|
|
 May All Be Fed
Diet for a New World
by John Robbins; 1992; 415 pages
with recipes by Jia Patton and friends
John Robbins is considered by many to be
the most eloquent and powerful spokesman in the country for a sane and
sustainable future. In May All Be Fed, he explains why few have
so much to eat and why so many have so little. With thorough
documentation, Robbins exposes the commercial and political forces that
cause the affluent to suffer from heart disease, osteoporosis, and
other diet-related diseases, and also cause the poor to be deprived of
a basic human right -- ample, wholesome food.
May All Be Fed is a guide to
eating with appreciation and gratitude, and to understanding how our
food choices affect our health and our world. The message is
straightforward -- the way we eat has a significant impact. By
consciously making our choices as to how and what we eat, this intimate
and fundamental part of our lives can be an effective expression of our
desire to create a healthy life for ourselves and contribute to the
health of others.
The first step is to become aware of how
advertising and commercially motivated educational programming shape
our food choices, and mislead us toward disease and unhappiness.
Robbins reveals the deceptive tactics often used by food manufacturers,
producers, and lobbyists to get us to purchase their products.
Recognizing and talking about these
issues isn't enough. May All Be Fed shows us how to turn words
into actions:
- A detailed list of 124 substantive
ideas of what you can do to make your voice heard.
- Why a reduction in meat consumption
may well be the most effective single action you can take.
- Crucial information about today's
chicken, fish, dairy products, and eggs.
- Learn a new way of eating with 200
delicious recipes, including whole-grain breakfast cereals and
puddings; tasty soups, hearty stews and chilis; crunchy as well as
leafy salads; and satisfying fruit desserts.
May All Be Fed is a worthy sequel
to the author's acclaimed international best-seller, Diet for a New
America. With his powerful yet gentle style, John Robbins helps us
realize that the blessing of food is truly the gift of life.
Author of the international best-seller Diet
for a New America, John Robbins is the founder of Earth Save, a
nonprofit organization dedicated to the transition to more healthful
and environmentally sound food choices. John's life and work have been
the subject of hundreds of major articles and television programs,
including the extraordinarily popular PBS special also entitled Diet
for a New America. John has been a featured speaker at the United
Nations and at many conferences sponsored by national and international
organizations devoted to creating a livable world.
 $1.35
Excerpts
(Note: The original text contains footnotes,
but they have been omitted in this excerpt.)
Introduction
A few years ago, I wrote a book called Diet for a New
America. Since then I have received more than thirty thousand
heartfelt letters from people thanking me and saying the book changed
their lives. Countless people report that their minds have become
sharper and clearer. Their capacity for pleasure and enjoyment has
increased. they've lost weight; their cholesterol levels are way down;
they don't need the blood pressure medication and diabetes pills they
had been told they would have to take for the rest of their lives;
their joint don't hurt anymore; their sexual functioning has returned;
they don't have the headaches or constipation they did previously; they
don't catch colds or flus anymore. They are learning to eat well, and
their bodies are thanking them with pleasure and health.
A Food Factory in Reverse
Less than half the harvested agricultural acreage in the
United States is used to grow food for people. The majority of it is
used instead to grow livestock feed.
There was a time when I would have said that this makes no
difference. I would have said that the livestock feed ends up as the
meat that people eat, so the land used for livestock feed is still
feeding people.
But I have learned something that has changed this perspective.
It takes sixteen pounds of grain to produce a pound of
feedlot beef. It takes only one pound of grain to produce a pound of
bread.
It is hard to grasp how immensely wasteful the feed conversion
ratio for beef is. By cycling our grain through livestock and into
beef, we end up with only 6 percent as much food available to feed
human beings as we would have if we ate the grain directly.
To understand the return on the investment we make by feeding
our grain to livestock, imagine the following scenario: You take $1000
to the bank and deposit it in your account. Later, you return to the
bank to withdraw the money. You would probably expect to collect the
original $1000 that yo deposited, plus a little interest, wouldn't you?
Well, in this case things work out a little differently. The
bank teller hands you only $60. That's it. That is all you get. Not
only do you get no interest, you have lost $940 of your original $1000.
This is equivalent to the loss of available food when we cycle
our grain through cattle. We get back only one pound of beef for every
sixteen pounds of grain we invest.
