Vancouver to Proclaim June 10, 2013 Meatless Monday

Vancouver is scheduled to become the first Canadian city to endorse Meatless Monday, the growing movement that encourages citizens to eat less meat for the environment and health.  Following a request from the Vancouver Food Policy Council, Mayor Gregor Robertson will sign a Proclamation declaring June 10, 2013 Meatless Monday.  On that day people will be urged to go meatless.

“It’s a great start, and an excellent way to bring attention to the environmental and other benefits of being more careful about our meat consumption, ” said Trish Kelly, co-chair of the Food Policy Council.  It’s all part of making our food systems sustainable, she said.

The initiative fits with Vancouver’s Greenest City Action Plan, according to the Proclamation, and with environmental goals laid out in the city’s recently-released Food Strategy.  That’s because scientific research increasingly demonstrates that large-scale intensive meat production uses disproportionate amounts of land, water, and feed, adds markedly to climate change, and is a factor in water pollution and food contamination, according to meatlessmonday.com.

“While livestock can be good for environments and meat can be good for health,” says Vancouver’s Proclamation, “excessive amounts can harm ecosystems.”

The Proclamation adds that programs and policies such as Meatless Monday have educated global citizens to moderate their intake of animal-source foods and choose meat, dairy and seafood that have been produced sustainably.

A wartime conservation strategy, Meatless Monday was revived a decade ago as a way of recommending that people cut back on meat for ecology, health, and animal welfare.  Meatless Monday has been endorsed by U.S. cities including Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, DC, by hundreds of school districts and universities in the U.S., and by organizations and food professionals around the world, as listed on meatlessmonday.com.

Organizers of Meatless Monday in Vancouver say the event has widespread support, and will be celebrated with media and community events. Accomplished local chef Andrea Carlson will host a press conference at her recently-opened Main Street restaurant Burdock and Co. A facebook page has been created for the day so that individuals and groups can post how they plan to celebrate Meatless Monday, and find out how to take part.   https://www.facebook.com/events/266505080159862/

Contacts for interviews:  

Trish Kelly, co-chair, Vancouver Food Policy Council: trishkellyc@gmail.com; 604.879.1386;  Eleanor Boyle, Author: High Steaks: Why and How to Eat Less Meat: eleanorboyle@gmail.com; 604 – 230-2561;  Dave Steele, President, Earthsave Canada: dsteele@earthsave.ca. 604-454-1919

More background information:

vancouverfoodpolicycouncil.ca/meatless-mondays

https://www.facebook.com/events/266505080159862/

meatlessmonday.ca

meatlessmonday.com

-30-

Eleanor and Harley’s Beans on Toast

¼ – ½ cup cooked garbanzo beans, drained
2-3 t olive oil
2 slices toast
sprinkle of salt

Crush the beans with a fork, drizzle olive oil and twist a little salt on top.
Toast the bread. When it’s done, drizzle olive oil on the toast, then pile on the beans. Optionally, you can add a little parsley or other herb.
Enjoy!

The web is full of fascinating discussions on the history of this hearty snack. And there are many variations. For a gorgeous photo of black beans on toast with a stunning side salad, see a Chatelaine recipe called Southwestern Beans on Toast: http://www.chatelaine.com/recipe/vegetarian/southwestern-beans-on-toast/

For alternative ‘takes’ on how to pile beans onto toasted bread, here you go:

http://theenglishkitchen.blogspot.ca/2009/09/beans-on-toast.html

http://voices.yahoo.com/baked-beans-toast-so-typically-british-perfect-6392304.html

The verse states literally that we should refrain from exploiting people’s disabilities to put them in harm’s way. But figuratively it says much more. It implies that we shouldn’t take advantage of people’s youth (or age), their ignorance, their naivete, or any other weakness, personality characteristic, or situation. So it’s wrong to offer wine to an alcoholic, or a fashion magazine to a shopaholic.

I’d been thinking about this Biblical verse when the New York Times Sunday Magazine arrived, the issue of February 24, 2013. On the front cover was a close-up of a human mouth inhaling a potato chip, plus an arresting quote from a former chief scientist for Frito-Lay: “I feel so sorry for the public.” And lower on the page: “Inside the hyperengineered, savagely marketed, addiction-creating battle for American ‘stomach share.’ By Michael Moss.” The magazine article was adapted from Mr. Moss’ new book Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us, and I’ve since been reading it.

