"By the time it reaches us..."

"...the food no longer tries to run off the dishes."
---from Tamora Pierce's Circle of Magic: Sandry's Book

It probably is a good thing to have a stronger connection to where your food comes from. However, you still don't necessarily have to harvest it yourself. I have a black thumb and no idea how to hunt, so if I was dependent on my own harvesting skills, I would starve. However, I buy a certain brand of milk at the grocery store because I know it comes from a dairy in Lynden, and if I wanted, I could probably contact the farmer and meet some of the cows that produced the milk I drink.
I agree that often times food harvested by oneself tastes much better. I love homegrown tomatoes because they taste so much better than store bought. But it is not a reasonable system to procure all your food that way anymore, especially for those who live in urban areas. One of the reasons cities were able to develop was because farmers were able to grow enough surplus food to sell to people with specialized skills--and those people could be something other than farmers because of the extra food.
Despite my love of fresh picked tomatoes, I'm pretty sure my landlady would be wicked pissed if I decided to grow such a potentially messy plant in my carpeted apartment. I do know a lady in a suburban neighborhood who enjoys the eggs her chickens produce and the products of their backyard garden and I think her system is fantastic.
I buy my clothes without thinking about where they came from, I use electricity without knowing exactly where it comes from, why shouldn't food be another one of the products I buy without knowing it's source?

On the topic of hunting, I don't believe it is amoral to hunt for food, no matter your economic standing. Yes, there may be other food available, but if you are not wasting the food you have harvested, or wasting purchased food because you harvested food and now have more than you can eat, I have no problem with hunting. I do object to hunting for the sake of trophies. If you are going to kill an animal, don't just let it rot, or worse make it inedible due to taxidermy.

I am impressed by Steve Rinella's practicality and various scavenging skills. Last winter break, we drove past a deer that was gasping and dying on the side of the road after it had been hit by a car. We didn't stop because behind us, a man pulled over, took the gun from the back of his truck, and shot the deer. I felt badly for the deer, since it a painful and frightening death for it. But I am glad that someone nearby knew how to put it out of its misery. I liked Mr. Rinella's story of eating the doe that had been hit by a vehicle. That was a much better way to deal with it than to just leave it to be a rotting hazard on the road. Waste not, want not.

Concerning Mr. Harrison's immense meal, I adored the following remarks:

"If I announce that I and eleven other diners shared a thirty-seven-course lunch that likely cost as much as a new Volvo station wagon, those of a critical nature will let their minds run in tiny, aghast circles of condemnation. My response to them is that none of us twelve disciples of gourmandise wanted a new Volvo. We wanted only lunch, and since lunch lasted approximately eleven hours we saved money by not having to buy dinner. The defense rests."

If this is how Mr. Harrison wishes to spend the money he has earned, he is welcome to do so. He is not harming any one else, and if he wishes to eat until he explodes, he is a grown man and capable of making that decision for himself. I hope that they ate all that they prepared, or at least put the leftovers in tupperware. Personally, I wouldn't want to eat that much. As a car-less student, I probably would prefer to have the Volvo.
I do however like that it was a historical dinner, from historical recipes. I did living history re-enactments at Fort Vancouver National Historic Site during high school. For an 1845 Hudson's Bay Company fort, the residents ate very well. They had fresh produce, fresh dairy, fresh bread and fresh meat. For a girl in 2004, I wasn't so impressed by the two methods of cooking: almost everything was boiled or roasted. That said, roast beef that has been roasted over a wood fire is AMAZING. The man who cooked it liked it rare, and the smoke adds a wonderful flavor. So I approve that Mr. Harrison's host was using historical sources for the cooking; some of it is great.

An important thing to remember about both Mr. Rinella and Mr. Harrison is that they are both atypical. The tortoise population of Mr.Rinella's home state wouldn't do very well if EVERYONE grabbed a tortoise that happened to be crossing the road while they were driving by. Few people wish to eat 37 courses (that were mostly meat, I would be craving roughage pretty quickly) in eleven hours. On a small scale, both can eat as they do. Now if the entire population of the United States ate as they do, there would be problems. Sometimes, it's good to be in the minority.

And the books...
For gluttony:

• Jackson, Alison. I Know an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Pie. New York: Dutton's Children's Books, 1997.

For harvesting:

• Brown, Michael P. The Jewish Gardening Cookbook : Growing Plants and Cooking for Holidays and Festivals. Woodstock, VT: Jewish Lights Publishing, 1998.

Shh! don’t say the K word.

