have gone vegan for months at a time here and there (usually after a cleanse). I'd be unlikely to give up eggs for long though.
Recently I read "The Vegetarian Myth" by Lierre Keith. In it, she argues that vegetarianism does not deliver on its promise. She breaks the motivation for vegetarianism down into 3 components--moral, political, and nutritional, and attempts to show how vegetarianism fails for each of these. I don't agree with everything she says, nor do I trust her as an expert (particularly when it comes to nutrition). However, I felt the book challenged a lot of my assumptions about how things work. I would recommend it to any vegetarian.
I fell into the political vegetarian group. That is, my primary motivation for not eating meat was for reasons of sustainability, the amount of energy needed to produce a pound of beef, etc. While I was aware of moral and nutritional motivations as well, that was the big one for me.
In order to grow crops, fertilizer is needed. That fertilizer can come from animals, or it can come from fossil fuels. Large scale vegan agriculture is simply not possible without fossil fuels. For me, it doesn't get much simpler than this.
While this was one of the most compelling ideas presented for me, there is lots more in the book. Additionally, her writing is entertaining. She was vegan for many years and I believe she is the real deal (ie. not a dupe of the meat industry). She has a story about having put beer out in her garden in a dish in order to kill the slugs that were eating her vegetables, and then waking up in the middle of the night wracked with guilt for being a killer and running out into the garden to save the slugs.
Because of way this book has challenged me, I have been experimenting with adding meat back into my diet here and there. Organic/sustainably farmed only, and not very often, but for me it is still quite a big shift. I do not feel I suffered any health benefits from not eating meat.
I do agree with babblers who have pointed out that the timing for this challenge, while symbolically aligning with Earth Week, is poor. In some ways, it meshes well with vegetarianism choices. Well intentioned, and dedicated, but not entirely aware of the real world applicability. Of course vegetables and "vegan food" are accessible year round, and for vegetarians the time of the year does not affect their willingness to eat animals or animal products. But, the challenge would probably be more effective in the summer, when it could include a visit to a farm, or at least a farmer's market.
At its best, this initiative is a gimmick.
Caissa, have you ever gone a week without eating animal products? If not, you might want to recognise that you don't have any first hand experience with what you're talking about.
I seem to have pointy teeth in front, like the lion and other carnivores/herbivores.
Should I ask my dentist to grind them down? Are they nature's mistake?
Because it's my understanding that they're for ripping and tearing. Of meat, not carrots.
Anyway, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone else to eat meat. I'm just saying that humans are not natural herbivores, we're natural omnivores. I hope that your choice to be vegan isn't somehow dependent on convincing yourself otherwise.
Here's an interesting resource from the Vegetarian Resource Group discussing our omnivorous nature.
You make some very valid points, and anyone who objects to how the vegan challenge is framed should make their views known to rabble.ca.
I'm not vegan or vegetarian. I do happen to think that any product - meat, veggies, so-called biofuel, anything pretty much - mass-produced within a multi-national or big-business capitalist model, will fuck up the planet. In pragmatic terms, it's not the product, it's the process.
Arguing about what product is more harming to the environment really doesn't address the problems of impact on the planet. Rethinking the way we produce and the ways we consume seem to be most practical.
....and meat eaters eat all of these food items at some point. I don't know anyone who simply cooks a pork chop and sets it in the middle of the plate all by itself. So how the hell does not eating meat suddenly become unsustainable, when eating vegetables, fruits, AND meat is tickety boo?
I agree that it is important to point out the trendiness of veganism--both Oprah and Ellen recently featured it on their shows, I'm told--but I think calling it a "gimmick at best," is disingenuous.
While my love and commitment for rabble.ca will always remain strong, I have always questioned the fervor of some on the left who push the issue of veganism as - quote taken from above - "Going vegan is one of the strongest ways most of us can contribute to Earth Week and make every day Earth Day!"
I consider it very bad form that anyone would announce such a proclamation that considers veganism is a superior cultural phenom (either in the case, for example, of some small Indo-European or South Asian cultures or of a certain urban dwelling, lefty-types.)
It is the cultural statement of superiority found in the main post above that fuels this call out for going vegan as "one of the strongest ways...contribute to Earth" as if those two elements are inclusively linked to one other.
By cultural superiority (with the usual hint of righteous indignation), I mean that this call out and others I have heard are supposing that veganism is better than other forms of human diet and cultural practices that involve meat.
Does that make 'hunting' cultures or animal herding, cultures that include meat in their diet as a cultural and biological history, less concerned about the environment?
Am I and my people - who are the Saami, which were primarily a hunting - then herding culture with very little formal agriculture and maybe informally gathering berries and lichen (as was noted as far back as 5OO AD, where we had no wool, only furs as clothes and lived off reindeer) - less concerned about the environment because of our historical and cultural use hunting as a form of sustenance and meat in our diet?
