Tyler Cowen uses his economist skills to become a more savvy food consumer. Cowen shows how a few techniques can result in better food in your tummy and better health. I also found Cowen’s adventures in finding great food while he was traveling (always a problem for me) insightful. If you’re interested in finding great barbecue, Cowen shows where it can be found. And like those other food experts, Michael Polian and Mark Bittman, Cowen points the way to a vegan future (meat will become prohibitively expensive). If you’re intrigued by the changes upcoming in our diets, Cowen explores the future. GRADE:B+
Table of Contents
On the Eve of the Revolution p. 1
How American Food Got Bad p. 17
Revolutionizing the Supermarket Experience p. 39
The Rules for Finding a Good Place to Eat p. 57
Barbecue: The Greatest Slow Food of All p. 85
The Asian Elephant in the Room p. 113
Another Agricultural Revolution, Now p. 141
Eating Your Way to a Greener Planet p. 167
Why Does Mexican Food Taste Different in Mexico? p. 187
The Finding Great Food Anywhere Encyclopedia p. 211
The Stuff and Values of Cooking at Home p. 243
Notes p. 261
Acknowledgments p. 277
Index p. 279
Does this concentrate heavily on how dire things are? If not, I will look for it. My triglycerides are down to 100 after my new diet. But I am tired of the same food.
Patti, Tyler Cowen is an optimistic guy. His advice on finding good food is very positive. Congratulations on those triglycerides numbers! Very impressive!
Humans are omnivores, not herbivores. Meat is a basic part of the human diet, regardless of what vegan proponents (I think of them as extremists) say.
Rick, Cowen’s point about meat is that its price will continue to rise. Very few people are going to want to pay $100 for a steak.
My cholesterol numbers are good too. I’ve thought many times about going vegetarian but Jackie is not about to do that. We try and stick to chicken and fish for the most part (though I did have a very good burger yesterday) and always eat plenty of veggies, salads and fruit.
Jeff, the numbers tell the tale. Obviously, your diet is a healthy one. Plenty of students show red meat to be the main culprit in fatty plaque production that clogs arteries.
HAHAHAHAHA! Economists can’t even figure out economics, now one wants to tell me how to eat?
Bob, some economists have figured out economics, but the politicians ignore their advice.
Rick is correct that humans are omnivores, but not in the implications of what that classification means. As omnivores, we are capable of obtaining nutrients through animal and/or plant materials. In a society with abundant amounts of a variety of plants as well as the means to transport, preserve, or grow these plants indoors, humans (at least in the developed world) are capable of obtaining all of the food they need from plants (or in the case of b12, from bacteria). This leaves us with a choice. We can be vegans, vegetarians, or carnists (term coined by Melanie Joy Ph.D). As consumers, we make decision every day which contribute to the shaping of the world. When it comes to food choices, we make decisions that have direct impacts on the environment (global warming, deforestation, and water pollution are all increased by the meat industry), the lives of billions of animals per year (about 50-100 animals per year for each person), the health care costs of the nation (diets based more heavily on plants are associated with lower rates of obesity, cancer, heart disease, etc), and food availability/resource management (producing meat is inefficient because we feed farm animals more calories (and protein) than is retained in their flesh). As an omnivore, I have the option to eat or abstain from meat, and as a human, I have a complex brain with the capacity to evaluate the ethical implications of that option. I find it interesting that the term extreme is applied those who avoid a system of producing food which kills 10 billion animals/year, commodifies reproductive systems, keeps sentient being in cages too small to turn around, cuts off beaks, tails, and testis without anesthetics, separates mothers from their children, and grinds up male baby chicks alive. It seems to me, that the meat/dairy/egg industry is a lot more extreme than any vegan.
Dr. Kelley, I think that you are correct in predicting a vegan future. The vegan population has already doubled in size over the past few years! As prices for meat increase and norms about the ethics of eating animals change, it is likely that this pattern will continue. Just the other day, Hampton Creek Foods began distributing vegan egg products that have the same nutritional value and applications as chicken’s eggs. Bill Gates, making the same predictions as you, has invested a lot of money into this company. By the way, last week, the founder of the Buffalo Vegetarian Society and I were guests on WUFO’s radio program, Conversations with Jim Anderson, speaking about animal issues (I also spoke on the same program last spring about campaign finance reform).
Lauren, I used the term extremist for vegans (not vegetarians, not non-red meat eaters,, etc.) because the restrictions they place on diet are extreme compared to a full range diet (all meats, seafood and fish, dairy, vegetables, fruits, nuts, plant matter such as seaweed and kelp). I do believe that humans, through manufacturing industry and wastes, not to mention fossil fuel use, create more pollution by far that the meat parts of the food industry. That said I appreciate your long comments and the thought that went into it. Forgive the pun, but it’s food for thought.
Lauren, as usual you make some solid points. Our food preferences are going to change based on the rising costs of food. A plant-based diet looms in all of our futures.
I’ll give up my cheeseburger when they pry it from my cold, dead hand.
Bob, that cheeseburger is going to cost you $10 sooner than you think.
Rick, the problem with the word extremist is that it is a dismissive term which is used to argue against a lifestyle (veganism) by disparaging the individuals (vegans). It is much more useful to discuss the actions, rather than the individuals themselves. You are correct in sayinging that vegans do limit their diet (excluding animal flesh (fish falls under this category, and, therefore, does not need its own category), and products obtained from the exploitation of animals); however, carnists also put limitations on what they are willing to eat. What we deem acceptable for consumption is very much socially constructed. Depending on one’s religion, geographic location, cultural expectations, values, place in history, legal statutes, superstitions… various degrees of limitations are set on what is acceptable to eat. Most meat-eaters in the 21st Century US, will not eat anyone of the same species, companion animals (cats, dogs, horses, rabbits, parrots, etc), primates, endangered species, or dolphins. Ethical vegans base their limitations on kingdom (Animalia), because current scientific knowledge finds it is unlikely (though not definitively proven) that pain and emotions are found in life outside of the animal kingdom (plants). So we all place limitations on eating, but what do those limitations mean? Vegans are still able to obtain all of the nutrients needed and eat a variety of flavors and textures (including vegan dairy, eggs, and meat; some of which (e.g. Earth Balance buttery spread) are remarkably similar to products with animal ingredients). The only real negative impact of limiting one’s food options to non-animal-based is that not all grocery stores, restaurants, potlucks, etc are vegan friendly. This is a problem that arises from having values currently different than the dominant society, or, in other words, being a vegan in a non-vegan society. So, the negative effects of veganism actually come from society, and not something inherent in the lifestyle itself.
As for the environmental impact of meat-eating vs. veganism, there is a large difference. For Co2 emissions alone, one can lessen their emissions to a greater extent by going vegan than by trading in their car for a hybrid! A worthwhile article to check out is “Agnostic Carnivores and Global Warming: Why Enviros Go After Coal and Not Cows,” and another good source for information is http://www.veganoutreach.org/whyvegan/environment.html While the negative impacts of manufacturing have no bearing on the significance of the meat industry (The injustices of one industry cannot be excused because other industries are also creating injustices), I am happy that you brought up this topic. As a vegan, I cannot sit back and claim to live a cruelty-free lifestyle. Instead, just like carnists, I need to recognize that there is still more I can do in lessening the negative impacts that my lifestyle has on the world. Yes, manufacturing (in addition to its amazing benefits) can have very negative impacts on the environment, and I personally can lessen that impact by using consumer power (buying from companies that set high environmental standards), reducing unnecessary consumption, supporting politicians who will create legislation that will limit the amount of pollution created by industry, etc. We all should be asking how we can reduce our impacts and create a better world.