‘Veganism: to hate or not to hate’

Sandhya Sivakumar writing for the Daily Illini succinctly expresses what makes veganism important to the moment we’re in now:

Veganism’s issues aren’t all that straightforward. It stands at the crossroads of elitism, racism and sexism, yet at the same time it brings together sustainability, compassion and activism.

This is exactly what makes our current conversation compelling, enlivening, and tricky—all at the same time.

‘How to Make the Oldest Recipe in the World: A Recipe for Nettle Pudding Dating Back 6,000 BC’

Look at this thought-provoking recipe from Ayun Halliday at Open Culture. They say this is the oldest recipe in the world, clocking in at 8000 years old:

NETTLE PUDDING

Ingredients
1 bunch of sorrel
• 1 bunch of watercress
• 1 bunch of dandelion leaves
• 2 bunches of young nettle leaves
• Some chives
• 1 cup of barley flour
• 1 teaspoon of salt

INSTRUCTIONS
• Chop the herbs finely and mix in the barley flour and salt.
• Add enough water to bind it together and place in the center of a linen or muslin cloth.
• Tie the cloth securely and add to a pot of simmering venison or wild boar (a pork joint will do just as well). Make sure the string is long enough to pull the pudding from the pot.
• Cook the pudding until the meat is done (at least two hours).
• Leave the pudding to cool slightly, remove the muslin, then cut the pudding into thick slices with a knife.
• Serve the pudding with chunks of barley bread.

And this little bit from Ruth Fairchild made it even more interesting to consider:

You have to think how much more is wasted now than then.

Food waste today is huge. A third of the food in our fridges is thrown away every week without being eaten.

But they wouldn’t have wasted anything, even hooves would have been used for something.

They had to eat what was grown within a few miles, because it would have taken so long to collect everything, and even collecting water would have been a bit of a trial.

Yet today, so many people don’t want to cook because they think of it as a chore.

‘How I Got My Toddler Interested in Food and Cooking’

This J. Kenji Lopez-Alt peice for Serious Eats is excellent. It’s meant as a guide for raising a child around food, but I use a lot of these techniques all the time. Mostly in introducing my friends and family to new vegan items or ways that plant-based things can be substituted in dishes people are already making.

Don’t Use Negative Words About Food

Bingo. Simple. I try to only show meat-eaters delicious things. It’s okay if they don’t like it, but I’m always trying to use language that makes the food approachable and appealing to them.

Let Them Taste Everything

This is probably the most important tip. If I go to a restaurant and I know they have an incredible vegan thing on the menu, I offer folks around me a bite — and if there are lots of people at the table, I might even order another of that dish. I want to share. Sharing takes the risk off of them and let’s them live out the dim-sum-tapas lifestyle we all dream of.

Encourage Thoughtful Eating

[…]

It engages all the senses—kids can feel texture, taste flavor, smell aroma, look at color, and listen to the sounds of cooking and eating—and it comes with built-in stories, whether those stories are just about how it got from the supermarket to the table, or the actual history of the dish.

When I’m showing off new vegan foods, how I prepare it and pair it is a massive part of it.

Don’t Worry Too Much

If there’s one guaranteed way to get my daughter to stop eating, it’s to upset her.

And this is the biggest one. I try to not upset my table. I think most vegans I know are afraid of the p-word, aka being called preachy. And I don’t want to preach to the dinner table. Often one person will ask, “Why are you vegan?” and I’m happy to answer that question — but it’s difficult in a group setting. In my experience, people don’t love talking about how animals get to their plates, and — being honest — I don’t either. Although most might be comfortable with my answer, I don’t want to make anyone feel bad about the food they just ordered that hasn’t arrived at the table yet. And I also don’t want to engage anyone whose hangry-ness might be flaring up.

My go-to answer is a joke because I want people to feel at ease. When people ask why I’m vegan, I usually say because I like being the most difficult person in the room.

Start Them Young!

I liken this to expecting some folks might be a bit more thorny when you first approach them. I’ve had many friends who immediately became defensive when they found out I was vegan. For some, just hearing that someone doesn’t eat meat seemed to make them uncomfortable. It became an immediate one-way interrogation, but that was okay. It’s a little weird when people come at you like that, but it’s something we can all handle. And, I think if we handle it well, it often changes their tune. One of my friends, who early on had been defensive, now asks me to cook my vegan mac n’ cheese for them every time they see me.

