Switchboard, from NRDC › Elaina DeMeyere's Blog

Meat Free Mondays

2009-06-17T20:11:55Z

Elaina DeMeyere, NRDC Alum, New York

I'm racking my brain in search of a Beatles song that prophesizes or hints at Paul McCartney's future conversion to vegetarianism. Savoy Truffle? No. Strawberry Fields Forever? Hmm, not really about strawberries, is it? Maybe Piggies, from the enigmatic White Album, secretly conveys that eating meat is a barbarous practice akin to cannibalism, as the piggies themselves are gluttons for bacon. I might be clutching at straws here, but it's all in an effort to announce that Sir Paul McCartney is the new face of the Meat Free Mondays (MFM) movement, which on Monday, June 15th, launched an ambitious campaign with the goal of, you guessed it, making Mondays meat free.

The central purpose of the MFM campaign is for participants to go one day per week without eating meat (including fish) in order to slow the onset of global climate change by reducing the amount of CO2 generated through industrial meat production. Alleviating global hunger and improving domestic animal welfare are also at the heart of this campaign, as both are detrimentally impacted by the voracious appetite of the western world. It's a simple concept - grain that could otherwise be sent to the third world is instead being gobbled up by our cows, pigs, and chickens. Decreased demand for meat would result in decreased livestock and poultry populations, and, consequently, the availability of more grain supplies for human consumption. Factory farms, notorious for the deplorable conditions in which they keep animals, would become less congested as a result of decreased demand, allowing penned animals a better quality of life simply through the provision of more space.

Maintaining one's health is also a focal point of the campaign. Myriad studies have linked diets rich in meat and dairy to ailments such as heart disease and obesity, and even certain types of cancers. By reducing our intake of meats, we lessen our chances of developing any of these devastating illnesses.

These are all compelling reasons to observe a meat free day every week. But how can we convince our carnivorous friends and family members to make such a commitment, which might seem impossible or at the very least undesirable upon first hearing? Maybe a history lesson will do the trick.

Going meat free one day per week is not a novel concept. In fact, as a nationwide initiative, it's one whose origins extend back to World War I. Meatless Mondays and Wheatless Wednesdays were part of a national campaign run by the U.S. Food Administration that encouraged Americans to voluntarily reduce their consumption of meat (cattle, hog, and sheep), wheat, sugar, and fat, in an effort to feed Allied Europe and the American soldiers fighting there. Central to the success of the campaign was the education of American housewives in the art of food substitution without compromising taste or nutritional benefits. Cheese acted as a substitute for meat, honey and syrups substituted sugar, and cornmeal, oats, barley, and rye replaced wheat. Federal and state level home economists, predominantly women, bolstered the campaign through the creation of innovative recipes and educational programs that saw even school aged children versed in the importance of food substitution, food preservation, and the folly of food waste. Some of the more interesting and easy to prepare recipes from this era are cottage cheese sausages, war cakes, and potato balls.

Spurred on by the campaign slogan "Food Will Win the War" the campaign brought about a 15% reduction in domestic food consumption without rationing, and saw 18,500,000 tons of food sent to Europe between 1918 and 1919.

What the success of Meatless Mondays and Wheatless Wednesdays proved was that the simple act of abstaining from meat and wheat one day per week made a huge difference to the outcome of the war. Who's to say that by doing the same now, we won't make a similar difference in the fight against climate change, world hunger, the demand for animal rights, and the health of our nation? Ninety years ago, Americans were willing to voluntarily alter their lifestyles if it meant contributing to the greater good. Is it possible that we're capable of the same level of personal sacrifice in this day and age?

The MFM campaign is off and running. So, let's get on board and Help! each other out by making the world a better, healthier place to live.

Incensed or Inspired? Direct Action Environmentalism, British Style

2009-03-16T16:26:30Z

Elaina DeMeyere, NRDC Alum, New York

You may have missed this, but over the weekend, a British climate change protester was arrested in central London for dousing Business Secretary, Peter Mandelson, in green custard as he prepared to speak at a low carbon energy summit on March 6. Leila Deen, a charity worker and member of activist group Plane Stupid, threw a cup of green custard on Mandelson as he exited his car, saying "it's for the third [Heathrow] runway and the fact that he corrupted our government in order to bring about something that's going to destroy the climate."

