Food Husbandry

I was listening to Skepticality today (great podcast regardless of what you believe/don’t believe) and Swoopy interviewed Dr. Marc Bekoff about his book The Animal Manifesto. All in all, it was a good episode. Dr. Bekoff seemed like a good guest and for the most part I don’t disagree with a lot of what he said. He seems to be advocating that we all make small changes where we can to improve the quality of life not only for us but for the animals we share the planet with.

I’m an animal lover, much like Swoopy proclaims herself to be towards the end of the episode. I totally think that we should treat animals as well as we can and that includes making sure that they aren’t abused/mistreated by people that aren’t as conscientious about it as we are. That extends into farming and medical research and a whole host of other areas. If you sense a big but coming here…

But, I hit the following statement, “parts of Eastern NC are uninhabitable because of the waste from pig farms” and it stopped me. Those parts of North Carolina weren’t really inhabitable before the farms arrived (most of Eastern NC is made up of reclaimed swamp land). I know that’s not really his point, but it’s not as though pig farming wrecked nice property where people were flocking to build houses. What pig farming did and does do is provide people jobs and affordable food.

I know that factory farms are bad for the environment in some ways and that no one is required to eat meat. I won’t argue that. But there seems to be this notion that by somehow making “small choices” and striving to eat local rather than farmed foods we can turn this whole bus around. There are a couple of problems with that and I’m not sure how we can make them surmountable.

First and biggest, eating right is expensive. Buying certified organic foods or foods that were farmed locally simply costs a lot and in a lot of cases if you live in rural America, you’re just not going to have access (the irony of that isn’t lost on me). My wife who does most of the food buying in our family does an outstanding job of making sure that we eat as many veggies/fruits as possible and that we don’t eat a lot of processed foods. We do from time to time for convenience’s sake, but in addition to that sometimes we have to just to make ends meet.

Secondly, eating non-processed foods can often mean cooking from scratch. I know that’s easy and maybe you know that’s easy, but for some reason there are a lot of folks out there that don’t cook from scratch. I’ve heard every reason from “I don’t have time.” to “I don’t know how.”. Most of their reasons are pretty bogus to be sure. Cooking from scratch isn’t hard or time consuming really, but to get people to see that means a pretty dramatic paradigm shift.

So my point is, mainly, that the changes that need to be made are neither small nor simple. It really is a cultural change that needs to happen. For the sort of person that would read the good doctor’s book it may be as simple as buying a nylon bag or going to their local fresh market. In many cases I’m sure they already are. For many of the rest of us though, I’m not sure what it will take to make his goals realistic or manageable.

I tweeted that I think many animal rights folks go too far. I don’t think that’s because they love animals more than they do people (though some might) as they have often been characterized. I think it’s just that when you get too close to a problem, you can lose sight of just how big that problem is and how your proposed solution may impact the rest of society.

While this isn’t exactly a spiritual issue per se, I do think that Christians have a responsibility to be good stewards with our planet and all of its resources. The caricature of most of us is the anti-environmentalist and I’m not sure where that comes from. I think much of it might be a reaction to the environmentalists like Dr. Bekoff who seem not to understand or at least address the deeper cultural issues at stake.

So my question is (getting back to the food issues), how do we talk to one another? I don’t think there’s a disagreement that we are as a nation far to unhealthy when it comes to our eating habits. In watching Food Revolution it’s plain that on some level and for no reason I can gather, people are woefully ignorant, in spite of all of the science behind what it means to eat right. But because there is so much emotion wrapped up in what and how we eat, it’s one of those land mine conversations.

  • jwrennie

    Actually for what it is worth, “buying locally” is usually _more_ irresponsible than buying from large scale producers. It is inevtiably more expensive, but by what ever metric you want to use (except perhaps some worthless one like “feelgoodness”) it is usually more destructive due to a loss of economies of scale.

    I think you are mistaken about many animal rights types though. Many of them are quite pathologically anti-human. They are certainly incoherent when it comes to some sort of rational and logical position.

    I think many Christians are seen as “anti-environmentalist” because the “environmental” movement is so fundamentally incompatible with a responsible view of stewardship and a christian worldview. But that is just me ;)

  • sidfaiwu

    Hello Scott,

    One simple change anyone can make anywhere to improve the treatment of animals is simply to eat less of them. It makes sense economically (which seems to be of prime importance to your other commenter). Pound-for-pound, plants are much cheaper than meats. A trip to any local grocery store will quickly confirm this for your common plants and animal foods.