Essentially, I use this advice to mean the earlier you introduce vegan food to their life the sooner they’ll be receptive. This has been the case with almost all of my friends and family. Initially, it’s fear then apprehensive then they try something delicious and it’s “oh, this is vegan?!“. It just happens slowly. Give everyone time to learn new ideas and change their mind.

‘Are Burgers Really That Bad for the Climate?’

After Tad Friend’s New Yorker piece, a few folks on the internet contested this line:

 “Every four pounds of beef you eat contributes to as much global warming as flying from New York to London—and the average American eats that much each month.”

Justin Fox writing for Bloomberg helps clear up the confusion:

That last bit is actually an understatement: per-capita beef consumption in the U.S. was 4.7 pounds per month in 2017, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture

[…]

With help from an explanation by the article’s author, Tad Friend, I have since been able to get to four, although only by using a flight-emissions calculator that delivers much lower numbers than the others I consulted. The source of Friend’s estimate for beef’s climate impact was one I had already come across: a December 2018 article in the journal Nature 1 that put it at 188 kilograms of carbon-dioxide-equivalent emissions per kilogram of beef. That’s based on the weight of the carcass, about 70% of which actually makes it onto people’s plates, so 269 kilograms of emissions per kilogram of beef was the number Friend used.

At either 188 or 269, this is a lot higher than other estimates of beef’s per-kilogram impact that have been making the rounds. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (whose estimates are discussed in more detail below) says it’s 48.7 kilograms, carcass weight. Researchers at the U.S. Department of Agriculture recently put it at 21.3 kilograms for U.S. cattle operations. A 2012 survey of past studies by Dutch government researchers found a range of 9 to 122 kilograms. Nine kilograms carcass weight is about 13 at the grocery store. Compare that to the flight-related emissions calculated by the Swiss nonprofit myclimate and it would take 70 kilograms, or 154 pounds, of such beef to equal the climate impact of an economy flight from New York to London. 

Why do the estimates vary so widely? A lot depends on how the cattle are raised. Modern intensive agricultural methods are usually judged to be more climate-friendly than traditional or organic ones — a finding that deserves a separate exploration. But in the case of  “Assessing the efficiency of changes in land use for mitigating climate change,” the title of the 2018 Nature article, the really big differences have to do with, you guessed it, assessing the efficiency of changes in land use. Which is worth diving into, because it so nicely illustrates the complications of any such calculation.

Calling it now: calculating the efficiency of beef and its relationship to our environment is going to be America’s new favorite wedge issue. I look forward to it dividing yours and my Thanksgiving tables annually.

‘Can a Burger Help Solve Climate Change?’

Tad Friend writing a behemoth of a feature for the New Yorker on vegan burgers (specifically Impossible Foods and Beyond Meat), the technology behind it, and our world as it chomps down burgers. This is easily the most comprehensive piece I’ve read on any vegan food. There is a lot to comb through. Everything in bold is mine and done for emphasis. It opens with a bang:

Cows are easy to love. Their eyes are a liquid brown, their noses inquisitive, their udders homely; small children thrill to their moo.

Most people like them even better dead. Americans eat three hamburgers a week, so serving beef at your cookout is as patriotic as buying a gun. When progressive Democrats proposed a Green New Deal, earlier this year, leading Republicans labelled it a plot to “take away your hamburgers.” The former Trump adviser Sebastian Gorka characterized this plunder as “what Stalin dreamt about,” and Trump himself accused the Green New Deal of proposing to “permanently eliminate” cows. In fact, of course, its authors were merely advocating a sensible reduction in meat eating. Who would want to take away your hamburgers and eliminate cows?

Well, Pat Brown does, and pronto.

It’s going to be interesting in 20 years when we look back on this societal shift and here it call inevitable. Pat Brown’s language in this piece is revealing. It feels much more assertive and direct than Ethan Brown of Beyond Meat and Josh Tetrick of JUST, Inc. Pat’s language is practically confrontational.

Meat is essentially a huge check written against the depleted funds of our environment. Agriculture consumes more freshwater than any other human activity, and nearly a third of that water is devoted to raising livestock. One-third of the world’s arable land is used to grow feed for livestock, which are responsible for 14.5 per cent of global greenhouse-gas emissions. Razing forests to graze cattle—an area larger than South America has been cleared in the past quarter century—turns a carbon sink into a carbon spigot.

