Maybe we do not need an alternative to meat…maybe we need an alternative to the way meat consumers consume meat.

This discussion will review the debate between Simon Fairlie and James McWilliams on the question, “Can eating meat and dairy products be sustainable?” You can find the debate here.

FOR THE MOTION that meat and dairy products can be sustainable:
Simon Fairlie is a founding editor of The Land magazine and author of Meat: A Benign Extravagance (Permanent Publications and Chelsea Green 2010). He keeps dairy cows and pigs at a community in Dorset, England.

AGAINST THE MOTION that meat and dairy products can be sustainable:
James McWilliams is the author of several books about food and agriculture, including Just Food and The Modern Savage. His work has appeared in the New York Times, Harper’s, The New Yorker online, and The Paris Review. He writes ‘The Things We Eat’ column for Pacific Standard and teaches history at Texas State University.

The basis of Simon’s argument lies heavily on the fact that a lot of the meat we consume is what he calls ‘default meat’. Eating too much meat is, of course, unsustainable, but close to half of meat produced is this ‘default meat’. Default meat is a “by-product of agricultural systems designed to produce grains and other vegetable staples.” This meat includes livestock fed on crop residues and food waste, foraging land unsuitable for cultivation, etc. Simon proposes that for meat consumption to be sustainable we should consume only default meat.

James counters Simon’s argument by stating that although Simon is able to feed 25 people in his community with default meat, we cannot scale this to feed the billions of people living in the world today. James states, “Sustainably meeting that challenge… will require ending all forms of animal domestication to clear space and recover the resources to sustain edible plants.” Grass-fed cattle emit more greenhouse gases than industrially fed cattle. “It makes more sense to replace livestock with a carefully managed agricultural model that produces plants for people to eat.”

At the end of the debate, James makes a very intriguing concluding point: in the world that currently exists, both Simon and James agree that “animals should only be consumed on the margins,” meaning that neither of them agree with industrial animal agriculture and possibly even pasture based animal agriculture. They both conclude that there definitely needs to be a change in the way we are currently producing and consuming meat.

Here is a link to this article on reducing meat and dairy consumption: http://theconversation.com/reducing-meat-and-dairy-consumption-easier-said-than-done-or-easier-done-than-said-4317

This article starts with a good summary of the current problems that the earth is facing due to the current agricultural and livestock systems. It the begins to discuss why many people struggle with the idea of shifting to a vegetarian diet, focusing on the social reasons why eating meat is such a central part of people’s lives. A main reason for not changing diet given by the article is a commonly held belief that vegetarian and vegan diets are too difficult to do. The author of the article believes that “This is akin to giving up before trying.” The author is not surprised by this attitude because of the way that Australians, the audience of this particular article, are consistently forced to view essentially meat propaganda. “Australians are told that eating meat is patriotic, essential for masculinity, leads to more sex, gets you “ready for anything” and is an “amazing food”.” The other main social issue is that people are led to believe that their individual change will not make any real affect in the long run. Many people believe that their change alone would do nothing to have any real impact on the environment.

The article then goes on to discuss the centrality of food to people and how suggesting changes in diet can be perceived by some to be controversial, rude, and even threatening. This is because certain foods are strongly tied to people’s cultures and lives in general. It discusses how it has become a societal norm for people to eat meat. It may not be necessary to eat meat but it is treated as the norm to eat meat and it is deviant to not at meat. The author phrases it so well by saying, “The stubborn refusal of vegans and vegetarians to simply drop dead from their supposedly impoverished diets inconveniently reminds us that levels of meat or dairy consumption are historical, cultural and economic trends rather than physiological needs.”

The article continues by talking about some of the stigma placed on vegetarians and vegans seen through all of the numerous questions that they are asked by meat eaters. The questions can be boring, easy to look up questions such as “Where do you get your iron?” to quite frankly just silly questions like “so does everything you eat have lettuce in it?” It brings up that there are more relevant and important questions that could be asked that would be less abrasive, more relevant, and less like people are making fun of them for their diet. The knowledge that vegetarians and vegans have “needs to be socially valued, explored and promoted.”

The next section of the article is about ways to experiment with alternative diets. The article talks about many new initiatives that are becoming more popular, such as “Meat Free Monday, London Vegan Pledge, Vegetarian Thursday in Belgium and Brussels, the Australian Religious Response to Climate Change’s “Meat Free Day”, 350.org’s VegPledge and many more.” Wellesley College also participated in Meatless Monday. The article concludes with a section on the need to change diets.

This article, despite being rather informal, is a very good start at discussing the social feasibility of shifting to a non-meat based diet. It manages to cover a lot of the main social factors that drive current consumption of food and how to start looking into a switch in diet.

 

Benefits, Barriers, Attitudes, and Beliefs About Soy Meat-Alternatives Among African American Parishioners Living in Eastern North Carolina

Roman Pawlak, PhD, RD; Brenda Malinauskas, PhD; Ashley Corbett, BS

The link to the article is here: http://www.ishib.org/journal/20-2/ethn-20-02-118.pdf

This study discusses the perceived benefits, barriers, attitudes, and beliefs about certain soy meat-alternatives among African American parish members of two churches located in eastern North Carolina. The participants in the study were members of a faith-based nutrition program. The program combined lessons on creating healthy diets and Bible-based messages and concepts, “such as the body as the temple of the Holy Spirit and the body belonging to God.” The study recognizes that the program itself in its nature may be an important factor as to why the participants were willing to consider and try soy meat-alternatives.

The study was completed by giving a survey that was developed by three registered dietitians. Before the participants were surveyed they all attended a one hour lecture about soy meat-alternatives, which was given by a registered dietitian. The lecture talked “about nutrient content, health benefits, and methods of preparation of soy meat-alternatives.” The lecture contained a cooking demonstration using a soy meat-alternative and the participants were able to taste-test this product. Afterwards, they were asked to purchase three types of soy meat-alternatives and were told where to find it. If the participants sent in the receipts and the survey they were reimbursed.

What the study found was that most of the benefits were ranked higher than the majority of the barriers. This means that participants perceived more benefits that drawbacks to eating soy meat-alternatives. They also found that all the statements pertaining to attitude that had negative connotations received much lower scores than benefit statements.  The study indicates that the participants are willing to consider eating more soy meat-alternatives and that they may be considered as a possible alternative to meat.

It is important to note the limitations of this study, which are extensive. First, the study has a very limited scope as they only received responses to their surveys from 40 people. Of those 40 people, 78% were women, the age range of participants was 32 to 73 years with a mean of 54, 61% had an annual income below $35,000, and 55% had some college education or were college graduates. The problem with this is that their demographic is likely not representative of African Americans in general and even within North Carolina.  In addition to their unrepresentative demographic, those that participated in the study were all part of a faith-based nutrition program where they even learned about soy meat-alternatives. The general population does not have this kind of education on the topic or the exposure to soy meat-alternatives, so the feasibility of the general population switching to soy-based alternatives is much lower than that of the sample group. The article even admits that before the people attended the lecture about the soy meat-alternatives, most of the participants did not even know that soy meat-alternatives exist, which is likely the case for many other African Americans. Despite the limitations of the study, there still is a trend shown that reveals that soy meat-alternatives could be favorably received among African Americans, especially if they participate in similar faith-based nutrition programs.

So as this article pertains to feasibility, it shows that it is likely that soy meat-alternatives could be accepted given proper instructions and lessons on how soy alternatives could help improve peoples lives.