Is Environmental Responsibility Classed?

This post is not, by any means whatsoever, an attempt to advocate racist and classist findings such as Herrnstein and Murray's The Bell Curve. If I were really as obtuse to think that people of certain races or classes were inherently more or less intelligent than others, one would hope I would not know how to use a computer. In fact, I am trying to do just the opposite here--my true aim is to examine social forces that inhibit people of certain socioeconomic statuses (SES's) toward or away from eating in which are environmentally responsible, focusing on meat- and animal product-free diets. Unfortunately, I had trouble finding any statistics whatsoever on the SES-based makeup of the vegetarian/vegan, etc. communities; so, with lack of direct information, I will do the best I can to reason out and support my claims effectively.

(Note: This information is examining only issues facing those of poorer SES in the USA.)

Jonathan Safran Foer, author of my favorite (and frequently cited) nonfiction book, Eating Animals, was invited to be on Ellen Degeneres' talk show to speak about his book. Ellen asks him, "What if people can't afford to live this [vegan/vegetarian] lifestyle?" He responds, "You can't afford not to." Below, you can watch the entire interview.

Ain't he a cutie? Mmm mmm MMH! 


Anyway...

I think Foer makes an excellent point. While a vegetarian or vegan diet may be more expensive (debatable) or less convenient for the time being, higher rates of cancer have been reported in those who include even a reasonable amount of animal products in their diets. Not only have animal proteins alone been suspected of being carcinogenic, but nearly all beef produced in the US is treated with ammonia, and much processed chicken absorbs feces during the cooling process (Eating Animals). That's not to mention the obvious fact that higher fat and cholesterol intake contribute to rampant heart disease, the number one killer in the US. Around age 50, someone who is in 'good health' will usually have a health insurance premium half the amount of that someone in 'poor health.'

But what about the day to day costs? Some of us don't have the luxury of worrying about our health; some of us are lucky to have any food at all. And aren't veggie burgers, like, 4 bucks a box?

Well, yes, they are. But who made the rule that vegetarians/vegans had to eat processed soy foods? Living on staples (like canned fruits and vegetables, rice, beans, even tofu) can be much cheaper than even the cheapest meats. However, that brings up the issue of convenience. I don't think most people buy Big Macs because they can't or won't cook. I think it's just a very easy, fast way to get cheap food that will fill you up quickly. And as much as I do believe these people have the option of healthier meals that they could cook at home that might be every bit as cheap, that's not always realistic. Many people of poorer SES work at least two jobs, have children and a home to take care of, and sometimes there's not enough time for even those tasks. Can we expect someone of that lifestyle to have an easy time resisting convenience foods?

Another huge problem with expecting people of poorer SES to maintain a more environmentally responsible diet is lack of education. I don't mean lack of schooling when I say that; in fact, schooling can be a discouraging place for budding or lifelong vegans/vegetarians. When I was in grade school, I was constantly teased by other children for being a vegetarian, and told I was unhealthy by too many football coach/health teacher hybrids who probably all had cholesterol levels off the charts. We live in a pro-meat culture, and that absolutely comes through in public education. Unfortunately, it also comes through in advertising, much more heavily than in the classroom. Think about Tyson chicken, "Beef-it's what's for dinner," countless McDonald's commercials, and Perdue. Commercials for all these products, and others, are crafted to make you think that the meat you feed your family is healthy and humanely raised, and, moreover, a responsible choice. On the contrary, meat and other animal products have been linked to the recent spikes in food allergies and autism in children (Eating Animals). Here's a particular Perdue commercial that pisses me the hell off:

"It makes me feel like a better mom. How precious, reassuring and gendered am I to you right now?"

So, assume that you're in the 30% of people in this country with no internet; but you have a TV. You are constantly exposed to these commercials, such as the one above, and have very few resources in your home with which to receive quality information about the world. More importantly, you don't have the time to do any sort of research at all, due to the aforementioned two jobs, kids and home. What do you think you're more than likely buying your family tonight for dinner? That's right, shit-laced chicken.

To finish off, I am not saying that everyone who is poor is ignorant; many people, rich and poor, make decisions to have an environmentally responsible diet, and many in both SES' don't. We have a system set up that purposely keeps people ignorant, that makes sure that a Big Mac is their best option for their next meal. The environment dies. Ours is a system of cures, not prevention. And if you can't afford the cures? You die right along with it.

Vegan Snickerdoodles

Okay, so this isn't an "official" post, but I've gotten a few requests for the recipe for the vegan snickerdoodles I brought in last week. And since I LOVE sharing my vegan food with others, I obviously obliged. So here it is, the recipe for vegan snickerdoodles!

