Enjoy your holiday cookies, but be sure you are alarmed about the health risks of doing it!

I read this article when it first appeared on newswires: Study Finds That “Sustainable” Food Isn’t So Sustainable.

For the most part, it had some interesting information and was great fodder for discussion among my family. It certainly challenged our critical thinking skills. There were a few “results” of the study that stuck in my brain like splinters, though.

Supposedly, these researchers didn’t just study food miles, or ocean acidity, but “everything.” Remember that old test-taking strategy: “Qualifiers like ‘never, always, and every’ mean that the statement must be true all of the time. Usually these type of qualifiers lead to a false answer.” That seems to be a safe assumption here as well.

Let’s start here:

Reducing the amount of animal-derived inputs to feeds (e.g. fish meals and oils along with livestock derived meals) in favor of plant-based feed inputs can markedly reduce environmental impacts.

Sounds reasonable, but let’s think about it for a minute. Because we don’t know (no one does, not even experts) the long-term damage to the environment (or our own bodies) resulting from GMO plant production, plant-based feed inputs would almost certainly increase environmental impacts. More GMO corn and soy means more monocropping, more glyphosate in the environment, more pesticide-resistant weeds, and more genetic pollution. I find it hard to fathom how plant inputs could be in any way considered sustainable.

At the point that fish are removed from their natural surroundings and fed man-made “inputs” rather than food, the animals’ body begins to work differently, less efficiently and perhaps dangerously (think: fish CAFO).

Soymeal-fed salmon is already in the markets. You’ll notice a little “color added” notation to the price sticker. That’s because farmed salmon which are fed soy meal don’t produce the pink color you would normally expect in salmon meat. The pink has to be added back in to make the fish “look” right. Does that make it right? Does it contain the same chemical and nutrient composition as salmon that makes its own “pink?”

I’m not saying the feed should be animal-based, I’m saying it should be what is natural for them in their environment. Feeding fish GM soy and corn (the cheapest, subsidized and therefore most likely suspects) would significantly alter their body functions, perhaps making them less suitable for human consumption. This alteration could have long-term effects on their environment as well, something we cannot predict or plan for.

But that’s nitpicking compared to my beef with this statement:

Driving to the store alone and then cooking alone at home has a big environmental impact. Going out to dinner more, or just eating more frequently with friends and family at home, has huge benefit.

Whoa. Did I read that right? Dining out is a more sustainable food model than cooking or dining at home?

This is the kind of message that has taught our children that Sugar Bombs cereal is “part of this complete, balanced breakfast.” Restaurants are wonderful, but do we really need to eat out more than we already do for the sake of “sustainability?” Is it sustainable to have others prepare your food, control your portions, mix sustainable seafood with unsustainable and unhealthful canola oil and irradiated seasonings and MSG, charge you twice what it would cost you to prepare it at home and create increased food waste by their preparation and disposal methods?

I realize the authors intended point was that an oven turned on for fourteen minutes at 350° to cook one serving of fish uses the same amount of energy as an oven turned on for fourteen minutes at 350° to cook eight servings of fish, and is therefore eight times less efficient. I have no argument with the “dining with friends and family” part of the scenario. Shared meals have a long, rich tradition in human history, and far better for society, health and environment to share a meal slowly than to eat in front of the TV or in the car on your way from point A to point B.

It’s a very rare meal in my house that requires a trip to the grocery store for a single ingredient. The drive to the store and back most often is a single weekly trip, carrying food for no less than 20 meals. How does that stack up next to the driving associated with a trip to and from a restaurant for a single meal?

When reading studies and articles by “experts,” I think it is vitally important to understand that we don’t know everything. We can’t possibly take every scenario into account: that’s the law of unintended consequences. It’s also good to bring a healthy dose of skepticism and not check your brain at the door.

This post is part of Prevention Not Prescriptions and Real Food Wednesday.

Advertisement