HAPPY FEET

I'll have more to say about this in some future way, shape or form, but just wanted to mention that I saw Happy Feet on DVD and found it to be somewhat entertaining but mainly thought-provoking. Not provoking "environmental" or "ecological" thoughts, but thoughts about how mainstream "message" movies concerning animals are trapped in a bizarre double bind. I welcome anyone else's perspectives on the movie.

PATIENT ANSWERS TO 'GOTCHA' QUESTIONS

This may be a recurring series. Meat-eaters tend not to think about the full picture of their food choices, for the obvious reason that once you think it through it's very problematic, to say the least. Yet with the unwitting arrogance of being safely ensconced in the conventional majority, they often seem to believe, bizarrely, that they have come up with an angle on vegetarianism that will trip up vegetarians - people who have permanently altered their behavior due to (usually) in-depth thinking about their food choices. "What about plants?" is one classic example. "But animals eat other animals" is another.

This entry is about a question I've addressed multiple times previously, often in conjunction with discussing Horizons restaurant, which last year dropped animal-based terms from their menu. The question is: If vegetarians really don't like meat, why do they eat meat analogues like veggie burgers, veggie dogs, Tofurky, etc.?

I'm bringing this up today because that Associated Press article will appear in various newspapers, with writer Ted Anthony doing a creditable job of trying to answer what he seems to think is an original question. The piece is worth reading (although this sentence is a true head-scratcher: "You might think the nation's pre-eminent animal-rights group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, would oppose meat substitutes on philosophical grounds." Huh? Who in the hell would think that and why?), but right here I'd like to dispense with this issue once and for all: There's no mystery, no irony, no contradiction in the concept of faux meats whatsoever. There are several good reasons for vegetarians to support this portion of the food industry, and some of them point to unasked questions about the other portions.

* HABIT - Almost all vegetarians started out as meat-eaters. And just like current meat-eaters, it's comforting to eat a type of meal you're used to, one that has the rich protein source as its centerpiece. The difference is that continued meat-eaters take this to the extreme, refusing to change what is increasingly becoming a negligible aspect of the taste, texture and overall satisfaction of their meal even in the face of overwhelming reasons to do so.

* BRIDGE - Whether they eat them themselves of not, vegetarians can promote meat analogues to show curious meat-eaters that vegetarianism is not an ascetic choice. Meat-eaters who are actually open to raw experience rather than cultural conditioning may opt to choose more plant-based foods once they try these.

* SHAPE - An unspoken assumption is that meat analogues are mimicking the "animal" aprt of animal-based foods, just because they play off the name or the context. But stop and think about it: Other than, say, the UnTurkey, is there a popular meat analogue that actually mimicks the look of a cooked animal? Despite being constantly referenced as such, Tofurky certainly doesn't. Burgers, hot dogs, baloney, sausage, ground "beef" - these are overwhelmingly the popular items, and they work well without meat because they're already completely unrecognizable (hmmmmm, wonder why?) versions of their animal sources. Packing a bunch of food into a thin, edible tube makes for a good and practical format for eating, but there's nothing about it that requires or inherently references animals.

* CONVENIENCE - This takes off from the last sentence, but sometimes you want foods that are quick & easy to make. Our food industry has put a lot of time and effort into packaging animal foods in this way, much more than they have plant-based foods, so meat analogues are one quick way piggyback on that history. (And please don't bother giving me grief about "piggyback" - linguistic cliches is a whole nother blog entry.)

* TASTE/TEXTURE - This seems hard for meat-eaters to grasp, especially since they seem to hope that there is some inherent taste for blood in humans that helps justify their habit, and that vegetarians are all trying hard to deny. But it's not that meat analogues deliver the "taste of meat" (some do, to a lesser or greater extent, but if anything that can be ascribed to "habit," above), it's that sometimes, in addition to other tastes and textures in a given meal, you want a taste that's rich and salty, a texture that's juicy and chewy, that goes with other things on your plate. That's fine, nothing wrong with it. Meat analogues fill this function without needlessly dragging in dead animals to support it.

OK, I hope this clears up this issue once and for all for everyone who has been confused about it. Now that I've gone to such lengths to answer it, I trust that this question will never, ever need to be asked again. Thank you.