It is very satisfying to eat food that I have worked hard to obtain and prepare. From pumping water in the Alaskan wilderness, to collecting blackberries to make a pie- drinking and eating these has given me a rewarding aftertaste that store bought products just can’t give. It is near impossible for me to imagine killing another animal for food- but if I grew up thinking this was normal; I can imagine it would bring me similar satisfaction. In The Scavenger’s Guide to Haute Cuisine when Steve Rinella prepares a unique meal of animals, I was impressed but also uncomfortable. I was impressed by how much work Rinella had put into preparing one meal. But the excitement that killing animals such as black bears, and rabbits brought him made me uncomfortable. But Rinella is being honest about what many hunters and hunting magazine’s try to hide.

Middle class and upper class hunters have made the decision to do the dirty work of obtaining meat. These hunters typically aren’t going to the grocery store in addition to hunting these animals. They have a license, and cannot simply have a free- for all shooting round of any animals they find. It is interesting to think of domestic vs. wild animals. Is there a system of domesticated animals that continue to regularly reproduce enough offspring, or are more and more wild animals domesticated frequently? I don’t understand this, and it makes it hard to decide to support independent hunting in the wild that would destroy wild- life systems; or to stick to the established system- that seems to work. I think that hunting animals in the wild is okay because its seems to be done on such a small scale, but if it were to drastically increase in size, this would pose regulation problems, and wild animals might start to be seen as just food opportunities.

In reading Harrison’s “A Really Big Lunch: Annals of Eating” it was difficult for be not to judge the article’s tone and food phrases as “snobby." But I actually thought of the thirty seven course lunch as more of an art expression than gluttony. There was serious respect and rules on the line- Harrison felt that he had to finish the meal, even if he admitted that it was bad for his health. Chef Meneau had spent time and dedication into preparing such a huge project. And the twelve diners considered it one of the most memorable meals of their lives- not a common place event. “It was food with a precise and determinable history.” This cooking and tasting lifestyle is a real passion for these people; they combine culture and intellect into eating. It does seem ridiculous to me that anyone would want to eat that many courses during one meal, but it also seems ridiculous how big average American restaurant portions are at restaurants and how much food gets wasted every day.

Book recommendations about food harvesting:

Jan Olof. Pine marten population limitation: food, harvesting, or predation? Uppsalla: Swedish University of Agriculture, 1998.

Shiva, Vandana. Stolen harvest: the hijacking of the global food supply. Cambridge: South End Press, 2008.

Infant or Pig?

I found Jonothan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" to be appalling yet humorous. I had to constantly remind myself of the time period and demographics that he was living in- an extremely sexist, and socioeconomic dependent society of early Ireland. Swift proposes an extreme cannibalistic system where the poor papists would be the principle "breeders" of the Nation. But as I read more, I began to find his whole "proposal" to truly be a dark satire. He refers to the human meat as goods and seems to relish in the idea of "Goods our own goods and manufacture."
During the proposal he conjures up an idea that baby meat is a wasted resource. His calculations of the 100,000 wasted poor babies- how much of a negative impact they have, and then how they could be put to use- almost seemed reasonable in some sick way. Swift describes the poor class as dying and roting, cold and famine, and filth and vermin. His system is similar to slavery in the idea that some people are born unequal to others, but different because it appears that people would want to do this, and it would be voluntary. Perhaps the most appalling part of the article was when he claims that men would value their wives more, and treat them better when they were pregnant the same way they did when cows were pregnant. He talks earlier about how awful it is that women have voluntary abortions- but if the meat inside of them was just a product then wouldn't it be their loss of money if they killed it? Swift also compares the preparation of the human meat to that of pig meat when he recommends buying the babies alive and cutting them with a hot knife to serve. But he also claims that cruelty is the strongest objection to any project of his. It is hard to ignore his contradictions.

It is surreal to imagine such a proposal actually taking place. Cannibalism in this context is a trade and social system, not a necessity or survival dependent. Obviously footnotes did not exist in Swift's day because there was no real reference to his commonly applied sources of intellectual knowledge on the topic. Truly, Swift wants to get a rise out of the reader, and in my case he did.

Book Recommendation:

Sanday, Peggy Reeves. Divine Hunger: Cannibalism as a Cultural System. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986.

Cannibalism; the answer for tomorrow.

Although this article is dated Jonathan Swift poses a number or relevant points in his piece, "A Modest Proposal", that is assuming you can get past his satirical writing style and jovial acceptance of the consumption of children. This piece of writing is obviously meant to arouse concern in the reader and to address a series of pertinent societal woes although Mr. Swift has chosen to do so in a somewhat unconventional way. Although this story talks about harvesting and consuming children for source of food and 'leather' I do not get the impression that Swift actually condones such behavior; instead he is merely trying to address the issues of overpopulation and government malfeasance in a way that will not only excite some readers into rage, but also entertain others into a realization of the true problem.

