Many of our young people elect a vegetarian diet either out of compassion for animals, in alignment with religious practice, or in pursuit of a healthy lifestyle. They often make the decision to stop eating meat independent of the norm for their family or community. Perhaps they have been exposed to films depicting treatment of animals on farms or in slaughterhouses or perhaps they have participated in green education programs supporting sustainable lifestyles. Whatever the reasons for their decision, these young people should have the support for their dietary choices when they reach the school cafeteria.
More than half of all children in the United States consume school lunch provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) National School Lunch Program (NSLP) . School districts and independent schools voluntarily participate in the NSLP and participants are reimbursed with cash subsidies and receive agricultural commodities and bonus foods for each meal served.
Having USDA oversee the school lunch program reinforces the purchase of meat from confined animal feed operations (CAFOs) with their use of antibiotics and growth hormones and has led parents, health professionals, dieticians, and groups such as the Earth Day Network, Better School Food, and Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine to demand significant change in the governmental structure of the National School Lunch Program, as well as the food it serves.
The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) established a program to evaluate meals served in the National School Lunch Program each year. In 2008, PCRM dietitians analyzed elementary school lunches served by 20 school districts and evaluated the districts’ efforts to promote healthful eating habits to students.
The results show that, despite rising food prices, many districts have found cost-effective ways to improve their lunch menus. More and more schools are serving fresh fruit, low-fat vegetable side dishes, and healthful vegetarian entrées on a daily basis. Many schools have also initiated nutrition education programs and other efforts to encourage good eating habits.
The A ratings in the 2008 report card go to:
Montgomery County Public Schools (Md.)
98
A
Pinellas County Schools (Fla.)
98
A
Omaha Public Schools (Neb.)
96
A
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (N.C.)
92
A-
Fairfax County Public Schools (Va.)
92
A-
Broward County Public Schools (Fla.)
91
A-
Santa Ana Unified School District (Calif.)
91
A-
For the complete list, visit the Healthy School Lunches website.
A recent nationwide survey by the School Nutrition Association shows that almost two thirds of this country’s school lunch programs now offer vegetarian fare on a regular basis.
Let’s applaud the efforts of these progressive school systems to ensure the health of both our children and our planet.
The newest State of the World report is being released today. Every year, Worldwatch Institute publishes a new edition with its own theme. The theme for State of the World 2010 is “Transforming Cultures – From Consumerism to Sustainability.” The book defines “consumerism” as a cultural orientation that leads people to find meaning, contentment, and acceptance primarily through what they consume.
“We’ve seen some encouraging efforts to combat the world’s climate crisis in the past few years,” says project director Erik Assadourian. “But making policy and technology changes while keeping cultures centered on consumerism and growth can only go so far. To thrive long into the future, human societies will need to shift their cultures so that sustainability becomes the norm and excessive consumption becomes taboo.”
This year’s State of the world features articles by many authors considered to be experts in their own area of sustainability. Two articles that are particularly relevant to readers of One Planet Diet are “From Agriculture to Permaculture”, by Albert Bates and Toby Hemenway and “Rethinking School Food –The Power of the Public Plate” by Kevin Morgan and Roberta Sonnino.
The article on permaculture moves us beyond growing organic to a form of agriculture where crops are grown in polycultures that mimic communities occurring naturally in nature, to take advantage of potential relationships among different design elements. The chapter on school food highlights the importance of reforming the school food program to introduce children to healthy eating and sustainable living at the ages in which lifelong habits are established.
People are beginning to realize that current fast-paced consumer focused lifestyles are diminishing our quality of life and are seeking changes that lead to more satisfaction rather than more goods. State of the World 2010 – Transforming Cultures brings together the most important components of sustainable living to help create a new generation of “cultural pioneers” that will be needed to forge the trail to sustainable lifestyles.
A preview copy is available on the Worldwatch website and the book can be purchased at local bookstores or through Amazon.
It has been a pleasure to contribute to the launch of State of the World 2010.
While there does not appear to have been much action in support of plant-based diets during the COP15 gathering of world leaders, almost 200 people attended the screening of Meat the Truth during the people’s climate summit, Klimaforum09, on December 17. Meat the Truth is a 2007 Dutch documentary that identifies livestock production as one of the most important causes of climate change, an issue that other documentaries have failed to address.
Meat the Truth was the first major project undertaken by the Nicolaas G. Pierson Foundation and, according to its website, demonstrates that “livestock farming generates more greenhouse gas emissions worldwide than all cars, lorries, trains, boats and planes added together.” The calculations on greenhouse gas emissions used in the film were validated by the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN (FAO), the World Watch Institute, the Institute for Environmental Studies of the Free University Amsterdam and numerous other authoritative sources. The English language version calculates carbon savings based on American standards. The film is presented by Marianne Thieme, leader of the Dutch Party for the Animals who states in the film that, if everyone is the U.S. went meatless one day a week:
The carbon savings would be the same as taking 19.2 million cars off U.S. roads for a year.
They would also save 99.6 megatons of greenhouse gas emissions, the same as 46 million round trip flights from New York to Los Angeles!