To feed one meat eater for a year requires three-and-a-quarter
acres of land. To feed one vegetarian for a year requires one half acre
of land. In other words, a given amount of land can feed more than six
times as many people eating a vegetarian diet than those eating a
meat-based diet.
$1.35
The Great Debate
In the years since my book Diet for a New America
became a best-seller, I've had many occasions to discuss these matters
with representatives from the Beef council, the National Cattlemen's
Association, the National Livestock and Meat Board, and other meat
industry organizations. Usually these debates follow a fairly
predictable pattern; we disagree on just about everything, and not a
lot gets resolved. But on one occasion, the experience was different. A
debate was to be broadcast on national radio, and the meat industry was
taking it seriously. They sent as their spokesman an extremely well
spoken man with several Ph.D.s, whom I will call Dr. Mark Seligson.
The show began with the usual polite introductions, but I
could tell this was not going to be a picnic at the beach. Dr. Seligson
was clearly a formidable adversary, a man who knew his intellectual
strength and used it. It didn't take long. Within seconds of beginning,
the power of this man's mind was being used in all its force to
vindicate the industry he served.
He began by saying that the corn and soybeans fed to animals
are not suitable for human consumption. I replied that this is true;
but it's also true that the land used to grow these crops could just as
easily be used to grow varieties for people.
"Well," he said, looking not in the slightest disturbed, "I'll
admit that far greater quantities of grain would be available for human
consumption with a more plant-based diet. But that would have no real
effect on world hunger." He paused for effect, then continued, "After
all, we have immense quantities of grain already in storage."
I felt a sadness come over me. If only we had so much grain
stored that world food security was assured! It is true, as I proceeded
to explain, that up until quite recently we did have mountains of grain
in storage, because for years world per capita grain production was
climbing. What many people don't realize, however, is that we reached,
and then passed, the apex of this curve, and for a number of years now,
throughout the world, per capita grain production has been declining
precipitously. We have much less surplus grain in storage than most
people think. To document my point, I quoted from Worldwatch
Institute's prestigious 1991 State of the World report:
"World carryover stocks, perhaps the best short-term
measure of food security, totaled a record 461 million tons of grain in
1987, enough to feed the world for 102 days. But in each of the next
three years world grain consumption exceeded production, leading to a
173-million-ton drop in stocks.... By 1990, carryover stocks had
dropped to 290 million tons, enough for just 62 days.
This information seemed to catch my worthy opponent off guard.
"Why, that would mean," he said, his eyes blinking rapidly, "that if
this trend continued unabated, world grain stocks would be totally
depleted in just five years. Even if this trend is somehow halted, we
are already in a precarious position."
I nodded, and for the moment at least it seemed that we were
no longer opponents, but two people joined in a search for
understanding. I spoke of alternatives that would place us on safer
ground. If Americans were to reduce our meat consumption by only 10
percent, it would free land and resources to grow over twelve million
tons of grain annually for human consumption, more than enough to
adequately feed every one of the forty to sixty million human beings
who will starve to death on the planet this year.
Suddenly, Dr. Seligson's demeanor was back in place. His
primary point, to which he returned several times, and each time with
greater emphasis, was that world hunger is not a consequence of meat
consumption. It is, he announced triumphantly, "a question of the
enormous explosion in population. Every year there are ninety-three
million more homo sapiens upon this planet. That is why we have
starving people."
"Well said," I acknowledged. "But don't you think that the
growing population is even more reason to have an agriculture that
feeds people, not livestock? With more and more people, isn't the need
becoming greater every year to use our land efficiently?"
Dr. Seligson looked deflated. "I hadn't thought of it quite
that way," he said, his voice now subdued.
"And what if we couple rising population numbers with
deteriorating life-support systems?" I continued. "We are losing
twenty-four billion tons of topsoil worldwide every year. Our
croplands, forests, and grasslands are degrading; our biologically
productive land area is shrinking. Acid rain, ozone layer depletion,
air pollution, the extinction of species, water loss, soil erosion, and
many other environmental degradations are steadily diminishing our
food-producing capability. In almost every country in the world more
and more forests are being cut down to clear land to grow cattle feed
or to graze cattle. Prairies, grasslands, and rangelands are being
destroyed by the overgrazing of livestock. And cropland soils are
eroding under the stress of producing the vastly greater quantities of
grain needed for a meat-based diet than for a plant-based one. Isn't it
time we began to see meat as the extravagance it is?"