Although some might have missed the entire point of this reading I felt that it was in the very least entertaining. This piece is heavily dated and does not readily address present day problems with overpopulation, however it does offer a viable alternative to copious copulation; eat the little buggers.

Although this is a fictional depiction of cannibalism, if you would like to read an actual account of humans eating each other check out this novel on the Donner Party:

Fayette, Charles The History of the Donner Party. Michigan: University of Michigan,

1966.

Oh Mr. Swift...

I remember A Modest Proposal from my high school British Literature class. My classmates and I were appalled to read Jonathan Swift's idea that the Irish should breed and raise their children for the dinner tables of rich English living in Ireland. At that point, our English teacher explained satire and irony.

Really, Mr. Swift is pretty pissed. He "proposes" a solution to so many of Ireland's woes, some of them actual problems, and others as perceived by the ruling English government. The tone of the piece which outwardly is so cheerful and helpful is actually quite vicious. It seems to me that Mr. Swift was so frustrated by the rejections of his actual suggestions to help the Irish, that he wrote this to shock the English into realizing how poorly they were treating their fellow human beings. So Mr. Swift simply "suggests" a more literal way to treat the Irish like animals, since, he implies, the English landlords already view and treat them that way. Or maybe he is suggesting that animals are treated better than the Irish. He points out that wives would not be abused for fear of damaging their now profitable children in the womb. His "modest proposal" really is miraculous and just what the English want: it will be inexpensive to implement and should turn a profit; even better it will be painless for the English. All they have to do is resort to cannibalism. According to Mr. Swift, it really is the next logical step for the treatment of the Irish "...as they [the landlords] have already devoured most of the Parents..."they should also be quite happy to literally eat the children.

People have been known to resort to cannibalism in dire situations. However, the English landlords that Mr. Swift suggests would enjoy the delicacy of Irish babies did not lack other food options. He's criticizing the English rule, not actually proposing cannibalism. In fact, he's depending on the abhorrence of it to get his point across. It's like he's saying "Fine, you want a solution that is painless yet cures all evils, here it is: eat babies." His point is that helping the Irish will not be without effort and discomfort, and the English must suck it up and do something. Because the miracle cure they want does not actually exist.

In the same spirit as Mr. Swift (or maybe a bit less viciously), Mr. Mark Twain comments on the workings of politicians and Congress through his tale of cannibalism:

• Twain, Mark. Cannibalism in the Cars: the Best of Twain's Humorous Sketches. Ed. Roy Blout. London: Prion Books, 2000.

EDITED 5/29/08 for formatting

A Modest Proposal

Upon delving into A Modest Proposal, one can immediately tell that Jonathan Swift is a weathered writer. He takes his time building up his credibility and reasoning before even offering up his argument. For myself, by the time I actually got to the argument, I didn’t feel like it was an argument at all. In the way it was subtly posed, it felt like a valid statement, getting ready to be followed up by reasons that it is such.
The ideas presented in Swift’s essay are presented very logically, although cynical and satirical at times. Throughout reading this piece, the thought never crossed my mind that this man is suggesting that we eat helpless infants. Being a big believer in logic, it makes perfect sense from a monetary standpoint to sell young, money-sucking babies for the sustenance of others. It seems as though it would indeed help the economy, reduce overpopulation, and ease the burden of young mothers who were not intending on being in their position.
After I had completed reading this essay, my mind began to think ethically about the situation presented. What would Kant do? On one hand, the lives of one-hundred thousand innocent children would be taken, without their respective consent. On the other hand, roughly four times as many people would benefit seven-fold from the lives lost. Is this indeed for the greater good? There is no doubt that this is a huge debate. I have settled somewhat on an opinion through self-debate over the course of an evening; since the life of a human animal capable of feeling joy and pain, showing emotion and compassion, thinking for itself, is no different on those levels than that of another animal, it would be unethical to take the life of either. Some argue that taking a human life is the highest rung on the ladder of unethical behavior, while some would say that if it is for the greater good, it must be done. When it comes to the topic of life, I must confess that I side with the former. The difference between humans and other animals in this respect does not exist in my mind. If I would not agree to the taking of the life of an animal in the bush, I would certainly not agree to the taking the life of an animal in a house.

Book recommendation:

Cottom, Daniel. Cannibals & philosophers : Bodies of Enlightenment. Baltimore, MD: John Hopkins University Press, 2001.