LUNG TIME COMIN'

I saw this and assumed it was another report on this study, but no, it seems to be a whole different study, kind of the flip side of the one showing how damaging to the lungs are meat products like bacon and pastrami. In this case, the shocking results are that compared to a standard-diet control, as the headline puts it, Fruit, Vegetable-Rich Diet Halves Lung Disease Risk. It's that "Mediterranean" diet, which is, yes, fruit- and vegetable-rich, but includes fish. They apparently didn't bother with a cohort eating completely meatless. I'm betting the numbers, both in this study and the last one, would have been more dramatic if so.

HE-MAN - THE TOXIC YEARS

Via Vegan Porn, here's another of those headlines that say it all: "Toxic products found in blood of BBQ lovers." A new study says "a class of toxic chemicals released by grilling, broiling and frying meat may increase the risk for life-threatening diseases" as well as accelerate the aging process, according to this CBC story. The chemicals "are produced and absorbed into the body when meat or cheese is cooked at high temperatures." News to be heeded by boys and grills everywhere.

ANOTHER MASSIVE FRIDAY MEAT RECALL

They keep on doing it, and I keep on pointing out, and so-called journalists keep missing this fantastical coincidence: Whenever the USDA has a particularly large, damning meat recall to announce, it's put out on a Friday, the well-known "dead zone" government officials know ensures the least possible public visibility (meaning, in this case, the least chance lives will be saved or grave illnesses averted by the information). The constant, ongoing willful disregard for public health and American lives in favor of meat industry damage control is a major story that continues under the noses of credulous meat-eating reporters. Hey, folks: Ding-ding-ding-ding! Meat's done!

The latest incident includes obfuscation and flimflammery typical of the USDA's PR stunts on behalf of the beef industry: One recall was dated Thursday, yet note that the first media reports on it - those by outlets closest to the source - occur around midday on Friday, as though all media outlets had the press release for a full day and all decided to wait for someone else to report it. Uh huh. Reeeeeal credible.

At any rate, in combination with the second recall, by Friday night the USDA was recalling over 240,000 pounds of beef. Conceive of this: We're talking more than a hundred tons of contaminated dead cow. That no one heard about.

And even further, the USDA's own recall center puts both of these crucial recall documents on its site in PDF-only form, again limiting how many people can or will instantly access the information - AND although the two recalls are "Class I," which means "a health hazard situation where there is a reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death," the fact that people have already been sickened by the meat in question is finessed with the phrase "discovered by Michigan Department of Community Health as part of an E. coli O157:H7 illness investigation" in one case, and is completely ignored in the other. I guess if nobody hears about these press releases, it doesn't really matter whether they contain that vital part of the story or not, eh?

One last note: This brings the total tonnage to more than 300 tons of beef recalled for E.Coli just within the past three weeks. And remember that I don't make a point of listing every single fecal-contamination meat recall that occurs, only those that are particularly worthy of note such as this one. Ask yourself how many of these you hear about, and why that might be.

I'LL JUST SWITCH TO FISH XVIII

Yet another reason that supposed "healthful" alternative may be otherwise... "The substance responsible for recent pet food recalls has also contaminated millions of hatchery salmon." On the plus side, the amount left over once anyone eats a given salmon will probably be much less than the amount of PCBs in it.

GOT FACTS?

Congrats to PCRM for finally getting the fraudulent "weight-loss" ads promulgated by the dairy industry shut down - oops, I mean, for getting the NDC to end the campaign completely unrelated to PCRM's FTC complaint. Heh. Now, about that "strong bones" claim...

DO PLANTS CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING?

Short answer: Nope. Sure don't.

Longer answer: Nope. Sure don't, sorry, all you wingnuts grasping at anything to perpetuate your state of denial. It's still livestock all the way.

A previous study in Natue had made the dubious claim that plants were a significant source of atmospheric methane, without nailing down how such a thing could be biologically possible. A newer, more rigorously controlled study found no significant emissions of methane even from large amounts of plants.

Yeah, but it's still true that a Hummer is greener than a Prius, right? Right???

'LOW RISK' FOLLIES

Here we go again: Low Risk to Humans Seen in Animal Feed, declares the headline, and "It's safe to eat pork and chicken from animals whose feed was mixed with contaminated pet food that sickened or killed cats and dogs" is the lede. Uh huh. Would that be the same "low risk" as the "low risk" that the US would ever have a case of Mad Cow? Why not? It's the same agency stating that once again, suspect meat is "safe to eat."

