Food Matters Part 1

Food matters.

by Mark Bittman.

Introduction.

TWO YEARS AGO, a report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) landed on my desk. Called a report from the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) landed on my desk. Called Livestock's Long Shadow, Livestock's Long Shadow, it revealed a stunning statistic: global livestock production is responsible for about one-fifth of all greenhouse gases-more than transportation. it revealed a stunning statistic: global livestock production is responsible for about one-fifth of all greenhouse gases-more than transportation.

This was a signal moment for me, coming along with some personal health problems, an overall gloomy global outlook, and an increasing concern with animal products in general-the quality of meat, the endangerment of wild fish, the way domestic animals are raised, and the impact our diet has had on the environment. Never before had I realized issues of personal and global health intersected so exquisitely. The destiny of the human race and that of the planet lay in our hands and in the choices-as individuals and as a society-that we made.

If I told you that a simple lifestyle choice could help you lose weight, reduce your risk of many long-term or chronic diseases, save you real money, and and help stop global warming, I imagine you'd be intrigued. If I also told you that this change would be easier and more pleasant than any diet you've ever tried, would take less time and effort than your exercise routine, and would require no sacrifice, I would think you'd want to read more. help stop global warming, I imagine you'd be intrigued. If I also told you that this change would be easier and more pleasant than any diet you've ever tried, would take less time and effort than your exercise routine, and would require no sacrifice, I would think you'd want to read more.

When you do, you'll find an explanation of the links among diet, health, the environment in general and climate change in particular and you'll see how you you can make a difference. And while you're doing your part to heal the planet you'll improve your health, lose weight, and even spend less at the checkout counter. And yes: This is for real. can make a difference. And while you're doing your part to heal the planet you'll improve your health, lose weight, and even spend less at the checkout counter. And yes: This is for real.

The consequences of modern agriculture.

It doesn't take a historian to see that events that took place hundreds or even thousands of years ago reverberate to our day, and it doesn't take a scientist to see the profound effects of every significant advance in technology, from the invention of the wheel and the internal combustion engine to that of the microchip.

Unfortunately, we can rarely antic.i.p.ate the consequences of historical events, inventions, and new technologies. Some have had nearly entirely positive results: indoor plumbing and vaccinations have saved countless lives, and it would be hard to argue that the telephone or railroads were not almost entirely positive. Automobiles, with their huge demand on limited energy sources, are a tougher call.

The industrialization of food production was one development that-though positive at first-is now exacting intolerable costs. Just as no one could foresee that cars would eventually suck the earth dry of oil and pollute the atmosphere to unsafe levels, no one could have antic.i.p.ated that we would raise and eat more animals than we need to physically sustain us, that in the name of economy and efficiency we would raise them under especially cruel conditions (requiring some humans to work under cruel conditions as well), or that these practices would make them less nutritious than their wild or more naturally raised counterparts and and cause enormous damage to the earth, including the significant acceleration of global warming. cause enormous damage to the earth, including the significant acceleration of global warming.

Yet that's exactly what has happened. Industrialized meat production has contributed to climate change and stimulated a fundamental change in our diets that has contributed to our being overweight, even obese, and more susceptible to diabetes, heart disease, stroke, and perhaps even cancer.

It isn't just our propensity for eating animal products that's making us fat and sick, but also our consumption of junk food and overrefined carbohydrates. And these foods-which as a group are also outrageously expensive, especially considering their nutritional profiles-are also big contributors to environmental damage and climate change.

The twentieth-century American diet, high in meat, refined carbohydrates, and junk food, is driven by a destructive form of food production. The fallout from this combination, and the way we deal with it are issues as important as any humanity has faced: The path we take from this crossroads will determine not only individual life expectancy and the quality of life for many of us, but whether if we were able to see the earth a century from now we would recognize it.

Climate change is no longer a theory, and humans will suffer mightily if it isn't reversed. Most people know this. Less well known is the role that raising livestock plays in this, which is greater than that of transportation. Equally certain is that many lifestyle syndromes and diseases are the direct or indirect result of eating too many animal products. Our demand for meat and dairy-not our need, our want-causes us to consume way more calories, protein, and fat than are good for us.

Why food matters.

