Bad Reporting: Mother Jones thinks we should eat meat

Oh, how it pains me to be calling out Mother Jones - the last bastion of the free press - for bad reporting. Alas, it's true. While the article was published nearly two years ago, it was linked in their Facebook feed today and deserves to have the glaring fault in the article pointed out.

In the article Steak or Veggie Burger: Which is Greener, Kiera Butler describes her decision to give up life-long vegetarianism in favor of meat. Her reasoning is that... well, honestly I can't make sense of her reasoning. She compares grass-fed beef to faux meats in terms of environmental impact, concluding:

So plant protein is usually the greener choice, as long as it's not overprocessed.

 And yet she decides to eat meat. I guess the basic reason is the premise she begins with:

But a girl can only eat so much roasted kale before she starts craving protein: tofu, veggie burgers, and the (okay, creepy) occasional piece of fakin' bacon.

And therein lies the flaw in Butler's self-justification. (And I don't mean her failure to recognize that roasted kale contains protein.) While she makes a convincing argument that processed faux meats are nearly as bad for the environment as real meat, she implies these are the only two options.

Want a veggie burger? Make one at home from whole foods. Want the protein from soy with less impact than tofu? Eat edamame. To imply that processed foods are the only option that vegetarians have when they want something protein-packed or "meaty" is just a sign of utter laziness. They're called "convenience foods" for a reason.

And honestly, who are the vegetarians or vegans that are eating faux meats at the same rate that carnists are eating real meat? Most carnists I know have meat at least twice a day. If Butler was eating faux meats twice a day, I'm completely certain she was in the vast minority.

This was shockingly shoddy reporting from Mother Jones, usually such a trusted source.

Bad Reporting: Grist says we should "shut up and drink" bug juice

In an article today on Grist.org, Why you should be glad there are bugs in your Frappuccino, Jess Zimmerman asserts that "vegans, corporation-haters, and bloggers who like writing about gross things you just put in your mouth" should "get off your high horse" and "shut up and drink your bug juice." Zimmerman bases these bold statements on three points:

1. the completely false assertion, copped from an entomologist, that the only viable alternative to cochineal is a petroleum-based food dye.

2. the fact that the production of cochineal provides income in impoverished areas

3. that the product in which the colorant is used is "not food" - i.e. unhealthy.

So let's look at the ways this is nonsense.

1. The fact that Starbucks made the change because they wanted to get away from artificial dyes automatically takes Red 40 out of the equation. You therefore cannot defend the change by saying it's better than Red 40 because the entire point was to choose a natural alternative to Red 40. As stated in the petition that moved Starbucks to reconsider their use of cochineal,

While it’s commendable to move away from artificial ingredients, there are other natural means to achieve the red coloring. Red beet, black carrot, purple sweet potato and paprika are all-natural alternatives to artificial dyes and safe for those with dietary restrictions. (And those who don’t want crushed bugs in their designer drink.)

If you're going to choose a natural alternative to Red 40, you don't choose the one with the highest potential for causing severe allergies, and which violates vegetarian, vegan, and possibly Kosher guidelines without telling your clientele.

2. Does cochineal provide income to impoverished areas? So would beet farming.

Yes, I'm being glib, but to suggest that the only solution to poverty is crushing bugs is spurious reasoning. Loss of jobs is propaganda often used against veganism, but food and dyes still need to be produced. We only want to see them produced from non-animal ingredients.

3. I am so tired of the 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' approach. This is an absurd justification. Because other ingredients aren't healthy, we should not care about one that can cause severe allergic reactions and violates the ethics of 10% of the US population (vegetarians and vegans) being introduced with no warning?

So as if it wasn't bad enough that Jess Zimmerman's article was offensive and rude, it's also complete bunk.

Tim Hortons' animal welfare video is insulting your intelligence

In response to pressure from The Humane Society of the US about animal welfare in their supply chain, Canadian mega-chain Tim Hortons released this video to address concerns. The HSUS and others have termed this response greenwashing, but I think it's worse than that. I think they are counting on the fact that you aren't smart enough to see through some pretty blatant manipulation.

In the video, images of clean floors, sparkly factory equipment, pristine white eggs, and uninjured birds are set to placid music and speeches delivered by warm feminine voices. Only girl-next-door pretty, soft-spoken female employees are introduced, or even shown. Touchy-feely dialogue talks about how much they care about the animals, how interesting it is to watch them change and grow.

Now... watch it without the sound on.