The same agency that so embarrassingly and repeatedly botched BSE testing, losing samples, failing to run the right kinds of tests, "forgetting" to report positive results, now assures us that: "We literally found that the dilution is so minute, in fact in some cases you can't even test and find melamine any more in that product." Excuse me, sir, when you say "you can't even test and find" it, do you mean I couldn't... or actual competent scientists couldn't? Because I'm all too willing to believe you couldn't find it. You couldn't find freakin' BSE until it was absolutely unavoidable. So saying you can't find something isn't exactly the most encouraging endorsement.

UPDATE 5/8: David Goldstein at Huffington Post expands on this idea.

NEWS FLASH: VEGGIES FIGHT CANCER

"A large study of 500,000 U.S. retirees has found that just one extra serving of fruit or vegetables a day may reduce the risk of developing head and neck cancer."

Here's my favorite part: "'It may not sound like news that vegetables protect from cancer, but there is actually some controversy in the literature. It is important that we do these large studies,' said Dr. Alan Kristal, associate head of the cancer prevention program at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle." Yeah, there's a big controversy, all right. More like polluting of the literature by animal-food-industry "studies" designed to do no more than confuse the public and delay the day when "the literature" could be considered unanimous. Any scientist today who finds it "controversial" that plant foods protect againsts multiple cancers should have their scientificking license removed.

"THE WAR IS OVER; WE LOST"

That's a paraphrase of the point of this article - FDA is failing to protect food, ex-chiefs say - showing that our much ballyhooed War On E.Coli, which I've covered to the best of my ability here and cheered on to the best of my lungs, has ended in defeat: "Regulators don't have the money, equipment, and staff to keep industrial chemicals, salmonella, and E. coli from contaminating the US food supply, former commissioners of the Food and Drug Administration said." Don't know what the point is now of appointing a War Czar for this particular battle; the cow has already left the barn - and left behind the usual food contaminants needing some serious cleanup.

GOT PARKINSON'S?

Milk has been previously, tentatively linked with Parkinson's disease, but this study should put the nail in the naysayers' coffin: Studying upwards of 50,000 men over nine years, researchers found that those consuming the most milk (3-4 glasses a day) increased their risk of Parkinson's by 60% over men drinking 1/10 that amount (note that there was apparently no control group of non-milk-drinkers). The results for women were not as definitive.

Getting into the 'why' question: "This study and previous ones indicate that calcium, vitamin D and fat are not responsible for the link between dairy foods and Parkinson's disease. One theory is that pesticides or other nerve-damaging toxins present in milk could contribute to Parkinson's disease over time. However, dairy foods would likely be only a small part of most people's exposure to these chemicals, according to [lead study author Dr. Honglei] Chen. Furthermore, pesticide residues may also be present in other foods, but no other foods were related to Parkinson's disease risk in this study, the researcher noted."

Y'see, it's a big mystery how milk could have such an extreme effect on brain cells when everyone knows it's a health food. So they're scratching their heads over what foreign element might be responsible - they literally seem unable to grasp the possibility that "pure, wholesome milk," as Robert Cohen used to say, can cause health problems. How many more dozens of these studies do we need to have before that's a given?

SO LUNG AND THANKS FOR ALL THE BACON

According to new research, cured meats such as bacon, ham and salami nearly double men's risk of lung disease, an interesting finding that points toward more ailments we thought were non-diet-related (e.g. lung damage = smoking) turning out to be affected by nutrition or lack thereof. And in case you're wondering whether the kind of lung disease this is connected to is worth worrying about, well, that's up to you - it's only the fourth leading cause of death in the United States.

TRICK QUESTION

South Florida TV station asks: Dead Ducks On Beach Animal Cruelty Or Religion?

To which I can only reply, "what do you mean, 'or'?"

NUMBER OF VEG EATERIES DOUBLES

This AP article cites Dennis Bayomi of VegDining.com for the figure that "there are 1,000 to 1,200 vegetarian restaurants in the U.S., almost double the number seven years ago." Sounds credible to me, and how could I pass up the chance to link to a non-Philly article that mentions Philadelphia's best restaurant, Horizons?

