Eating more vegetarian....

[bicker]

The good thing about the Veggie Boards is that it is very clear that it is a vegetarian support board (a board "for vegetarians", not a board to discuss the relative merits of vegetarianism versus eating animals), and there is a very clear delineation between the vegan-specific support areas and the rest of the boards. I've already seen how quickly and efficiently the mods there deal with (in that case) a vegan who decided to advocate veganism over vegetarianism in one of the forums outside of the vegan-support area. I think that kind of safe-keeping that the mods evidently do there is essentially to keeping those forums valuable to all.

Regarding healthiness, over the last several months at least, I haven't really seen much trouble staying within the lines, even when I fail to plan adequately, or something untoward occurs. Today is a good example. Lunch ended up being (our homemade) hummus and carrots, and salad with feta cheese. Now, sure, it would have been better with some beans in the salad, perhaps, but what I had definitely is healthy, according to the vast majority of expert perspectives on what is healthy eating. And it was just a reflection of relying on what we happened to have in the house. The magic, I suppose is learning what you need to have on hand, or nearby, to grab in case of "emergency". I say this because this situation goes beyond just having the right stuff on hand when you fail to plan adequately. I had a death in the family earlier this year and rushed to another city to be with the rest of my family. My vegetarianism didn't waiver, nor did my healthfulness.

On another topic.... I've read with interest some of the recommendations folks have been making with regard to readings and such. I was wondering what folks think of the source of information my wife relies on most: Dr. Weil. While he doesn't necessarily advocate a vegetarian diet, exclusively, he does tend to support it, and advocate reducing or eliminate most, albeit not all, meat.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

Food inc is propoganda released by people with an agenda. It is NOT an accurate reperesentation of how most american meat processors do business. I am no longer workng in the foods industry, but I have worked for several chicken companies, and can tell you that what you see on that video is NOT how we did business. I really, really bothers me when something is so grossly misrepresented.

What was grossly misrepresented, though? It may NOT be how your company did business, but can you vouch for all of the factories around the nation that feed the industrial food complex? Did your company NOT try to grow the biggest chicken in the least amount of time? Not trying to be snarky, I would like to know your experience, and how involved you were from the top decisions, down to the farm management?

 

[bicker]

I think you may have missed what princessmom29 was referring to when she use the word "misrepresented" -- specifically, earlier in her post, she said that it was "NOT an accurate representation" which implied to me that it was presenting the very worst, rather than what would be a reflection of the general case. It's not uncommon for an advocacy to exclusively present the worst anecdotes, rather than a fair depiction, since their objective is to motivate people, and shocking them, even if it is a bit deceptive, is an effective way of accomplishing such advocacy.

 

[princessmom29]

What was grossly misrepresented, though? It may NOT be how your company did business, but can you vouch for all of the factories around the nation that feed the industrial food complex? Did your company NOT try to grow the biggest chicken in the least amount of time? Not trying to be snarky, I would like to know your experience, and how involved you were from the top decisions, down to the farm management?

"idustural food complex" is a biased term. I worked for companies who were not part of some sort of conspiracy or conglomerate, but independent companies putting out thier own products. I worked for several different companies, all with very similar practices. What we produced in our factories was shipped directly to stores. I was a feed nutritionist so I was very envolved in what the birds got fed, and how that impacted thier growth and health.
1) No company I work for ever gave bird antibiotics unless they were sick or there was a disease threat in the immediate area

2) no hormones or steroids were used either. We did choose bird breeds that naturally grew bigger, particularly in the breast, faster. None of our bird ever exhibite the leg breakage ect that you see in the video due to being top heavy or calcium deficient. I carefully monitored thier calcium intake.

3) Confining birds to houses is partly for thier safety and partly to reduce bacterial contamination in foods. What they do not tell you in the video: Free range eggs and meat have twice the positive tests for salmonella and listeria contamination as house kept. Also, that many chikens in one place attracts any number of predators. Our houses all had shades that could be raised an lowered, so the birds did in fact see sunlight every day, unless weathe rwas inclement.

4) The killing and processing practices they show in the video are horribly outdated. Our birds were killed with an electric shock before ever being hung for processing.

There is always someone out there who is going to see meat porcessing, and the killing of any animal for food as cruel and unnecessary. I have no porblem with people who choose not to eat meat for moral reasons, but it bothers me when a propoganda machine like this puts out what is largely inaccurate information and causes a lot of people to make uninformed, recationary decisions who would otherwise have no moral objection to eating a food animal properly cared for.