The Sustainable Development Commission (SDC), the UK government’s independent advisor on sustainable development, was invited by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to provide input into the government’s vision for developing a sustainable and secure food system. The focus of the study was to examine how changes in UK food consumption patterns could deliver positive sustainability outcomes. Reducing consumption of meat and dairy products was listed as one of three changes likely to have the most significant and immediate impact on making our diets more sustainable, in which health, environmental, economic and social impacts are more likely to complement each other. Meat and dairy consumption was considered one of the “hotspots” that should be given special attention by the government in developing guidance about sustainable diets.
The commission recommended that Defra, the Food Standards Agency and the Department of Health work in collaboration to review evidence of the sustainability implications of dietary change towards reduced meat and dairy consumption, using its scientific advisory committees where appropriate, to commission research where there are important gaps in the evidence and to explore ways to engage positively with consumers and the supply chain on the issue.
For more information, see: Setting the Table: Advice to Government on priority elements of sustainable diets
The largest summit on climate change in history opened Monday in Copenhagen, Denmark, with 15,000 participants from 192 nations. Government officials and representatives from the private sector, environmental organizations and research institutions, as well as 110 heads of state and government will be meeting for two weeks to negotiate commitments to cut emissions and agreements to finance mitigation and adaptation to climate change in developing countries.
Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said that the presence of so many world leaders “reflects an unprecedented mobilization of political determination to combat climate change. It represents a huge opportunity. An opportunity the world cannot afford to miss”. “A deal is within our reach,” Rasmussen said. “The ultimate responsibility rests with the citizens of the world, who will ultimately bear the fatal consequences, if we fail to act”.
“The costs of responding to climate change will become progressively higher as time goes on,” said Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, who chairs the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. “Therefore, we must take action now.”
Here are some highlights from the week so far:
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ruled that greenhouse gases endanger human health, allowing it to regulate planet-warming gases without legislation from the Senate.
A new scientific study was released warning that sea level could rise much faster than previously expected. Published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences and authored by Martin Vermeer of Helsinki University of Technology in Finland and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, the study reports that global sea level could rise between 75 and 190 centimeters by the year 2010. The analysis was based on measurements of sea level and temperature taken over the past 130 years.
The Sustainability Institute has launched an online tool that allows the public, journalists and other interested parties to track progress in the ongoing negotiations to produce an international climate treaty.
350.org, which organized a global day of action on climate change on October 24, is now calling for candlelight vigils on December 11 in support of an effective agreement in Copenhagen. Vigils throughout the world can be located at http://www.350.org/map.
Coming up on Thursday, December 10, The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) will host a session in Copenhagen entitled Climate change and food security: unifying commitment and action in land-based sectors. This event will discuss how climate change, food security, and poverty – key challenges that intersect in land-based sectors – cannot be addressed in isolation from each other.
If there is a bright spot in the gloomy picture of current economic conditions, perhaps it may arise out of an adjustment in values and lifestyles. While the rest of the world has been attempting to emulate the American ideal of success, with all the consumer based trimmings, the sudden application of brakes on disposable income may inspire a fresh look at the behaviors to which we have become habituated and the emergence of new alternatives.
The repercussions to quality of life arising from fast-paced lifestyles are especially apparent in our diets and their impact on our health. According to the Center for Disease Control website, 67 percent of non-institutionalized adults age 20 years and over are overweight or obese. Obesity has been linked to higher rates of diabetes, hypertension, heart problems and other disease. The fast-paced, high stress lifestyle increases the tendency to eat high fat, lower nutrition fast foods on a regular basis, while reducing recreational time available for exercise.
Morton Spurlock’s 2004 documentary “Supersize Me” brought a new focus on the fast food industry’s corporate influence, but a slow food movement had already begun in Italy in the 1980’s in rejection of American fast-food restaurants. Through the years, it gradually spread to more than one hundred countries. Advocates of slow food support sustainable food production that does not harm the environment and where food producers are fairly compensated for their work.
Taking time to prepare a home-cooked meal can increase appreciation of our food, which is a vital aspect of our relationship with the environment. We can select foods that have greater nutritional value and savor the flavors. In a world where multi-tasking has escalated to not only being respected, but considered as an essential skill, taking time to focus on what we are eating can improve digestion and allow our system to extract more of the nutrients of our food. The social value of sharing a meal can provide a source of satisfaction beyond that provided by food alone. In a world where speed is worshipped, perhaps there is still value in slowing things down—at least when it comes to food.
The Global Footprint Network is today releasing data showing that it would take nearly one and a half Earths to generate all the resources humanity currently consumes and absorb all our CO2 emissions. The estimate is based upon source data from 2006, the most recent year for which such data are available. This ecological overshoot means it now takes approximately 18 months for the Earth to regenerate what we use in one year.
The Global Footprint Network was established in 2003 to provide metrics to address the debate over the affordability of sustainability. Policy makers often claim that addressing ecological problems must wait until the solutions are more affordable, failing to consider the costs related to depletion and destruction of the earth’s resources that result from a delay. As resources are depleted, the consequences of postponing change will impact all global citizens. Those who prepare for living in a resource constrained world will have an advantage over those who do not.