While Mandelson has dismissed the stunt as an "adolescent protest" it has garnered praise from the British public, many of whom vehemently oppose the expansion of Heathrow Airport and regard Mandelson as an unscrupulous advocate for big business, particularly through his dealings with the British Airport Authority (BAA), who own Heathrow. The overwhelming consensus on the message boards of British newspaper The Guardian is that the incident was both "juvenile and justified," with many commentators fingering the undermining of the democratic process over the airport expansion decision as the impetus behind such action, as a parliamentary vote was not taken.

But not everyone was pleased by what transpired that morning. Interspersed between congratulatory postings were calls for Miss Deen to be on the receiving end of a hot coffee shower, a brick hurled through her front window or a fist raised in violence. The same day a Guardian columnist questioned whether public figures should have to endure such abuse, to which the response was mixed.

Miss Deen's actions are very clearly that of a woman who has reached her tipping point. Her frustration and outrage over the worsening climate is understandable, and many of us who share similar feelings of exasperation might consider doing the same. It took courage to confront a public figure, but what did throwing green custard on Peter Mandelson actually achieve? It may have refocused the attention of a nation on climate change for an instant, but did it succeed in winning support for the cause, or has just the opposite occurred?

Direct action environmentalism is a thorny issue. Depending on how far you're willing to go - how many laws you're willing to break, how many barbed-wire fences you're willing to scale - direct action environmentalism can achieve immediate and significant results. And while it is also a great way to win attention for your cause, it can also detract from it, should the public find the protest distasteful or disruptive. Take Plane Stupid, for example. In December 2008, a group of 50 Plane Stupid activists breeched the security fence at Stansted Airport and setup a makeshift enclosure on the runway where they remained for hours, forcing the cancellation of dozens of flights. The stunt attracted national media coverage, and more importantly, prevented the release of thousands of tons of CO2 emissions into the atmosphere. It also succeeded in enraging thousands of affected travelers and airport employees, many of whom said that this was not the way to win their support. Also in December, a lone climate change protester entered Kingsnorth, Britain's most heavily secured power-plant, and switched off a 500MW turbine, bringing electrical output to a screeching halt for 4 hours. It is estimated that this act alone cut UK carbon emissions by 2%. You can imagine how people reacted when everything suddenly went black.

These two instances of direct action environmentalism produced real, measurable results by preventing the release of thousands of tons of greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. Though they were unlawful, irritating to the general public, and extremely dangerous, the acts served the purpose of the protestors by temporarily bringing about the change they so desperately want to achieve.

As such, I wouldn't categorize stunts such as Leila Deen's as direct action environmentalism, but rather a provoked response after one too many illegal jabs from a goliath opponent. OK, maybe it was childish, but to strike out at something, or in this instance, someone, that unjustly frustrates your efforts time and again, or the efforts of an entire movement, is not unnatural. Sometimes it's the only means of expression we have left, the only way to get the point across that we are unhappy. I do not begrudge Miss Deen this means of expression, but to risk alienating further a wavering public for the sake of mocking a public figure is something that hardly seems worth doing.

On Friday, March 13th, the environmental group Stop Stansted Expansion (SSE) lost the legal battle to halt the go-ahead of a second runway at Stansted Airport. I wonder how the direct action community will respond.

So much for salad...

2008-12-10T19:17:12Z

Elaina DeMeyere, NRDC Alum, New York

What are you having for lunch today? A veggie wrap? A tray of sushi from the corner deli, perhaps? Did you bring lunch from home? Last night's leftovers? Maybe peanut butter and jelly on wonderbread?

Buying lunch, especially here in Manhattan, is something I try to avoid, mostly for financial reasons. The least I can expect to spend for a real lunch, not just a bag of potato chips and a can of Coke, is $5, which will get me a falafel sandwich or a bowl of greasy Chinese food, among other no frills food items.

For the sake of my wallet and my health, I've been bringing lunch from home for the past few months. Nothing spectacular or particularly creative; just a salad topped with sunflower seeds and croutons, dressed with olive oil and vinegar. And while it's tasty, it's not particularly filling, especially in recent weeks, as the temperature has taken a nosedive into the mid-twenties and my body struggles to stay warm. I often find that by 3PM, my hunger has returned, at which point I'm forced to forage through my secret food drawer in search of something, anything that will tide me over until dinner, usually a granola bar. Most of the time, I end up going out and grabbing a big cookie or even a slice of pizza as a late afternoon snack. So much for saving money and looking after my health!