 

[princessmom29]

I think you may have missed what princessmom29 was referring to when she use the word "misrepresented" -- specifically, earlier in her post, she said that it was "NOT an accurate representation" which implied to me that it was presenting the very worst, rather than what would be a reflection of the general case. It's not uncommon for an advocacy to exclusively present the worst anecdotes, rather than a fair depiction, since their objective is to motivate people, and shocking them, even if it is a bit deceptive, is an effective way of accomplishing such advocacy.

exactly right. Not saying that what they show didn't happen, just that it is VERY far away from what is standard practice.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

exactly right. Not saying that what they show didn't happen, just that it is VERY far away from what is standard practice.

I guess I don't see what's wrong with showing the extremes, even if it isn't the "standard." The truth is that it does happen, and it happens under the nose of these great big corporations, who push and push against any sort of regulation.

If it makes people start supporting the local farmers more, than I think that's great. Why do we need only 3 large companies controlling the majority of the meat manufacturing in the nation?

 

[Colleen27]

The main problem I encounter is the cost. It stinks to think that faux meat products are so expensive compared to ground meat (and we're really trying to pay off our debt, so my grocery budget is tight!). And if I were to buy from local farmers, wouldn't that be expensive too? Not sure what to do...

I think veggie tends to be cheaper so long as you steer clear of faux meats. Most of my vegetarian favorites cost just a couple of dollars per serving, but they're veggie and bean heavy, some with pasta, some with rice, but never processed meat substitutes.

As far as buying from local farmers, it really depends. On one hand, you're losing out on sales, economies of scale, and agricultural subsidies that make industrially-farmed food less expensive, but on the other hand you're cutting out a lot of transportation and middle-man costs. On some things we spend a little more for local and on other things we save a little by buying direct from the farmer, so it mostly works out even in the end.

 

[princessmom29]

I guess I don't see what's wrong with showing the extremes, even if it isn't the "standard." The truth is that it does happen, and it happens under the nose of these great big corporations, who push and push against any sort of regulation.

If it makes people start supporting the local farmers more, than I think that's great. Why do we need only 3 large companies controlling the majority of the meat manufacturing in the nation?

Because they are showing it as the "normal" operating procedures and that is just flat untrue. What they show is so far off the radar, and totally not what a real up to code meat processing facility looks like. It happens in a few isolated cases, but not to the degree that they would have you believe. It is definitely NOT commonplace in the industry. What that have doen is found the vilest example they can and represented it as standard operating procedure. We had USDA repersentatives on the floor of our plant all day every day during every shift at every facility I ever worked at. Believe me, we were well regulated. The line was stopped for something as simple as a drop of condensation showing up on an air vent. They got samples of EVERY load of feed that was sent to farms.

 

[Vegcentric]

In response to Bicker - I like Dr. Weil. I used to work for Origins, where we sold a lot of his skin products. I read his magazines, I visit his website. I don't think he's infallible for sure, but I do appreciate his advice and the information he puts out. I used to be a pescetarian, my husband still is so a lot of the information present on the website applies to him quite a bit.

It was actually Dr. Weil that inspired me to try a vegetarian diet in the first place. I was having a lot of problems as far as menstrual cycle goes and in one of the issues of his magazine he recommended that a vegetarian diet for a week during your period might help. I won't get into specifics since it's TMI, but long story short I gave it a shot for a week every month, and I kind of wanted to keep doing it the rest of the time. I can't say it would work for everyone, since everyone's bodies are different but it improve things for me.

 

[bicker]

I guess I don't see what's wrong with showing the extremes, even if it isn't the "standard."

There's nothing wrong with showing the extremes. What's wrong is presenting the extremes as if they were the general case, and insinuating that people should make all their decisions just based on the extremes. Anyone who goes into anything expecting to achieve perfection, even within their own lifetime, is a fool. Perfection is for God. For us mere mortals, we do the best we can. We work to reduce our negative impact; we work to increase our positive impact. Contrast words like "reduce" and "increase" with words like "eliminate" and "absolutely complete".

 

[Toad_Passenger]

Because they are showing it as the "normal" operating procedures and that is just flat untrue. What they show is so far off the radar, and totally not what a real up to code meat processing facility looks like. It happens in a few isolated cases, but not to the degree that they would have you believe. It is definitely NOT commonplace in the industry. What that have doen is found the vilest example they can and represented it as standard operating procedure. We had USDA repersentatives on the floor of our plant all day every day during every shift at every facility I ever worked at. Believe me, we were well regulated. The line was stopped for something as simple as a drop of condensation showing up on an air vent. They got samples of EVERY load of feed that was sent to farms.

