In case you hadn’t heard yet, L.A. vegan restaurants are feeding eggs and milk to vegans (via Boing Boing, thanks to Zak).That’s right — A vegan blog called Quarry Girl undertook “Operation Pancake” — a study that basically bought food from 17 L.A. vegan restaurants and tested them for animal products. 10 restaurants passed the test — but 7 did not. According to Quarry Girl:
What the test results seem to confirm … is that the meat substitutes available at vegan Thai restaurants are suspect, as are the ingredients used in some specific food options (pancakes, quesadillas and more).
The specific issue that Quarry Girl points to is that meat substitutes imported from Taiwan sometimes include animal ingredients that aren’t listed on the ingredient labels — an omission that appears largely due to the different food labeling laws in Taiwan vs. the U.S. Luckily, Taiwan’s poised to tighten its food labeling laws, which will hopefully help close this un-vegan-friendly gap in information.
But the larger and more important issue, IMHO, is that many of these meat substitutes are highly processed foods with massive ingredient lists and huge travel footprints that bring up some of the same sort of scary issues as the synthetic, engineered foods from Nestle and Kraft. According to Quarry Girl, “MOST, if not all, of the fake meats you buy come from Taiwan.”
Part of my reaction to this story may simply have to do with all the overzealous vegans and would-be vegans that “inform” me that vegan is by definition the greenest of green (read this comment string for an example of the vegan harangues I have to deal with — mostly via email — every couple weeks) — an assumption that most sustainable foodies would disagree with. But given the choice between an egg from an organic free range chicken farmer at my local farmers’ market and some multi-ingredient “meat” that’s made with in Taiwan using genetically-modified ingredients grown via factory farming before getting shipped over to the U.S., I’d opt for the egg.
Yes, I know some vegans are very mindful about making sure their vegan diet is actually green, opting for locally-produced tofu stir-fried in Cali olive oil. Those vegans know well that “vegan” apparently isn’t always vegan in L.A. restaurants — and a vegan diet most certainly isn’t always green. After all, the mercury-tainted, high fructose corn syrupy Hershey’s chocolate syrup‘s also vegan.
Photo by Andrew Dowsett and Divine Harvester
The thing that sets vegans apart from just being eco-conscious is the belief that no animals have a right to be exploited, tortured, murdered, etc. I don’t want this to go into a huge debate, but there seems to be a lot of animosity towards “over-zealous” vegans. Being eco-friendly is a good reason to go vegan, but really, it’s for the animals.
And, for the majority of people who don’t live in a city like Santa Monica or who are not able to live off public transportation or ride their bikes or afford super super eco friendly foods, veganism IS the greenest thing they can do.
Comment by Haley — July 1, 2009 @ 1:54 pm
Haley, I think that Siel is trying to get to the idea that going vegan in the way described above — with imported meat subs and whatnot — ISN’T always the greenest thing you could do. Eating what is already where you live could be “greener”, even if that means eating some of the extra eggs your neighbor gave you from her own chickens that run around her backyard eating up the insects in her organic garden. Unless you explicitly care about the animal issues you were describing, if you are motivated by “greeness” to change your diet, there are other ways to go about it besides strictly adhering to a vegan diet.
Comment by M — July 1, 2009 @ 3:44 pm
And, of course, eating all those highly processed foods are definitely not the healthiest way to go either. I personally don’t eat the “fake meats” because meat grosses me out in general.
But, from someone who is surrounded by vegans (and happens to be one herself), typically the ‘vegan=green’ argument is just an example of why to go vegan. And, also, like I mentioned above, unless you have the time and the means, going vegan really IS the greenest they can do. I mean, I don’t know about you, but I don’t know anyone who has a garden around me or chickens running around.
Comment by Haley — July 1, 2009 @ 3:53 pm
Wow – apparently, I lack the ability to proofread my comments. Kindly excuse all my grammatical errors. :P
Comment by Haley — July 1, 2009 @ 3:58 pm
Urban gardens are v. popular here — as are urban chickens. Where is this gardenless, chickenless place you’re living, Haley? It sounds so sad!
I think we all agree that we’d all be better off if people ate less CAFO meat, but I disagree with your notion that the sort of veganism you’re espousing here’s necessarily the greenest thing people can do. Basically, you’re saying going vegan’s a great green move for people without “the time or the means” — yet this is the exact kind of veganism that’d lead to wearing cheap pleather and eating fake imported meat. Sure, people without “the time and the means,” as you put it, could fill up on Taiwanese “meat” and Hershey’s chocolate syrup — but those dietary changes aren’t exactly better for the planet.
Eating green does require actually taking the time and the means — but not THAT much more time and means. If environmentalism’s what you care about, making a conscious effort to eat in an environmentally friendly manner will be a better use of your time than reading the huge ingredient lists of “convenience” foods to avoid animal products.
Very relatedly: Check out The Onion’s sendup of greenwashed fast food. Taco Bell comes up with an all unnatural menu that takes no resources from nature. That means it’s all vegan — Yay! :P
Comment by Siel — July 1, 2009 @ 5:37 pm
Wow, I already avoid fake meats because of the scary ingredient lists, but I had no idea most of these meat substitutes were from Taiwan. I know China and Taiwan are improving their food safety regulations, but with all of the melamine contamination that’s happened recently, an improvement still probably doesn’t mean much.
The WSJ ran an article about a year ago (wish I could find it) stating that 10% of China’s food is grown on soil contaminated with lead and other heavy metals that get into the food. Apparently it’s common for people to set up small farms on the empty land next to lead smelting plants and the like. Scary.
Comment by T — July 1, 2009 @ 5:54 pm
Oh my – I worked at Taco Bell in high school. I know exactly what’s in that food.
