Filed under: Food + Health, J500 Week 6, Society + Media | Tags: associated press, budget, bullet, cereal, food, gunshot, healthy, income, Kashi, local, love handles, meat, meats, nutrition, Santa Fe Trail, Santa Fe Trail Meats, sustainable, Velveeta
In case you missed it this week, The Associated Press reported that a woman claimed that the fat around her midsection, otherwise known as love handles, saved her life from a gunshot. She was quoted in the story saying, ‘I want to be as big as I can if it’s going to stop a bullet.’
Now, not only did I think her quote was one of the most illogical statements I’ve read in a while, but the story got me thinking about how the types of foods people eat show in appearance or beliefs about nutrition.
I’ll be the first to admit I don’t always eat what I should. (I don’t think anyone really does.) But since taking time to learn about the importance of healthy, sustainable and local foods, I really try to pick out items in the grocery store that reflect this awareness. Unfortunately, because I am a college student and don’t have a lot of money, I can’t always afford the best foods.
My mom often is my hook-up for healthy, locally-grown food, such as this ground beef from Santa Fe Trail Meats. (Photo taken with my iPhone TiltShiftGen app)
I think my food pantry and refrigerator reflects my conflict of “Do I buy all fresh, local or organic food or do I buy cheap junk food?” pretty well. In my kitchen, you can find anything from ground beef from Santa Fe Trail Meats or whole grain bread to Velveeta shells and cheese or off-brand cereal.
Honestly if I can get twice as much cereal in a big off-brand bag for half the price of a cereal like Kashi, I’m going to choose the off-brand bag. Yes, I would love to buy Kashi everytime I buy cereal, but that’s extra money each grocery trip I could use for bills, rent, etc.
For me, primarily focusing on buying higher quality proteins, fruits or vegetables is the best option for the income I have right now. Once I have a steady income, I definitely want to be able to shop primarily at places like The Merc. The reality is that I can’t afford it now. It’s enough for me to try to find fresh or healthy foods, let alone organic or locally-grown foods.
Luckily, I do have healthier opportunities around me even now that I always try to take advantage of. One of our family friends shares the vegetables she grows in her garden with my parents and with me, which I love. As a teacher, my mom also regularly tries to buy local foods from her students’ families or co-workers (hence, my supply of meat from Santa Fe Trail Meats).
No, not all of the foods in my kitchen reflect someone who always chooses the healthiest option of food. But I’m not that person just yet anyway. I think my food selection still shows that I am constantly thinking of the smartest, most sustainable food choices for my budget.
— Lauren Cunningham
Filed under: Food + Health, J500 Week 6 | Tags: Atkins diet, factory farm meat, factory farms, free-range, grass-fed, meat, pesticides, preservatives, processed meats, sodium nitrate
I grew up in a family of meat-lovers. It was guaranteed that the centerpiece of each dinner dish was a slab of protein. You name it- beef, pork, chicken, lamb- and my family and I ate it. As you can imagine, being brought up at a young age on an eating plan that made meat mandatory but fresh fruits and colorful vegetables voluntary, my eating habits were not very healthy.
When I was in high school, the Atkins diet became popular. It appealed to me (and my insatiable appetite for beef), so I decided to try it. I was in meat lover’s paradise. On this eating regimen I was able to consume all the bacon, steak and pork chops my stomach (and arteries) could handle. Now, as not to make too bad of an impression, I also grazed on vegetables. My side dishes consisted of leafy greens, including asparagus, broccoli and spinach. In hindsight, chowing down on a diet of meat everyday was not great for my body or mind, but at the time, I thought otherwise. I ignored the fact that meat contained a lot of saturated fat. My reasoning for eating meat and poultry was because it provided my body with sustenance and likewise, it filled me up. Protein kept me feeling full for hours, whereas, carbohydrates did not sustain my hunger for very long.
I continued the Atkins diet for a year. I was completely unaware that the processed meats I was ingesting were composed of pesticides and preservatives such as sodium nitrate. Never did I expect that eating a slice of honey-cured ham would expose me to many toxic chemicals and additives. These meats come from animals raised on factory farms controlled by manufacturing corporations. The conditions under which factory raised animals are kept are inhumane, to say the very least. In these factory farms, the animals are packed together in small spaces, have their DNA altered, and are injected with hormones and antibiotics and at times wallow in their own feces.
