🐱 What’s in a social justice diet? - When vegan isn’t preachy enough for you

CatParty


Billions of dollars are spent telling individuals how to eat healthy. But even if you follow EAT-Lancet’s planet-friendly diet to a T, and your dinner plate is filled with gluten-free nutrivore fare, vegan locavore leafy greens, and ovo-pescatarian (wild caught!) omega-3’s, it still might be missing something. America’s industrialized food production and the dire nature of our planetary health raise the question: How do we add climate and social justice to our diet?

This year, members of the federal Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee will convene to update their recommendations. But this effort to help guide Americans toward a “balanced” diet is also the product of lobbying by the dairy, grain, and meat industries, which have long been accused of pursuing dollars at the expense of health.

Considering the impact of environmental racism and the number of food deserts in the United States, it’s clear that food production and consumption are not just about personal decisions. It’s about politics and systems that determine who has healthy grocery options available and who does not. Existing guidelines not only ignore the needs of the climate and rely on intensive factory farming practices, but they assign blame for poor bodily health and quality of life based on “choices” that, for many people, simply do not exist.

What would it look like to be able to eat with justice—social, racial, economic, and climate—in mind?

Honor tribal treaties and food systems.
Before we talk about eating, we have to talk about the land on which our food is grown. In contrast to the American colonial prioritization of extracting resources from the ground, rivers, and oceans, Indigenous food systems are built on a relationship with the land. But when Native peoples were forced to leave their lands—along with their soils and place-based expertise—they were robbed of the healthy diets they had developed over generations.

Genocide, forced assimilation, creation of reservation territories, and continuance of anti-Native policieshave dispossessed Native people of two kinds of wealth: the ability to truly self-govern and manage their land, and the ability to build capital, which would enable individuals to make choices about how to live a healthy lifestyle.

“What we’ve noticed, and what I’ve aimed to do, is promote the simple enrichment of diets through our traditional foods, because we know that eating just one traditional food meal a week changes the blood,” says Valerie Segrest, a member of the Muckleshoot tribe and a director with the Native American Agriculture Fund. According to a 2019 U.N. report, Indigenous peoples steward 80 percent of the world’s biodiversity—plant and animal species that are essential to climate health.

But the U.S. government has an abysmal record of breaching treaties made with Native governments. And by replacing Native food systems with industrialized versions, Segrest says the U.S. harms the land and public health simultaneously. Native leaders, U.S. scientists, and public health officials say that chronic diseases, including diabetes, didn’t exist in Native communities until the mid-20th century. Now, Native people have the highest rate of diabetes of any racial and ethnic group in the U.S.

Segrest has worked with all of the tribes in Washington state to teach the importance of traditional ingredients and says that Native foods are the remedy to this health crisis: “What’s good for an Indian is good for everybody.”

Grow knowledge and anti-racist practices.
Ayanna Jones is a Black farmer, educator, and community organizer in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. She lives in a majority-Black community, which runs up against a number of institutionalized racist practices. “Food justice is huge for us,” Jones says, detailing how her community’s food options are limited to local grocery stores that often sell low-quality or spoiled produce.

The stores offering higher quality and healthier options are intentionally located in the wealthy White communities, where customers are thought to be more interested in and able to pay for them. For those who can afford to travel to these neighborhoods to shop, their dollars end up leaving their own communities.

With this in mind, Jones says she began to think about what it would look like to grow her own food, to become self-sufficient. She wanted to find a way to show young people in the community that their bodies were worthy of food that is not rotten or laden with sugar and salt.

In 2015, Jones started the Sankofa Village Community Garden to provide anti-food-apartheid education and community programs, including gardening for seniors and summer camps for youth. Here she teaches young people how to produce their own food and how their bodies feel when they eat food that’s good for them.

“I give them that mental food,” Jones says. “They’re discovering the myths they’ve been given about food and food justice.” But even when one learns that sugar-filled cereal won’t sustain a child throughout the school day, if parents aren’t paid a wage that allows them to purchase healthier options, it’s difficult to turn knowledge into action. Still, Jones believes that “information is power”—that knowing is better than not knowing. “I’m growing to educate,” she says.

