-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
We Don't Need a Food Revolution
A lack of technique behind the stove is, in the end, as complicit in harming human health and the environment as the confinement1 pig or the corn-fed steer2.
We need radical3 thinking, but we don't need a revolution. We don't need an overthrow4 of capitalism5. Nor do we need to become vegetarians6. We need not become spartans7. We're just going to have to learn how to cook.
It's impossible to overemphasize the importance of good farming for safe and nutritious8 food. But the campaign for food democracy needs to start with boning knives and cast-iron skillets. A lack of technique behind the stove is, in the end, as complicit in harming human health and the environment as the confinement pig or the corn-fed steer.
Yes, that sixteen-ounce rib-eye takes precious resources like water (approximately 2,500 gallons) and grain (about twelve pounds) away from feeding the poor, and the environmental havoc9 associated with raising beef most often affects the disenfranchised. By 2050, if we continue this gorging10, livestock11 will be consuming as much as 4 billion people do.
These horrors of conventional animal husbandry are tied to the amount of meat we eat, which is intimately linked to the parts of the animal we choose to eat. That is, choosing the rib-eye -- as opposed to choosing, say, the brisket -- determines how many animals are produced.
It's the equivalent of eating high on the hog12, and it doesn't just mean a lot of wasted meat. It means a lot more animals raised in confinement. How else can farmers afford to increase production when there's increased waste? When suppliers -- producers, processors, retailers13 and, yes, we chefs -- throw the bulk of the carcass away, output must go up, leaving farmers little choice but to engage in the mass-production practices that are so morally and environmentally toxic14.
HealthTop TipsNutritionLoveLifestyleHappinessWeight Loss
Supermarkets in the United States stock cutlets and steaks and loins -- restaurant chefs, including me, feature them in seven-ounce portions -- but unless you venture to an ethnic15 market (or dine at an ethnic restaurant), you'll have a hard time getting your hands on liver, kidney or tripe16. For commerce's sake, it makes more sense to use these odd cuts for dog food, or simply to dump them abroad, in places like Mexico and India. (The only way we've accepted using these less-than-desirables is grinding them up into sausage links and hot dogs -- creating dull food products out of disparate and delicious parts.)
Paul Roberts, in his book The End of Food, calls this the "protein paradox": meat production has outstripped17 people production. Through advances in breeding and grain feeding, the cost of one pound of meat is cheaper now than at any time in history. And yet that downswing in cost hasn't led to any kind of meat-eating democracy. If anything, it has enabled -- and at this point, even encouraged -- a kind of pork chop dictatorship. Not only do we eat too much meat, we also eat too much of the wrong parts. We don't know where our meat comes from, we don't know what the animal we're eating ate, and we sure don't know how to get behind the stove and take control of what we put in our mouths.
We ought to start by looking at the great food cultures of the world. The traditional cuisines19 of Asia and North Africa, not to mention France and Italy, are based on rice, wheat, spices and smatterings of all cuts of meat. In just about every other cuisine18, protein plays second fiddle20 to grains and vegetables. When meat appears, it does so modestly; it takes up less space on the plate, and more often than not it's a piece of the animal -- tripe or oxtail -- that Americans so willingly discard.
American cuisine co-opts other cultures' cuisines with the eye of the entitled: special-occasion foods turn into everyday staples21, center cuts take center stage. There's nothing inevitable22 about that, and very little that's delicious. Good cooking gives a voice to these disenfranchised parts. Democratizing the carcass should be the future of food.
点击收听单词发音
1 confinement | |
n.幽禁,拘留,监禁;分娩;限制,局限 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
2 steer | |
vt.驾驶,为…操舵;引导;vi.驾驶 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
3 radical | |
n.激进份子,原子团,根号;adj.根本的,激进的,彻底的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
4 overthrow | |
v.推翻,打倒,颠覆;n.推翻,瓦解,颠覆 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
5 capitalism | |
n.资本主义 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
6 vegetarians | |
n.吃素的人( vegetarian的名词复数 );素食者;素食主义者;食草动物 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
7 spartans | |
n.斯巴达(spartan的复数形式) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
8 nutritious | |
adj.有营养的,营养价值高的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
9 havoc | |
n.大破坏,浩劫,大混乱,大杂乱 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
10 gorging | |
v.(用食物把自己)塞饱,填饱( gorge的现在分词 );作呕 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
11 livestock | |
n.家畜,牲畜 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
12 hog | |
n.猪;馋嘴贪吃的人;vt.把…占为己有,独占 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
13 retailers | |
零售商,零售店( retailer的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
14 toxic | |
adj.有毒的,因中毒引起的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
15 ethnic | |
adj.人种的,种族的,异教徒的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
16 tripe | |
n.废话,肚子, 内脏 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
17 outstripped | |
v.做得比…更好,(在赛跑等中)超过( outstrip的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
18 cuisine | |
n.烹调,烹饪法 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
19 cuisines | |
n.烹饪( cuisine的名词复数 );菜肴;(通常指昂贵的饭店中的)饭菜;烹饪艺术 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
20 fiddle | |
n.小提琴;vi.拉提琴;不停拨弄,乱动 | |
参考例句: |
|
|
21 staples | |
n.(某国的)主要产品( staple的名词复数 );钉书钉;U 形钉;主要部份v.用钉书钉钉住( staple的第三人称单数 ) | |
参考例句: |
|
|
22 inevitable | |
adj.不可避免的,必然发生的 | |
参考例句: |
|
|