Photo by Farm Sanctuary/Courtesy Flickr
There are some that argue that factory farms will never completely disappear, and because of that, they are conceiving a method to lessen the pain these animals are forced to endure. Adam Shriver, a doctoral student at Washington University in St. Louis, is one of those people. His article in the New York Times suggests genetically engineering animals in slaughterhouses, therefore minimizing their pain. Though the idea is novel, it doesn’t conclusively alter the animals living circumstances.
These days, I maintain an eating plan that balances vegetables, fruits, whole grains and meat. There is an alternative to factory farm meat- choosing to eat organic, grass-fed beef and free-range chicken. Now that I am conscious of the reality of the happenings in factory farms I will try as often as possible to support organic farming practices.
Micole Aronowitz
Filed under: Cars + Transport, Nature + Travel, Society + Media | Tags: canvas bag, eco man, environment, environmentalism, masculinity, meat, Smart Car, vegetarianism
My roommate’s voice was loud through our shared wall.
“I’m just not sure,” she lamented. “I mean… get this, he drives a Smart Car.”
Her friend laughed.
“He what?”
“I know… and not just that, he calls it Smart Car… like ‘I’m gonna go get Smart Car’, like it’s a name or something.”
Eco-Man has his work cut out for him in fighting our cultural stereotypes.
They continued discussing the goods and bads of Brad, but I pondered their comment. Brad’s environmental consciousness apparently compromised his masculinity. Did his green car made him undateable?
Girls like me can look cool with our canvas bags. Apparently, it is harder for men. As one blogger lamented in “Masculinity-friendly environmentalism, please!” his reusable shopping bag compromised his macho image. To test if other men felt the same, I conducted an informal survey of classmates. Of ten boys polled, 40% would feel their masculinity judged if they drove a Smart Car. Sixty percent would feel judged while carrying a canvas bag.
Can a man be a man AND environmentally conscious?
In our culture, advertising denotes real men as those who eat burgers and drive hummers. Environmentalists struggle against this image. As Holly Brubach wrote in the New York Times: “Vegetarianism may occupy the moral high ground, but among men it’s regarded as, if not a girl thing, then at least a girlie thing — an anemic regimen for sensitive souls subsisting on rabbit food and tofurkey.” Vegetarian women outnumber men by 2:1.
Gender stereotypes are a cultural barrier thwarting environmentalism. But what the mass public doesn’t know is that that real men eat locally grown rutabagas.
— images from http://www.acclaimimages.com and http://www.dpchallenge.com
“Eww! It’s staring at me! That’s so gross.” – quote courtesy of my sister, who will not be named.
In Taiwan, it is not unusual to be able to look into the eyes of what you’re consuming. The farmer’s market beside my grandparent’s apartment is lined with whole carcasses of meat: chickens and ducks strung up like laundry on a line, fish and squid presented on ice like aquatic champagne. Hundred’s of eyes following you as you stroll amongst the fresh produce, soil and earth still on their leaves.
I know it sounds crazy, eating fish that looks like fish. But doesn’t it sound crazier not to?
Our modern food industry caters our food ignorance with beef, chicken, fish, nicely packaged and minus heads and tails. The slaughter and hormone-injection happen miles away and the distance washes the blood from our hands. In our desires to separate the ourselves from the beasts, we have created a system not only environmentally harmful, threatening to our health, and perpetuating the fossil fuel problem, but has also created an unsustainable and anthrocentric world view. The world has become our oyster, and we intend to consume it with a little thyme garnish.
So is eating locally the solution? In a way, yes and no. Eating locally, frequenting farmer’s markets, and buying from local farms can help support a food system that is more sustainable and beneficial to your health, the environment, and the local economy. However, is it plausible for to support our current society on a local diet? Behind the environmental, economical, and health issues lies the simple fact that a population of 7,000,000,000+ has to eat, and eat we shall until more dramatic, evident pressures arise that force us to change.
Janie Chen
photo from flickr.com
Filed under: Business + Politics, Food + Health, Science + Tech | Tags: acid rain, agriculture, air quality, amazon, biodiversity, deforestation, environment, farming, food, global warming, land use, livestock, meat, pollution, vegetarianism, water
Recently, I discovered a report from 2006, entitled Livestock’s Long Shadow, which is an assessment of global livestock’s impacts on the environment. The report was produced by the Livestock, Environment and Development (LEAD) Initiative. This is not an animal rights group, or a band of hippie vegans, but rather a sub-committee of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
I’m well aware of many of the report’s findings, but there is much in the report that I never knew. It’s troubling that livestock is rarely addressed by leading environmentalists and environmental groups. Especially because, as the report states, “the livestock sector emerges as one of the most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems at every scale from local to global.”