$1.35
To Grow Up Big and Strong
I am sitting in elementary school. The teacher has brought out
a colored chart and is telling us kids how important it is to eat meat,
drink our milk, and gets lots of protein. I am listening to her and
looking at the chart, which makes it all seem so simple. I believe my
teacher, because I sense that she believes what she is saying. She is
sincere. She is a grown-up. Besides, the chart is decorated and fun to
look at. It must be true.
Protein, I hear -- that's what's important. Protein. And you
can only get good quality protein from meats, eggs, and dairy products.
That is why they make up two of the four basic food groups on the chart.
I am impressed. At lunch, I spend the last ten cents of my
weekly allowance for a second carton of milk.
Now I am an adult and, looking back, I know my teacher had all
she could handle to keep control of the classroom and teach a few basic
skills. When teaching aids were given to her that helped get the
class's attention, and helped ease her burden, she was grateful. She
surely had little time to wonder about the political dynamics that led
to the development of those aids. How was she to know that the pretty
chart was actually the outcome of extensive political lobbying by the
meat and dairy industries? How could she know that many millions of
dollars had been poured into the campaigns that produced those charts?
My teacher believed what she taught us, and never for a moment
suspected she was being used to relay a commercial message.
Our innocent and captive little minds soaked it all up like
sponges. And most of us have been willing, regular, and unquestioning
consumers of large amounts of meat and dairy products ever since. Even
those few of us who have chosen not to may still be haunted by the
voices of our teachers and the lessons of those charts. If we listen,
we may hear a voice in the back of our minds whispering, "Maybe you
aren't getting enough protein...."
Getting Enough Protein
There is no question that meat, dairy products, and eggs are
high in protein. But the average American consumes 90 to 120 grams of
protein per day -- while the ideal protein intake for a human being is
20 to 40 grams per day. most Americans today are worried about "getting
enough protein," but in fact, are eating far more than necessary, and
far more than is healthy.
Human mother's milk provides 5 percent of its calories as
protein. Nature seems to be telling us that little babies, whose
bodies are growing the fastest they will ever grow in their lives, and
whose protein needs are maximum, are best served when 5 percent of
their food calories come as protein.
How hard is it to get 5 percent of your calories from protein?
Not hard at all. If we ate nothing but wheat (16 percent protein) or
oatmeal (15 percent), or even pumpkin (12 percent), we would easily be
getting more than enough protein. In fact, if we ate nothing but the
common potato (11 percent protein) we would still be getting enough
protein. There have been circumstances when people have been forced to
satisfy their entire nutritional needs with potatoes and water alone.
Individuals who have lived for lengthy periods of time under those
conditions showed no signs whatsoever of protein deficiency. This fact
does not mean potatoes are a particularly high source of protein. They
are not. But what it does show is the contrast between how low our
protein needs really are, and how exaggerated are the beliefs most of
us have come to accept about them.
$1.35
Diet for a Small Planet
In 1971, Frances Moore Lappé published an influential book
entitled Diet for a Small Planet. She showed that when plant
foods are matched in certain ways, the result is that the amino acids
in the different vegetable proteins combine to produce proteins that
are more usable than they would be by themselves. In fact, she showed
that in many cases, thanks to the synergistic effect of protein
complementarity, mixed vegetable proteins come to outrank meat in their
value to the body.
Lappé's enthusiasm for protein combining was contagious. Her
book sold more than three million copies.
In later years, though, Lappé was learning more and revising
her thinking about the need to combine vegetable proteins. Lappé became
convinced that her emphasis in Diet for a Small Planet on
protein complementarity had been misplaced. So she revised her book,
and in 1982 reissued an almost completely new tenth anniversary
edition. Now she said:
"In 1971 I stressed protein complementarity because I
assumed that the only way to get enough protein...was to create a
protein as usable by the body as animal protein. In combating the myth
that meat is the only way to get high-quality protein, I reinforced
another myth. I gave the impression that in order to get enough protein
without meat, considerable care was needed in choosing foods. Actually,
it is much easier than I thought.... With a healthy, varied diet, concern
about protein complementarity is not necessary.... If people are
getting enough calories, they are virtually certain of getting enough
protein."