“Exploiting the Biology of the Child” is Chapter One. “How Do You Get People to Crave?” is Chapter Two. The book lays out one example after another of processed-food companies’ strategies for consumer addiction. Companies have war rooms, peopled by competitive and aggressive employees whose job it is to hook us. That’s despite the companies’ knowledge that modern food plays a role in obesity and food-related chronic disease.

Food corp executives would probably be offended at the suggestion that they are contravening a Biblical directive. But it seems to me an example of an industry working hard to put stumbling blocks in the path of the blind. It’s wrong to push junk food on overweight people who can’t resist, but that’s what the industry does every day.

Salt, sugar and fat are indeed stumbling blocks, and humans are indeed blind. Because our ancient brains still direct us to obtain as much salt, sugar and fat as possible. That’s one reason we have so much trouble denying ourselves processed food.

But that’s their job. Food companies are supposed to make us want their products, and any legal approach is fair game. Or is it?

Meanwhile, there are more and more small-scale, organic and other food companies determined to provide minimally-processed foods that meet human ‘needs’ rather than creating unhealthy ‘wants.’ Processed-food corps are unlikely to change their ways, but as consumers we can choose.

It’s not the first time I’ve heard the expression ‘recovering vegetarian.’  I’m sorry to report I first heard it from food activists.  There are also websites written by people who use it to label themselves. Nevertheless, I’ve never liked the phrase and don’t like it now.

To say it is to suggest that vegetarians have a disorder, and that those who resume eating meat are on the road to becoming normal and healthy again. Or it suggests that vegetarianism is a fad followed by misguided individuals, some of whom thankfully see the light and go back to consuming animal products.

The phrase sounds clever.  But it’s a disrespectful dig at people who make the decision not to eat meat. That decision is courageous and difficult today when most menus and meals are centred on animal products, and when most of the people around us eat flesh food twice a day.  Check out the offerings at almost any restaurant, and you’ll see that avoiding chicken, pork and beef takes commitment. But vegetarians do it because they’ve decided to be kinder to animals, or to the planet, or to their health.  That’s because scientific evidence shows that eating conventional meat in the amounts we do today produces huge amounts of greenhouse gases, water pollution, and deforestation, as well as fueling avian flus, antibiotic resistance, and chronic disease. Whether or not you agree with vegetarians’ specific approach to the problems, their ideals are worthy of regard.

In my work, I encourage people to eat sustainably and compassionately.  And one way they can do that is by consuming a lot less (and better) animal products.  I don’t recommend that people become completely vegetarian, because most people won’t and because avoiding meat altogether is not necessary for the environment or for health.  But those who decide to stop eating meat deserve our respect.  And we can show our respect by not using phrases like ‘recovering vegetarian,’ but rather by speaking kindly of others no matter what their food decisions.  That kind of compassion will probably help us make faster progress toward better food systems.  It’s also the right thing to do.

Lana Popham and Craig Keating speaking about sustainable agriculture and healthy food

(1) An NDP govt would put high priority on agriculture. While Ms. Popham has been ag critic over the last four years, she said there have been four different agriculture ministers, a sort of revolving door in a dept that has been considered relatively unimportant by the governing Liberals.

(2) The NDP would re-name the department — as The Ministry of Agriculture and Sustainable Food Systems.  It’s only a name, but words can be powerful. In this case, it suggests an emphasis on ecological production and consumption.  Issues would be addressed under the pillars “Grow B.C., Feed B.C., Buy B.C.”

(3) Local, small-scale producers would be supported, e.g. through ‘extension services’ in which farmers can get help from govt agronomists and other experts.   When she used to farm, said Ms. Popham, and had problems with plant diseases or other challenges, she had the option of phoning a provincial office and having a knowledgeable person come out to her farm to assist.  Much of that service has been disbanded, she said, though it cost little to the taxpayer.

(4) The NDP govt would have a strong policy for institutional purchasing of local and sustainable food. That means that food in B.C. hospitals, for example, would be sourced increasingly from farmers in their regions, creating a more stable market for B.C. agricultural products as well as healthier options to patients.

