Aa conscientious meat eater may have a more environmentally friendly diet than your average vegetarian. -- Nicolette Hahn Niman

[maria lorraine]

Yesterday's New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/opi...

[small h]

What'd you think? I know that it's possible to argue both sides of this issue, and Niman may well be correct. But the piece struck me as very self-serving. Obviously, a woman who makes her living raising animals for food isn't going to write about what a terrible business she's in and how she's helping to destroy the planet.

And your pull-quote, because it begins with the the squishy "it could be" and includes the phrase "may have," is thus nearly meaningless. It could be. May have. Or, you know, not.

[soupkitten]

or how about "conscientious meat eater" vs. "conscientious (not avg) vegetarian"?

sounds like a boring WWW to me. so many variables. maybe we can have an intelligent discussion about it all rather than have folks taking my way or hi-way stands, though? this last part of my comment is not directed at you, Small H.

[small h]

Yes, an apples to apples comparison is impossible. I can certainly see how someone who only eats roadkill would do less damage than someone who subsists on factory-farmed soybeans and imported figs. But those two people probably don't exist, anyway.

[maria lorraine]

Well-written, small h. And your last graf is funny.

I actually posted the thread without forming a solid conclusion about the piece. I was surprised to hear about the devastation caused by soybeans -- something never discussed. Yes, the piece does serve Nicolette Niman's cause and ambition -- that is a bit transparent, isn't it?

[small h]

I've seen the soy thing discussed, usually in the same breath as the corn thing. And both of those crops are used for animal feed. Stop raising animals & you'll cut waaaay back on the soy and corn.

[coney with everything]

If cows graze on grass as they were intended to, we wouldn't need to feed them corn.

Pollan made the point that grass is about the closest thing on the planet to a free lunch. Since humans don't eat grass, maybe grass feed animals are the next best thing.

[small h]

Yep, that's the upside of grass. But I wonder whether the world's appetite for beef could be satisfied if all cows were grass fed - does the earth have enough room for all that grazing land?

There's also the question of cost. So I did a ridiculously incomplete price comparison (6 websites!). Grass fed ribeye is about $15/lb. "Supermarket" ribeye is about $6/lb. Niman's op ed, and 96% of Chowhounds (according to a number I just made up), advocate the consumption of grass fed beef, for personal and planet health. The message, clearly, is that only rich people deserve to eat beef.

[condiment]

Or rather, that the pleasures of a few ounces of really good beef outweigh those of a pound and a half of indifferent supermarket meat, and that there are a lot of great-tasting cuts of beef that don't happen to be ribeye or filet.

Corn-finished ribeye worth eating also costs between $16 and $26; much, much more in the better butcher shops in NYC.

[small h]

You are fixing on the fact that I randomly chose ribeye to make a comparison. I assure you that I'm not elevating ribeye to some sort of exalted status at the expense of those other "great-tasting cuts of beef." I've never even eaten ribeye. I just think it's fun to type the word. Ribeye.

[condiment]

Still: Until recently, when the butcher in town killed a steer. The rich ate filet and rib roasts; the middle class got the chuck; the poor got the organs, tails and feet. Now pretty much everybody can have steak, as long as factory farming drives down the price of meat. But as a consequence, even animals whose choicest bits command $35.99 a pound are chiefly made up of parts that sell for only a buck or two more than their industrial equivalents. Ergo, the kobe beef burger. But also the $3.99/lb seven-bone I plan to braise this afternoon, of a quality unimaginable just a few years ago. As with airline travel, the snobbery of the first-class passengers subsidizes the flight for the rest of us.

[small h]

That's an excellent point, actually. Please educate this non-carnivore: if I stroll into a butcher shop that stocks exclusively fancily-raised beef, will I see those affordable cuts alongside the expensive ones? In other words, can someone with $50 and someone with $5 both walk out of the store with enough food for dinner? Because if so, I will consider getting off my rich/poor soapbox.

[KTinNYC]

Just to play devil's advocate, is eating beef every day or even weekly a human right? There are all kinds of foods that are special occasion foods for all but the riches or luckiest amongst us perhaps beef will become one of those foods.

[small h]

<is eating beef every day or even weekly a human right?>

Heck, no. But I think perhaps food is a human right, affordable food. And if most affordable food doesn't pass muster with the gustatory gatekeepers, what are the have-not-muches supposed to do? Here's my imagined conversation between A Worldly And Talkative Epicure, Regarding Sustenance (A. WATERS, for short) and a Random Poor Person.

A. WATERS: You should only eat sustainable food, like grass-fed beef and organic milk.

RPP: I can't afford that. I can only afford McDonalds hamburgers and Big Gulps from 7-11.

A. Waters: No McDonalds, no 7-11. Save your pennies, and once in a blue moon, treat yourself to few grams of grass-fed beef and a shot of Ronnybrook Farm cream-top.

RPP: What am I supposed to eat in the meantime?

A. WATERS: Grass! It's nature's free lunch.

[KTinNYC]

From my understanding, which may be wrong, the one thing that the McDonald's hamburger and Big Gulp has in common is that they are both only "affordable" because of the corn subsidies provided by the government. It would be interesting to learn what the real cost of a Big Mac and Big Gulp is when you factor in taxpayer dollars that go to agribusiness.

[small h]

That's my understanding also. So in a perfect world, no subsidies, and everything shakes out, and then we can see what's what. But if those subsidies go bye-bye, McDonald's prices skyrocket. Their food would become unaffordable to many of the people who eat it, which would lead to restaurants shuttering, so scads of workers would lose their jobs, and then there would be even fewer Big Mac customers. The more I think about this, the more it seems like an unsolvable problem. Thank goodness cocktail hour is upon us.