It is not only Frances Moore Lappé whose mind has changed as
new evidence has come in from protein research. The editors of the most
rigorous scientific journals now are likewise convinced. An editorial
in the medical journal Lancet reports:
"Formerly, vegetable proteins were classified as
second-class, and regarded as inferior to first-class proteins of
animal origin, but this distinction has now been generally discarded."
Osteoporosis and the Protein
Connection
In one quarter of sixty-five-year-old women on the United
States, bone mineral losses are so severe the condition is even the
clinical name "osteoporosis." For a person technically to qualify for
this diagnosis she must have lost 50 to 75 percent of the original bone
material from her skeleton. One out of every four 65-year-old-women
in our culture has lost over half her bone density. Today, more women
die from the effects of osteoporosis than from cancer of the breast and
cervix combined.
I used to believe that bones lost calcium only if there was
not enough calcium in the individual's diet. The dairy industry is the
foremost proponent of this point of view, and the solution its
spokesmen propose, not all that shockingly, is for us all to drink more
milk and eat more dairy products. At first glance it seems logical. But
current nutritional research clearly indicates a major flaw in this
perspective. Osteoporosis is a condition caused by a number of
factors, the most important of which is excess dietary protein.
In every study the same correspondence was found: the more
protein taken in, the more calcium the body loses. This is true even if
the dietary calcium intake is as high as 1400 milligrams per day, far
higher than the current American standard.
Regardless of how much calcium we take in, the more protein
in the diet, the more calcium we lose. The result is that
high-protein diets in general, and meat-based diets in particular, lead
to a gradual but inexorable decrease in bone density and the
development of osteoporosis.
Summarizing the medical research on osteoporosis, one of the
nation's leading medical authorities on dietary associations with
disease, Dr. John McDougall, says:
"I would like to emphasize that the calcium-losing
effect of protein on the human body is not an area of controversy in
scientific circles. The many studies performed during the past
fifty-five years consistently show that the most important dietary
change that we can make if we want to create a positive calcium balance
that will keep our bones solid is to decrease the amount of proteins we
eat each day. The important change is not to increase the amount of
calcium we take in."
$1.35
Who Decides What You Eat?
In front of me is a coloring book found today in public
schools. Purporting to teach children how to eat well, it has been
supplied to school systems by the dairy industry. I don't know how many
states use this particular coloring book, but I know that it is
representative of many of the "nutritional education" materials used
throughout the United states.
I open the coloring book and see the outline drawing of a
man's face. "Color Dad," I am told. That sounds fair enough. But look
what happens next. How we are to color in Dad's face is not left
entirely up to our imaginations. There are rules to follow:
1. If Dad drank milk today, we are to draw a "happy face." If
he did not, then we are to draw a "sad face."
2. If he had ice cream today, we are to color his hair brown;
if he did not, we are to color his hair blue.
3. If he had butter, we are to color his eyes blue. If he
didn't have any butter, we are to color his eyes red.
4. If he had cheese, we are to color his face pink. If he
didn't have any cheese, we are to color his face green.
It is unlikely that you had this particular coloring book when
you were in grammar school, because this one is a recent publication.
But it is quite probably that if you went to public school in the
United States, you were given similar materials. When that happened,
you probably got our your crayons and began busily coloring away. There
is one thing, hough, that I am willing to bet you didn't do. You didn't
raise your hand and say,
"Excuse me, teacher, but I have some questions. What
are the health consequences of eating a lot of milk, butter, ice cream,
and cheese? Aren't these all high in butterfat? And isn't butterfat a
highly saturated fat? And don't dairy fats carry pesticide residues at
very high levels of concentration? Oh, and there is one thing more,
teacher: Who is it that profits from our believing that if we don't eat
ice cream, butter, milk, and cheese we end up looking terrible, with
red eyes, a green face, and blue hair?"
