JUST ENGAGE

After more than two decades as a vegetarian, I scarcely think about meat. We have a kosher home and I do most of the cooking. My husband (to his great regret) is a “vegetarian by marriage.” But last week, he kindly offered to cook dinner. To my dismay, my four-year old loved Daddy’s grilled chicken breasts. Gone was the child we typically cajole to eat two bites of his veggie burger or tofu curry. 

He paused from eating only long enough to query, “Mommy, where does chicken come from?”

“Where do you think chicken comes from, dear?”

My son paused for at least 20 seconds before retorting, “…Pigs?”

I had clearly failed as a Jewish mother: my kosher, near-vegetarian child was eating something he thought was a pig. And he’d asked for seconds.

I recovered from this double affront and launched into a thoughtful discussion about why mommy doesn’t eat meat. I chose my words with care. I hope my son eventually chooses to become a vegetarian. But I also don’t want him to condemn his father. I had little to fear. At the close of my careful monologue, my son declared, “I’m a T-Rex. You’re a stegosaurus.” And he took another bite.

Last Thursday, millions of Americans celebrated Thanksgiving—no doubt consuming a significant share of the roughly 270 million turkeys raised in the United States this year. And while turkey is far less energy-intensive than other forms of meat, it is, nonetheless, still responsible for significant carbon emissions. A British analysis found that a “typical” holiday meal for a group of eight produces the equivalent of 20 kg of carbon dioxide emissions—with the life cycle of the turkey alone credited for 60 percent. [Reader: take some comfort in the fact that British imports of cranberry sauce from the U.S. account for roughly .5 kg.] Combined, British revelers consume the carbon equivalent of 6,000 car trips around the world or 300 return car journeys to the moon in a single holiday. I hesitate to do the math for the U.S.

Of course, turkey is not the worst offender. Nonetheless, the UN reports that meat production (of all kinds) accounts for nearly one-fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, raising cattle is worse for the environment than driving cars. And global meat consumption is poised to double by mid-century.

Unfortunately, according to Scientific American, keeping kosher doesn’t necessarily help. While Jews don’t traditionally eat pork (despite the perceptions of my four-year old), we don’t necessarily replace these calories with “low-carbon” veggies. And, replacing pork and shellfish with beef will only increase emissions.

This year, I was spared the angst of witnessing my son’s rapture for turkey. We shared Thanksgiving with our dear friends in Boston—who don’t keep kosher. And so, it was wild rice and brussel sprouts for Kefer and kin. 

[For low-carbon vegetarian alternatives, visit Gentle Thanksgiving]

[If you do choose to eat meat this holiday season, visit www.kolfoods.com to learn why you needn’t choose between keeping your values and keeping kosher]

[Click here to determine the carbon emissions of your meals]

A common line one hears in religious circles is “God works in mysterious ways.” Is it possible to conclude that when God realized people were going to love eating large, long-lived fishes (which were, after all, created on the 5^th day) to the point of oblivion, God actually made us humans pollute the waters so that eating these fish would be toxic to our bodies and we would moderate our consumption?

Probably not. While the notion may be laughable, it does shed light onto the occasional irony that is human induced pollution. While more often pollution and climate change work to endanger and eliminate species from our planet, in this case could our destructiveness save several?

Some background information: Half of the planet’s atmospheric mercury is human generated, most to produce power that fuels our lives. As the hunger for sushi has grown and globalization aids all fish exports, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that over 70% of the world’s fish species are either fully exploited or depleted.

The general public is only beginning to learn what pregnant and breast-feeding women (and some others) have known for years: many fishes have mercury, and it is dangerous to eat too much as mercury can get passed along through the placenta and breast milk.

Though children and fetuses are at the highest risk, because their brains and nervous system are still forming, it has only recently been published that the quantities of mercury in the fishes we eat can be harmful to adults. The Environmental Defense Fund has a useful report on mercury, from which I excerpt:

“Mercury exposure can also harm adults. Symptoms can include numbness, burning or tingling of the extremities (lips, fingers, toes); fatigue; weakness; irritability; shyness; loss of memory and coordination; tremors; and changes in hearing and blurred vision. Extremely high mercury levels can permanently damage an adult’s brain and kidneys, or even lead to circulatory failure.”

Last January, the New York Times broke the story, “High Levels of Mercury Found in Tuna Sushi,” inspired talk, blog posts and more news reports. Maybe people will be motivated to care for their bodies and eat less mercury heavy, over-fished fish? Maybe, just maybe, one day our fisheries will be healthy, and eating the fish from them will be healthier, too.

Some Really Great Resources:

My favorite: Monterey Bay Aquarium’s Seafood Watch – a complete guide of all fishes and their health/environmental implications
Environmental Defense Fund’s Guide of “How many meals (of which fish) are safe to eat each month”
Hilarious analysis of the news threads from Newsweek, “Would You Like Mercury With Your Sushi?”