Shift food policy by buying regionally.
In nearly every corner of the country, it’s cheaper to purchase a liter of soda than it is to buy a head of broccoli; a 2013 study found that a “healthy” diet cost $550 more per person per year than an “unhealthy” one. For a family of four, that’s an extra $2,200 each year. “The system is set up to feed poor people more poorly,” says fifth-generation farmer Andy Dunham, who runs an organic vegetable operation in Grinnell, Iowa. “The only reason that soda is so cheap [is because] the United States government subsidizes the hell out of those crops: sugar cane and corn.” Billions of federal dollars are disbursed annually growing Big-Ag products: corn, soybeans, wheat, cotton, and rice, and to industries like big beef and big pork rather than small family farmers.

“I don’t think people have any idea about how much we spend on policy that [is] environmentally degrading,” Dunham says. To combat today’s industrial production, he calls for establishing ecologically diverse farming systems and a managed grazing system that allows soil to sequester carbon. And empowering people to know the difference. If consumers and voters understand the environmental implications of what they’re purchasing and which businesses they’re supporting through their consumption, then food policy at the federal level might look different. “Having a food literate society allows for policy to be sane,” he says.

In terms of what that translates to on the plate, Dunham says climate justice eating is about having a region-based diet. That doesn’t always mean picking plants over meat; it means taking into consideration where your food was raised and what kinds of energy, chemicals, and transport went into that process. You may need to change your approach to menu planning to reflect what’s in season, rather than relying on production somewhere that’s enjoying summer during your winter. This approach supports local farmers and keeps the carbon footprint of your food relatively low.

Support community-run collectives.
All forms of structural inequalities are made visible in the industrialized food system—from production to consumption, says Victor Brazelton, a community activist and educator with Planting Justice, an Oakland, California-based grassroots organization that works to cultivate food sovereignty, economic justice, and community healing through individual and communal empowerment. Planting Justice hires organizers, farmers, and activists who were formerly incarcerated. Part of its work is to combat current-day colonization and community displacement by building access to organic food through community gardens and educating kids about what healthy food looks and tastes like. “Food is medicine,” Brazelton says. Sustainable farming practices heal people and the planet.

“Community first starts wherever you are,” Brazelton adds, which includes acknowledging and collaborating with the people who originally stewarded the land. In the East Bay of California, the state government forced Ohlone tribes from their land through violence, but despite this, they still live and practice Ohlone culture today in what’s now called Oakland. Planting Justice developed a partnership with the Sogorea Te’ Land Trust, which works to repossess stolen Ohlone land. Planting Justice is currently working to pay off a 2-acre land parcel, and when it does, it will hand the deed over to the Land Trust.

“What’s really important is people having agency over their food,” says Molly Scalise of FRESHFARM, a D.C.-based food justice organization. FRESHFARM brings healthy food directly to communities through farmers markets, in-school programs, and gleaning programs, which distribute unsold produce to shelters. The organization also runs a farm-share through local schools, where parents can purchase produce at a subsidized rate using SNAP benefits. Scalise says this is necessarily a collaborative effort with D.C. residents to make sure it’s “not invasive or intrusive.” She says solutions arise from working with neighbors and communities.

The goal is making options more accessible to consumers in order to impact community health while ensuring that local farms remain profitable.

Develop relationship-oriented food systems.
How can we begin to talk about justice when those most impacted have the least access to decision-making tools and systems? That question is at the center of Jamie Harvie’s work. Harvie is the executive director of the Institute for a Sustainable Future, which works to build solutions for ecological health through advocacy and research. A food justice diet, he says, must mitigate climate impact, reduce poverty, and ensure that decision-making processes include those most impacted.

Ultimately, Harvie says, what’s good for the climate will be good for people too. But White, Western, colonial systems have conditioned many of us out of the understanding that food systems and communal health are connected.

