RSS
More Feeds












God's Politics

The Locavore’s Dilemma: What We Eat is More Than Just a Personal Choice

by LaVonne Neff 11-17-2009

I’m a cradle vegetarian. Didn’t have even a bite of meat — red or white, fish or fowl — until I was maybe eleven years old, and then I lost my dietary virginity to a hot dog. Go ahead and snicker. I’m not a vegetarian anymore. I had some chicken when I was fourteen right after I dissected a frog in biology lab; I almost threw up. Tried lamb chops a couple of years later: gross. By my mid thirties, I was able to enjoy the occasional beef or chicken in restaurants, and a decade later I discovered how to broil salmon at home.

I’m sixty-one now, and I still can’t prepare a decent beef steak or roast. I’ve never roasted a whole chicken, and I don’t know how to bone a fish. Last Thanksgiving my turkey tasted fine, but our guests had to read instructions out of a cookbook while Mr Neff manfully carved it. He was pretty much raised vegetarian too. So it’s no wonder that he sent me a link to James E. McWilliams’s article “Bellying Up to Environmentalism” in The Washington Post. McWilliams, author of Just Food: Where Locavores Get It Wrong and How We Can Truly Eat Responsibly, argues that what we eat — whether we are vegetarians or meat eaters — is more than just a personal choice:

Here’s why: The livestock industry as a result of its reliance on corn and soy-based feed accounts for over half the synthetic fertilizer used in the United States, contributing more than any other sector to marine dead zones. It consumes 70 percent of the water in the American West — water so heavily subsidized that if irrigation supports were removed, ground beef would cost $35 a pound. Livestock accounts for at least 21 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions globally — more than all forms of transportation combined. Domestic animals — most of them healthy — consume about 70 percent of all the antibiotics produced. Undigested antibiotics leach from manure into freshwater systems and impair the sex organs of fish.It takes a gallon of gasoline to produce a pound of conventional beef. If all the grain fed to animals went to people, you could feed China and India. That’s just a start.

Most alternatively produced meat is little better, McWilliams says. (Did you know that grass-fed cows produce four times the methane of grain-fed cows? Eeeeeeeeew.) The label may say “free range,” but that doesn’t mean the chickens have been frolicking in the grass. Well, maybe a few of them have been. A farmer who sells pork, chicken, and eggs at Wheaton’s outdoor market displays a notebook full of pictures of his contented animals enjoying their short but happy lives. But his food is awfully expensive, and very few people have access to it.

McWilliams raises a troubling question:

If someone told you that a particular corporation was trashing the air, water and soil; causing more global warming than the transportation industry; consuming massive amounts of fossil fuel; unleashing the cruelest sort of suffering on innocent and sentient beings; failing to recycle its waste; and clogging our arteries in the process, how would you react? Would you say, “Hey, that’s personal?”

Well, no. And I don’t think America’s consumption of vast quantities of corn syrup is personal either. Nor is our addiction to fast food. In my vision of the Peaceable Kingdom, all 308 million of us would have access to a steady supply of fresh, organically grown vegetables and fruits. We’d eat meat, but considerably less of it, and all of our meat would come from brilliantly run small farms like Polyface Farm in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley, described in Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma. Polyface’s meat animals do not damage the earth. Their Web site notes that “pastured livestock and poultry, moved frequently to new ’salad bars,’ offer landscape healing and nutritional superiority.” (The Web site does not discuss the methane problem.)

But in the meantime, and given what is generally available in the suburbs and cities where most of us live, how do we eat for our own health — and for the common good?

portrait-lavonne-neffLaVonne Neff is an amateur theologian and cook; lover of language and travel; wife, mother, grandmother, godmother, dogmother; perpetual student, constant reader, and Christian contrarian. She blogs at Lively Dust.

