[[link removed]]

PORTSIDE CULTURE

I’LL HAVE THE CHICKEN: A GUIDE TO CLIMATE CONSCIOUS ANIMAL EATING
 
[[link removed]]


 

Paul Greenberg

Southern Foodways Alliance
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

_ To be reliably more climate-friendly, we need to figure out which
fixes might sync up with the ingrained habits we already have. _

Eating adventures in pursuit of a climate-conscious diet, Matt Rota

 

IN PURSUIT OF A CLIMATE-CONSCIOUS DIET, MY POOR BODY HAS BEEN THROUGH
HELL.

In 2015, partly as a premise for a PBS _Frontline_ documentary and
partly for research on my book _The Omega Principle_, I ate fish and
shellfish as my sole sources of animal protein for an entire year. I
had fish cakes for breakfast, salmon sandwiches for lunch, and
anchovy-sauce pasta for dinner. I had self-caught striped bass for a
week, during which I ate every fricking part of that damn animal and
even boiled down its bones for stock.

In an effort to cut costs (since the average piece of fish is
typically at least 150 percent the cost of beef), I trolled the
markets of Manhattan’s Chinatown for cheap mackerel and porgy and
bought canned sardines by the pallet. When I got tired of it all, I
comforted myself with the fact that fish, specifically wild fish, tend
to carry a fraction of the carbon burden of landfood. By some
measures, wild fish are 98 percent less carbon costly than beef.

But when it was all said and done, the experiment was a failure. Not
only was it expensive and inconvenient to be fully pescatarian, but by
the end my blood mercury was well above what my home state’s health
department deems safe. This despite the fact that I generally ate the
low-trophic fish and shellfish that are supposedly the lowest in
environmental pollutants. And while most mercury leaves the blood
somewhat quickly once the pollutant source is removed, I certainly
didn’t want to throw my body in that kind of harm’s way again.

A few years later, I went even further.

I became a vegan.

Again, technically, it was a journalism gig that made me do it. The
magazine _Eating Well_ commissioned me to try a plant-based diet to
address my high LDL cholesterol and blood pressure. I didn’t want to
go on statins, and I’d read reams of material, most notably Dr.
Michael Greger’s plant-based manifesto _How Not to Die_, that made
the argument that vegetables would fix my health problems. What he
didn’t discuss is that they might fix our little planet, too.

I became fluent in chickpea and cashew. Nutritional yeast swept across
my kitchen counter like the sands of the Sahara. I pressed tofu until
I was blue in the face. The result? Truly a much lower carbon
footprint. And I did mark _some_ health improvements. I lowered both
my LDL cholesterol and my blood pressure slightly, but in the end, I
still needed medication for both.

 By far, the thing a vegan diet was most effective at accomplishing
was alienating my friends and family. Dinner invitations dropped away
because cooking for a vegan is a drag. Cooking for my family usually
involved double meal prep, because my heavily carnivorous son was most
definitely not onboard. Sure, I learned how to fashion mozzarella from
cashews and tapioca starch, and I can now make a pretty good mushroom
Bolognese. But as soon as the _Eating Well_ article was filed, I
decided I’d had enough soy to last a lifetime. I became regime-less.

And lo, meat swept across the land. Red meat, white meat, land meat,
sea meat. I ate it all. I continued to maintain a vegetable garden,
but aside from my harvests of kale, collards and mesclun greens, I
seldom bought or ate a vegetable. I gained back the twenty pounds
I’d lost in the pesca-vega phases of my life. I became a
practitioner—and a victim—of SAD: the unfortunate acronym for the
so-called “Standard American Diet.” Crestor and Olmesartan
pharmacologically protected my cardiology from most health effects.
But the emotional part of my heart still bled. What was I doing to
myself and the planet? Could meat, the Earth, and I somehow find a
compromise?

This is the kind of rhetorical question that usually shows up at an
essay’s midpoint and eventually leads to a laundry list of fixes
that make the journalist’s editor feel like the assignment has been
completed. But these sorts of laundry lists tend to carry very little
water in real life. So, I hesitate to give said list before addressing
the two key factors that I’ve come to believe squelch all attempts
at betterment through diet: inertia and willpower.