Giving Our Children Heart Disease
and Calling it Nutrition
Perhaps the most blatant example of the Department of
Agriculture's subservience to the meat and dairy industries at the
expense of public health is the school lunch program. Each year, the
USDA buys three to four billion dollars' worth of surplus foods, which
it donates to the nation's schools. These donated items make up 20 to
30 percent of the food served in school lunches. This may sound as if
the USDA were helping our children to eat well, but look again. The
school lunch programs are being used by the Department of Agriculture
to guarantee a market for the meat and dairy industries. By 1991, the
evidence implicating high-fat, high-cholesterol animal products in the
creation of heart disease, cancer, adult-onset diabetes, and obesity
had become as massive and incontrovertible as the evidence linking
smoking to lung cancer. Yet in 1991, 90 percent of the USDA surplus
foods consisted of eggs, high-fat cheeses, butter, ground pork, ground
beef, and whole milk. If the USDA had intentionally gone out to obtain
foods that would destroy the health of our children, they could hardly
have done better. Furthermore, while the USDA donates hundreds of
millions of dollars worth of high-fat cheeses, schools must pay for
low-fat cheese.
The results are catastrophic for the health of our children.
No wonder our children have the most clogged arteries of any children
in the world, and their rate of atherosclerosis is increasing. No
wonder the American Hearth Association reports that in a recent 17-year
period, obesity in children aged six to eleven jumped a startling 54
percent.
$1.35
The Largest Study in History
In 1990, the global scientific community eagerly awaited the
results of the largest and most important diet and health study ever
undertaken. Conducted by an international team of scientists, the
China-Oxford -Cornell Project on Nutrition, Health, and the Environment
(also known as the China Health Project) was begun in 1983. When the
first reports from the study were finally released, health
organizations worldwide applauded the research enthusiastically, and
over fifty papers on the study were published in scientific journals.
Representatives of the meat industry, however, did not find
many reasons to celebrate. The reason was that the mammoth study
indicated that:
"...whether industrialized societies...can cure
themselves of their meat addictions may ultimately be a greater factor
in world health than all the doctors, health insurance policies, and
drugs put together."
The dairy industry also had reason to flinch, for the study
confirmed not only that consumption of dairy products is completely
unnecessary to prevent osteoporosis, but also that because dairy
products are high in fat and protein, they contribute to cancer, heart
disease, obesity, and many other diseases.
Herbed Lentil Loaf
Makes 6-8 servings
|
4.5 cups water
2 cups lentils, picked over and rinsed
1/2 pound firm tofu, crumbled
1/4 cup rolled oats
1/4 cup soy sauce
1/4 teaspoon freshly ground black pepper
1 cup minced fresh parsley
1/2 cup finely chopped fresh basil or 2 teaspoons dried basil
2 tablespoons finely chopped fresh thyme or 1 teaspoon dried thyme
|
1 teaspoon rubbed sage
1 tablespoon olive oil
3 ribs celery, with leaves, finely chopped
1 medium onion, finely chopped
3 garlic cloves, minced
TOPPING
1 cup raw almonds
2 tablespoons nutritional yeast flakes
1 tablespoon soy sauce
Mushroom Miso Sauce (page 303)
|
Preheat the oven to 350*F. Lightly oil an 8- by 8-inch baking
pan.
Put 3.5 cups of the water and the lentils in a large saucepan.
Cover and bring to a boil over medium-high heat, then immediately
reduce the heat and simmer until the water is absorbed, 50 to 60
minutes.
Meanwhile, put the tofu, the remaining 1 cup water, the oats,
soy sauce, and pepper in a blender and blend until smooth. Add the
parsley, basil, thyme, and sage and pulse just to mix. Transfer to a
large bowl.
Heat the olive oil in a large frying pan over medium-high
heat. Add the celery, onion, and garlic and cook until softened, about
6 minutes. Add to the tofu mixture.
Add the cooked lentils to the tofu-vegetable mixture, and stir
to mix. Press the mixture firmly into the prepared pan, and bake for 15
minutes.
Meanwhile, put the almonds, yeast flakes, and soy sauce in a
food processor fitted with the metal blade, and pulse to coarsely chop.
Sprinkle the topping over the top of the lentil loaf and bake
for 15 minutes more. Let the loaf cool for 10 minutes before cutting
into squares. Serve with the Mushroom Miso Sauce (p. 303) on the side.
$1.35
|