Based on recent posts about the impact of food on the environment, I highly recommend at least skimming through the report. Here are a few highlights I’ve taken directly from the report’s executive summary:
LAND:
– Livestock production accounts for 70% of all agriculture land and 30% of the land surface on the planet.
– 70% of previous forested land in the Amazon is occupied by pastures (in other words, livestock is the biggest contributor to Amazon rain forest loss)
ATMOSPHERE AND CLIMATE:
-Livestock is responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions (higher than transportation)
– Livestock emits 37% of anthropogenic (resulting from human activity) methane, which has 23x the global warming potential (GWP) of CO2
– Livestock emits 65% of anthropogenic nitrous oxide, which has 296x the GWP of CO2
– Livestock is responsible for 64% of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems.
(photo: USDA. Waste lagoon at a hog farm in North Carolina)
WATER:
– Livestock accounts for over 8% of global human water use
– Livestock is probably the largest source of water pollution
– In the US alone, livestock is responsible for an estimated 55% of erosion and sediment, 33% of pesticide use, and 50% of antibiotic use
BIODIVERSITY:
– Livestock now account for 20% of the total animal biomass, and 30% of the earth’s land surface they now inhabit was once habitat for wildlife
– Livestock may be the leading player in the reduction of biodiversity (due to deforestation), as well as one of the leading drivers of land degradation, pollution, climate change, overfishing, sedimentation of coastal areas and facilitation of invasions by alien species.
The report details many more facts about the negative environmental impacts of livestock. It concludes that if, as predicted, the production of meat will double from now until 2050, the impact per unit of output must be cut in half, simply to maintain current levels of environmental damage caused by livestock. Recommendations for reaching this goal include a sizable reduction in meat consumption from those in developed nations.
If awareness of this issue does not move from the fringes and into a front and center issue for the environmental movement, it is difficult to think the problems will not become significantly worse. This isn’t an opinion, it is a fact. Yet, one of the simplest things an individual can do to have a personal impact is reduce his/her meat consumption.
The sooner people overcome their belief that a vegetarian diet is radical or extreme, but instead is a very positive step toward improving the health of themselves and the planet, and at least reduce their meat consumption, the sooner the problems associated with livestock can be seriously addressed and overcome.
– David
Filed under: Food + Health | Tags: agriculture, beef, carbon dioxide, cattle, cow, emissions, fart, global warming, Kansas, Lauren Keith, meat, methane, sustainable, vegetarian
Art by Lydia Marano, flickr.com
Carbon dioxide soaks up the limelight as the big bad wolf of global warming, but its partner-in-carbon-crime, methane, might huff and puff and build up in our atmosphere first.
A large source of atmospheric methane is from the world’s cattle.
Every day, one cow farts and burps 240 liters of methane. That’s 120 two-liter bottles filled with silent-but-deadlies multiplied by the world’s 1.3 billion cattle.
It’s the most inconvenient truth of all, Al Gore: Eating steaks and hamburgers is killing the planet (among other things).
Not once in his 96-minute presentation did Gore mention methane. But methane is 23 times more potent than carbon dioxide, and emissions have increased by 240 percent since 1994, when carbon dioxide has increased only 30 percent in the same time.
Scientists are attempting to correct the problem by altering the bacteria in the cow’s stomach. But we are failing to address the real problem: our increasing consumption of meat.
Not to toot my own horn, but becoming a vegetarian is a more sustainable lifestyle. I wouldn’t dare suggest that everyone become a vegetarian, but saving meat for certain occasions may save the planet. All food can be made with meat substitutes or without meat.
Feedlots, especially in western Kansas, forget that global warming will hurt them from rising temperatures but no extra rainfall. Warmer temperatures will force them to pull water from the already water-stressed aquifer.
Global warming is playing its own version of natural selection by changing the types of plants found in Kansas. Plants resistant to droughts survive while native species die. If grazing animals refuse to eat these new plants, companies would move north to find suitable plants again, taking a devastating portion of Kansas’ $7.3 billion agriculture industry with it. (PDF)
Eliminating beef from your diet may seem a little un-Kansan, but making up for that by eating locally grown produce should keep farmers in business.
Whatever the solution, we can’t keep farting around with such a serious problem.
Cows, cows, the musical food. The more you eat, the more we’re screwed.
—Lauren Keith
Submit to:
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
: 
J500 Media and the Environment 