How many times have we declared to ourselves that we will support
regional farmers and shop exclusively at our local greenmarket, only
to find ourselves vanquished by the cost and inconvenience and
shuffling back to the Publix a week later? How many of us have said
we’ll follow bestselling cookbook author Mark Bittman’s advice and
do “VB6” (vegan before six p.m.), only to have that six become
four, then two, then no time at all? The unavoidable problem of
American humans is that we are creatures of habit. To change ourselves
to be reliably more climate-friendly, we need to figure out which
fixes might sync up with the ingrained habits we already have.

If we want to keep eating animals despite their carbon footprint, what
is the absolute easiest and most convenient thing to do once we’ve
gone to that temple of ease and convenience called the supermarket? It
comes down to our choice of animals. No matter how animals are raised,
whether in feedlots or pastures, organically or conventionally, each
species that we eat has built-in qualities and limitations. Cows are
big and relatively slow to mature, with a biological necessity to
off-gas all the fermenting going on in their guts through their fronts
and backs. Tweak all you like, but beef will remain in the high double
and even triple digits of pounds of greenhouse gasses emitted for
every pound of meat on the plate.

Chickens, meanwhile, are small, extremely feed efficient, reach
maturity in a matter of weeks, and emit much less methane. Again,
tweak all you want, but a cow costs the environment around 100 pounds
of greenhouse gasses per pound of flesh, while your average chicken
adds to the atmosphere only about six pounds.

What if I eat cow _products _like cheese instead of the cow itself?
Sorry, the chicken still wins handily. At thirteen pounds of carbon
emissions per pound of food on the plate, cheese prices out at around
double the climate cost of chicken. In fact, no other landfood meat
can beat the chicken, except, I guess, edible insects. Are you going
to eat grasshoppers? I’ll pass.

At sea, clear choices also exist. Any supermarket fish counter has the
equivalents of cows and chickens. The cow of the sea is, sad to say,
shrimp. Sad because shrimp is by far America’s favorite seafood; we
eat as much shrimp as the next most popular American seafood choices,
salmon and canned tuna, combined. The reasons for shrimp’s high
emissions burden are manifold. Trawling, the most common way of
catching wild shrimp, is fuel intensive. In their farmed form, shrimp
have led to the clearing of millions of acres of carbon sequestering
mangrove trees in Southeast Asia and Central America. So, at thirteen
pounds of carbon emissions per pound of shrimp (double that of
chicken), the less of these crustaceans in our diet, the better.

What, then, is the ocean equivalent of the chicken? Ladies and
gentlemen, I give you the mussel. Farmed mussels, perhaps the most
carbon efficient animal protein on the planet, can be brought to
market for the carbon equivalent of 0.6 pounds of carbon for every
pound of mussel meat on the plate. With an average retail price of
about five dollars a pound, the price is also right. And if you cannot
stomach mussels (as many can’t), pretty much every other wild fish
you can find in your seafood counter is still better than almost any
landfood meat. That Alaska pollock in your Filet-o-Fish, for example,
prices out at only 1.2 pounds of carbon per pound of fish.

Are there ways we can be even better than choosing chicken over beef
and mussels over shrimp? Of course there are. One needn’t be a
strict vegan to rotate in one vegetable-forward meal a week. And if
you’re doing regular cardio workouts (as you should be), having one
of those cardio workouts be a bike ride to the supermarket instead of
a car ride can cut your carbon footprint for the day by more than any
dietary choice.

My point is, that to improve our relationship with the planet, we
don’t need to put ourselves through hell. A subtle, consistent
change that we can maintain over many years is far more impactful than
whipsawing between this extreme change and that. If you want to be
vegetarian or vegan because you _like_ that kind of food, great. But
if you’re like me (and the vast majority of Americans) and don’t
like being shackled to a regime or having your wallet pummeled at the
cash register, there are four magic words that nearly always make your
climate footprint a little smaller:

“I’ll have the chicken.”

_Paul Greenberg is the author of seven books, including the James
Beard Award–winning Four Fish and, most recently, A Third Term._

* diet
[[link removed]]
* Climate Change
[[link removed]]
* vegan
[[link removed]]

*
[[link removed]]
*
[[link removed]]
*
*
[[link removed]]

 

 

 

INTERPRET THE WORLD AND CHANGE IT

 

 

Submit via web
[[link removed]]

Submit via email
Frequently asked questions
[[link removed]]
Manage subscription
[[link removed]]
Visit portside.org
[[link removed]]

Twitter [[link removed]]

Facebook [[link removed]]

 



########################################################################

[link removed]

To unsubscribe from the xxxxxx list, click the following link:
[link removed]