[…]

Every four pounds of beef you eat contributes to as much global warming as flying from New York to London—and the average American eats that much each month.

Yikes.

“Legal economic sabotage!” Brown said. He understood that the facts didn’t compel people as strongly as their craving for meat, and that shame was counterproductive. So he’d use the power of the free market to disseminate a better, cheaper replacement. And, because sixty per cent of America’s beef gets ground up, he’d start with burgers.

There were lots of things that were news to me. I hadn’t realized that 60% of America’s beef is ground up. Any product broken down and synthesized like that is firmly in the crosshairs of veganism. It means that product is a blend or processed in some capacity — and, so far, plant-based products have made massive leaps specifically in these areas recently.

And then it becomes essentially vegan pornography, and will likely be the inspiration to the next Willy Wonka sequel:

Brown assembled a team of scientists, who approached simulating a hamburger as if it were the Apollo program. They made their burger sustainable: the Impossible Burger requires eighty-seven per cent less water and ninety-six per cent less land than a cowburger, and its production generates eighty-nine per cent less G.H.G. emissions. They made it nutritionally equal to or superior to beef. And they made it look, smell, and taste very different from the customary veggie replacement. 

[…]

[I]n taste tests, half the respondents can’t distinguish Impossible’s patty from a Safeway burger.

Buckle up, this next section has Glenn Beck.

Ninety-five per cent of those who buy the Impossible Burger are meat-eaters. The radio host Glenn Beck, who breeds cattle when he’s not leading the “They’re taking away your hamburgers!” caucus, recently tried the Impossible Burger on his show, in a blind taste test against a beef burger—and guessed wrong. “That is insane!” he marvelled. “I could go vegan!”

There ya go. I feel like every Impossible commercial should just be ranchers who can’t tell the difference. Like the Coke vs. Pepsi challenge but for protein.

“We plan to take a double-digit portion of the beef market within five years, and then we can push that industry, which is fragile and has low margins, into a death spiral,” he said. “Then we can just point to the pork industry and the chicken industry and say ‘You’re next!’ and they’ll go bankrupt even faster.”

It’s true. From here on out, the margins for plant-based protein can only become more affordable.

Mike Selden, the co-founder and C.E.O. of Finless Foods, a startup working on cell-based bluefin tuna, said, “Pat and Impossible made it seem like there’s a real industry here. He stopped using the words ‘vegan’ and ‘vegetarian’ and set the rules for the industry: ‘If our product can’t compete on regular metrics like taste, price, convenience, and nutrition, then all we’re doing is virtue signalling for rich people.’ And he incorporated biotechnology in a way that’s interesting to meat-eaters—Pat made alternative meat sexy.”

In time, I think people will forget that what brought most people into veganism or eating vegan foods was the re-labeling of vegan products as plant-based. The stigma around the v-word made it inescapable, but this gave flexible folks another-nother alternative.

Brown doesn’t care that plant-based meat amounts to less than 0.1 per cent of the $1.7-trillion global market for meat, fish, and dairy, or that meat contributes to the livelihoods of some 1.3 billion people. His motto, enshrined on the wall of Impossible’s office, is “Blast ahead!” During the six months that I was reporting this story, the company’s head count grew sixty per cent, to five hundred and fifty-two, and its total funding nearly doubled, to more than seven hundred and fifty million dollars. Brown laid out the math: to meet his 2035 goal, Impossible just has to double its production every year, on average, for the next 14.87 years. This means that it has to scale up more than thirty thousandfold. When I observed that no company has ever grown anywhere near that fast for that long, he shrugged and said, “We will be the most impactful company in the history of the world.”

Obviously, this is insane — but I love the insanity.

For another thing, meat is wildly inefficient. Because cattle use their feed not only to grow muscle but also to grow bones and a tail and to trot around and to think their mysterious thoughts, their energy-conversion efficiency—the number of calories their meat contains compared with the number they take in to make it—is a woeful one per cent.

Has anyone else seen this written anywhere else? That 1% claim would be a deal and I’ve never heard it said anywhere else.

“Another advantage we have over the incumbent technology is that we keep improving our product every week. The cow can’t.”