North Vancouver city councilor Craig Keating introduced Ms. Popham, and also spoke to the issues.  He’s running himself as an NDP candidate in his local riding, and said his personal priorities, and those of his party, emphasize supporting local farmers and healthy food.

Mr. Stuart is an English author whose book Waste showed what a shocking amount of nutritious edibles end up in landfills while many of our fellow planetary citizens go hungry.  As it says in his YouTube blurb: “Western countries throw out nearly half of their food, not because it’s inedible — but because it doesn’t look appealing.”  How embarrassing is that? See his site at http://www.tristramstuart.co.uk.

Meanwhile, there is much we can do.  For this moment, I’d like to tell you about an experience I had today with purple kale.  Mr. Stuart points out that most of us don’t store food properly, allowing it to go bad more quickly than is necessary.  In a small but memorable example, he says that when leafy greens have wilted, you can bring them back by setting them in a jar of water, as if they were a flower bunch.  In a sense, they are.

Today I tried it with some gorgeous but droopy purple kale, and it worked. 

Let me know if it works for you. Meanwhile, read Tristram Stuart to learn some of his additional ideas — not only how we can minimize food waste at home, but how policy makers can help decrease the tragic waste of so much of the world’s precious agricultural harvests.

There’s no easy answer to the question.  And there’s no single plan for eating patterns that will be appropriate for everyone around the world. For example, people who have easy access to livestock-source foods that are produced naturally, kindly, and without chemicals, can eat more meat — ecologically — than can people who do not have such access. But part of the ‘sustainable diets’ equation for many humans will be less and better meat that is produced in ways that minimize greenhouse gases, water pollution and excess manure, compared with the ways that much of (intensively-raised) livestock is today.

But less and better meat is only part of the story.  Even vegetarian diets are not necessarily sustainable, depending on what else you consume. Highly-processed foods are another part of the problem in our current food systems.

International discussions on sustainable diets are coming from many quarters.  The UN Food and Agriculture Organization had a conference on the topic in 2010 and has since published the excellent Sustainable Diets and Biodiversity. (http://www.fao.org/docrep/016/i3004e/i3004e.pdf).  The influential Barilla Center for Food and Nutrition suggests a ‘double pyramid’ illustrating that we should eat more of those foods that have less environmental impact.

UK food expert Dr. Tim Lang has written on the topic (http://www.gulbenkian.pt/media/files/agenda/eventos12/ConfAlimentacaoAbr2012_TimLang.pdf) as has Dr. Jennie MacDiarmid and others (http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2012/07/31/ajcn.112.038729).

The experts say we need more research into what constitutes sustainable diets.  And they’re right.

But meanwhile, based on the work of food luminaries like Dr. Lang, Dr. Marion Nestle, Michael Pollan, Mark Bittman, and many others, here is my recipe for what I believe makes for ecological eating, and what I believe will be major ingredients in ‘sustainable diets:’

1. Eat less and better meat.

2. Eat locally produced food as much as is reasonable.

3. Eat organic, or edibles that are produced with minimal chemical inputs.

4. Eat more natural, and less highly-processed, foods.

5. Avoid GMOs or genetically modified foods.

GMOs are in the news, and for good reason.  Whether to continue allowing genetically modified, or engineered, food and agriculture could be one of the most important political and cultural decisions of our time.

Genetically modified apples have been proposed for the B.C. Okanagan, which is of concern to critics.  As outlined on the site of the excellent Canadian Biotechnology Action Network:  “The small BC company called Okanagan Specialty Fruits is asking Health Canada and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) to approve a GM “non-browning” apple. The U.S. government could approve the GM apple soon. Contamination from GM apples threatens the future of our apples, and the farmers who grow them.” http://www.cban.ca/Resources/Topics/GE-Crops-and-Foods-Not-on-the-Market/Apple/GM-Apple-Info-Flyer.