Are we less civilized or advanced because we haven't been moved away from the consumption of meat and our rights to use hunting and herding - and thus our natural, historic hunting and herding grounds?
Are we then savage in our consumption of meat and the inclusion of the hunt in our, for example, Bear Cult Rite ("Bear" -"Isaivoî" meaning sacred) ceremonies, where meat is consumed?
In Canada, on Turtle Island, if someone is from the Bear of Wolf clan and/or Spirit, are they savage meat consumers because in some cases of cultural custom, they would be encourage to consume meat to honour their clan or Spirit?
Are they savage because they wish to use hunting as a formal of cultural sustenance? Living off the land - as hunting is - does this make them less environmentally concerned?
You see, that's what I feel like - because I am Saami and because I am culturally involved with First Nations communities - when someone goes on about the superiority of veganism.
And frankly - and yes, call me on this bias - I can make the case that Indigenous people around the world right now are doing much more than caring whether they support Earth Week. They are ON THE FRONT LINES regarding struggles to defend Mother Earth and passing the lessons of All Our Relations to others.
So I'm not even sure what the point of boasting veganism as a culturally superior trait unless you want to assume that all Canadians live in a homogenous Canadian culture, which would then vilify a First Nations community if it wants to utilize its tribal right to fish or hunt for game.
These are points that vegans need to think about when being evangelistical about their culture.
I don't act that way and impose my cultural beliefs on you even though my people's culture is centuries old. Please do not do the same to me.
Giitu/ Miigwetch
Hmmmm....
Do you hunt and gather berries for your food source, or do you buy food in a grocery store? This is an honest question, as many people do still hunt and forage.
Exactly! Right there on the second picture. See the teeth third from the midline?
Guess why they're called "canine" teeth and not "equine" or "bovine"!
They're not for ripping and tearing a raspberry. But did you read the article I linked? Lots more proof there, and from a vegetarian site, too.
I eat meat from the hunt, or trap (or net) when avaliable. When not, I eat certain kinds of store bought meat and place tobacco down to honour the sacrifice to us.
But what I was refering to was the cultural phenom of hunting and herding cultures and their use of meat, which I know from personal experience is looked down upon by vegans and vegitarians and has been refered to historically as a 'savage' or undeveloped culture.
Or, as I have sited, the use of meat and cultural and religion ceremonies?
In the North, and I mean the Arctic where my people are indigenous, even today they suppliment their store bought diet with hunt, trap and herd meat as well as picking cloud berries, etc.
But meat is the staple, especially in the winter. I firmly believe that no vegan has the right to judge Indigenous cultural practices - especially urban vegans who have never lived close to the land.
I would actually say that kind of superior judgement making of other cultures is on the slippert slope of racism. It's offensive.
I don't think that's what she is saying at all. In context it's a response to an either/or type arguement, that not eating any animal products automatically means more sustainable. It goes to Rebecca's comments about that in terms of ecological arguements for specific types of diets is as much about the process and methods that the food is produced with as it is about the particular food itself.
An more extreme example. Someone in say Toronto who doesn't eat meat or animal products and eats a diet of industrially produced monocrop grains, imported rice and beans, non-seaonsal fruit and veggies (like strawberries from SA in January), imported fruit (anything tropical), processed soy products and any number of processed and imported vegan foodstuff vs someone who grows alot of their own fruits and veggies, eats seasonally, eats as local as possible, eats mostly from scratch, organic local grains, stores and preserves, eats some grassfed beef or chicken grown in pastured system(NO CAFOS) and consumes other local animal products like organic eggs or cheese. Perhaps even has their own animals in their growing system.
Which diet is more sustainable and ecological?
I agree with you 100%.
I don't think this campaign is directed toward Indigenous peoples though. It would be good if the campaign made this explicit. Indigenous people do not need tips on environmental stewardship, dietary or otherwise.
I think this campaign is good even though imperfectly executed. It is already getting people talking about the politics of food.
If you have to eat supplements, your diet is not balanced. You shouldn't need to "solve" anything. If you have to go to the lengths of getting a shot... Well, that's pretty extreme for most people.
Without supplementation, the proportion of vegans who have B12 issues (and sometimes even with supplements, esp. oral, depending on absorption, which can be tricky for some, esp. as you get older) is much higher than omnivores.
It's possible that one could get more b12 from contaminated foods and water (from some articles I've read, don't know exactly how true that is), but I don't think courting food-borne illness is quite the way to go, even if it is as natural as all-get-out. Maybe better to eat a little meat and egg.
To be clear, I'm stating what Rabble is promoting is a gimmick. If people want to go a week without meat that is completely their prerogative. To answer your question, not since I began eating solids.
Nonsense. It's the celebration of veganism as the cure for the environmental crisis that divorces the individual from the larger community or polis that is systematically destroying the environment and creating a hunger crisis throughout the world. We're supposed to believe that by making a personal "lifestyle choice" that is unavailable to the other 99% of humanity who are trapped in a destructive and oppressive food production system we are doing our bit for the planet.