Now that winter has officially arrived, I've determined that my diet is in serious need of reform. Salad, traditionally summer fare, just isn't cutting it as lunch anymore. So, what could I have instead? I'm thinking something heavy and warm, like leek and potato soup with a roll, or roasted carrots and yams in a savory broth. Appealing, is it not?

It's no coincidence that I crave these vegetables. They're loaded with fiber, carbohydrates, potassium, beta carotene and other essential vitamins and minerals which my body will use to stave off illness this winter, be it a cold or something more serious, such as influenza. It's also no coincidence that these vegetables are currently in season here in the northeast. Nature, through the helping hand of Old MacDonald, is instructing us what to eat in order to maintain our health.

Not too long ago, most people adhered to a seasonal diet, as produce selection and availability was limited to what was grown and harvested locally by season. Though they probably didn't realize it at the time, people like my grandmother, who grew up on a farm in rural Idaho, were practicing sustainable consumption by eating in-season and locally grown produce. They didn't have the luxury or the convenience of picking up a box of strawberries from the grocer, if the mood for soft fruits suddenly struck in the middle of December. Importing produce from abroad was virtually unheard of and the large-scale domestic greenhouse cultivation of out-of-season crops was non-existent. A very different scenario from today.

When I go to the supermarket this evening, the produce section will predominantly feature seasonal fruits and vegetables: apples, potatoes, yams and the like. However, a small section will be devoted to spring and summer fruits, such as strawberries, mangoes, and even sliced watermelon. One might wonder from where this fruit was sourced, especially at this time of year. A quick glance at the price-tag suggests that wherever it came from and however it got here, it wasn't cheap!

But what is the cost in terms of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of air-freighting this fruit to New York from Europe or South America? My guess is that it's pretty hefty. For such a small quantity of produce, we have to ask ourselves "Is it worth it" especially when seasonal fruit is available in abundance? Oh, and we mustn't overlook the huge bin of vine-ripened, Long Island tomatoes. Don't let the point of origin fool you. Though they were grown locally, they were almost certainly cultivated in a greenhouse. Again, what is the GHG cost of this type of food production, which requires continuous heat?

This gets me thinking about the tomatoes I was planning to buy. Oh, and also the cucumbers. Are they worth it? Or could I stand to break my routine and begin eating sustainably, by eating seasonally? The answer is a resounding "Yes!" So it's "Adieu!" to salads for the time being. Who wants to eat chilled tomatoes and cucumbers when it's 19 degrees F outside, anyway?! Bring on the leek and potato soup!

For more information on sustainable consumption, take a gander at NRDC's fruit and vegetable guide that identifies in-season produce by state. http://www.nrdc.org/health/foodmiles/default.asp

Kali Orexi!

Wasteland, USA

2008-12-03T19:50:40Z

Elaina DeMeyere, NRDC Alum, New York

I pigged-out Friday night on take-away Afghani food. You should've seen the spread my dinner companion and I enjoyed - lamb curry, chicken kebabs and rice, mango lassi, sweet pumpkin turnovers, and a huge slice of baklava. Everything, with the exception of the baklava, was devoured that evening. Yes, in a reversal of childhood eating patterns, I managed to not save room for dessert. Four days later, the baklava remains in the refrigerator. But now, like so much perfectly good food before it, it is destined for the kitchen trash when I get home this evening.

What has forced my hand in this situation is the very idea of eating something I no longer consider "fresh." A four-day old dessert, even if it is perfectly good, just puts me off, as irrational as that might sound. In fact, at this very moment, there are several containers of leftovers sitting in my fridge which I have earmarked for the dumpster because they've been idling for a while. True, these leftovers may have exceeded their "best by" date, but on the other hand, paranoia could be getting the better of me.

For those of us who live in the developed world, wasting food has become second nature. This is particularly true when it comes to leftovers, a gluttony-fest like Thanksgiving being a prime occasion for excessive food consumption and ultimately food waste. Seriously, out of all the Thanksgiving leftovers sitting in your refrigerator, how much of it will be eaten and how much will be thrown out for one reason or another? My relatives have a tendency to trash food which is still edible, in order to free up space in the fridge. I wonder how many households do the same.