This is possibly the most interesting part of this article. I’m interested in seeing what they think are improvements over time. I remember years ago reading an article about scientists working on Doritos to find the perfect satiation point where people wanted more but also couldn’t burn out. Same thing I’d heard for sodas. Engineering is great to a certain point, but has its limits and a certain cultural stigma. I’ll be very interested to see how all of these companies navigate language and understanding of what it means to “engineer” food.

Brown remains mystified, for instance, by Americans’ eagerness to add protein to their diets when they already consume far more than is necessary. Nonetheless, he beefed up the protein in his burgers. “There are things we do that are effectively just acknowledging widespread erroneous beliefs about nutrition,” he said. “For the same reasons, we initially used only non-G.M.O. crops, which was essentially pandering. We’re not trying to win arguments but to achieve the mission.

Brown sees himself as a guide rather than as a micromanager—“I have no idea if the company paid taxes last year. The C.E.O. is supposed to know that, I guess”—but he is determined to retain control. When Google made an early offer to buy the company, he said, he turned it down “in less than five seconds, because we would have just been one of their suite of nifty projects.” And he made it a condition of his deal with Khosla Ventures that Impossible couldn’t be sold without his approval to any of about forty “disallowed companies”—meat producers and agricultural conglomerates.

There is a small contingency of old-school vegan eaters that this is really important too. There’s a nice market in Los Angeles called BESTIES that only carries vegan food made by all-vegan companies. I would assume Impossible already alienated people who shop at places like BESTIES and similarily interested vegans with their heme testing for the FDA. Obviously, it’s a challenging line to walk.

While the Impossible Burger is still trying to match the flavor of beef, in certain respects it’s begun to improve upon the original. Celeste Holz-Schietinger, one of the company’s top scientists, told me, “Our burger is already more savory and umami than beef, and in our next version”—a 3.0 burger will be released in a few months—“we want to increase the buttery flavor and caramelization over real beef.”

This was news to me and I’m already excited for it. It’d be interesting if they made an annual event where they would release their new products like Apple does with the iPhone.

Early on, Brown believed that his burger would be cheaper than ground beef by 2017. His original pitch claimed, in a hand-waving sort of way, that because wheat and soy cost about seven cents a pound, while ground beef cost a dollar-fifty, “plant based alternatives can provide the nutritional equivalent of ground beef at less than 5% of the cost.” But establishing a novel supply chain, particularly for heme, proved expensive. The company has increased its yield of the molecule more than sevenfold in four years, and, Brown said, “we’re no longer agonizing over the impact of heme on our cost.” He now hopes to equal the price of ground beef by 2022.

It’ll happen even sooner if the government stops subsidizing beef. Spending $38 billion annually to subsidize beef and dairy while almost none on vegetables and fruit is an atrocity.

When Impossible meat is equal to or cheaper than the cost of beef, I want it to be the first national vegan holiday. Block parties, grills, neighbors, new friends, old friends. It’ll be one to remember.

‘We Asked 10 Experts What the Phrase ‘Plant-Based Diet’ Means and No One Could Agree’

Paul Kita for Men’s Health rounds up some interesting info from the latest International Food Information Council Foundations’s Food and Health Survey:

Seventy-three people said they’ve heard of a “plant-based diet,” according to a survey by the International Food Information Council Foundation. Fifty-one percent of those polled said that they would be interested in learning more about a plant-based diet.

But here’s the thing: Even though consumers are familiar and interested in plant-based diets, they aren’t quite sure exactly what that means.

From the same survey…

• People who defined a “plant-based diet” as a vegan diet that avoids all animal products, including dairy and eggs: 32 percent.
• People who defined a “plant-based diet” as a diet that emphasizes minimally processed foods derived from plants and limits the consumption of animal products: 30 percent.
• People who defined a “plant-based diet” as a vegetarian diet: 20 percent.
• People who defined a “plant-based diet” as a diet that limits animal products and encourages eating as many fruits and vegetables as possible: 8 percent.

Neither the USDA nor the FDA currently have a definition for the term “plant-based.” Same goes for the medical and research community.

I’ve always felt that the term “plant-based” was a tabula rasa for historically hurricaned “vegan” term.

Veganism has zealots, while plant-based does not. Vegans are strict, while plant-based is ostensibly flexible. Vegans have a cultural history, PETA memories, and fairly set public perception. Plant-based appears new, different, and filled with opportunity.

