Judgemental:
Adj, of or denoting an attitude in which
judgments about other people's conduct are made.
Thesaurus entry:
The critical question in an Omnivores
Dilemma was, “What to eat?” It is not an easy question to answer and Pollan
himself does not completely answer it. He follows up nicely in his next book, “In
defense of Food” with some good answers. Pollan spent years of his life,
researching thoroughly, writing brilliantly, and his best conclusion was a
tentative, “eat food, mostly plants, not too much”. So how is it that novices
with far less acumen than he feel justified in spouting off about how evil meat
eaters are? Oh, can you tell? I just got accosted, again, by ANOTHER vegetarian.
It begs all kinds of questions, some of which follow from the Omnivores
Dilemma. What to eat? What to do about it? How to respond to inflammatory, personal
attacks about dietary choices? And how does one address the judgmental among
us, or attempt to correct for their behavior? And is it even possible if one
wants to avoid hypocrisy? I want so desperately to judge the judgmental! But I
just end up judging myself.
Let’s try and avoid that and start
here with something that we can all agree on: everyone must eat something. Oh,
wait, there are breatharians, so I guess we can’t ALL agree on that. But they
are few in number (for obvious reasons) and they are not long for this world (for
obvious reasons). Oooh, that was a little judgmental I think. So, let me
reframe that. Let us assume for the time being that breatharianism is a valid
position to take. But let us also consider that, as breatharians say, one must
attain a high level of transformed consciousness in order to be nourished by
light. Let us assume that most of us are not currently nor will we ever likely
reach that level of spiritual exaltation. There, was that nice enough? All my
breatharian readers, be sure to comment.
Ok, so MOST OF US need to eat. But
what else can we agree on? Perhaps we can agree that there are mountains of
research and opinion on the question of what to eat from a health perspective,
from an environmental perspective, political and ethical. There is so much out there that not even Michael Pollan himself can synthesize it all so can we all agree that not one of us reading this blog is a true expert on the issue? Can we all have a little humility around this subject? We can agree then, I hope, that if we
all were willing to look at the available studies, that we would find there is little
agreement among them. There are convincing arguments that animal protein is the problem
(convincing to some, but not to those who don’t buy correlations as causation…
Doh! There I go again!). Others argue fat is the problem (the lipid hypothesis). There are arguments that grain is a problem (for the
environment there can be little doubt, but for our health? Harder to be sure).
I was recently alarmed to find out that rice, a grain I formally thought was
safe, has arsenic in it. It becomes a concern when rice ingredients are
concentrated into a processed food product (like the gluten free ones I buy for
my kids all the time). Then just the other night I met a girl who reported,
with fear in her eyes as she looked at the crackers on the table, that she was
deathly allergic to rice. Geez, I said. I had no idea! Her example raises some interesting questions and underlines the fact that we just don't know everything there is to know about this.
Meanwhile most of the health studies don’t
control for the multitude of confounding factors, such as exercise, class,
race, zip code. And few if any studies look at more than one set of criteria at
a time (i.e. environmental health AND personal health). Look, this is not an easy thing to
make a decision about! Can we agree on that?
Can we also agree—those of us who even
care to look at such things—that our food supply is seriously messed up? Can we
agree that there are too many fossil fuel inputs for our food, no matter what
we eat? It takes too much fuel to get organic vegetables to market, because they
are still grown in a capitalist, globalized world-system that prizes forms of
efficiency (mono cropping, poor worker conditions) which ultimately are eating
away at the planet. But I got news for you. An organic banana from Costa Rica
gets to my belly with less fossil fuel debt than an apple grown 100 miles from
here. Yeah, I know. Pretty amazing! It takes more gallons of water to get a
CAFO cow to market than I use in a year of showering! (Lets just not joke about
how often I shower! You KNOW what I am driving at!) But that doesn’t apply to a
grass fed cow, much less one that is raised through rotational grazing that
science can show is actually GOOD for the environment. But I digress. These are
things that might inspire argument.
Instead of arguing can we agree that
the choices that people make about food are deeply personal? Can we agree that
no one deserves to have their choice berated? Can we agree that berating people
about anything is an ineffective form of social change? Can we agree that to
berate someone, about anything, is a form of domination, or as Pierre Bourdieu
would say, “symbolic violence”? Uh Oh! I just came DANGEROUSLY close to
accusing that vegan I heard from this morning of beating me up with her words! Boy
this whole hypocrisy stuff is really challenging!
The final thing I hope that we can
all agree on is that no matter which particular diet is better for your body,
better for the environment, or better for your soul, worrying about our diet
may not be the most important thing that we could all be focusing on right now.
You might say we have bigger fish to fry. Oh, wait. That came out wrong! The
point is, that if the mounting, interlocking and cascading problems of peak
oil, peak soil, peak gas, peak fisheries, peak water (this, by the way, may be
the biggest peak to surmount) and peak warming are as bad as even the most
sanguine of scientists say they are, within the lifetime of everyone my age or
younger, we are going to have to really do something about our food supply.
Nobody can actually claim beyond scrutiny
that one form of eating is remarkably better for you than another. That is so long as
we rule out highly fatty, highly sugary, highly salty, highly processed food. So long as we
agree that food means something that grows in the ground or directly eats
something that grows in the ground, then there isn’t much difference in the
quality of life you will receive, so long as you don’t eat too much of it. I
mean, there isn’t a known diet that reliably kills you at 35, while another
known diet reliably lets you live to 100. We are arguing around the margins
here. We are quibbling about a few years lived or lost, a few pounds gained or
shed, and pretending that food is the thing that makes us happy. So why do we choose to
argue about about these details?
Instead of arguing I would suggest that we focus on the the following. If you are a meat eater please be advised that we won’t be able to raise meat the
way we do today for much longer (and I’m talking about corporate farmed CAFO
type meat). The ecological system will not bear it. We raise meat the way we do
by raising grain the way we do, and in only a little while longer now that
practice will come to a dwindling halt as well. That means you, you carb hungry vegetarian. We cannot continue to grow most
of our Nation’s tomatoes, strawberries and grapes (not to mention dozens of
other fruits and veggies) in California and ship them all over the world and expect that system
to work in perpetuity. California is headed for another dust bowl as we extract
and export it’s soil as fast as we can, truck it away in the form of avocados using
hydrocarbon fuels to far flung corners of the globe. Attention all vegans! Your food supply is in danger! Shit. I love avocados. What
am I gonna do!? Can we all agree that avocados rule!?
Ok, so I might have to give up avocados,
and bananas for that matter. But instead of arguing, can we all agree that what
we need to be doing in this country is growing more local food? Can we agree
that with only 2% of the population even knowing how to farm (and most of them
are over 50) we need to train-up a whole generation-plowshare? We can all agree
that we need more carrots, and broccoli, and artichokes, whether we eat meat or
not. Can we not? And since I know that you ovo-lacto vegetarians want to eat omelets,
and you vegans are going to need fertilizer for your beats and beans, can we
agree that we are going to have to have a few chickens? A few rabbits? A few
goats? And since we are going to have those (and horses for transportation if you
are REALLY a doom-and-gloomer) can you ethical vegetarians lay off while we
meat eaters make use of those animals at the end of their productive life? If food is in short supply then let's not let that stored solar power go to waste, ok? And besides, if it gets really bad,
if we are totally dependent on each other at the local level, if there are no
more trucks bringing cauliflower from California, if your tomatoes get tainted,
if drought demolishes your daikons, if a poacher pillages your potatoes or vile,
vegan, vagabonds villainously vanish your vittles… if you are hungry and have
no other choices, I’ll save some elk jerky for you. Hey, at least it’s raw!
