Spilling the beans: A cook book review

“Nobody’s perfect, but in the food world, beans are about as close as you can get.”

As perfect as beans may be, and as important as they may be in cuisines around the globe, they are conspicuously absent in standard North American cooking. I imagine this at least partly explains why omnivores are so easily baffled by the concept of a plant-based diet. As authors Julie Van Rosendaal and Sue Duncan point out in their cook book, Spilling the Beans: Cooking and Baking With Beans and Grains Every Day, one of the reasons for this is likely the fact that most people simply don’t know how to cook with legumes.

My aunt excitedly gave me a copy of this book and has been cooking up a storm with beans since she came across it– and she’s not a vegetarian or vegan. While some of the recipes include meat, many are vegetarian or offer instructions on how to make the recipe without meat. Perhaps writing a cook book about legumes without using a label like vegetarian is a good inclusive strategy. The likelihood that everyone will suddenly commit to vegetarianism is probably slim, but the chances that people will cook with less meat if they learn about the alternatives seem more likely. Perhaps a great gift idea for omnivores who like to cook?

Sh*t omnivores say: “I’m practically vegetarian; I just eat chicken.”

Granted, the labelling of different types and levels of commitments to plant-based eating can be confusing–some vegetarians eat milk and/or eggs, a lot of vegetarians seem to eat seafood (a topic for a later post, perhaps),vegans eat none of the above–but if there’s one thing I think we can all agree, it’s that chicken is not a part of a vegetarian diet.

Why is this important? First, let me say that I commend those who reduce the amount of red meat in their diets for the health benefits that this purportedly brings (the details of which aren’t the focus of this post). However, to declare oneself a “vegetarian” when doing so completely ignores the negative health and environmental impacts of producing chicken for food. As I addressed in a recent post, chicken is the most consumed meat in Canada, and its production is far from harmless. Claims to be vegetarian while eating chicken undermines efforts to communicate to restaurants and the food industry that, for example, soups and other foods cooked with chicken stock are not, in fact, vegetarian. And the little things like this do matter– how can we reduce our dependence on animal products when we aren’t willing to make the simplest, most basic substitution of veggie stock for chicken stock?

Again, awesome if you’ve reduced the red meat in your diet, but please don’t add unnecessary confusion to an already confusing labelling situation. Say it as it is: “I don’t eat red meat,” or if you feel the clarification is necessary, “I’m not a vegetarian, but I don’t eat red meat,” NOT “I’m practically/almost/ basically/etc. a vegetarian; I just eat chicken.”

*Image © www.vegancooking.com. Used with permission.

Migrant labour in organic farming: A greener eating equity issue

As I’ve said before, while I think eating more plants and less animals is a worthwhile goal for environmental, social, and health reasons, it’s equally important to continue thinking about issues of inequality and privilege that persist outside of livestock production.

So, since I haven’t had time to write much this week, I thought I’d point out some alternative reading in the form of an interesting article on the issue of using migrant labour in Canada’s organic  agriculture industry.

“Propping up a localized food system with a broken, exploitative and imbalanced labour system is simply not sustainable, nor is it just.”

Check out the full article over at This Magazine, and while you’re at it, This publishes lots of interesting pieces on the politics of what we eat, so you might want to browse around– it’s a great publication!

Canada copes: More antibiotic-resistant bacteria on meat + less food inspection agents

An extra post this week, because I wanted to highlight a missed connection for the Globe and Mail in light of two issues it has reported on separately in the past week or so.

The context: Under Canada’s most recent federal budget, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Agriculture Canada will be undergoing serious cutbacks, including layoffs of “veterinarians and other inspectors responsible for food recalls and ensuring the safety of Canadian meat”. As the Globe and Mail reports, this is after the Conservative government promised to increase the number of food inspectors following a 2008 listeriosis outbreak. Lots of antibiotic resistant bacteria on our meat, and less officers to check its safety. Sounds like a good mix– all in a week’s reporting at the Globe and Mail. I’m happy to connect the dots for them.