Food justice must return systems to communities, Harvie explains. Organizations like Oregon Rural Actiontackle food injustice from a farming and policy perspective, by working to change state laws that allow farmers to sell directly to consumers, as well as collaborating with the state’s Department of Energy to provide low-interest loans to schools upgrading their energy systems, and building access to local farmers markets. Local food systems that are communally owned and operated allow for communal wealth creation. This means that food is not only eaten in the same region where it is produced, but the financial and public health benefits uplift the community as well.

Tying together food and climate justice isn’t an intellectual exercise, Harvie notes. Justice work, in any form, is about creating and sustaining relationships with one another, including the relationships with the Earth and our food systems. We have to do the hard work of moving from a transactional, colonial, and capitalist model of feeding ourselves to a relational model of feeding and caring for each other.
 
Because a battery cage raised chicken that grew up stewing in its own shit and being injected with all sorts of growth hormone and sketchy antibiotics is totally the same as a chicken you raised from an egg and slaughtered yourself. Low exposure to that sort of shit over peoples' entire lives is behind all sorts of medical issues we see now.
In the US, it's illegal to use hormones on chickens and antibiotics are only to be used to treat or prevent disease if at all (about half of the chicken industry doesn't even do that). That they're held in cages doesn't change their nutritional composition so yeah, you're getting the same shit either way. If you're American at least.
 
Because a battery cage raised chicken that grew up stewing in its own shit and being injected with all sorts of growth hormone and sketchy antibiotics is totally the same as a chicken you raised from an egg and slaughtered yourself. Low exposure to that sort of shit over peoples' entire lives is behind all sorts of medical issues we see now.
Yeah that explains why all those farmers raising the livestock/crops and getting far higher exposure rates than the general population have a higher rate of... wait a minute. They don't.

There are hundreds of absolutely massive large cohort studies proving it.

Industry best practices are best practices for a reason. The USDA is extremely competent organization who upholds these standards and anyone who tells you different is a conspiritard liar.
 
No it isn't. Not even close.

Pasteurization alone is a massive health benefit to society. Not to mention food preservatives, preservation techniques, and fortification. But these are mostly passive benefits. It doesn't make you more beautiful and your dick bigger. It just prevents something bad from happening and there is no bragging rights associated with not harming someone. Much easier to beat the Natural Fallacy drum to sperg about how much better(tm) your product is for consoomers to get them to pry open their wallet.

People honestly forget how common really nasty food-borne illnesses and malnutrition were and how much food science has done to fix major problems that have plagued mankind since the beginning of civilization. That we have near-universal access to affordable safe food in our society is probably the greatest misunderstanding of the modern age.
When people say "processed foods" they are talking about stuff like McDonalds and Hamburger Helper, not pasturized milk and canned spinach. You may be technically correct but it's somewhat pedantic.
 
The orthodox jews have rules easier to follow than whatever this was on about. These people should decolonize their diets, too. Stop eating anything that couldn't have been made before Columbian exchange. Oh no, what will they order on DoorDash now?
 
Rachel Maddow's September 22 show is engaging in that most American of traditions: an expose on the meatpacking industry and the USDA.
 
When people say "processed foods" they are talking about stuff like McDonalds and Hamburger Helper, not pasturized milk and canned spinach. You may be technically correct but it's somewhat pedantic.
What process does one use that the other one doesn't?

It isn't processing that is the problem. It is something else. Naming it a "processing" issue when it very clearly is not is a disservice to everyone and, for the most part, just part of a greater excuse people use for their own poor decision making.

Also, Mickey D's and Hamburger Helper and whatever the fuck are perfectly fine in moderation. Anything to excess, processed or not, is a problem. We used to call this dietary problem being "unbalanced". But fuckheads promoting their "all-natural" fad diets shanghaied the language and now we have peckerheads pretending processing is the issue consciously or not. Call it pedantry if you must but it just shows off your own ignorance since it is the dietician equivalent of calling an AR-15 a machine gun.
 