Categories: Books, Health
Share or bookmark this post:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • del.icio.us
  • Digg
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Mixx
  • NewsVine
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Yahoo! Bookmarks
advertisement


Comment Code of Conduct

I will express myself with civility, courtesy, and respect for every member of the Sojourners online community, especially toward those with whom I disagree—even if I feel disrespected by them. (Romans 12:17-21)

I will express my disagreements with other community members' ideas without insulting, mocking, or slandering them personally. (Matthew 5:22)

I will not exaggerate others' beliefs nor make unfounded prejudicial assumptions based on labels, categories, or stereotypes. I will always extend the benefit of the doubt. (Ephesians 4:29)

I will hold others accountable by clicking "report" on comments that violate these principles, based not on what ideas are expressed but on how they're expressed. (2 Thessalonians 3:13-15)

I understand that comments reported as abusive are reviewed by Sojourners staff and are subject to removal. Repeat offenders will be blocked from making further comments. (Proverbs 18:7)

  • Morna
    If our actions are to be based on our values, we have to think about those values first. Debate has value in that it allows us to think more deeply about our choices because we are presented with alternate viewpoints.
  • notbre
    Amen and amen. I am also a vegan and I second your eloquent response.
  • Those are good reasons, really. I'm starting to get turned off by meat, but I'm just a few weeks down the road of "trying" a vegetarian diet. I doubt I'll ever go vegan... but I also said I'd never question Calvinism...
  • Self-sufficiency is a myth. We all need to trade. Trade creates wealth. Well, lemme rephrase that: voluntary trade creates wealth. The United States has a vast array of natural resources, but no single state has all that each state would need on its own. It is one of the greatest examples of truly free trade making us all better off in the long run.

    Or maybe the idea you're bringing up is not anti-trade... I don't mean to attack at all. Do you mean something different? Like "not dependent on others forever"?
  • irish_annie
    whatever our view, perhaps the most effective demonstration is in example, rather than preaching... selah.
  • natan
    Haha... this joke gets tiring for vegetarians to hear. You could just as logically said the same for any number of God's creatures: Panda bears, sloths, koalas, possums, skunks, and hey, why not human babies, the invalid and the obese? Our reasoning should be based on what brings God the glory, for 'the glory of God is every creature fully alive'.
  • jplantenberg
    I became a vegetarian (and then vegan) after reading Isaiah 11:6-9 and then Genesis 1:29-30. A peaceable kingdom, and the one that God originally created, has no death or destruction. Animals and people do not eat or harm each other. I want to participate in that here and now, at least to the extent it is possible in a fallen world. I want my food choices, as much as possible, to take into consideration God's creation and how best to care for it. Every time I eat, I hope that my choices benefit not just my own body, but the animals that God created, and the other humans whom God created. And when I pray for peace, I pray that it begins with me.
  • JoannaCW
    It's my understanding that one major cause of starvation in developing countries is the use of cropland to produce coffee, sugar etc. for export to richer nations instead of staple foods for the local population. I think buying locally reduces the incentive for this kind of destructive cash-cropping.
  • mherzog
    Here's a good video on the subject: http://meat.org
  • MarkJay
    I'm not saying what's right or wrong. You can decide for yourself.

    Perhaps being a "localvore" Will catch on. However, you've opened another can of worms when you want to talk about developing nations becoming self-sufficient.
  • Nathan Bedford
    If God did not intend for us to eat beef, He would not have made cows so slow. Has anyone ever eaten a cheetah burger?
  • jackvanfossen
    MarkJay--This is a 'race to the bottom' argument. Maybe morality has its limits, just like being a 'localvore' has its limits in the realized benefits.

    I heard a pig farmer state that if we enact too many 'green' rules on livestock production/processing here, the jobs we have here will certainly be lost to overseas production where the same practices will continue.

    I believe in both instances, this 'race to the bottom' argument lacks real substance.

    Perhaps being a localvore will catch on globally. Maybe we can stop over harvesting/producing mass amounts of beef/pork thousands of miles away and other nations can follow suit.
  • MarkJay
    The paradox for the locavore is this: Yes, you eat local and it helps local farmers, the food tastes better, it's better for the environment, etc. However, when you don't shop at Krogers or Wal Mart you don't support the poor farmers in Developing nations who need that money. So what is the "moral" thing to do?
blog comments powered by Disqus
click here for comments tech support
advertise here
  • MOST VIEWED
  • MOST COMMENTED
  • MOST RECENT
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here
advertise here


HOME | SUBSCRIBE | DONATE | TAKE ACTION | MAGAZINE  
SOJOMAIL | BLOGS | MEDIA | EVENTS | RESOURCES | ABOUT US  
Sojourners | 3333 14th Street NW, Suite 200 | Washington, DC 20010  
Phone 202.328.8842 | Fax 202.328.8757 | sojourners@sojo.net  
Unless otherwise noted, all material © Sojourners 2008