Most Americans can understand the need to invest in changing their automobile engine oil regularly to enable the car to last many years, but many have difficulty in conceiving that investment in solutions to ecological problems is necessary in order to preserve this home on which we all live.
This Thanksgiving, let us give special thanks to Mother Earth for all the blessings she bestows and commit to finding ways in our life that we can help to ease her load.
Marc Gunther, contributing editor for Fortune, posted a fascinating blog about his experience of lunch choices at the 2009 Behavior, Energy and Climate Change Conference. As an experiment, organizers of the conference decided to offer a vegetarian entrée as the default choice for lunch, with the meat-based meal an option. It turned out that approximately 80% of the participants elected the default vegetarian choice. One of the comments following the piece noted that the results were skewed due to the failure of diners to remember the choice they had made. Some asked for the meat option as they were being served, so that others who originally chose meat did not receive what they requested. Even so, it would be interesting to conduct the experiment more scientifically and see how many people would be satisfied with a vegetarian option.
In a recent Newsnight interview of Al Gore by Jeremy Paxman, Gore acknowledged the significance of meat intensity in diet as a legitimate environmental concern and said that he had reduced meat in his diet, but would not become vegetarian. The Worldwatch Institute reported in early November that meat consumption continued to rise in 2008. It appears that, as much as the public supports the idea of green living, relatively few are willing to make a change that requires no financial investment and little inconvenience, but simply an alteration in choices.
So what does it take for people to make significant changes in their life? Our choices arise from all the environmental influences of our upbringing, beginning in infancy. Food choices are especially rooted in our early development and continue with us throughout economic and social changes in our lives. Some foods have even earned the label “comfort food” in recognition of their role in maintaining our emotional outlook. To break free of established patterns so tightly entwined with our norms, we are going to need to change what the default is.
Many people think of vegetarian diets as an assembly of three steamed vegetables laid out on a plate without ever conceiving the delightful culinary experiences of vegetarian ethnic dishes such as Thai, Afghan, or Indian. To demonstrate that plant-based diets are anything but boring, we need to induce them to try vegetarian meals. We need to create opportunities in which they actually need to opt out of the vegetarian choice. It would be a sign of true commitment if all those organizations dedicated to environmental causes would create a venue that contributed to the establishment of a new norm, with vegetarian as the default choice.
NRDC Simple Steps has been hosting an 8 day no impact week as a simplified version of Low Impact Man Colin Brevan’s year long experiment in no impact living. The program aims to bring awareness to which modern conveniences contribute to quality of life and which are suboptimal uses of time and money. Day 4, Wednesday, was about food and, in reviewing the blog comments for the day, it appears that the focus on food presented some of the biggest challenges to participants for the week so far. One of the suggestions for day 4 was to define a radius and choose foods grown within that radius. By not purchasing processed foods, no trash would be generated. The participants who were buying from CSA’s seemed to find it easier to stay within their radius, with grocery stores offering less of a selection of locally grown produce this time of year. Local sources of protein were particularly difficult, as tofu and seitan tend to be inefficiently packaged and transported and locally grown dried beans might not be readily available. The experiment generates thought about what one is eating and those who participated should be commended for making the effort. For anyone interested in trying the experiment, Simple Steps offers a guide. The inspiration for the program came from a no impact week sponsored by the Huffington Post.
An article in the Economist on November 12, “Farmers vs Greens,” declared that the U.S. would not pass a cap-and-trade law before the Copenhagen Conference in December due to the concerns of farmers about increased oil costs which drive up the price of fertilizer, fuel, and pesticides. Since U.S. government research shows that nearly 20 percent of this country’s CO2 emissions derive from agriculture, it is evident that farmers must be provided alternatives to use of synthetic fertilizers and pesticides to progress in implementing climate change policies. A massive education program is needed in alternative agriculture techniques.
Timothy LaSalle, CEO of Rodale Institute, is a proponent of regenerative agriculture, which can be distinguished as a form of organic farming in its use of composts and cover crops. LaSalle says that synthetic fertilizer and oil-based pesticides release carbon dioxide into the air through the quick decay of soil organic matter whereas regenerative agriculture takes carbon out of the air and puts it back in the soil. Rodale Institute research shows that organically managed soils can store (sequester) more than 1,000 pounds of carbon per acre, while non-organic systems can cause carbon loss. The science of organic carbon sequestration can be found in Rodale’s publication “Regenerative Organic Farming – A Solution to Global Warming”. This paper also outlines a set of policy changes and incentives that could bring about a significant change in agriculture practices and states that such a transition can be achieved without new technology or expensive investment.
As with many of the changes required to effect change, much of the resistance comes from interests who profit from maintaining the status quo. The consumer must lead by demanding quality food and supporting the needed legislative changes.
If there is a bright spot in the gloomy picture of current economic conditions, perhaps it may arise out of an adjustment in values and lifestyles. While the rest of the world has been attempting to emulate the American ideal of success, with all the consumer based trimmings, the sudden application of brakes on disposable income may inspire a fresh look at the behaviors to which we have become habituated and the emergence of new alternatives.
The Global Footprint Network is today releasing 
An article in the Economist on November 12, “