1 c. (2 sticks) margarine (Willow Run and Earth Balance are the only brands of vegan margarine on the market--Willow Run is cheaper and better for baking)
1 1/2 c. sugar (if you want to go all out, get organic sugar. Regular sugar is processed with animal bones)
2 eggs (I use Ener-G brand egg replacer)
2 3/4 c. flour
2 tsp cream of tartar
1 tsp baking soda
1/4 tsp salt
*Tip: If you want your snickerdoodles to be thicker, like mine were in class, add a little extra flour. I think they're fine with or without the extra flour.

Cinnamon/sugar topping:
3 tbsp sugar
3 tsp cinnamon

Cream margarine, sugar, egg replacer
Add dry ingredients
Roll dough into balls and dip into cinnamon-sugar mix
Bake at 350 degrees for 10 minutes

Happy baking! Let me know how they turn out in comments, if you try them!

All for One: The Issue of Bycatch

Okay, so as much as you might love sushi, tuna salad, or any other seafood, I think you could say, with a decent amount of confidence, that you would never eat a dolphin. Because, well, dolphins are dolphins. They're just awesome. Their visible presence in the ocean alone is enough to steal the attention of hundreds of beach goers at once. What if I told you that, in eating virtually any kind of seafood, it is almost certain that a dolphin was killed in order to put that meal on your plate?

Firstly, I think it's important to explain the idea of bycatch. This term refers to any sea creatures unintentionally caught in nets and thrown back into the ocean. Virtually every animal caught in these nets is killed. Dolphins are the most well-known victims of bycatch.

A graphic explanation of the bycatch process.

In 1988, various environmental and animal rights groups called for a boycott of three US-based brands of canned tuna on the grounds that tens of thousands of dolphins were being killed each year from becoming caught in fishing nets: Heinz's Starkist Tuna, Ralston Purina's Chicken of the Sea, and Pillsbury's Bumble Bee Tuna. Two years later, the Dolphin Protection Consumer Information Act was passed. This policy was meant to ensure consumers that the tuna they were buying came from a company that had made a conscious effort to avoid killing dolphins during the fishing process--'dolphin-safe,' as the labels read.

Of course, if you know anything about food labels that advertise some sort of humane treatment of animals (examples being 'free-range,' 'grass fed,' and 'cage free'), then you should know that they are, to be frank, utter bullshit. For example, egg-laying hens who are 'cage free' are simply on an extremely crowded floor instead of a tiny cage. They have the same amount of, if not less, space as they did when they were caged. A standard chicken cage is about 67 square inches--less area than a piece of paper (Eating Animals). This 'dolphin-safe' label is hardly different.

Cage free chickens

The main reason why these labels are useless is because these industries are barely regulated. The USDA simply does not have enough budget to go to slaughterhouses regularly, let alone to a fishing boat in the middle of the ocean, often not even in US waters. Therefore, it is very, very easy for corporations fishing for tuna to get away with excessive dolphin bycatch; if they don't report it and no one of consequence sees it, no one will ever know.

Furthermore, dolphins are certainly not the only sea creatures killed when fishing for tuna. 145 different species of sea life are regularly killed in large quantities when they become caught in nets, including great white sharks, manta rays, hammerhead sharks, killer whales, humpback whales, green turtles, several breeds of dolphins, among many, many other types of fish, whales, sharks, sea birds and sea turtles. Shrimp are hardly different; shrimp trawling accounts for 33 percent of global bycatch, and 80 to 90 percent of any one catch consists of bycatch--much of it endangered species. In the case of shrimp caught in Indonesia, an average of 26 pounds of other sea life are killed as bycatch for every pound of shrimp caught (Eating Animals).


It would be extremely difficult to deny the environmental effects of these fishing processes. Marine life habitats, particularly beautiful coral reefs, are destroyed in part by overfishing and processes called cyanide fishing and blast fishing. Overfishing, of course, depletes marine life population, which detracts from the diversity and ultimate health of reefs. Cyanide fishing, a process in which cyanide is used to stun fish to make them easier to catch, kills microorganisms that help keep reefs alive. Blast fishing destroys the structures of the reefs by blasting portions of the coral in order to make fish easier to catch. The destruction of coral reefs causes numerous problems for humans, such as water contamination and increased levels of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. Hence, the death of coral reefs contributes directly to global warming and the overall death of our natural world.

As with many other environmental exigences caused by the ways in which humans interact with animals, the solution is extraordinarily simple: don't support the industry. If you care about and love whales, dolphins, sharks, sea turtles or any other sea life, it is absolutely hypocritical to eat seafood. Even if you couldn't give a shit about marine life, the destruction of the environment affects everything and everyone. Inarguably, the best way to solve a problem is to boycott the machine causing it. That is where our most important power lies as consumers: to reject the cruel processes of bycatch, the destruction of marine life and habitats, and, ultimately, the destruction of our own species.