Global warming, of course, was accidental. Even 30 years ago we couldn't know that pollution was more than stinky air. We thought it caused bad visibility and perhaps a few lung diseases here and there-as if that weren't bad enough.

The current health crisis is also an accident: We thought that the more meat and dairy and fish and poultry we ate, the healthier we would be.

This has not proved to be the case. Overconsumption has been supported and encouraged by Big Oil and Big Food-the industrial meat and junk food complex-in cahoots with the federal government and even the media and (one might say so-called) health industries. This has come at the expense of lifestyles that would have encouraged more intelligent use of resources-not just oil, but land and animals-as well as global health and longer life for individuals.

It doesn't have to continue: by simply changing what we eat we can have an immediate impact on our own health and a very real effect on global warming-and the environment, the environment, and and animal cruelty, animal cruelty, and and food prices. food prices.

That's the guiding principle behind Food Matters Food Matters, and it's really very simple: eat less meat and junk food, eat more vegetables and whole grains. I'm not talking about a diet in the conventional sense-something you do for two weeks or three months and then "maintain." I'm not suggesting that you become a vegetarian or eat only organic food. I'm not even talking about a method for weight loss, per se, though almost anyone who makes the kinds of changes I'm suggesting here is likely to lose weight and keep it off. You won't be buying exotic foods or shopping in expensive specialty markets, and you won't be counting calories-or anything else.

I'm just suggesting eating less of some things and more of others. The results will make you healthier while you do a little toward slowing climate change-much like trading in your gas guzzler for something more energy and cost efficient.

You could stop reading now and put your own plan into action. Or you can read on and find the details of how we allowed ourselves to be stuck with this mess and how you can help yourself and the rest of us get out of it. I'll describe what sane, conscious eating is, and the impact it will have. I'll suggest different strategies for changing how you think about food and prepare it. I'll show you how easy it is to follow the Food Matters plan when you eat out, whether at restaurants or other people's houses. I'll give you some sample menus and direction so you can easily create your own. Finally, I'm providing 77 easy recipes to get you started.

At first my suggestions may seem radical, but they can be integrated gradually into any any style of eating. There's no sacrifice here, only adjustment and benefit: I will not suggest that you cut your calorie consumption (I don't even advocate counting calories), though you probably will simply by following the plan. Other than suggesting that you pretty much rule out junk food, I won't put any foods off limits. style of eating. There's no sacrifice here, only adjustment and benefit: I will not suggest that you cut your calorie consumption (I don't even advocate counting calories), though you probably will simply by following the plan. Other than suggesting that you pretty much rule out junk food, I won't put any foods off limits.

The fact is that what I'm asking you to do isn't radical at all, and I'm confident you'll find this new mind-set so easy and so natural, and that you'll see its many benefits so easily, that you'll be eager to adjust your diet.

Why me?

Who am I to tell you how to eat and suggest it's a way to reduce global warming? I've been a reporter and researcher for more than 30 years; for much of that time, I've written about food from every possible angle. I've seen nutritional "wisdom" turned on its head more than once, and I've seen studies contesting studies designed to disprove studies. I have no more agenda than to inject some common sense into the discussion.

It doesn't take a genius to see that an ever-growing population cannot continue to devote limited resources to produce ever-increasing amounts of meat, which takes roughly 10 times more energy to produce than plants. Nor can you possibly be "nice" to animals, or respectful of them, when you're raising and killing them by the billions.

And it doesn't take a scientist, either, to know that a handful of peanuts is better for you than a Snickers bar, that food left closer to its natural state is more nutritious than food that has been refined to within an inch of its life, and that eating unprecedented quant.i.ties of animals who have been drugged and generally mistreated their entire lives isn't good for you.

I've got plenty of evidence to back up what I'm saying in these pages, but I've got my own story, too, and maybe you'll find that equally convincing. I've tried to strike a balance here, avoiding citing an overwhelming number of studies in an attempt to prove my point; that approach doesn't work, anyway, because most data can be read many ways, depending on your prejudices. My contention is that this way of eating is so simple, logical, and sane that cherry-picking scientific research isn't necessary.

Which Would You Choose?

Nutrient .

2-ounce Snickers bar 2-ounce Snickers bar .

2 tablespoons dry-roasted peanuts 2 tablespoons dry-roasted peanuts Calories .

271 271.

107 107.

Sugar .

29 g 29 g .

<1 g=""><1 g="" fat="" (saturated)="">

14 g (5.2 g) 14 g (5.2 g) .

9 g (1.8 g) 9 g (1.8 g) Protein .

4 g 4 g .

4 g 4 g Sodium .

140 mg 140 mg .

2 mg 2 mg Fiber .

1 g 1 g .

<2 g=""><2 g="" vitamin="" e="">

<1 mg=""><1 mg="">

2 mg 2 mg Folate .

12 mcg 12 mcg .

27 mcg 27 mcg Niacin .

2 mg 2 mg .

3 mg 3 mg

One more thing: I'm not a doctor or a scientist, but I'm not a health-food or nutrition nut either. For my entire adult life I've been what used to be called a gourmand and is now called (unfortunately) a foodie: a daily and decent cook, a traveler who's eaten all over the world and written about it, a journalist and food lover who's eagerly devoured everything. I intend to continue to do just that, but in different proportions.

For our own sakes as well as for the sake of the earth, we need to change the way we eat. But we can continue to eat well-better, in fact. In the long run, we can make food more important, not less, and save ourselves and our planet (and some money) by doing so.

FOOD MATTERS.

PART I.

Rethinking Consumption.

Could improved health for people and planet be as simple as eating fewer animals, and less junk food and super-refined carbohydrates?

Yes. Of course health benefits for individuals would vary, and the effect on the planet would not necessarily be dramatic (as everyone knows, large adjustments in energy use are essential), but it would be a real step forward, and perhaps most important one that can be taken by individuals, with no government intervention.

There'd be other benefits, too: we would see the methods used in livestock production change. (This is important because the current system of raising animals for food is not only unsustainable but destructive, and will become more so: global meat consumption is expected to double within the next 40 years.) The average person would also spend less money on food. With food prices in general rising at an average of about 5 percent a year, the differences in costs between vegetables, fruits, and grains, versus dairy, eggs, meat and especially junk food, are going to become more and more apparent (and painful, for those who refuse to make the change).

For the moment, let's ignore whether food is organic or local, or even whether animals are raised humanely. All these issues matter, but the bottom line here is that to eat well we must first eat moderately, and limit our eating to real food. (Organic junk food-and there is plenty of it-is still junk food.) Once we make those strides, which require small individual changes but whose collective impact is huge, we'll be able to eat more locally, we'll be able to eat more organic food, and we'll be able to treat animals more humanely. In fact, this will come naturally.

First, though, we have to adjust our consumption patterns. One argument, and it's a sound one, goes something like this: eat less meat, but eat better meat. "Better" meat, by its nature, tends to be local, more humanely raised, and less environmentally damaging: a good start. But my point, as I'll stress over and over, is that it all begins with eating less less meat. meat.

Our instincts, as human animals, prod us to eat all the food we can lay our hands on; difficult as it may be to imagine, until recently nearly all humans struggled to obtain enough calories. Those instincts, coupled with relative affluence, almost unlimited availability, and marketing that encourages us to eat the food that's most profitable for manufacturers, lead to overconsumption of precisely the wrong foods.

It's easy to see this with, say, fruits versus processed sweet snacks: It's far more profitable to produce and sell Twinkies and Cinnabons, for example, than to grow and sell strawberries. That's why so much more money is spent convincing us of the deliciousness of Twinkies and Cinnabons.

Similarly, it's more profitable to sell a million pounds of industrially raised meat than it is to sell 100,000 pounds of humanely raised, antibiotic-and hormone-free. And if you're the producer of that meat, you create demand as necessary. Maybe you lower prices. Or you tell consumers that meat is healthier than an alternative protein source. Or you make it more appealing: it's manly, it's real food, it's what's for dinner. Maybe you even cook it for them and sell it as cheaply as you can. Or you provide a combination of all of these, which is what we have today. Whatever it takes.

The people in many developed countries, including the U.S., consume 1/2 pound of meat per day.

Most people crave meat. Arguably, that craving is natural, or at least not unnatural. We are omnivorous, capable of digesting a wide range of foods, and historically we have eaten just about all of them, first from necessity and then for pleasure.