What you'll notice is rows upon rows of adult birds crammed in tiny cages. What you'll notice is that they are living cogs in a giant machine. What you'll notice is imagery similar to The Matrix - a dystopia, where life is subjugated to technology. What you'll notice is that these birds will never see the sun, will never care for their own chicks, will never get out of those cages until they die. What you'll notice is that, no matter what nonsense they spew about animal welfare, what they're showing is a factory, not a farm.

It's also interesting to note that while the issue raised by HSUS was the treatment of pigs, the chain chose to focus their response on egg-laying chickens. Why? Because they're banking on the public misconception that animals aren't killed in egg production, they're diverting your attention to a less charged subject. They don't want to show you the rows and rows of pigs crammed into gestation crates without even enough room to turn around, not because the chickens are really any better off, but because that's an image you might connect to death. There are no pretty white eggs to show you, and if they show you bacon, you might make the connection that it's the pig's flesh.

Tim Hortons is insulting your intelligence, but I think you're smarter than that. Whether you eat meat and eggs or whether you don't, I think you know that this company is paying lip service to HSUS's concerns and trying to fool you into thinking that they're actually doing something about it. If you agree, please go click the Dislike button underneath the video, and let Tim Hortons know their ploy isn't working.

Confessions of a Reformed Deen Disciple

I am a first generation Southerner, which means I didn't learn Southern cooking from my mom. I learned a bit from my mother-in-law (particularly how to make a perfect biscuit and how to do astonishing things with a green tomato), but most of what I know about Southern cooking I learned from Paula Deen.

I own copies of Lady & Sons and Lady & Sons Too that are tattered from study and use. Back in my pre-vegan days, I went bibbedy with delight when my brother-in-law arranged for me to have dinner at Lady & Sons when I was visiting Savannah. I "improved" upon Paula's hashbrown casserole recipe by adding more cheese.

When I told my husband - a Georgia boy - about Paula Deen hiding her diabetes and continuing to promote her traditional Southern fare for three years, he wasn't in the slightest bit surprised. "I know a woman," he reminded me, "whose entire day was spent in her kitchen, every day of the week. When she finished cooking breakfast, she'd start lunch. That was her world." His point was that food is more than food in many Southern households, and more than just tradition; it's an identity.

Paula Deen, who famously conquered agoraphobia to provide for her children with her cooking, must have a great deal of her identity tied up in the food she cooks. I'm not saying there weren't mercenary reasons for her to hold off on this announcement; her deal with a pharmaceutical company surely indicates there were. I'm just saying that there may be more to it than that.

Working for a nonprofit that supports people diagnosed with a chronic illness, I've seen time and time again that the "stages of grief" apply. Putting myself in Paula's shoes, I'd have been resistant to the idea of changing my diet. I'd have been embarrassed that I'd done this to myself. I'd probably have gone through a period of denial. But then there's that extra little bit of complexity when your cultural identity is tied into your food and you're forced to change the way you eat.

I remember the angst, the absolute suffering I felt upon going vegetarian, when I realized I was going to have to learn to cook my collard greens without a giant hamhock. When I pondered whether my black-eyed peas could possibly taste right without my secret ingredient - bacon. The confusion when I considered making biscuits without sausage gravy... I'm sure it's not easy for anyone to give up the foods they're used to eating, but this wasn't about the deprivation. (I didn't cook them all that often anyway, since I too believed 'moderation' was the best thing for my health when it came to meat and dairy.) It was a question of whether I would be able to express my Southernness without these things.

Ask any Southerner living away from the South what they miss, and you're not likely to hear about the view. They're going to tell you about the cornbread, the sweet tea, the tastes of home. When I go north (because you have to go north to get South from here) to Jacksonville, Atlanta, Savannah, Charleston, any place in the South, the first thing I do is stake out the best Southern restaurant in town and find out what's on the menu. The love of these foods is a primary means of participating in Southern culture. Would I be excluded from the culture without them?

Happily, my commitment to veganism overcame these concerns. Even more happily, I've learned to veganize the foods that help define me as Southern. I still make a mean biscuit and my black-eyed peas still melt in your mouth. Just recently, I thought up a way to veganize Paula's hashbrown casserole that I'm itchin' to try. So I know it can be done.

Do I think that Paula Deen's decision to hide her condition and continue to peddle unhealthy foods for profit was ethical? No way. But human beings are more than just ethics engines, and sometimes right and wrong get muddled by personal hang-ups. My point is rather than being angry at her, I'm spending my energy hoping she'll learn - as I did - that Southern food doesn't have to make you, as Anthony Bourdain called her, "the most dangerous woman in America." Southern food can be healthy too.