It's Margaret's fault... she asked

I said I wouldn't explain why "Diet for Small Planet" sucks becuase no one asked. But Margaret asked! So, if you don't care, please disregard this post. It's got nothing about May in it.

First, let me explain that I don't have anything against vegetarianism. (Unlike those dirty vegans.) Being a vegetarian is a life-style choice ... like living without cable. Not my cuppa tea, but if you want to do it, more power to you.

My problem is with, specifically, the book Diet for a Small Panet. Which I haven't read in a while and haven't read the latest edition at all. So my argument is undermined before I begin. But my objections to DfaSP can be broken into three main compeonents:

1. Taste!

Most DfaSP recipies, frankly, suck. Brown rice can be done well, but it's usually not. There's no point to carob unless you're allergic to chocolate. Several countries have fabulous, sophisticated entirely vegetarian cuisines (China, Japan, and India) and DfaSP has crappy sloppy half-assed takes on these palates. (Notice that a lot of the food is made to imitate meat or take the place of meat. Just friggin eat the meat!)

Also, along these lines, meat tastes good. I like steak. I like chicken. I like bacon. Okay, I love bacon. Sausage, chili, pheasant. Hell, I like mussels and shrimp. And, as a foodie, I don't want to give up the option of meat for soy or mung beans. How limiting.

2. Politics!

It may sound total ridiculous coming from someone who is going to rejigger the way I and my family eat for environmental reasons, but I find the politics usually associated with DfaSP to be.... facile. So often eating gets tied up in "the oppression of our disenfranchised brothers and sisters...." Whatever. I acknowledge that there is much suffering and whatnot around the world and I even acknowledge that the way we live can affect those people. But even Omnivore's Dilemna lacks a nuanced view of the politics involved.

I'm not saying that I've got a supremely educated grasp on the issue. But I know enough to knw there's more to it than what can be summed up in a book.

3. Science!

Now there's a good argument from various nutritionists that vegetarianism isn't good for the human body. We evolved eating meat. Not a lot of meat, but eating meat. A strict vegetarian probably needs to take supplements of vitamins D and B12, and iron. Or eat a bowl of Total.

Also, Joan Gussow, an ecological nutritionist, points out that for most of human history (and before!), "livestock has been indeispendable for its magical ability to convert agricultural waste, failed crop, and the vegetation on unfarmable land into high quality protein." (Steingarten, TMWAE, p. 142). Taken another way, I'm betting that my backyard-grown chicken has a lower carbon burden than tofu from California. Or even Ohio.

Most of the ecological problems arising from eating meat (which is, at its heart, the main argument of DfaSP, at least as I understand it) arise from factory farming. And the same problems apply, on a smaller scale, to factory farmed corn and soy and even carrots and greens. Eating meat locally on a small scale is way better -- environemtnally -- than eating international organic vegetarian.

At least, as far as my research has been able to unearth. I'm always reading and updating my information. I'll let you all know if I come across anything else.

For a more reasoned and better typed argument -- not to mention funny -- see Jeffrey Steingarten's "Vegging Out," cited above in The Man Who Ate Everything.

Incidentally, like I said, vegetarianism doens't bother me. But vegans make me nuts. Anyone who can justify not eating cheese (for any reason other than health... and even then....) is clearly sick.