You may also have heard that a former anti-genetic-engineering activist has done an about-face and declared that GM foods are a good idea after all.  His name is Mark Lynas, and he’s gotten lots of press from his dramatic declaration. (www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-tercek/mark-lynas-gmo_b_2424493.html)

For what I feel is a rational view of the events and the debate, read the analysis by knowledgeable food journalist Tom Philpott. (www.motherjones.com/tom-philpott/2013/01/mark-lynas-failed-attempt-end-gm-debate)  Philpott comments that Mark Lynas seems as dogmatic now in his pro-GM stance as he was on the other side.  Philpott also cites rigorous studies showing that organic and other non-GM crop systems can produce as much food – with less environmental damage – than can GM ones.

Reasonable people can differ on the basic idea of GMOs.  But at the very least, we as societies need deeper and more objective research before committing ourselves to this sweeping new technology.  Much of the ‘science’ on GMOs to date has been conducted by biotech companies.  And no-one is stopping those companies from publicizing only the data that support their claims.  We need more independent studies of the consequences of radically altering the genetic makeup of our foods.

For me, the nail in the coffin on GMOs is the indisputable fact that these foods are controlled by giant transnational biotechnology companies.  That’s because those companies get patents on their ‘new’ seeds, and thereby own and control them.  That means that more and more of our food is owned and controlled by someone other than local communities.  Doesn’t sound like a good idea to me.

One independent scientific study, published in November, 2012, made biotech companies squirm. Published in the journal Food and Chemical Toxicology, the report was authored by the European research team of Seralini et al (2012), who showed high levels of toxicity to rats from genetically modified (GM) corn, and from a major related pesticide that is used on GM crops. Their experiments demonstrated that when the animals were fed GM corn, or exposed to the Roundup pesticide that is employed on many GM crops, they were much more likely to get sick and die than were control animals.  The debate continues.

(http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0278691512005637)

As I discuss in my book High Steaks: Why and How to Eat Less Meat, ractopamine hydrochloride is approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency[i] for use in some food animals to promote weight gain, improve feed efficiency, and add extra lean muscle tissue. [ii]

But you can’t always mess with Mother Nature without side-effects, as outlined on government websites concerning ractopamine.  Cautions include that employees with cardiovascular disease should avoid exposure to this chemical; that people who are mixing and handling the medicated feed should use protective clothing, impervious gloves, and a dust mask; and that operators should wash thoroughly with soap and water after handling.[iv]  The government site adds that pigs fed this drug “may be at increased risk for exhibiting the fatigued or downer pig syndrome.”[v]  There was a particularly arresting caution on the government website, which has since been removed, stating that “turkeys fed ractopamine hydrochloride may experience alteration in behaviour, hyperexcitability, hyperactivity, musculoskeletal or cutaneous injury and increased mortality.”[vi] And this drug has been going into our meat.

When I studied undergraduate psychopharmacology at the University of Chicago, the professor said something I would never forget.  “All drugs are dirty,” he declared one day from the front of the classroom.  No chemical medication has ever been invented, he explained, and nor would it ever, that provides solely the benefit we seek.[vii]  That’s true whether the drug claims to promote weight loss, improve mood, ease headaches, or make animals lean.  Every drug has multiple effects aside from those we wish, and the ‘side effects’ are often undesirable.  My professor’s memorable piece of wisdom is one reason I avoid unnecessary medications, and one reason for us to reconsider putting chemicals into meat animals, and into our food at all.

There’s a solution to the problem of drugs in livestock.  We can stop expecting cheap meat at every meal.  We can eat less meat, find sustainable sources and be willing to pay more for it, and urge our governments to require livestock production to be natural, clean, and kind.  See the animated trailer for my book at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xP0pYiCtL5w.

In the view of author Richard Smith, massive social problems like these will be solved more quickly if we take lessons from the great social movement that abolished slavery in the United States.

Dr. Smith is no dreamer.  A renowned British physician, he is also an accomplished business person, editor, and advocate for international health.  He has dedicated himself to fighting chronic disease in developing countries and elsewhere.  He was a long-time editor of the British Medical Journal (BMJ), and chief executive of the BMJ Publishing Group.

Dr. Smith’s article ‘Learning from the abolitionists, the first social movement’  (http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e8301) is valuable reading. Among other memorable ideas, the article contains his list of lessons we could glean from those who opposed slavery and won, including that: