The Meaning of Meat

by D. R. Hildebrand

Whenever possible, I avoid buying food at airports.  Earlier this month though, I was in a bind, saw a Qdoba, and decided to make an exception.  I got the rice, the beans, the roasted veggies, and said no to the meat, cheese, and sour cream, and at the end of the line asked for guacamole.  Apparently, when one orders certain vegetables and not others, the guacamole is not included—irrespective of the fact that no meat, no cheese, and no sour cream are part of the meal.

I told the manager I could have ordered a chicken burrito for the same price as a vegetarian one, or a beef burrito for thirty cents more; but asking for guacamole without any of the meat or dairy and it cost me more than all of them combined.  He looked at me like I had just informed him that water is wet and said, “Yeah, that’s right.”  Dumbfounded and annoyed, I asked him what, then, was the meaning of meat, and took my money elsewhere.

Not long before this I was out at a low-key restaurant in Brooklyn and I ordered a veggie burger.  The bill came and my friends and I passed it around, seeing what each of us owed, and I realized their meat burgers were priced the same as my veggie burger.  When the server returned I asked if there was a mistake.  She said no.  I asked her how that could be.  She said my veggie burger had come with a homemade sauce.  I cocked my head and raised a brow and she said, “Look, we’re not exactly serving high-quality meat here.”

Clearly!  Still, the answer begs the question—not just of this one restaurant or of Qdoba alone, but of numerous establishments—what are you serving?  And more so, what is it really worth?

Image by Christopher Rogers
Image by Christopher Rogers

Attempting to comprehend the true cost of meat is all but futile.  The numbers are astronomical and in some cases incalculable.  We can, however, certainly consider these expenses by name and surmise the respective price tags they carry.  Just addressing something as basic as land use, the United Nations Environmental Program reported in 2010 that 38% of all land is assigned either to growing livestock or food for livestock.  Growing and transporting billions of animals, and their food, comes at a cost, not to mention the gobs of fertilizer and the 90% of all pesticides they exploit.  Then, after years of fattening these animals they have to be transported once again.  Then they have to be slaughtered.  Then they have to be cut.  Then they have to be cleaned and inspected and packaged, and transported yet again.  Countless employees must be compensated.  Throughout the entire, cumbersome process, all 215 million tons of meat we consume annually must be kept refrigerated or even frozen.  Merely striving to prevent the epidemics we foresee from this system, we spend additional billions of dollars—then many billions more when it fails.  None of this even approaches the more abstract, unseen costs of deforestation, water pollution, waste management, or the 18% of all greenhouse gas emissions generated by such a monstrous, inefficient, inconceivably expensive industry.

Cattle

Nevertheless, one little dollop of guacamole in my burrito costs me an extra fifty cents.

Because, aside from the taxpayers in New Zealand where as far back as 1984 the government recognized the ills of environmental degradation, mass overproduction, and inflated land prices, we pay for it all.  Vegan or omnivore, as long as we pay taxes we subsidize the entire process.

In the United States we grant an average of $20 billion per year to the meat and dairy industries.  Of all food-related subsidies, two-thirds goes to animals destined for slaughter, one-fourth goes to humans for direct consumption, and not one penny goes to the growing of fruits or vegetables.  The system is so antiquated and uneconomical that today three-quarters of these direct subsidies go to the top 10% of commodity-crops owners, even while the original intent of such 1920s bills was to keep small family farms, not mega corporations, from going out of business.

In a rational world we wouldn’t subsidize such a ruinous industry, but tax it.  If we desire meat as much as we think we do, having it should come not at a discount, not generously and freely, but with a levy, just as with alcohol, with cigarettes, and with airfare—and ideally one day oil.  The proposal might sound absurd but if, for example, we were offered a vodka-and-orange juice for the same price as an orange juice alone would we not question the vodka?  Or if we flew and never paid taxes for the flights would we not wonder how things like infrastructure, inspections, basic maintenance, and security were all financed?  None of this is at all different than a burrito or a burger.  Transporting, mutilating, housing, injecting, feeding, killing, cutting, cleaning, packaging, freezing, and distributing an animal comes at a cost.  Given away, it is meaningless.

REET AUS: Mass Upcycling

Photo: Reet Aus

Upcycling has come a long way. Creating new garments using discarded materials and scraps from the garment industry that would otherwise end up in landfills seemed difficult to scale up for the mass market. Most upcycling production models needed to stay small-scale and hand-made. But then came Reet Aus, an Estonian fashion designer and Ph.D. who has developed a system for putting manufactures and designers who want their scraps in contact for large scale manufacturing. The database is called Trash To Trend. In her own line, which features some menswear, Aus provides info sheets that compare the envionrmental impacts of upcycled materials used in each garment against the impacts of using the same “virgin” material.

http://www.reetaus.com/photos/reet_prev-8299_large.jpgReetAushttp://www.reetaus.com/photos/aus_labelid_20.jpg

ANNTIAN SS13

Anntian03

Anntian’s spring/summer 2013 collection is a modern-psychadelic trip; an optimistic cacaphony combining explosions of organic textures and abstract patters with hard lines, photographic prints and bold blocks of soft colors. The textiles shown here are organic cotton, cotton and linen. Designers Anne Hilken and Christian Kurt are based in Berlin, and started designing in 2006.

While their entire collection is not vegan (they do use some wool and leather),  all of the looks here are suitable for vegans. You can check their shoplist for locations to buy, or buy online.

Anntian02Anntian04  Anntian05 Anntian01

You Don’t Look Like A Baby Cow

Screen Shot 2013-03-31 at 12.53.03 PM

Silk featured a hilarious (and poignant) new commercial for their Almond Milk created by John Brookbank, who was a finalist in last year’s user-submitted contest. And it’s stirring up quite a controversy in the dairy industry, referring to cow’s milk-drinkers as “suckling heifers”. This video is an intelligent counter to the hyper-masculine marketing that the meat and dairy industry uses – especially when it comes to protein and athleticism. I think the slapstick humor is clever, the delivery is spot-on, and the facts delivered are so true! We are not baby cows. Cow’s milk is designed by nature for calves, not adult humans. Plus, dairy has been linked to many diseases, and has pus and blood in it. Gross.

 

Slovenia is for Animal Lovers & Xie Young Takes A Stab at Fur

301b5a0d-f592-4255-887c-e8b0bce937efOgilvy and Mathers art exhibit4

 

Artist Xie Yong, a professor at Shenyang University’s art department, installs an eye on his fox-like sculpture (above) covered in needles during “Fur Hurts”, an anti-fur campaign organized by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), at Zhuozhan Shopping Center in Shenyang, Liaoning province, March 27, 2013. PETA has also launched an interactive website in Chinese showcasing the sculpture in three-dimensions.

 

On March 7th, 2013 a new animal protection law was passed in Slovenia banning:
  • • farming and hunting animals for their fur
  • • farming and hunting animals for their skin
  • • farming and hunting animals for their down and feathers
  • • use of wild animals in circuses and similar shows
  • • religious slaughter without stunning

The law was being changed due to new EU regulations on animals used for scientific purposes, and Slovenian animal protection and rights non-governmental organizations managed to implement significant changes to the law – namely the ban on circus acts involving wild animals and the ban on farming and hunting animals for their fur, feathers or skin. The law was passed in the Slovenian Parliament with a great majority (95% support). (read the full article here at veganska-iniciativa)