If antibiotic resistance is a crisis, so is livestock production (in Canada, too)

Last week, The Globe and Mail ran a two-part feature (here and here)  on the crisis of antibiotic resistance. I read both pieces with an eye to whether the author would give due attention to antibiotic use in raising livestock. While both pieces mentioned the issue (in a brief paragraph, late in each piece), “due attention” might be a stretch…

Part 1:

Part 2:

Yep, that’s pretty much all she wrote, and (unlike the earlier sections of the articles) these paragraphs don’t make suggestions on how people might address this issue (ie: decrease meat consumption, maybe?). Reading even this brief mention in the Canadian press, though, made me realize that most of the information I’ve read about antibiotic use in agriculture has been American-focused. So, I thought I would seize on this as an opportunity to get a Canadian perspective on the issue– and share my quick findings and thoughts.

The food sciences department at the University of Guelph (a leading Canadian university in the field of agriculture) states that antibiotics are not only used on food-producing animals when they are sick, but also when:

1. Animals aren’t yet sick but are susceptible to illness– in this case, animals will briefly be given high doses of anti-bitoics, or
2. When low-level doses are added to animals’ feed on an ongoing bases to ensure the growth and survival of the animal.

“This practice provides ideal conditions for bacteria to develop resistance over time.”

In further searches, I came across a CBC special called Superbugs in the Supermarket. The episode focuses on antibiotic resistance to bacteria on chicken, the most regularly consumed type of meat in Canada. While I take issue with a number of aspects of this special, it does go a lot more in depth than the Globe and Mail articles cited above.

Although this documentary goes further than the Globe and Mail pieces by trying to find ways to address the problem, not once does it mention the option of decreasing meat consumption. Despite debunking claims about the benefits of paying premiums for “organic” and “anti-biotic free” chicken and eggs (apparently there is no longer a single anti-biotic free chick available on the market!?), the documentary clings to the idea that we need to keep producing current levels of meat and animal food products.

I’ve referred to this idea before, and I’m sure I’ll refer to it again: Our current levels of consumption have led to and require our current systems of production. As long as we want to raise so many animals for food that we have to keep them in unhealthy, overcrowded conditions, antibiotics will likely be an essential part of the system. Those with the money and privilege to “shop differently” (ie: organic) can do so to their heart’s content, but when it comes down to it, we will have to overcome our society’s unnecessary but deeply engrained attachment to meat and animal food products to change these circumstances.

What’s wrong with what we eat? Omnivore Mark Bittman says “meat”

Believe it or not, one of my favourite talks on reasons to cut down on (if not eliminate) meat and animal products from our diets comes from an omnivore: In this TED Talk, journalist and food writer Mark Bittman not only succinctly touches on so many of the problems with our society’s levels of meat consumption, but also goes to the heart of why switching to “organic” and “local” animal products simply won’t cut it.

What do I love so much about this particular talk? Here’s the low-down:

On the Environment…

As Bittman says elsewhere:

“Think about it this way: In terms of energy consumption, serving a typical family-of-four steak dinner is the rough equivalent of driving around in an SUV for three hours while leaving all the lights on at home.”

Given that my primary motivation for committing to plant-based eating was environmental, I obviously endorse Bittman’s focus on environmental issues and the major contributions of raising livestock to greenhouse gas emissions.

On our health…

“You eat more plants, you eat less other stuff—you live longer.”

Sounds simple… so why is it that mentioning the “v-word” so often elicits concerned (and generally ill-informed) queries and comments about personal health? Bittman does an excellent job of addressing this by pointing out three important similarities between meat and junk food– two things that we over-consume despite their negative effects:

1. Neither are necessary for health.
2. Heavy marketing has created unnatural demand for both.
3. Government agencies have subsidized the production of both to the detriment of a healthier and more environmentally sustainable diet.

On  animal cruelty and why it’s really about eating LESS animal products, not just organic or local ones…

“There is no way to treat animals well when you are killing 10 billion of them each year.”

We can’t meet current demands for animal products without an industrial system like factory farming. Smaller-scale organic operations can never produce as much. The solution, then, isn’t for privileged people who can afford organic options to increase demand for them. The solution is to demand less animal food products overall.