If you grow up eating meat and and it's marketed as real, healthy, cheap, s.e.xy, and delicious, you really enjoy eating it. But given a large enough marketing budget, we can be persuaded to eat just about anything, including concoctions that contain no naturally occurring food at all. it's marketed as real, healthy, cheap, s.e.xy, and delicious, you really enjoy eating it. But given a large enough marketing budget, we can be persuaded to eat just about anything, including concoctions that contain no naturally occurring food at all.

A new world of meat eaters We might love meat, we might benefit from eating it in moderate quant.i.ties, but we don't need need to eat meat to live. And most independent experts believe that consuming it at our current levels is bad for us. And our consumption is headed in the wrong direction. Livestock, globally, is the fastest-growing sector of agriculture: Since 1980 the global production of pigs and poultry has quadrupled, and there are twice as many cattle, sheep, and goats. to eat meat to live. And most independent experts believe that consuming it at our current levels is bad for us. And our consumption is headed in the wrong direction. Livestock, globally, is the fastest-growing sector of agriculture: Since 1980 the global production of pigs and poultry has quadrupled, and there are twice as many cattle, sheep, and goats.

The people in many developed countries (including the United States) consume an average of about half a pound of meat per day; in Africa, the average is about an ounce a day. And though meat consumption is fairly stable in the United States, it's rising at a faster rate in the developing world, where it has tripled since 1970. The Chinese eat twice as much meat as they did a decade ago.

Between 1995 and 2005, the number of chickens worldwide destined to be eaten rose by 14 billion (an increase of 40 percent); the number of egg-layers increased by 2.3 billion (31 percent); the number of pigs rose by 255 million (24 percent); and the number of cows used for milk production increased by 12 million (6 percent). The FAO predicts that this increase in animal production will continue, and that meat production will double again by 2050.

Impressive numbers. And the truth is that because of them, the world needs needs factory farming. There is no other method that can produce these quant.i.ties of meat, eggs, and dairy. It follows, then, that factory farming. There is no other method that can produce these quant.i.ties of meat, eggs, and dairy. It follows, then, that the only way to reduce factory farming is to demand less meat the only way to reduce factory farming is to demand less meat.

We currently raise 60 billion animals each year for food-ten animals for every human on earth. The projection is that just to sustain current consumption levels (and consumption is increasing, so this is conservative), by 2050 we'll be raising 120 billion animals a year.

60 BILLION animals are raised each year for food-10 animals for every human on earth. BILLION animals are raised each year for food-10 animals for every human on earth.

That number would require using more land for agriculture than exists. Even if we could find the s.p.a.ce (or technology) to meet the demand, the number also a.s.sumes that the atmosphere, land, and oceans could tolerate it. The effect would be c.u.mulative, like credit card debt: a year of animal consumption at this rate requires a year and two months' worth of resources. And since consumption is increasing, the situation will get worse even faster. In developing parts of Asia, for example, meat consumption increased 131 percent between 1980 and 2002; in Latin America and the Caribbean, 24 percent; in industrialized countries, 10 percent; and in the world as a whole, 22 percent.

The only way to reduce factory farming is to demand less meat.

It's not just meat There's another aspect to this problem, one that many experts believe affects our health even more dramatically than meat. And though it's been overshadowed by livestock in the realm of ecological damage, it's equally alarming.

That is the world of junk food, overrefined carbohydrates, and highly processed oils-foods that make up an astonishingly large part of our diet. A study from the University of California at Berkeley, for example, reports that almost one-third of Americans' total caloric intake comes from "nutrient-poor" foods like sweets, salty snacks, and fruit drinks. Seven percent of our calories come from soda-more than from vegetables-with hamburgers, pizza, pastries, and potato chips following close behind. (See the chart on the next page.) Meanwhile, beef, pork, dairy, chicken, and fish account for 23 percent of our total caloric consumption, while vegetables and fruit-including juice, which is often sugar-laden-barely hit 10 percent. (See the chart on the opposite page.)

Top 10 Foods Contributing to Energy Intake in the U.S. Population

Rank .

Food Food .

% of Total Energy % of Total Energy