Pajiba

I wish everyone could read this book, it's potentially a life-changer. Nice brief review too, although I disagree that when "chickens are slaughtered in an outdoor open-air slaughterhouse" it's not part of the circle of life.

These chickens are domestic animals, raised for the sole purpose of producing food (eggs) and being turned into food. Their lives at Polyface were, for a chicken, the high life, not only for them but also for their environment, right up to the point where their throats were cut and they died instantly. Stuffing chickens into tiny cages, clipping their beaks, collecting their shit in giant lagoons -- THAT isn't part of the circle of life.

Bah. Fuck chickens. A flock of wild chickens can skeletonize a man in less than seven minutes. You get your hands on a chicken you bit the shit out of it and say, "You'll never devour another human child, you feathered bastard."

This was an eye-opener for me as well -- the depth and reach of corn in our diet goes well beyond tortilla chips, and most of it is hidden in items you'd never consider unless you made a point to look. For instance, the first ingredient listed on my coffee creamer is something called "corn syrup solids".

The author's tone bugged, though. A little too smug. Whether that was his natural voice, or he was consciously writing for the pat-themselves-on-the-back crowd, I don't know. But I gave up prior to his "ultimate meal" chapters because of it. I'm sure I'll get back to it one day.

What's the deal with free range? Are we trying to protect the chickens' feelings before we kill them and eat them?

What's the deal with free range? Are we trying to protect the chickens' feelings before we kill them and eat them?

Yes, and no, Mr. Tusks.

Confining animals to smaller living spaces makes them more susceptible to diseases and also the stresses of living in an "unnatural" manner. So in the sense that happy birds are healthy birds, yes, free range chickens should be healthier animals and not need routine treatments with antibiotics and growth hormones.

There is truth to this, and I say this as someone who formerly worked with the broiler chicken industry.

However...a lot of the propaganda that the animal rights movement uses is *really* old stuff. I never once saw broiler chickens de-beaked. Not once. And I promise you, I saw a hell of a lot of chickens in my time, and this was over 20 years ago. So before you believe the "life of hell" literature that some (not all) groups promote, apply a common sense filter.

Farmers are not interested in torturing animals. There's no profit in it. Stressed animals don't gain as much weight or produce as much as non-stressed animals. If you're paying for antibiotics, your profit goes down by that cost. So it's a balancing act to try to give the birds what they need for optimum profit. They're flock animals, they don't each need a suite at the Ritz.

In addition to Wednesday's excellent comments, animals that are stressed develop meat that is less tender.

There are also different issues depending on the animal. Dairy cowa that are raised on a slab of concrete without free movement are also bred to produce more milk than they would naturally so on top of lsing all of the nutrients you would get from milk produced by grazing on grass, they are too heavy for their legs and are standing on an unyielding surface all day. This truly is cruel.

Seasonal eating is great if you live in a place that supports a nice variety of fruit and veg, but there are only so many root vegetables I can take before I need something else.

If you've seen the conditions in slaughterhouses it has got to affect you, Mr. Tusks. Even if it's just a Wee bit.

I didn't know a mass spectrometer was a real thing. I thought it was just in Half-Life.

Would you say you care a Little?

Summary of my posts: I like good food. I don't like torturing animals, but poor farm conditions don't affect me enough to convince me to absorb the cost of free-range amenities without some ancillary benefit to myself, i.e. increased nutritional value. My apartment in Syracuse doesn't have room for a cattle pasture, so my economic options are limited. I will, however, be more inclined to go organic and free range now, thanks to the information you all have provided (thanks). I just didn't want you all to think that I believe that KFC genetically manufacturing 6-legged chickens was a great idea (I don't.), ya know?

Funny, I'm the reverse - humane treatment of animals is more convincing to me than better-tasting food. I don't know. I'm one of those people who doesn't really notice food all that much and its varying quality. I know it makes me a philistine and all, but in many ways it's a huge relief.

And thank you, Mr. Tusks. Every time I see your name I want to acknowledge it but the conversation had moved on.
I love Dinosaur Comics.

If you live in a city with a sizable Muslim community there's probably a hallal butcher nearby. No chutes, no air hammers, just a guy with a knife. While not all of us are lucky enough to live near small farms or go hunting every year, there's still ways for urbanites get meat that tastes good.

Sea Kitten?

Animal, Vegetable, Miracle is a great follow up to this book Prisco, if you're interested in taking this new way of eating a step further. Living in LA you wouldn't be able to do what they did, but it gives some insight into a new way of thinking about how and what you eat.

Michael Pollan is not at all smug when you hear him speaking about the subject matter. He's on various NPR programs from time to time.

Another point about eating organic, besides nutritional and humanitarian aspects is sustainability. It was only last year where many areas in the world were reporting severe food shortages in staple products, such as rice and wheat. I found it truly frightening how quickly this came about and the billions of people it affected. It didn't affect us rich westerners this time around though, because we have enough money to shield ourselves from these occurrences. For now. The way the dominant food industry produces our food taxes the system more than it can handle, we just haven't reached our breaking point yet. I hate to be a fatalist, but I would rather have my local, organic eating structure in place now so that inevitable breakdown in our society's current eating habits doesn't have to be so drastic to me and my family.

Sorry. I know that wasn't very coherent but...this kind of shit makes me mad, and I lose my coherence when I'm angry.

Now I'm gonna go eat me some steak and continue refusing to feel guilty about it.

To Paddy Dog: While I agree with you that Wednesday's (and figgy's) comments are indeed correct (and refreshing), I have to respectfully disagree with your comments about dairy cattle. I am a PhD dairy nutritionist (also a farm owner in New England = LOTS of hippies with $$ to spend) and been on dairies all over this country, Canada and Mexico. Dairy cattle are NOT raised without free movement. They are generally raised on concrete in a FREESTALL barn. That means they have freedom of movement, they are able to walk around all day (except the time they are being milked), but they spend 75% of their time laying down, in sand stalls or waterbeds. The "old" method kept cows tied in their stalls, depending on the weather, which is very labor intensive. I am also confused by your comments about "losing nutrients"...I have read section in this book about feeding corn to ruminants, and sorry, but he (Pollan) is flat out wrong. Dairy cattle have been selected for high milk production, as have beef cattle for beef, and layer hens for eggs, and so on. The have higher nutrient requirements than a cow from 1980, even. Also, it is a simple mathematical fact that grazed cows are much less efficient than cows fed corn silage and higher energy forages and grains. I am not clear how a less efficient animal is "good" for the environment. I am also unclear how using ag methods from the 1930's can support 300+ million people (impossible). Milk from grazed cows does taste different, bc of the differing volatile fatty acid concentrations in the rumen. That doesn't make feeding corn silage to cows "wrong".

As someone stated earlier, the organic movement operates largely on emotion, not fact. There is yet to be a single published study on the nutritional benefits of organic foods.

There are a million points I would love to discuss but lack the space. The best thing I can say is if you are TRULY interested in where your food comes from, don't read a book about it. GO VISIT A FARM! Talk to a farmer about his business. Call your local farm bureau, they can direct you to a producer. Less than 2% of the US population feeds the rest of us, so many people are totally unfamiliar with agriculture. Be glad you live in the US, and we haven't fallen into the European trap of banning every modern method of agriculture. Because when that happens here, expect your food to come from another country.

Interesting discussion...

I haven't read this book yet, though it has been on my "To Read" list for some time now. I've read several articles by Pollan. I don't shop at Whole Foods, but I suppose you might call me one of those hippie-dippies and I'm fine with that, whatever.

I care about animal welfare and what I put in my body. I don't agree with who the USDA regulates (or doesn't) what they classify as organic. But, I do appreciate that whatever semblance of an organic movement there is tends to emphasize a greater awareness of food production, eating healthy and, more broadly, trying to minimize our damage to the earth and its inhabitants. I know that probably sounds cheesy but I don't understand why it's so bad to give a damn about where your food comes from, how it is processed, how people involved in production are treated, and how the environment is affected.

I'm thinking I need to read this now, seeing as I'm going through the same dilemma right now.

RIAA = Recording Industry Association of America

They're the fine folks who sue the hell out of teenagers for copyright (intellectual property) violation for filesharing, and who brought us the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

While patent and copyright are substantively different areas of law, the seed companies (such as Monsanto) that have been bastardizing engineering traits into plants like "Roundup-ready" soybeans can use the same sorts of arguments and tactics to sue farmers if/when their legally-protected gene arrangement shows up in the field of a farmer who hasn't been paying for that seed. The problem, of course, is that wind-borne pollination makes it impossible for a farmer to absolutely protect his fields against those demon seeds -- but one of Monsanto's fastest-growing revenue streams is coming from its assertion of its intellectual property rights in cases just like this!

That's why they watered down the USDA's "organic" standards to permit some level of GMO (genetically modified organism) contamination -- both because it's impossible to guard against and it further legitimizes their unfounded claims that there's nothing to worry about ("Hey, the Bush administration says it's okay and we all trust the government, right?").

Speak of the devil, check out this article about Monsanto from SFI.
http://sloweb.slowfood.com/sloweb/eng/dettaglio.lasso?cod=3E6E345B076651D6DBJGx42292F6