"GUILT-FREE" SLAUGHTER

I loved the unintentional black humor of the headline on this NYT article from last week: Veal to Love, Without the Guilt. First of all, the inclusion of "love" in a phrase referencing an especially "cute" baby animal, but supposedly referring only to the consumption of said baby animal's carcass, is already somewhat weird, but the absolute banishing of guilt is even more darkly comic.

The guilt in question was, I guess, only over calves' hideous confinement and poor nutrition, because now the article suggests everyone dig in to "humane" veal "from calves four to six months old" without a twinge of guilt. Sure, who cares if the baby animal was needlessly torn from its mother and killed only to serve your infantile pleasure? No guilt here, nosiree.

What makes this more troubling than silly is the earnestness with which people are being told to embrace, and often embracing, this nonsensical "humane meat" phenomenon. Yes, Wolfgang Puck is on the bandwagon, even eschewing foie gras, but most of the changes involved in these initiatives have nothing to do with cutting out an entire form of exploitation and instead only massage the abuse into something a little more palatable. As the headline shows, the sleight of hand here is that "less guilt" = "no guilt!"

Unfortunately many animal groups are buying into and legitimizing this, in a way that seems pretty short-sighted and somewhat deceptive ("no, we know it doesn't really mean no guilt, but let them think so now, then we'll hit them harder later!"), but in this area I should defer to someone who has written and expostulated on this topic at length and more articulately than I can, Gary Francione.

RECALLAPALOOZA

I've been remiss in keeping this up to date over the past month or more, but you know if there's one thing that will force me back into service it's another FRIDAY MEAT RECALL.

And boy oh boy does this ever fit the bill: 367,000 pounds of beef was recalled this past Friday for E.Coli contamination. Yes, that's more than a third of a million pounds, on both the east and west coasts, and in both cases people have already fallen ill with E.Coli poisoning.

Did you hear about it yet? Wonder why?

TRENDY, BUT NOT IN A GOOD WAY

OK, this is no big deal except for one phrase:

Giant Eagle is pulling foie gras from its Market District supermarkets in [Pittsburgh]. Giant Eagle officials said the company dumped foie gras because of concerns about seasonal availability, shelf space and sales trends, and not because of the animal rights groups' objections.

Did you catch it? "Sales trends" - wonder which way those are trending? Granted, a trend is not in itself a victory. But it does give some indication of how the wind is blowing.

TURN THE TABLES

Here's a HuffPost column by Kathy Freston making the email rounds, dealing with getting meat-eaters to stick a toe into the meatless world.

Not a lot here that will surprise any readers of this blog, but one conversational gambit stuck out to me: If someone says they can't become vegetarian because "I could never live without [animal product X]," tell them, "Fine - keep that one and give up all the other ones."

One friend told me that he just loves burgers too much to give them up; I suggested that he give up all animal products except burgers. Some of my friends can't give up ice cream or cream in their coffee or whatever - so give up everything but that. That's a huge step forward, and I suspect that after eating mostly vegetarian for awhile, you'll decide that those burgers or that ice cream aren't so tasty anymore. And you'll probably find that you enjoy the faux meats and dairy-free options just as much.

It could work! At the very least, it will catch the no-can-do types off guard.

DANGEROUS PEANUT BUTTER

I find it quite suspicious that within the past year several plant-based foods have been involved in fecal-contamination recalls, not the least because plants don't produce feces - unless, of course, you mean meat processing plants. But what's more absurdly annoying, if utterly predictable, is how the mainstream media generate hysteria for each of these, spreading the specious meme that it's not just animal-based foods, but all foods that are bad for you.

So now it's peanut butter with salmonella. You've heard about that, haven't you? But I'm willing to wager that just in the past month, you haven't heard about

the chicken salad with listeria (1500 pounds)

the ground beef with E.coli (2 tons)

the chicken breast strips with Listeria (26 tons)

...not to mention the many meat & dairy products recalled for "underprocessing," meaning they may not have been cooked enough to kill fecal bacteria.

Why haven't you heard about those? Oh, they're not a story - fecal contamination of meat is so commonplace it's not worth remarking on! Yet at the same time this silence allows the fiction to continue that eating meat is not a dangerous, ill-advised practice.