|
There’s a really interesting article in the Sydney Morning Herald today about a lunch between Margaret Fulton and Tim Flannery (Australian of the Year). To celebrate the re-release of the Margaret Fulton Cookbook, Good Living asked Margaret to invite someone to lunch, and she chose Tim. Looks like they got on a treat. The conversation naturally turned to the environment and the role that diet and food production plays in exaggerating, or minimising, environmental impact. Both Margaret and Tim were supporters of organic food, and argued that the Government and public need to support more sustainable forms of food production. Of course that led to the perennial question of whether that is an elitist attitude, given organic food is more expensive. I’ve often had this same debate with friends. Tim’s answer was that people should be encouraged to eat higher quality organic meat, but less often. Margaret argued that the Government has a role to play in improving living conditions and standards for food production, especially livestock and poultry, because that would wipe out some of the ‘bad’ but cheaper options on the market. I guess that is the old externalities chestnut (maybe one for oikos)? Another interesting angle to the story was the use of organic food in restaurants (the lunch was at Becasse where Justin North came up with a wholly organic meal). This seems to be becoming more popular in Australia, especially with the support of prominent chefs like Bill Grainger, Sean Moran and Kylie Kwong, but it’s not that widespread. Interestingly, when we were in the US the bulk of vegetarian restaurants that we tried used organic food - I think there is a stronger link there between vegetarianism and healthy eating.
Comments:
2 Comments posted on "Environmentalist / Cook (or is it the other way around?)"
kathryn on May 29th, 2007 at 5:36 pm #
I read the article as well Kate, and it is a difficult dilemma. It’s a debate I often have with clients. I generally find that most people, certainly here in Australia, eat too much meat and my advice to them is to spend the same amount of money on buying less meat and then have a couple of vegetarian protein nights. But it’s a hard one to sell - it’s counter-intuitive for most people. We all like a bargain and people certainly don’t like to spend more money on less final product. Plus many just don’t know what to do with beans and tofu. Of course, in environmental terms, there is also a benefit to more people eating vegetarian proteins.
David on May 30th, 2007 at 10:58 am #
Interesting article. Lots of issues here. I don’t think the government really has a role in promoting organic agriculture (beyond regulating pollution etc from agriculture which may indirectly benefit less polluting agriculture). It’s up to cooks and growers and fans to sell the benefits. For my money, organic food usually has so much more flavour that it’s worth the extra. I would have thought many good restaurants would be using organic produce for that reason. I think this ‘elitist’ thing is a bit of a furphy. Non-organic carrots from the grocer downstairs cost about 25c each, organic ones about 35c. We use one or two in a meal - that’s a difference of 10 or 20c. Why is paying more for something you like better and is better for you elitist? Lots of people go to the movies even though it’s much cheaper to rent the DVD. I haven’t heard movie-goers being accused of being elitist. I’d rather eat less better-quality food but people can make their own choices. I’d agree with Margaret Fulton that governments should have a role in banning cruel practices such as battery hen farming. If that reduces the availability of cheap, low-quality meat, some may regard that as a good thing, others as a bad thing. But if it’s done, it should be done to protect animals from cruelty. Governments shouldn’t be in the business of banning cheap low-quality foods only because they’re low quality. That would be elitist. Post a comment
|
Bad Behavior has blocked 1359 access attempts in the last 7 days.