Instead of participating in petty bourgeois gimmicks people should be educating themselves about the real world out there and the need for international solidarity in the fight for climate justice and food sovereignty. They could start by reading this babble thread.
Hipster eating?
Maybe not "at best", but the rabble challenge is, in my opinion anyway, pretty gimmicky. But hey, gimmicks and oversimplification work in media. 'Twas ever thus.
Or, let's compare someone who grows alot of their own fruits and veggies, eats seasonally, eats as local as possible, eats mostly from scratch, organic local grains, stores and preserves, who does eat some grassfed beef or chicken grown in pastured system(NO CAFOS) and consumes other local animal products like organic eggs or cheese with someone who grows alot of their own fruits and veggies, eats seasonally, eats as local as possible, eats mostly from scratch, organic local grains, stores and preserves and who doesn't eat the aforementioned animal products.
Why should not eating animal products automatically make you choose imported, pesticide drenched, non seasonal mono crops?
If you bother to read and think about what others are saying you will find that at no point did I suggest it is "tickety boo". What I suggested and have actual practical experience, unlike all but a few in this thread, on what the costs of food production are is that there is no real differences in production type when food is grown in the industrialized food system. And when you look at it from that perspective then you find there is no real difference between whether you eat meat or are only a raw fruit vegan. That's the point. It is also factual to say that there are points in the industrial food production system where the growing of fruits, vegetables, legumes and ceral grains are more destructive to the environment than industrial meat production. But you wouldn't know it from what rabble is saying in promotion of this. There are of course points were meat production is more destructive to the environment in the industrial food system to - as I have repeatedly said.
It is also factual, based on 40 years experience of growing food for others, to say that animal agriculture is a intregal part of sustainable agricultural production. Animal agriculture and vegetable, fruit, legumes and grains are all interdependent on each other. If you try to grow food on the same plot of land you must keep that land healthy, or invent new land, or take over a new area (that was the First Nation's solution in Southwestern Ontario for example) or eventually you will be feeding less and less people off that land and the food will have less and less nutrients in it, because the sources will be depleted in the soil.
In that case neither are better than the other- they are just different. I would caution you though that eventually a food production system that does not include animal agriculture and the many positive things it does for soil health will become unsustainalbe and will either have to have outside chemical intervention to retain fertility, or be put out of production for some time until the soil heals itself. Vegetable, fruit, legumes and especially grains are very, very hard on soils. But what could someone growing food for 40 years organically, with a long term emphasis on vegetable and grain production possible know about it.
ETA
It is too bad Bookish Agrarian wasn't still around. He could teach all of us a thing or two about the politics of food in Canada and around the world.
You're post got me thinking about an ecological analysis based on a shot vs eating some eggs to get B12 based on my own situation. It's interesting to go through the thought process.
A shot for me would me once or twice a month visit to the doctor. That's a 60km round trip(gas and pollution). Unfortunately the only doctor I could find is that far and isn't in an area I normally travel so it means a special trip just for that so no combining it with some other errand. Financial cost with gas is about 5.00 on an individual level. Not sure what it is in terms of health care system.
The shot itself: The manufacture of the B12 liquid. Manufacture of the vial. Transport of the vial to the doctors. Manufacture of the needle and transport. Disposal of the needle, it's a one use product, which I think because it's considered a biohazard means some sort of incineration. So a certain amount of energy and resource use in all of that, plus transport eco costs. Times that by 12 to 24.
Duck egg: My ducks, one male and one female are free range. Their diet is supplemented by organic grains (more in winter then spring summer and fall) though I am working on introducing and growing more of their diet on site. Would have to do a calculation on exactly how much in terms of off site land use for that. They eat veggie scraps that I don't. They forage on the marginal parts of my land where growing other crops would mean changing it. In this case putting in some sort of big drainage system or trucking in tons of soil to build it up. That would mean loss of habitat for all the frogs, dragonflies, other crawlies and native plants already there. Also a loss for the pair of cranes that uses it for breeding every spring. Their waste provides fertilization as they forage and their coop waste is composted and is used on the veggie garden. They also can provide some pest control in the growing areas. Slugs in particular. I get 4 to 5 eggs per week which provide a good 'shot' of regular B12 in my diet. Plus they have the ability to be perpetual since they could reproduce.
The only financial cost for me is the feed I bring in which averaged would be around the ten dollar or less mark. I hadn't thought this out before but even without any of the ecological analysis from a purely individual economic stand point the one duck that lays wins out over the shot money wise and provides more benefits overall. Weekly food, protein and other nutrients besides the B12 I need, pest control, fertilizer for other food, exercise and a certain amount of emotional satisfaction. (They're hilarious and joy to just sit a watch).