    It makes sense socially. It takes 8 lbs of grain to create 1 pound of beef (not even considering the extra fresh water consumption). The ratios for pork isn't much better at 4-to-1. Considering that grains are cheaper, last longer, and is easier to store and transport, the US's over eating of meat seems unconscionable in world with a billion starving people. (ref: http://www.foodreference.com/html/fmeat.html)

    It makes sense environmentally. You're right about Eastern NC – no one was clamoring to build in those areas in the first place. But that's not where the real environmental damage is done. In Central and South America, rain forests are being slashed-and-burned to create grazing fields for cattle grown to export to the US and other industrial/industrializing nations. This reduces the lands CO2 absorption potential, removes habitats for endangered species, and reduces water absorption which, in turn, increases flooding and mudslide potential and erodes away fertile top soil. (ref: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/may/…).

    It makes sense environmentally again. Factory scale meat production effects air, land, and water quality. To put it succinctly, there's just too much shit to deal with. (ref: http://www.ncifap.org/bin/s/a/PCIFAPSmry.pdf)

    It makes sense from a health perspective. Less meat fat, more fruits and vegetables. We all know this. Get more exercise while you're at it too! ;)

    It makes sense from a health perspective again. Animals raised in factory farm conditions live in very close proximity. This increases the spread of disease. To keep this in check, antibiotics are used. This over-use of antibiotics allows antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria to develop – posing a public health risk. (ref: http://www.ncifap.org/bin/s/a/PCIFAPSmry.pdf)

    And, as you agreed in your post, it makes sense from a compassion point of view.

    Given all these upsides, what downside is preventing more people from cutting back, or even eliminating meat from their diet? Oh yeah, we like meat. We damage our wallets, fellow humans, environment, health, and animals to satisfy our pleasure senses.

    “The caricature of most of us is the anti-environmentalist and I’m not sure where that comes from.”

    The religious right. They've confused conservative American politics with their religion. In recent history, conservatives simultaneously opposed environmental initiatives and pandered to the religious. Now the two are thought of as one.

  • spiritualtramp

    Actually I like the idea of buying locally, in spite of the fact that it's a bit more expensive. The metric I use in that case is that the local farmers often (though not always) use fewer antibiotics and the like since they aren't packing the animals in like cord wood. Also I'm supporting the local economy in a more direct way. And yeah there's the feel good thing.

    I think you're engaging in building a straw man with the whole animal rights activist thing. You can't really back up your statements about “many of them” being pathologically anti-human”, whatever that means.

    And it's not just you, but if you're happy in not coming to the table to find a solution with people that disagree with you then you're part of the problem, not part of the solution. There is no “Christian” worldview on this subject. There is a worldview that many American Christian's have. This is not the same thing.

  • spiritualtramp

    Thanks for the links SId. Reducing intake of meat is key. Part of the problem is that yes, we like meat. I love it. But I do watch my intake and we've worked to eat less meat. I've watched my wife struggle because she has been educated to believe that meat must make up a large portion of the meal and any time she fixes something with alternate sources of protein or where meat takes a “back burner” she feels like she's not doing enough. It's that education we're fighting against, not just the pleasure center.

  • http://www.edwardgtalbot.com/ Edward G. Talbot

    I agree with pretty much all of your points. It is neither simple nor easy. There are many arguments for and against different changes, but changing mass behavior or even individual behavior is not easy.

    I think it is primarily an American phenomenon the caricature of Christians as anti-environmentalist and it has an easy explanation – politics. I want to stress that it is indeed a caricature and a stereotype, because while Christians generally share some values, they are individuals like everyone else, and painting them with one brush is no more fair than to do it with any other group.

    But back to politics – the polls show that the majority of people who self-identify as devout Christians vote for the politicians with the worst environmental records. The same is true of the death penalty and war – a majority of American Christians vote for politicians who support these as well (to be fair both parties have supported war recently). So they are stereotyped as being in favor of these things, even though one could argue that they are contrary to the teachings of Christ (and I do understand one could make a different argument, but you take my point).

    The complex reasons behind this seemingly contradictory support are many, but at its core I think that majority I mentioned simply votes on other issues besides the environment and the death penalty. Like abortion, abstinence, their perception of national defense, etc. In the case of war, I suspect that the role of Islam in our wars of the past decade plays a big part, though non-minority Christians were pretty supportive of Vietnam as well, so perhaps there's another explanation.

  • sidfaiwu

    Good job and good point. I'd add culture as well. American culture is very pro-meat consumption.

  • jwrennie

    You can buy locally if you like, but it isn't “environmentally friendly” to do so. Do what you like with your money that is your business. I'm just noting that the sense of moral superiority associated with it is usually a false one when you look at the reality of it.

    I'm really not with animal rights groups. There is a distinction been animal welfare groups and “animal rights” groups. Be careful not to confuse the two as animal rights groups tend to be very anti-human. You might want to follow their antics a bit more closely.

    Also I think you are wrong about their not being a christian worldview on the subject of the environment. There is probably more than one, but not all approaches to the environment will be compatible with the Gospel. The typical earth worship lunacy of the “deep ecologists” is utterly incompatible and that sort of thinking is at the core of much of modern hardcore environmentalism.

«
»