I think I may not have made myself understood well enough. I am not disagreeing with you at all. I guess the point I’m trying to make is at least it’s a start for some people. I mean, I have to admit myself…although I “cared” about the environment…I never really cared until I went vegan.
I live in a concrete wasteland apartment in San Fernando Valley. :( No gardens for me. It is very sad. I keep trying to beg my friends to let me garden at their house.
Comment by Haley — July 1, 2009 @ 6:10 pm
As for the “not that much more time” comment – I completely agree. I am by no means excusing laziness. It’s something I argue with people about on what seems to be a regular basis: “Sure it may take an extra 30 minutes a day, but isn’t it worth it?”
Comment by Haley — July 1, 2009 @ 6:13 pm
I get what Haley is saying. Most vegans don’t do it exclusively for the environment, but to many it’s a big issue. Siel, to use your example, a vegan wouldn’t eat their neighbors eggs that might go bad because they believe that is stealing a resource from the chicken, which humans don’t have a right to do. If you look at it from a strictly environmental standpoint, of course it would make sense to eat it. But from an animal rights standpoint, it doesn’t. I think, eventually, most vegans (and vegetarians) develop a combination of reasons for their diets, though many focus more on one aspect.
There’s no doubt that not eating animal products reduces your carbon foot print:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/06/business/worldbusiness/06iht-greencol07.4.6029437.html
and: http://www.ecostreet.com/blog/sustainable-lifestyle/2007/09/11/7-big-ways-to-reduce-your-carbon-footprint/
Those numbers come from the United Nations. Honestly, it doesn’t REALLY matter where those animal products come from. They still use feed that has to be grown and arable land. But do the types of vegan diets you can consume vary greatly (just like omnivorous diets)? Yeah, of course. Now, whether or not a local omnivorous diet is better than a vegan diet that incorporates imported and pre-packaged items, that would take a lot more research and calculation I am not equipped to do. I mean, do I enjoy a banana or a tofurkey dog at times? Yeah. (Tofurkey is made in the US, though packaged and trucked around, of course.) Do I buy MOST of my product at the Farmer’s Market? Yeah. But do I think I’m greener than people who buy all their food at WalMart? Yeah, obviously. If I felt there was no difference I wouldn’t spend the money. It probably depends a lot on how much of your diet is made up of take-out meals from Vegan Thai restaurants. (Although that does support local business – not an environmental issue, but an ethical one, to be sure.)
In conclusion, people are complicated. Personally, I consider a lot of issues relating to my community and planet when choosing my diet, transportation, housing, etc. I think most people are similar.
Comment by MsMeryMac — July 2, 2009 @ 9:20 am
Hey MsMeryMac — I of course agree that many vegans are vegans because they think meat is murder, etc. And as I mentioned before, I think we all agree that not eating CAFO meat will decrease anyone’s carbon footprint. If we speak in generalities, we could probably say most vegans are primarily vegans for reasons that aren’t centrally focused on reducing their carbon footprint, and that most vegan diets have smaller carbon footprints than the typical American cheeseburger-n-fries-at-drive-thru diet.
But this post’s talking more about vegans who insist a vegan diet in itself is always greener than an omnivore’s diet — even when the omnivorian diet’s extremely eco friendly and the vegan diet may not be. As you point out, people are complicated — and thus we can’t make sweeping statements like vegan = most eco-friendly diet. Perhaps that’s a point we can agree on –
Comment by Siel — July 2, 2009 @ 10:02 am
Perhaps, but since I’ve never seen any kind of study about anything like this, I’d be hesitant to agree, just because it seems like it might make sense. There are so few hard core locavores in general that it makes it hard to study their carbon footprints in absolute numbers, though not impossible. Most people probably have combination diets – shopping at Farmer’s Markets for veggies, when in season and available, shopping at grocery stores for everything else. But researching the carbon footprint of a locavore omni, a locavore vegan, and a “junk food” or convenience vegan and comparing those to the overall raw numbers for the typical standard american diet would definitely be a great project for a PhD candidate in an environmental biology program! Of course, the numbers may be out there, or will be soon. I just haven’t seen studies like that, even as a frequent reader of Grist, etc.
So yeah, I can’t say definitively that vegan is better all the time. But then, I can’t say definitively that local is better all the time, either.
Comment by MsMeryMac — July 2, 2009 @ 12:01 pm
Getting the average western family to eat LESS meat would do way more for the environment than getting the vegans to think about carbon footprints. Humans are measurably healthier in places like the Mediterranean region and studies are proving that eating less meat plays a big part. It takes more fossil fuels and causes more pollution to produce meat than to produce most vegetable foodstuffs.
Martin’s last blog post..Video Tutorial: Making Glue
Comment by Martin — July 2, 2009 @ 2:24 pm
There are actually quite a few hardcore locavores in my ‘hood, but in any case, I too would be interested in some numbers. I can imagine how hard this would be, though, since the #s by definition would have to be extremely local and specific (i.e. studying a single person’s backyard urban homestead), without as much opportunity for broad application.
I think we all agree about the average American diet being too meat-centric — but I think what I’m trying to get at more is that these things really do depend on different locations and individual practices. It’d be really ridiculous, for ex, to exhort a non-cow-centric diet to the Maasai — or to urge Kim in Alaska to go on a vegan diet.
And to go along with what MsMeryMac’s saying about supporting local restaurants / local economy having benefits beyond what’s easily measurable — the same sort of benefits hold true of supporting local farms — including the ones that incorporate livestock — vs. synthetic Taiwanese “food” imports.
Comment by Siel — July 3, 2009 @ 5:37 pm