[coney with everything]

Well, "no such thing as a free lunch" doesn't just mean food...everything has a consequence. If the US govt stopped subsidizing Big Ag, food prices would go up. But our taxes should go down (not that I reallly believe that, but in theory!).

It is a tangled web we have woven, with the best intentions.

[grant.cook]

Its a small part of our taxes, but pernicious.. ever look at the world price for sugar, compared to what our protected U.S. industry charges? Ever wonder why candy manufacturers have shuttered U.S. plants and moved them overseas - the cost of raw materials, e.g. sugar.

But I fear the worst impact is on poor countries.. whether we subsidize the corn that supports our Big Mac addiction is bad, but what's worse is poor farmers in Africa, developing countries that don't have much else to export, that can't export their goods into markets where the producers are shielded.. and us developed nations - U.S, Western Europe, Japan, are very good at protecting our own farmers..

[Rmis32]

Without subsidies, our taxes might be lower and the high cost of meat will make vegetables & whole grains more desirable, resulting in a healthier population & presumably lower health insurance premiums. With the money saved, we can buy electric cars & heirloom tomatoes.

[jmckee]

A Ha Ha Ha HAAAAAA! That's hysterical. And that's exactly so.

[MandalayVA]

Beef doesn't have to be steak. I frequently find grass-fed ground beef at very reasonable prices in my local "healthy" market and I stock up. Just recently the store had a sale on South American grass-fed ground beef in 1 pound packages--buy one, get one free. The package was normally 3.59 so that brought the price down to $1.80 a pound. You get a couple of packages and there's a nice meat loaf or meat sauce or a few burgers for less than a price of a McDonald's "value meal." And oxtails! This market is close enough to get meat and eggs from Polyface Farm (a very famous sustainable organic farm in Virginia) and they got in some nice meaty grass-fed oxtails. I got about three pounds for about five bucks and got enough stew, soup and broths for four meals. If you're willing to put in some effort like cooking you can eat sustainably and relatively cheaply. In the past few months I've started doing the majority of my shopping at this market and I'm spending LESS money on groceries and eating better. Win/win.

[small h]

I've commented so often on this thread that I can't figure out what you're replying to. Is your point that you're a savvy shopper? If so, is this a response to something I wrote?

[MandalayVA]

"That's an excellent point, actually. Please educate this non-carnivore: if I stroll into a butcher shop that stocks exclusively fancily-raised beef, will I see those affordable cuts alongside the expensive ones? In other words, can someone with $50 and someone with $5 both walk out of the store with enough food for dinner? Because if so, I will consider getting off my rich/poor soapbox."

Ringing a bell now? ;)

[small h]

Ah, many thanks. That does give weight to the argument that it isn't entirely necessary to max out one's credit cards in order to eat (and interpret this however you want) correctly.

I see so very many posts similar to yours on Chowhound, often sporting the words "fresh" and "healthy" and "delicious" in all caps, that sometimes my eyes glaze over and my brain freezes solid and I can't figure out what the hell the respondent means to say other than that she is wonderfully skilled at shopping/cooking/eating and why can't everyone else be, too? Which is lovely and all, but doesn't really add much to the discussion. And that's why I got confused.

[MandalayVA]

No problem, glad I could clear things up.

[soupkitten]

okay, even if you choose to eat a grass-fed ribeye. dh and i are splitting a *very* nice 100% grassfed ribeye from a local small farm tonight. at $13.99/lb--this is retail, not farmer direct; farmer direct would be significantly cheaper-- we're paying $8 and change for our protein (divided by 2). with our certified organic veggies we're getting our meal for under $12-$14. divide that by 2 and we're in happy meal territory and eating far-and-away better. of course it would be cheaper to eat ground grassfed, but it's not what we're doing tonight, it's date night. point is that it can certainly be done, for not very scandalous amounts of money. and i don't think that people should expect to eat beef daily, either. sustainably raised pork and poultry prices are extremely reasonable in my neck of the woods, far better than beef.

[hudsonvalleyfoodblog]

Several decades ago beef was considered more of a luxury then it is today. So although higher prices would seem like a shock at first people would adjust their life style accordingly. I'd rather better beef less often then the other way around. However I do have to admit that I still buy grain fed beef. I'm trying to convert 100% to grass fed but I'm not there yet.

Another big problem with the beef industry is fast food places like McDonald's. I love burgers but can't for the life of me understand why anyone thinks those burgers taste good. Hopefully people will start to demand better tasting burgers and will seek out places that do not rely strictly on factory produced beef.

[Robert Lauriston]

As a woman who makes her living raising animals for food and is also a practicing vegetarian, evnironmental lawyer, and animal rights activist, Niman's views about these issues might be somewhat conflicted.

http://civileats.com/2009/11/02/an-in...

[small h]

Thanks for that. Very enlightening. She might not be conflicted if she's a vegetarian who just doesn't like meat, but has no problem with other people eating it. Still, it's an interesting life change she's had, there.

[grant.cook]

I remember reading a study on the impact of various diets. From a global warming perspective, a full vegetarian diet is best for the environment. BUT - since a lot of land is best suited to pasture (e.g. lamb grazing in New Zealand e.g.), you could add a bit of meat to a normal diet (like 2oz per person per day) and only make a teeny impact.. it was worse for the environment, but not by very much.

I think that feeds into Pollan's argument of being a "vegan/vegetarian until 6pm" - cutting meat consumption down from 5-6oz per person per day to closer to 2oz..

[maria lorraine]

Following up on my original post...

Here's another article by the same author that is clearer and more practical:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nicolet...