This small switch let a lot of new people who hate vegans to try vegan food and not feel like they’re breaking their own moral code. “Plant-based” as a term is the best thing to happen to vegans since vegetables.

‘Go on, EU, ban the ‘veggie burger’ – it will be a blessing for vegans’

Tony Naylor writing for the Guardian had this interesting note when we’re talking about how we label our food:

Steak is not a cut of meat. Not an animal. Not a synonym for beef. It derives from the Old Norse, steikja, meaning to roast on a spit. It is happenstance that steijk came to be associated with Vikings roasting beef (new Nordic cookery is all about roasting celeriac, instead), and, being pedantic, unless a restaurant spit-roasts its ribeyes, you could equally accuse it of misselling.

Similarly, not only have hamburgers never contained ham (the word is 19th-century US slang for a Hamburg-style minced beef steak), but, in trying to fence off “burger” for beef now, Europe is 50 years too late. In Britain, 1970s vegetarianism and, later, Linda McCartney’s ready-meals, popularised the concept that burgers and sausages could be made without beef or pork. Eating a falafel or beetroot burger is no stranger than eating one made out of chicken. No one in Europe is making a fuss about that.

Reducitarian

WHAT IS THE REDUCETARIAN MOVEMENT?

It is composed of individuals who are committed to eating less meat – red meat, poultry, and seafood – as well as less dairy and fewer eggs, regardless of the degree or motivation. This concept is appealing because not everyone is willing to follow an “all-or-nothing” diet. However, reducetarianism is still inclusive of vegans, vegetarians, and anyone else who reduces the amount of animal products in their diet.

A relatively new group who seems to have good ambitions. Cutting out one piece of meat a day or even once a week has a big net effect.

‘McDonald’s Picks Beyond for Canada Trial, U.S. Prize Remains’

McDonald’s Corp. has selected Beyond Meat Inc.’s faux-meat patties for a plant-based burger test in Canada. But the real prize will be the fast-food giant’s roughly 14,000 locations in its home market, and that race is still anybody’s game.

One step closer to the USA.

‘How much is a whale worth?’

Protecting large, charismatic animals like whales is often seen as a sort of charity work individuals and governments do on behalf of nature. A team of economists led by Ralph Chami, an assistant director of the IMF’s Institute for Capacity Development, wanted to change the way we think about whales by quantifying the benefit they provide us in dollars and cents. 

This sort of thinking offers a new opportunity to reconsider the value of an animal. As the world has larger discussions about climate change, animals around the world can help or harm our planet depending on what we do or don’t do with them.

The analysis hasn’t yet been published in a peer-reviewed scientific paper, and there are still important scientific knowledge gaps in terms of how much carbon whales can capture. But based on the research that’s been done so far, it’s clear to the economists that if we protect great whales, it will reap major dividends for the planet.

Chami hopes this finding will “start a conversation with the policymakers who don’t buy into saving animals for the sake of animals.”

At this point, any angle that introduces people to veganism is good. And even saving one animal could have a large net effect, like when wolves were brought back into Yellowstone.

Great whales, including the filter feeding baleen and sperm whales, help sequester carbon in a few ways. They hoard it in their fat and protein-rich bodies, stockpiling tons of carbon apiece like giant, swimming trees. When a whale dies and its carcass descends to the bottom of the sea, that stored carbon is taken out of the atmospheric cycle for hundreds to thousands of years, a literal carbon sink.

A study published in 2010 estimated that eight types of baleen whales, including blue, humpback, and minke whales, collectively shuttle nearly 30,000 tons of carbon into the deep sea each year as their carcasses sink. If great whale populations rebounded to their pre-commercial whaling size, the authors estimate this carbon sink would increase by 160,000 tons a year.

[…]

Using the current market price of carbon dioxide, the economists then worked out the total monetary value of this marine mammalian carbon capture, and added it to other economic benefits great whales provide through things like ecotourism.

Altogether, Chami and his colleagues estimated that each of these gentle giants is worth about $2 million over its lifetime. The entire global population of great whales? Possibly a one trillion dollar asset to humanity.

Interesting.

“We don’t want to oversell the concept,” said Steven Lutz, the Blue Carbon Program Leader at GRID-Arendal, a Norweigan foundation that works with the United Nations Environment Program. “It’s not like we save the whales and we save the climate.”

That’s true, but any step in the right direction is a good step.