Última edición:
NGL, I've had some locally raised farm-to-fork beef thanks to some neighbors selling a side to the family after the slaughter, and that was the best fucking meat I have ever had in my life. Of course, the owner did nothing but call them insulting names and drink Rolling Rock as his cows stood around mowing his lawn for a couple years, so maybe that's the secret ingredient.
 
It’s generally not a bad message to eat stuff that’s not been fucked about with too much. Some processing is fine,or even beneficial, like for example pasteurisation, or fermentation. Or freezing of veg. I guess even chopping veg up and making soup is processing in one level.
What I think most people understand by ‘less processed shit’ is less crap like chicken nuggets. Or stuff like butter is probably better for you than margarine. Or an egg from a backyard chicken is better for you than eggos.
Processes like injecting meat with protein water filler to bulk it out, washing veg in soapy chlorine water, mechanically recovered meat with fuck knows what fillet in - these are not good things. Both directly (who wants to eat sausages that are made of lips and arseholes?) but also because it requires shitloads of salt and sugar be added to make it edible, and also I guess removes people from confronting what their food is. The more steps in the food chain the more likely it is that something bad slips in. There were cases in the UK a while back where horses and donkeys treated with banned for human use antibiotics were slaughtered and sold to meat processors, as was meat that had been condemned. That’s much less likely to happen with a local ‘farm gate’ supplier because the stamps on the carcass are visible and nobody is going to buy a side of anything that looks like a rotten donkey.
People have some weird ideas about food. I’ve heard people insist Diet Coke is healthy because it’s ‘diet’ for example. Then go off on one at people who hunt their meat, because bad.’
The other thing about not fucking about with food too much is that it makes you cook more stuff yourself, which usually means that people slow down, and people who cook from scratch are probably more likely to eat better stuff than those who live off turkey twizzlers and quavers.
So yeah, I think ‘eat stuff you can tell what it was when it grew’ isn’t too bad a rule of thumb.
 
It’s generally not a bad message to eat stuff that’s not been fucked about with too much. Some processing is fine,or even beneficial, like for example pasteurisation, or fermentation. Or freezing of veg. I guess even chopping veg up and making soup is processing in one level.
What I think most people understand by ‘less processed shit’ is less crap like chicken nuggets. Or stuff like butter is probably better for you than margarine. Or an egg from a backyard chicken is better for you than eggos.
Processes like injecting meat with protein water filler to bulk it out, washing veg in soapy chlorine water, mechanically recovered meat with fuck knows what fillet in - these are not good things. Both directly (who wants to eat sausages that are made of lips and arseholes?) but also because it requires shitloads of salt and sugar be added to make it edible, and also I guess removes people from confronting what their food is. The more steps in the food chain the more likely it is that something bad slips in. There were cases in the UK a while back where horses and donkeys treated with banned for human use antibiotics were slaughtered and sold to meat processors, as was meat that had been condemned. That’s much less likely to happen with a local ‘farm gate’ supplier because the stamps on the carcass are visible and nobody is going to buy a side of anything that looks like a rotten donkey.
People have some weird ideas about food. I’ve heard people insist Diet Coke is healthy because it’s ‘diet’ for example. Then go off on one at people who hunt their meat, because bad.’
The other thing about not fucking about with food too much is that it makes you cook more stuff yourself, which usually means that people slow down, and people who cook from scratch are probably more likely to eat better stuff than those who live off turkey twizzlers and quavers.
So yeah, I think ‘eat stuff you can tell what it was when it grew’ isn’t too bad a rule of thumb.
I disagree for the simple fact that most people have no idea what healthier higher quality food even looks like. We abandoned home economics 30 years ago and things like the USDA meat grading system has been replaced by branding and other meaningless crap like emphasizing the breed of cow. It has gotten so bad that the default position is that people go with what they ~feel~ is healthier rather than what they can read on the label and assessments of the experts. How many times have you seen some "lean beef grass-fed all-natural organic antibiotic free" low grade hockey puck in the meat bin that they want three times the money for? It's pretty much an everyday thing, right? And people swear by that crap and get eleventy kinds of buttmad when you call them out because what drives their consumption of it isn't a rational decision. It's all emotional.