I highly recommend listening to the full talk, and if you want to read more by Bittman on conscious eating, his book Food Matters would be a good place to start.

Being an omnivore, Bittman also reminds us that a commitment to plant-based eating doesn’t have to mean vegetarian or vegan: there are many different levels of commitment a person can make, and any commitment is worthwhile. One more (much shorter!) TED Talk gives another example of a non-vegetarian commitment to eating plants.

Conflict quinoa: Plant-based eating, inequality, and privilege

While I’m (obviously) a proponent of plant-based eating for environmental and social reasons, it’s always important to remember that there are still important ethical issues to address even when you’ve managed to cut meat and/or all animal products out of your diet.

One such issue I’ve been hearing a lot about recently is “conflict quinoa”. As reported on the Foreign Policy blog, the rapidly increasing popularity of this “favourite superfood of American yuppies” over the past decade has led to a spike in demand and price of quinoa, the majority of which is grown in Bolivia.

These increases in demand and price have been difficult in Bolivia, intertwining with:

• Social issues: The increases in price mean that many Bolivians can no longer afford the crop, which was previously a dietary staple– Bolivia now exports 90% of its quinoa. Furthermore, fights over land suitable for growing quinoa have broken out between communities as the crop has become more lucrative.
• Health issues: On a related note, those in Bolivia who can no longer afford quinoa have begun substituting with less nutritious foods like rice and white breads, leading to fears that obesity will be on the rise.
• Environmental issues: There is a link with climate change here, too– apparently a factor in the eruption of recent conflicts is that the land previously unsuitable for quinoa crops due to frequent frosts has now become lucrative due to increases in temperatures.

This story serves as a good reminder that while plant-based eating is one response to environmental and social issues, many of us who practice it do so from a position of privilege. What actions should be taken to address situations like conflict quinoa?

If you’re interested, you can find a lot more food for thought (no pun intended) on “How Food Explains the World” in this great feature at Foreign Policy. Everything we eat really is political.

Sh*t Omnivores Say: “Were any cavemen vegetarians?”

I must say, I didn’t see this one coming. I encountered it after I explained where I would be getting my protein at my family’s holiday dinner– it was my first Christmas as a committed vegetarian, and I had prepared a yummy nut roast.

I guess this question takes issue with whether plant-based eating is “natural” for humans, regardless of whether it’s possible to achieve a healthy, nourishing diet. I was caught off-guard, but responded:

“I guess not, but I’m pretty sure they didn’t factory farm, either.”

This does sum up my argument: If we’re going to use prehistoric dietary standards and practices as a yardstick for what is “natural” (and presumably “sensible” based on the context in which the question was asked), then there are a lot of things we’ll need to change about the way we eat and produce our food– especially our meat.

Disclaimer: I’m no expert on prehistoric eating habits. However, if we assume that these were hunter-gatherer societies, I’m pretty confident that the quantities of meat that “cavemen” consumed would have been significantly less than what the average North American eats today–  as indicated in my quick retort, there’s that whole issue of having to hunt the meat, rather than simply buying already dead animals (that spent their unhealthy lives eating  a questionable diet including anti-biotics) from the supermarket shelf.

If you really want to think about it, “cavemen” hunter-gatherers came well before the introduction of agriculture, ie: eating like cavemen would also mean cutting staples like grains, breads, not to mention all the other processed foods typical to our diets today.

In fact, a quick Google search on “cave man diet” led me to this (hilarious) WikiHow article on “Doing the Cave Man Diet“. So, if you ever get the urge to question a vegetarian for not conforming to a “cave man diet”, perhaps first refer to this helpful (and quite entertaining) video and see whether you meet (no pun intended) the standard yourself:

“Step One: Remove sugars, grains, beans, potatoes, and salt from your diet.” Hmmm… I’m thinking most people aren’t quite there.

I’ll also include the video disclaimer here, for comic and liability purposes:

“While this video says to eat wild mushrooms, don’t eat wild mushrooms unless you’re 100 percent sure they’re safe.”

Hah. Thanks, WikiHow. Maybe some day I’ll do a gender analysis of these instructions and video, too.