I'm glad to hear that your company did such things, and I hope that others do the same. But when the major companies create the "windowless", security-laden, fortresses in which they create the food, people are going to start to get suspicious.

I understand the need to keep things clean, so you can't just give tours of the facilities, but I live in an area that has a very large beef rendering facility. The place is like Fort Knox. They do nothing to educate the community about what they do, their reputation, their safety practices. A little transparency is all people are asking for. Especially when, as a friend of the local Fire Chief, I get to hear about how often they are over at the plant because of chemical leaks and biohazard situations, in addition to the fact that the company is now being held responsible for 2 very large fish kills in the local waterways over the past year.

Based on this, you can't be surprised that I'd believe it happens elsewhere, nor that I sought out a local grass farmer to purchase my meats from.

 

[bicker]

But when the major companies create the "windowless", security-laden, fortresses in which they create the food, people are going to start to get suspicious.

People are also going to get suspicious whenever they have a personal preference that isn't being satisfied. I can outline dozens of examples, ranging from travel, to telecommunications, to entertainment, etc., where people latch onto anything that they can pervert into something that sounds nefarious, and exploit that to try to sway public opinion their way. I sometimes give benefit of doubt, early on, but only until I catch wind of the very first such deception, and after that I demand every assertion be unequivocally proven, with corroboration by external, independent authorities, before believing anything else an advocate puts forward.

 

[LisaR]

Also, LisaR, I really liked Dr. Esselstyn's book, and I've been looking into Dr. McDougall's programs. I basically followed them already, since I have nut and soy allergies, but I used to eat some olive oil. I cut out the oil like a month ago. I know they say not to worry about fat, but I can't imagine I'm getting enough. I calculated it the other day, and I only had like 16g that day? Is that way too low? I can only find their recommendations on percentage of fat, but not in grams.

When I first started eating this way, I did calculate everything out but after a few times, I was comfortable with the way we were eating and now I don't worry about it. I want to say that I was around 20g of fat but I may be confusing that with something else.

Did you know that Dr. McDougall offers the basics of his program online for free?
http://www.drmcdougall.com/free.html
The forums on his site are also terrific.

RE: cost: By following the McDougall plan, I have honestly cut my grocery bill in half. If I didn't buy most of my food as organic, my grocery bill would have been cut even further.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

People are also going to get suspicious whenever they have a personal preference that isn't being satisfied. I can outline dozens of examples, ranging from travel, to telecommunications, to entertainment, etc., where people latch onto anything that they can pervert into something that sounds nefarious, and exploit that to try to sway public opinion their way. I sometimes give benefit of doubt, early on, but only until I catch wind of the very first such deception, and after that I demand every assertion be unequivocally proven, with corroboration by external, independent authorities, before believing anything else an advocate puts forward.

I agree with you. So why are the community members still met with locked doors, and closed mouths when they want to ask a simple question such as, "Why over the past year have you been responsible for releasing chemicals into the local waterways, killing fish, and other parts of the ecosystem?" Actually I shouldn't say they are met with closed mouths solely from the rendering facility, by that point there is usually a lawyer from one of the companies they provide beef to looking over their shoulder, and advising them to say nothing.

I'm just saying that Food, Inc., while it may be biased (and who knows if it really is?), is, at the very least, creating dialog about the food supply. Amazingly enough, something people weren't concerned about for so long, even though they eat several times a day! And now that people want answers, the company's seem to not want to play along. As I said, you can't fault people for watching Food, Inc., which is at least saying something, and siding against the large corporations who seemingly want to say nothing.

 

[bicker]

I agree with you. So why are the community members still met with locked doors, and closed mouths

Because they aren't entitled to get whatever information they want to have, when they want to have it, how they choose to get it. We are a civilized society. We don't lynch rapists; we don't stone adulterers. We have civil authority that has the right to set forth the requirements for such disclosure, including content, format, timing and validation of accuracy.

Actually I shouldn't say they are met with closed mouths solely from the rendering facility, by that point there is usually a lawyer from one of the companies they provide beef to looking over their shoulder, and advising them to say nothing.

And mostly that's because the prototypical angry mob that you've drawn us a picture of doesn't have much interest in being fair or honorable with any statements provided to them. They're typically thinking only about the source of their own anger and often primitively reacting to it, and generally will take any opening that they can wiggle out of the chosen target and exploit it viciously, without conscience, in order to further their advocacy.

The general public and the media have together so totally poisoned the pool with regard to the treatment of organizations, companies, institutions, public figures, etc., that we've essentially ruined for ourselves any chance of being regarded with anything but distrust. We essentially have crafted a society where we need government, because there's where cooler head often can prevail, and people can talk to each other about these issue without the kind of viciousness typically exhibited by the general public.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

The general public and the media have together so totally poisoned the pool with regard to the treatment of organizations, companies, institutions, public figures, etc., that we've essentially ruined for ourselves any chance of being regarded with anything but distrust. We essentially have crafted a society where we need government, because there's where cooler head often can prevail, and people can talk to each other about these issue without the kind of viciousness typically exhibited by the general public.

Respectfully snipped.

The public is to blame for organizations and public figures acting out of line? What a joke! It's the rendering facility that decided to drop chemicals, illegally mind you, into our neighborhoods. It wasn't in response to some cranky neighbors. To me, an explanation should have been the first thing the company released to the local population. Instead they hold it so close to the vest that the public becomes distrusting. To me it's the organizations that have poisoned their own pool when it comes to the public, not the other way around.

As to government being the place where cooler heads prevail? Try coming to a borough council meeting or a school board meeting sometime.

 

[bicker]

The general public and the media have together so totally poisoned the pool with regard to the treatment of organizations, companies, institutions, public figures, etc.

The public is to blame for organizations and public figures acting out of line? What a joke!

First, slow down and read the message more carefully. You obviously glossed over it in your rush to reply, since you missed half of the subject of the sentence.

Second, it is not a joke. You can chose to ignore it all you want, but the viciousness is very clearly evident. You can find dozens of threads on the DIS everyday that exhibit it.

It's the rendering facility that ...

You're lost in the weeds. You're trying to advocate for your perspective against the facility, without paying attention to the point that you're replying to. I'm not saying whether the rendering facility is clean or not. I'm explaining to you why they don't respond to the unauthorized interrogation that you want them to respond to. I'm outlining principles of society, what a reasonable and honorable advocate for a cause is responsible for doing in trying to practice their advocacy, while you're trying to defend anarchy.

It wasn't in response to some cranky neighbors.

If it didn't come through duly-authorized officials, acting within their authority, then it absolutely was just a bunch of cranky neighbors. That's the point.

To me, an explanation should have been the first thing the company released to the local population.

And I'm telling you that that is naive, and I explained why it was naive.

Instead they hold it so close to the vest that the public becomes distrusting.

They hold it so close to the vest because the general public and the media are vicious.

To me it's the organizations that have poisoned their own pool when it comes to the public, not the other way around.

As a member of the general public, your confusion in this regard is not surprising. I'm also a member of the general public, but I see the bigger picture. I see both sides.

As to government being the place where cooler heads prevail? Try coming to a borough council meeting or a school board meeting sometime.

That's not government... that's just a bunch of cranky neighbors with power.

 

[pperfectmom]

I watched this last night as well and have been thinking about it all day. I have no moral arguments against eating meat but I do expect my meat to be raised/slaughtered in a more humane manner. We are moving in a direction as a family to raise most of our own and I wish more people had this option . I'm a firm believer in knowing where your food comes from and I think Americans have lost sight of that over the last couple of decades. What I found most disturbing in the movie, even more so than the meat processing plants, was the whole issue of corn. Now THAT was scary.

 

[VBsHustla]

When I first started eating this way, I did calculate everything out but after a few times, I was comfortable with the way we were eating and now I don't worry about it. I want to say that I was around 20g of fat but I may be confusing that with something else.

Did you know that Dr. McDougall offers the basics of his program online for free?
http://www.drmcdougall.com/free.html
The forums on his site are also terrific.

RE: cost: By following the McDougall plan, I have honestly cut my grocery bill in half. If I didn't buy most of my food as organic, my grocery bill would have been cut even further.

Awesome, thanks for all the info! I'm glad to hear I haven't been way off base with the fat intake! I did briefly check out Dr. McDougall's site and it looks great. I'm definitely going to check out the forums. Thanks!

 

[si-am]

I was a vegetarian for a while in my 20s. I never ate much meat when I was on my own, but when I got married, I started cooking it almost every day because that's what DH likes.

Lately, though, I've decided to make a lifestyle change. Vegetarian meals during the week. If we buy meat, it has to be organic, humane. I will eat meat occasionally in a restaurant.

It hasn't been too hard to make the change. Whereas before, I'd make chicken and black bean quesadillas, now I make them with black beans only (and onion). Pasta with marinara instead of meat sauce. The other night I made a meal of black eyed peas, green beans and Annie's Organic 5 Grain Mac n' Cheese (okay, not the best choice, but occasionally okay, right? )

I can't say that DH is altogether thrilled with every meal, but I do feel better about the choices we're making. For me, it's mostly ethical but also health too.