I mean, jeez, how many cooking horrorcows do we have on this site that cook utter garbage from scratch. It isn't a raw material problem it's an education one. We allowed the subjective to make our decisions rather than listening to the experts and things fell apart.
 
It has gotten so bad that the default position is that people go with what they ~feel~ is healthier rather than what they can read on the label and assessments of the experts.
Yeah I agree - that’s what I mean about the Diet Coke and Marge: they see lo fat/diet on the pack and think it’s healthy. Then there’s the other end of the spectrum with the crunchy brigade thinking raw milk is a good idea. It’s all feels over reals these days. Peoples relationships with food are fucked up.
Even from when I was a kid (70s/80s) food has changed so much. The availability of stuff is totally different, there’s so much more of it. It’s not that we didn’t have sugar, we did, but junk was just a lot more expensive and your average poor brit got veg from the allotment or market and sweets were a treat (god showing my age, sorry... when I were a lass, etc...) we didn’t snack either and NOBODY was fat.
Nobody is dying of brucellosis any more because we pasteurise milk, but my parents remember kids getting that and TB from milk. No one who grew up then was sorry to see better good standards and processed foods were seen as modern and clean.
Having said that, maybe there is a case for why people don’t listen to the experts. The advice seems to change a lot - it used to be low fat everything which was filled up with sugar, now sugar is demonised. I suspect a lot of that is the media rather than the actual advice changing, but it’s the perception.
Even those of us who are keen gardeners can be surprised. There have been cases of curcubit poisoning this summer in Britain and i had no idea that was even a thing.
 
Having said that, maybe there is a case for why people don’t listen to the experts. The advice seems to change a lot - it used to be low fat everything which was filled up with sugar, now sugar is demonised. I suspect a lot of that is the media rather than the actual advice changing, but it’s the perception.
I feel that, but think at least part of it is people listen to the advice they want to hear. You would be hard pressed to find an expert who says don't eat vegetables. That's at least one piece of consistent advice, but people don't want to hear that; they want to hear about all the tasty things that are OK to eat. Tell them bacon or fat free ice cream is fine and suddenly everybody loves the experts.

But you're absolutely right that they just seem to get it wrong a lot, like saying don't eat eggs, or eat margarine instead of butter, I'm sure you've seen many examples.
 
Yeah I agree - that’s what I mean about the Diet Coke and Marge: they see lo fat/diet on the pack and think it’s healthy. Then there’s the other end of the spectrum with the crunchy brigade thinking raw milk is a good idea. It’s all feels over reals these days. Peoples relationships with food are fucked up.
Even from when I was a kid (70s/80s) food has changed so much. The availability of stuff is totally different, there’s so much more of it. It’s not that we didn’t have sugar, we did, but junk was just a lot more expensive and your average poor brit got veg from the allotment or market and sweets were a treat (god showing my age, sorry... when I were a lass, etc...) we didn’t snack either and NOBODY was fat.
Nobody is dying of brucellosis any more because we pasteurise milk, but my parents remember kids getting that and TB from milk. No one who grew up then was sorry to see better good standards and processed foods were seen as modern and clean.
Having said that, maybe there is a case for why people don’t listen to the experts. The advice seems to change a lot - it used to be low fat everything which was filled up with sugar, now sugar is demonised. I suspect a lot of that is the media rather than the actual advice changing, but it’s the perception.
Even those of us who are keen gardeners can be surprised. There have been cases of curcubit poisoning this summer in Britain and i had no idea that was even a thing.
Plants belonging to the family Cucerbitaceae are interesting from an evolutionary perspective because they're so bitter and toxic when raw that no animal aside from elephants and their now extinct relatives can eat them. Rodents find them revolting due to their alkaloid content and most other animals can't break their tough outer rinds to get a bite. They're an evolutionary anachronism that was destined to die out if not for humans having figured out how to cultivate them and safely eat them. Heating cucurbits through denatures the alkaloid molecules enough for the flesh to be rendered safe to eat. If you've ever made pumpkin pie starting with a whole pumpkin, this is why you need to bake it before making the pie filling.
Interestingly enough, food processing is what saved cucurbits from the dustbin of evolution.

