On Cow farts and Fasting

Some time ago I posted about the rather ingenious (if not sometimes ridiculous) measures being taken to tackle bovine emissions. There is a very informative article with heaps of links here at Grist News. I can't help but quote one short section,

According to an EPA FAQ about methane and livestock in the U.S. alone, cattle emit about 5.5 million metric tons of methane per year into the atmosphere—20 percent of U.S. methane emissions. And there 1.5 billion belching cattle here on earth, a number that is expected to grow rapidly as earth’s meat-hungry population expands.

It’s perhaps not surprising that scientists all over the world are trying to figure out how we can have our meat and eat it, too. Their attempts to make cattle emit less methane include alterations in diet, breeding, and even a vaccine.

What was surprising (at least to me) is that grazing, grass-fed cattle—those happy cows we all like to celebrate, and some of us (hi, Ed) like to eat—will, according to Eshel, emit four to five more methane than corn-fed cattle.

But wait—that doesn’t mean that you should reach for a CAFO burger.

The answer, upon reflection, is NO. But I think that this question emerges as a natural one ought to reveal the sort of scientific reductionism which massively limits our imaginations and binds us to certain ways of thinking. If we try to graph the equation it might look something like this:

(emissions of 1.5 billion cattle) x (CAFO Corn-fed diet) > (emissions of 1.5 billion cattle) x (grass-fed beef)
= CAFO cattle are more 'environmentally friendly'/ produce less emissions, etc.

What this logic fails to discern (and is arguably unable to discern), is the actual possibility of consuming less beef in the first place. Of course we need to consider how diet might effect the cows emissions, but what this implicitly blinds us to is accepting the current levels of consumption. And if you have an ear for it, you will find this sort of logic everywhere. It pervades most all of the discussions around the 'green' movement, "how can we save the planet and ensure that the economy continues on a path of exponential growth?" The (il)logic of this economic wrangling was a discussion point in my earlier post and has been wonderfully noted here:

Just because corn-fed cows emit less methane does not make them better, says Eshel, and the idea that we can convert cows into low-methane systems by feeding them corn is like asking a giraffe to graze on grass. “It’s evolutionary advantage is lost,” he says. He contends methane is a normal end-product (actually, a product of both ends) of healthy, grazing cows. Re-plumbing cows to emit less methane is, he says, absurd. “Maybe what we need to do is consider the scope of our reliance on those animals, rather than trying to re-evolve them into something that is advantageous to us,” he suggests.

What this logic simply cannot account for, but what is desperately needed, is serious personal and collective discipline. And yet this falls squarely outside the bounds of business. Just think of what would happen if the beef industry advertised a plan to reduce emissions that included fasting from meat one day a week. Imagine if the CAFO's lobbied the government to pass a law prohibiting the sale of beef on Sundays. Possible? Hardly. What sort of business would go for such things? Yet, these same businesses are now funding studies to shove tubes up the rear ends of cows to 'collect' their emissions for processing. Hmmm.

If we honestly look at the harmful effects our consumption has on our bodies, minds, and souls, I believe fasting is one important act of personal repentance. It is also one of the greatest resources which our tradition has to offer our out-of-control world of consumption, a world which I find myself continually caught up in. We simply cannot continue to "have our cake (or in this case, cow) and eat it too". Not with 6 billion people. Not with 1.5 billion cows.

The UN and WHO report there are currently over 900 million people living without the necessary nutrients to sustain life. That number is only surpassed by the 1.5 billion among us who are overweight and an additional 400 million who are obese. Yes, on this planet, 1 billion have too little to survive, while 2 billion have more than their bodies can process.

What do we do as people of faith, in light of these facts?

Could fasting be one action that we consider?

Over the last few months Roxy and I have adopted a diet that is 90% Vegan. For us, this means that meat and dairy products (yes, cheese and eggs too) make up less than 10% of our weekly diets, and we have reserved eating meat for special 'feast days' on the weekend. I have found this incredibly challenging, but also deeply rewarding. We are (re)learning to cook with real, whole foods. Since the majority of processed foods in the grocery stores include some form of milk products, our meals no longer include them. We are finding vegetables and legumes which we never knew existed now comprise much our daily diet. What is more, there is a certain solidarity that we feel with those who cannot afford the luxuries of meat as we voluntarily eat less.

Before you write us off as freaks, consider again the facts. 1 billion undernourished, 2 billion overweight/obese. To my mind, this is not a mere matter of food production or even of distribution. It is about the cultural myths which lie deeply in our minds that somehow we do not have enough, that we need more, when in actual fact, we have enough right here, right now. It is the myth of scarcity in a creation of plenty, and I believe it is a serious call to action and reflection.

What the Fork?

Well Roxy and I are going away for 10 days for a much-needed rest together.

In the meantime, I thought I'd leave a few links for those interested, as posting will also take a 10-day vacation.

If you haven't visited the Front Page Republic, check out one of the latest articles here. It even includes reference to Aristotle and the virtues! (This is how they describe themselves on the blog: "We come from different backgrounds, live in different places, and have divergent interests, but we’re convinced that scale, place, self-government, sustainability, limits, and variety are key terms with which any fruitful debate about our corporate future must contend.") Definitely worth the read.

Also here are a handful of links passed along from my friend Aaron, some great stuff here and worth browsing regularly. I will be putting these along the side in the Support It section.

What Would Jesus Eat?

The Ethicurean: "Chew the Right Thing."

Sustainable Table. HEAPS of great info and a good blog here.

Local Harvest: an amazing resource in the States that includes a searchable map of farmer's markets, CSA's, and local foodies.

Enjoy.

To be organic or not to be....

One concern we all have when buying our groceries is price.

Notice, however, that price is just that - one concern.

Not the concern. But one of many concerns, to my mind.


Certainly the quality of the food items ought to be a consideration. This is the case both in terms of nutrition of the general items (should I have blueberries or doughnuts?) and the specific items themselves (this soy milk has lots of added ingredients which I cannot pronounce, but this one does not, etc).

Somewhere in this equation we also ought to consider the quality of item in terms of its production. This is where the label of 'organic' most clearly comes into focus.

The consumer-culture has largely hijacked organic to mean something which is a benefit to ME. (If I buy this I consume less pesticides.) While this is certainly the case, we ought to remember that the Organic label is aimed to indicate something about the products production. This banana, for instance, was produced without any chemical pesticides. So, yes, it means you will not be consuming any pesticides. But it also means that the ground upon which these fruits grew did not consume any pesticides, nor did the farmers who labored over the fruits we now enjoy.


As Roxy and I have been drawn more and more into the discussion of eating organic food even more, we are ever aware of the cost differences. Oftentimes we don't purchase all organics, but will have to pick and choose some things to buy organic and some not to. (This does often involve a consideration of how many food miles our food has traveled, but more on that later! For more on calculating food miles try this calculator.)

In the meantime, my good friend Aaron has passed along this excellent resource from The Environmental Working Group. They rate individual fruits and vegetables in terms of typical pesticide exposure. (For instance, bananas are exposed to less pesticides than grapes because of their thick skins and distance from the soil. Their methodology and a summary can be found here).

Here are their worst top ten, which show the highest rates of pesticides:
1. Peaches
2. Apples
3. Sweet Bell Peppers
4. Celery
5. Nectarines
6. Strawberries
7. Cherries
8. Lettuce
9. Grapes (imported)
10. Pears

What this can also help us do is determine which fruits we ought to always buy organic, and which we can be more relaxed about. But I encourage us to keep in mind the total health of the ecosystem as we do this. Eating Organic is about much more than fad dieting. It is about embodying a way of life that is mindful of our neighbors, even as we are mindful of ourselves.

Australian scientists to tackle bovine gas

I've only been married for a short while now (almost 2 years), but discovered quite early in the game that I had inherited a whole new set of social manners. It is actually not appropriate, I learned, to lift one side of your bum to fart at the dinner table, (yes even if it makes it quieter). Nor is it acceptable to pull out your hanky and blow your nose before dessert. What once seemed to me the freedom and dignity of my earthly existence now proves to contain disastrous long-term consequences for my marriage.

Such is the case with our bovine friends.



Australia announced this week to invest $26 million in seeking a way to lower cow emissions. Yes, cow emissions. Yes, 26 million. It seems as climate change takes greater priority among world leaders and possible consequences loom on the horizon, beef-friendly countries are seeking solutions now. (Find the official statement here.) Australians are not the first to study this. Argentina has taken the approach of strapping large plastic tanks to each cow to collect their burps. This might seem silly, but when your country has approximately 40 million people and 55 million cows, you might think again. As climate change becomes more and more pressing around the world, many are surprised to discover that the methane produced by your Big Mac contributes 15-18% of global emissions (that is more than your Honda.) In fact, the 18% of global emissions exceeds that of cars, planes, and all transport put together, according to this UN study entitled Livestock's Long Shadow.

Some scientists are even experimenting with garlic as a way of reducing cow flatulence. Well, I'd like to find that garlic for a little testing of my own. My favorite report, however, was from this Times article, which claims, "Scientists at the Rowett Research Institute in Aberdeen say they have developed a diet that has done the most to reduce the amount of methane produced by cows."

They could've all saved time and money by speaking with my wife.

hmmm... biofuels...

I'll surely write more on this later, but in reading Pollan's interview I recalled this (funny? sad? ironic? truth-telling?) piece from the Seattle Post last year...

Michael Pollan interview

I found this story today in my Google Reader and thought it must be passed on.

Michael Pollan is one of the most eloquent writers concerning issues agricultural. His latest book, In Defense of Food, is a serious call towards a more mindful meal. He has also written an excellent letter back in October 2008 to the incoming "Farmer in Chief". This is by far the best introduction to the mind of Pollan.

This interview from Mother Jones is a great one. Here is an excerpt from Pollan:

"It's a dead end to try and eliminate subsidies, because then you get all of America's farmers, who have political power out of all proportion of their number, unified against change. Right now the incentives are to produce as much as possible, whatever the costs to the environment and our health. But you can imagine another set of assumptions, so that they're getting incentives to sequester carbon. Or clean the water that leaves their farm, or for the quality, not the quantity, of the food they're growing."

As I read more about this topic each day, it seems some good steps are being taken to move in the opposite direction, even in the USDA - such as the creation of a new office of "Ecosystem Services and Markets", and a new pilot project which provides funding for midwest farmers to plant "such vegetables as cucumbers, green peas, lima beans, pumpkins, snap beans, sweet corn, or tomatoes" on its base acres. The history of Farm Bill's gets a little complex on this point, but it is positive to see any movement away from high commodity crops (such as corn and soybeans - the two most heavily subsidized by the USDA) in support of green goodies.

The hope for a renewed Dept of Agriculture is chronicled here and here.

"Low Carbon: High Growth" - report on Climate Change and Central America

Well my aims in this blog do extend further than posting 100 page reports, but upon reading this story, I felt it was worth pointing out the surprising deal of synergy between the findings and recommendations of such organizations as the UNEP and World Bank. Find the full report, entitled "Low Carbon High Growth: Latin America Response to Climate Change" here.

It lists these four major factors of concern for Latin America: "(a) the warming and eventual disabling of mountain ecosystems in the Andes; (b) the bleaching of coral reefs leading to an anticipated total collapse of the coral biome in the Caribbean basin; (c) the damage to vast stretches of wetlands and associated coastal systems in the Gulf of Mexico; and (d) the risk of forest dieback in the Amazon basin." (pg. 2)

What is encouraging is to find an organization such as the World Bank (alternative reading: "The Man") urging a move towards environmental protection. These are not granola-eating pot-smoking tie-dye-donning ideologues (what my father-in-law might call 'damned socialists'), these are capitalists through and through. They are not naive concerning the serious challenges facing us economically. But they are thoroughly convinced that the way forward must take into account the long-term health of the ecosystems upon which human flourishing depends AND will require the input of policy-makers, consumers, and producers.

Consider the following quote.

" If leaders at the national and international levels are visionary, they can avoid falling into the trap of sacrificing environmental sustainability to short-term macroeconomic necessities, and can take advantage of opportunities to address climate change concerns. In particular, policies and programs to address today’s pressing problems can be designed and implemented with a long-term horizon. Sometimes, these decisions can be win-win. But sometimes, there will be tradeoffs.  For example, private investment in, and consumption of, clean energy will be stimulated by a relative increase in the price of fossil fuels; this can be encouraged through a combination of regulations, taxes, carbon-trading schemes, and subsidies. But making firms pay to pollute and forcing households to consume more expensive, if cleaner, energy are not popular in times of economic recession. Tilting private sector activity in a sustainable fashion toward lowcarbon choices thus calls for carefully managed political compromises and sound judgment on the part of policy makers to ensure that long-term considerations are not neglected for political expediency..." (pg. x)

A few notes in response:

1. The call for leaders to think long-term is a necessary component to moving forward.

2. The relationship between private investment and government stimulus is a tender one, but a two-way street.  

3. The idea that 'the market' will simply 'fix' things without any input or stimulus is naive at best and damaging at worst.  That this report calls for "carefully managed political compromises and sound judgment on the part of policy makers to ensure that long-term considerations are not neglected for political expediency" ought to alert us to the dangers of placing the self and its desires at the center of our policy.

4. The socioeconomic well-being of peoples around the world is ultimately dependent upon the health of the ecosystems in and upon which we live.  If this seems odd, try to give up air, water, and food for a few days.

5.  Once again, the area likely to be hit the hardest, as we've already seen, is agriculture...

"Climate change is likely to also cause severe negative impacts on socioeconomic systems. Some of these socioeconomic impacts will be due to the direct effects of climate on human activities, while others will be intermediated through the impact that the climate will have on ecosystems which provide economically significant services. Among the economic sectors, the
one likely to suffer the most direct and largest impact from gradual changes in temperature and precipitation is agriculture." (pg. 8-9, italics mine)

UNEP "Environmental Food Crises" - an important report

At a meeting last week of the UNEP Governing Council and Global Ministerial Environment Forum (yes thats a mouthful) in Nairobi, Kenya, an important and powerful document was released entitled "The Environmental Food Crisis". The report can be found electronically here. Or you can also download the 104-page report in its entirety as a pdf file.

The focus of this report has been in the news for the last year or two as a number of factors (the report names "speculation in food stocks, extreme weather events, low cereal stocks, growth in biofuels competing for cropland and high oil prices" along with the loss of agricultural lands due to development pg. 6) have collapsed the global food status quo and drive more than 110 million people (in 2008 alone) into poverty, while leaving an additional 44 million undernourished. (pg. 13) (In case you weren't aware the 'extreme poverty' threshold has been valued at US $1.25 a day - about 50 cents less than my cup of coffee.)

Reports like this threaten our humanity and livelihood. They also threaten the common notion that caring for the environment is different from caring for the poor. When I consider how my own food choices implicate me in such systems of injustice, I am reminded of passages such as this one from the Prophets. Truly "The earth mourns" and "lies polluted under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant."

For more news about this UN report try here and here. What these reports claim is that the changes which most make sense for the earth - smaller-scale organic operations, less waste of water and loss of topsoil - make the most sense for its inhabitants. The first report is of particular interest to me as I recall this same picture almost daily at my own University.

science and the industry watchdog

Well I've long been concerned over the 'purity of science'. I mean, surely there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow for every decent discovery? So perhaps is the case with the piles of money thrown into pesticides, genetically modified seed, and many other 'discoveries' which make agriculture more 'efficient'. Where, however, does the health of the ecosystems (upon which our own health depends) factor in shaping these findings? As Wendell Berry notes in Life is a Miracle, "There are scientists, one must suppose, who know all about atoms or molecules or genes, or galaxies or planets or stars, but who do not know where they are geographically, historically, or ecologically." Developing a way of life which orients and shapes us to live faithfully as creatures in and with creation is one of the major burdens of this blog. The fact that billion-dollar corporations have little interest in supporting such a way of life is regrettable, but must be honestly faced. The fact that we participate in these billion-dollar industries every day through our consumption and lifestyles ought to frame a call to repentance.

If you think this is all conspiracy theory, read the latest story here about scientists who are forced to write articles anonymously in fear of losing their research funding (much of which comes directly from large corporations).

To my mind, this is one of the great evils of our age. It will be a glorious day when our Churches begin to pray against this sort of death-dealing evil and find alternative ways of being human in a groaning creation.

"May something like scales fall from our eyes..."