One of the most powerful driving factors behind this wasteful nature of ours is an obtuse notion of "quality" that is reflective of a national obsession with aesthetics. And if anyone is guilty of allowing appearance to influence her appetite, it's me. Just thinking about the hundreds of bananas I've thrown out during my lifetime because of a little browning and bruising makes me cringe with shame. Oh, and let's not forget that half gallon of milk I poured down the drain yesterday because I believed it to be "old."

There's no question that prosperity, abundance of supply, and plain old bad habits have created a culture of food devaluation in the developed world. This is most evident in the amount of edible food that ends up in landfills annually, a staggering 17 to 19 million tons in the UK alone, according to the Food Climate Research Network (http://www.fcrn.org.uk/frcnResearch/publications/PDFs/CuaS_web.pdf).

By turning my nose up at the aforementioned piece of baklava, I've thrown $4 in the trash. But what is the true cost of throwing out this dessert, which is most likely still edible? When you consider the environmental impacts of not only the agricultural processes, but the transportation and storage of both the ingredients and finally the finished product, the picture becomes clearer. Think about it: the flour, the nuts, the honey, the butter, the oil. Cultivating these crops, including raising cattle for dairy production, requires huge amounts of energy consumption and natural resources. And embedded within the various stages of production are greenhouse gas emissions; CO2, N2O (nitrous oxide) and CH4 (methane gas) among the most potent and destructive of them.

While it would be extremely difficult to calculate the amount of pollution contained within this slice of baklava, we can easily deduce that $4 would not cover the cost of offsetting the damage. In fact, it's debatable whether any amount of money could offset the environmental destruction embodied in food waste.

Think I'll go home and give the baklava a second chance.

A Cheeseburger Could Destroy the World

2008-10-31T15:26:04Z

Elaina DeMeyere, NRDC Alum, New York

Dinner has become an alien concept for me in recent years. Instead of actually cooking, I've been getting by on ramen noodles topped with whatever green veg I have in the fridge, and a boiled egg, which adds the umpf that pushes it into the "meal" category, as opposed to the "pathetic snack/college flashback" category.

On the days that I feel like a responsible adult, I venture to the grocery store in search of milk, granola cereal, soy sauce, and chicken breast. Needless to say, these are very basic food items that you could expect to find anywhere and at any time of the year. But what if this changed? What if I wasn't able to buy granola cereal during the winter, because oats were out of season, or ramen noodles, due to restrictions on imports from Asia and elsewhere? What if livestock rearing in the US declined, and meat and milk were rationed? How would this alter my diet? How would I cope?

As improbable as this scenario might sound, it is indeed a real possibility, as the impacts of climate change begin to be felt around the world, and governments act to drastically curtail global greenhouse gas emissions, with the aim of an 80% reduction by 2050. While policy, technology and sound management practices may achieve significant results, experts agree that this may not be enough to avert the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's projected 2-4.5 degrees Celsius rise in average global temperature expected by the end of the century.

"Cooking Up a Storm", a comprehensive report issued by the Food Climate Research Network http://www.fcrn.org.uk/ last month, examines the current polluting capacity of the western diet - with a special focus on the UK - and details possible measures that, when enacted with concrete environmental policies and the implementation of carbon control technologies, will help fend off the worst effects of global climate change. Remedies include reducing meal size, altering our diets to synch with locally produced seasonal fruits and vegetables, and eating less meat and dairy altogether.

As is detailed in the report, food production is an inherently "dirty" process. From planting, harvesting, and packaging for retail sale, to storage, cooking, and final disposal in a landfill, the life-cycle of "food" is loaded with greenhouse gases.

While much attention is paid to "food miles", the distance and means by which food travels from the farm to your local supermarket, the agricultural process has been identified as a far larger contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions than transport, with experts estimating it makes up between 17-32% of all anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. Meat and dairy production is also highly greenhouse gas-intensive, as livestock - cattle, goats and sheep - emit large amounts of methane into the atmosphere. And let's not forget the nitrous oxide that's kicked up when land is converted to pasture.

In short, what this study demonstrates is that in the fight against global warming, there is no easy way out. Our consumption of meat and dairy, the places from which we source our foods, what we eat and at which time of year, and our methods of food preparation and storage are all on the chopping block. Sacrifice from the developed world will be required to avert a climate change disaster, and it might sting a little. But let's put a positive spin on the situation. Perhaps this will give us the opportunity to reflect on our definition of "normal," particularly in regards to our eating habits, because in many ways our reasons for eating, and certainly the extent to which we waste food, are anything but normal, and are in need of serious overhauling.