What's truly amazing is how rare foodborne illness is these days. People still do get E. coli, gastroenteritis, noravirus, and botulism infections these days, but it's rare compared to how bad things used to be even in recent history. The last time I had violent food poisoning was many years ago when I ate tainted veal from the base DFAC. Shat my brains out for two whole days on top of spewing green bile vomit everywhere. Horrible to go through but I'm lucky. My grandmother can remember a time when the ingredients used for her home ec classes were spoiled, weevil infested trash suitable only for learning the basics of cookery.
 
Buying local is a dumb meme anyway. The food isn't any better (it's often worse) so paying extra is basically charity. You might as well buy real food and just hand them the difference if it makes you feel better about yourself.
Buying local doesn't work for humanity at the current scale, anyway. Even most rural communities don't grow enough food, or a varied enough diet, to feed everyone multiple healthy meals every day. And cities? Well, where do you think the rural communities are selling cash crops to? You wanna drive 20 miles to buy local? What happens when the other 12 million people who live nearby do the same thing? You gonna drive 100 miles? 200?

Just like these dumb moralfags think Native Americans had some "special" relationship with the land. News flash, they didn't. If we scaled up their practices to the current population of North America, we would destroy the ecosystem. That shit only worked back then because they were constantly killing each other or dying to a lack of modern medicine and hygiene, limiting the total damage they could do to less than nature's regenerative capacity.
 
I feel that, but think at least part of it is people listen to the advice they want to hear. You would be hard pressed to find an expert who says don't eat vegetables. That's at least one piece of consistent advice, but people don't want to hear that; they want to hear about all the tasty things that are OK to eat. Tell them bacon or fat free ice cream is fine and suddenly everybody loves the experts.

But you're absolutely right that they just seem to get it wrong a lot, like saying don't eat eggs, or eat margarine instead of butter, I'm sure you've seen many examples.
The problem is that nutrition is hard. We can't really isolate any single variable because everything works in tandem. One example is the sodium glucose cotransport mechanism. (Glucose is required for sodium intake).
Likewise, iron inhibits zinc uptake. Sugar inhibits vitamin c. Protien is good for a lot of things, but if your body starts using it as a source of ATP you have a ammonia produced as waste happened to me. My sweat smelled like piss and I had chronic diarrhea.

The bottom line is the human body is a difficult thing to wrap your head around in its own right. Trying to understand it is made even more difficult by the fact that humans are, well, human.
 
Rodents find them revolting due to their alkaloid content
So do kids ... kids sense of taste and pickiness is probably an evolutionary hangover to stop them eating those alkaloids, which can be more harmful to smaller and developing beings.


people listen to the advice they want to hear.

Very true.

The most retard woke diet i have seen someone get into is Raw Veganism. She was not just vegan but only ate raw food.

Ended as you'd expect, anemia.

Veganism is a cult. Humans can make do on a huge variety of diets from almost all meat to vegetarian, but veganism has never, ever been a thing until now
 
Meh, my attitude is that I aim to eat predominantly food that is grown, rather than made. I'd prefer fresh vegetables to canned or frozen, and a steak to sausages, if I'm going to eat carbs I'd rather have potato than pasta (unless I'm cooking Italian)
I also am lucky enough to live in the country so buying local isn't some meme, or a way to virtue signal, it's literally the cheapest way for me to get vegetables and I also get to support locals who have taken a hit since covid.

But honestly, this idea of "decolonising" diets can fuck right off. My ancestors lived on salted fish, seaweed and mutton. Fuck that noise.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo