Hands off the steak AND the cheese

About a year ago — and my, does time fly — I penned a post I called Outrageous portions that was inspired or rather prompted by a revelation that a staple Bulgarian dish, moussaka*, has the third-highest carbon footprint in Europe.

*Yes, originally and forever Greek. Call it cultural appropriation.

I felt personally attacked by that revelation, as the ensuing rant shows, but little did I know that it will be just one of many attacks on favourite meals, and not just Bulgarian ones.

The attacks are intensifying, too, targeting not just meat but all animal products, of which we should all learn to eat less. Much less. In fact, according to a report cited by Bloomberg we would fare perfectly well if we consume 15.7 kilos of meat annually. Per year. Over 365 days.

Now, I found the report they cited for that figure and I admit I couldn’t find the specific number but I did learn some interesting stuff from that report, authored by something called the EAT-Lancet Commission, a partnership between the Lancet and EAT, which is “a non-profit dedicated to transforming our global food system through sound science, impatient disruption and novel partnerships.”

Before I continue, for a deep, insightful look at the meat issue, do read this Doomberg article. Then you can come back for the rant here.

The idea of the EAT-Lancet report as well as others like it is that we are eating unsustainably but that’s fixable as long as we agree to significantly change our dietary habits. Which, the authors of this Great Dietary Shift claim, will have beneficial effects on our health — and the planet’s health, which is a lot more important, of course.

The shift, you won’t be surprised to learn, should be in the direction of a lot more plant-based foods, a minimum of animal products and an equal minimum of sweet stuff. Nestle, Coca Cola, and Craft Foods will be ecstatic to hear this, I’m sure. As ecstatic as I was upon learning I would need to go from 300+ g of meat daily to about 43 g.

A while ago, I read somewhere that people in China and South Korea were becoming taller and bigger. The reason: more nutritious food featuring meat. I found that fascinating — as fascinating as the theory that meat consumption played a key role in our brain’s evolution to where it is today. And all this makes the suggestion we should learn to eat a lot less meat beyond fascinating.

A note needs making here. The advice about eating less meat is for those countries where people are used to eating meat on a regular basis and in excessive — per the GDS advocates — quantities. “Rich countries” as Bloomberg called them.

Places where people can only afford to eat meat once a month, if at all, will be spared from the attack because I guess even such devout meat haters as the people at the EAT-Lancet Commission have some basic sense of shame.

A basic — and very basic it is — sense of shame is where it ends. The Great Dietary Shift army wants to put an end to normal eating and turn us all into vegetarians, erring on the vegan side, and I do apologise for the military analogies but I really can’t see these groups in a peaceful light.

Animal farming appears to be their primary target, along with associated industries such as eggs and dairy. They haven’t thought about banning leather yet but I guess it’s only a question of time. I’m sure it’s a highly emissions-intensive industry and who needs a garment they can wear until they die, anyway.

The approach to that target is not particularly subtle. It comes down to the claim that eating too much meat and dairy products is bad for your health — and the health of the planet, don’t forget — so you should stop. And by the way “too much” means your normal intake of meat and dairy products. Because we said so and we’re scientists (and I bet the majority is vegan).

Science as a field has lost a lot of credibility over the past three years, alas. A lot of people have started questioning scientific claims on the grounds that they may be motivated financially or in another material way rather than by the pure scientific drive to learn more about how the world works.

It is because of this loss of credibility that I found it hard to believe the arguments put forward by the authors of the above report and others calling for decimating meat consumption and turning us into near-vegans.

It is for the same reason that I’ve found it hard to stomach the “seaweed revolution” that some in the UN are pushing as a means of tacking both climate change and food insecurity… by seaweed farming for food and for carbon capture, as far as I understood.

But I must have understood wrong because growing seaweed for a carbon sink means you shouldn’t eat it and vice versa. Unless, of course, plans are to grow vast amounts of seaweed, enough for carbon sinks and food for millions of people…

Which raises other questions such as whether this would require certain landscape changes that might incidentally lead to cropland loss and ecosystem changes that the authors might not anticipate in their enthusiasm. And let’s not even mention the iodine content of seaweed that could lead to excess buildup if you eat a lot of it.

Here’s a scary statement from the leader of the charge, Senior Advisor on Oceans to the UN Global Compact, Vincent Doumeizel:

“I believe that if we learn to cultivate the ocean, we will be remembered as the first generation on the planet that will be able to feed the entire population while mitigating climate change, while restoring biodiversity and alleviating poverty. We can be remembered as such, but it needs to be altogether”. And seaweed for all.

I’d say leave the ocean alone but what do I know. First deep-sea mining and now seaweed farming. The opportunities abound and let’s not talk about dead whales.

Instead, let’s talk about the benefits of chitin, “the magical nutrient that your gut loves”. This magical nutrient “is shown to be beneficial to the gut and immune system” and “Increasing your intake of chitin through supplements like cricket protein powder may help spur the growth of healthy gut bacteria. This in turn improves the immune system, which lives primarily in the gut.”

But that’s not all, because chitin is also an antioxidant and if that’s not a magic word I don’t know what is. Chitin supplements for everyone, brought to you by the authors of the above quotes, from a company called — let me savour the moment — Mighty Cricket. Mighty Cricket sells, well, crickets in powdered form and combinations with other stuff like chocolate.

Now, insect fans (as in eating them, not marveling at the wonders of nature that bugs are) have claimed they are better for the planet but this has not been enough to convince us to switch from pork to cricket. Obviously this needed to change so here’s the change in the making. Especially since there are uncomfortable facts about frequent exposure to chitin and the potential for allergic reactions.

The other argument in favour of insects is my favourite. It comes down to “They’re just land-based shrimp.” No, they are emphatically not land-based shrimp. Shrimp have ten legs. Shrimp are a different group entirely. Also they’re tasty and we don’t eat them with their chitin shells.

As I write this, I’m munching on a sandwich made from wholegrain and buckwheat bread, a generous amount of butter and some smoked bacon. I’m not doing it because I’m particularly hungry. I’m eating the sandwich because I need to gain a kilo and the reason I need to do this is stress-related weight loss.

I blame the transition but it doesn’t really matter. I weigh less than I should and my body has informed me this won’t do so I’m listening. I’m eating a sandwich with butter and smoked bacon because it does the job more efficiently than, say, cashew nuts.

I know this because I’m eating those, too. They’re calorie-packed and tasty. But if I want to gain the weight I need from nuts only I’d be at it all day, every day. If I throw in some hearty legume meals as the EAT-Lancet report advises, well, it will get complicated because methane is bad for the planet. Meat is more, shall we say, or maybe whisper, energy dense.

It seems there’s a war on energy density packaged as care for the environment and ourselves. I doubt energy density is a deliberate target. It’s a lot more likely that it is a sort of collateral would-be-victim of the war on emissions.

It is also yet another piece of evidence that the goal of reducing emissions from human activity is impossible to achieve without a major compromise with current standards of living in many parts of the world. The great equiliser, you might call this war.

P.S. I’m having a Gloom and Doom holiday special that will give you 20% off monthly and annual paid subscriptions, if you’re in the mood, until the end of January.