Is Ignorance Bliss?

I did not think that the PETA documentary "Meet Your Meat" would be as upsetting to me as it was. Prior to watching the film I had seen similar clips of cows in factories being slowly left to bleed to death, and chickens crammed in cages never seeing daylight. But the squealing piglet, and sick image of chickens and cows will leave a mark in my mind the next time I go to eat these, but I know becoming a vegetarian isn't very realistic- at least for me. I don't think that the solution to the problem is for everyone to go vegetarian. I talked to some friends who had not seen the film, and they responded the same way I would have prior to the film "its only human nature to eat animals." But I don't think meat or dairy products would actually be appetizing or seem natural to people in the first place if they knew/accepted the unnatural methods (hormones) and cruelty that went into making it. Humans eating animals is not going to change, but in my opinion the ethical standards need to. But a good question is why would effort and money go into an animal if it is born to be food. And why would people pay the more money at the grocery store for something that tastes the same? And do people really want to know?

Foster Farms Chickens- always have those silly commercials portraying the dirty/homeless chicken image that do not stand for. How many American families out there would be willing to pay the extra money for chickens that had a good life, aren’t they just eating them anyways? I personally am horrified by the images of what I saw on the PETA film, and so I wonder if an animal has a good and healthy life- then is it okay to kindly and ethically butcher it, and then go onto consume it?

I think the real turning point for changing the way Americans think when purchasing meat will be knowing that the meat is not healthy: the animals were raised in disease, bacteria, and injected with hormones. In essence- that we as Americans are at a health risk. As the PETA film claims, meat with those conditions can get the USDA stamp of approval and go on the shelves. I think the healthier the meat is, the more likely the animals are to be treated, and a establishing a connection between the two would motivate change. Obviously the film is biased and does not display a completely accurate image of reality, but it still shows how food is legally buttered and consumed.

From WWU:
Pollan, Michael. The Omnivores Dilemma: a Natural History of Four Meals. New York: Penguin Press, 2006.

From Summit:
Mason, Jim.The Ethics of What We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter. Emmaus: Rodale, 2006.

"Think for yourself, question authority...." -- Timothy Leary

The DVD "Meet your meat" was something that I would not ordinarily watch. Generally I try not to pay credit to super-radical organizations such as PETA but because this was part of the assignment I viewed the film. I was not surprised to see graphic "scare factor" footage that would disturb most viewers and felt that the opinions posed by the film were extremely biased. Eating meat is by no means a clean cut beautiful process, it involves the killing and dismembering of animals for the betterment of human life; unfortunately, most people have simply disconnected themselves from this fact. As an avid hunter and fisherman I am fully aware of the gory aspects involved in the consumption of meat products and films such as this really do not motivate me not to eat meat. Personally, I think the problem is that people have been so far dissconnected from the processes involved with meat consumption that when they are faced with the truth it is sometimes frightening. Rather than being alarmed by such a video you should feel educated. If you chose to eat meat you should be prepared to experience the negative aspects of your choices; it is our responsibility.

In the "Hidden Cost of Cheap Chicken" reading the processes by which chicken is mass produced were outlined. Again, I was not surprised. Chicken is one of the staple foods in the United States and many other places in the world and to produce such large quantities of meat in a cost effective manor many organizations have chosen quantity over quality; subsequently producing more revenue as opposed to a healthier product. As an American consumer it is important to be aware of what you eat. It is possible to research where products come from and decide which products are right for you, poultry is no exception to this rule. If consumers become aware of what exactly they are purchasing they can consciously change this problem. Not all chicken farms practice cruel processes and it is our jobs to locate and support those organizations that take not only the animals comfort but also human health into consideration.

Some books to check out on the subject are:

Folwell, Raymond. The structure of Pacific Northwest beef cattle industry. Pullman: Washington State University, 1991.

Cross, Russel. Beef slaughtering, cutting, preserving, and cooking on the farm. Washington D.C.: United States Agricultural Research Service, 1977.

The other Baldwin Brother..

It’s been a while since I’ve seen a PETA video. I’d forgotten how much they show. That was a pretty terrible twelve minutes of my life. Upon reflecting on the video after the initial shock, I feel that it was an important reminder of what we as humans will do to increase profit. I do realize that there wasn’t really much information given on what companies were committing the acts shown in the video, but non the less, the acts were indeed being committed (I suppose that’s an assumption, but it seems like it would be difficult to stage some of the things filmed). I’ve been on the fence about dairy products, as I do enjoy cheese and ice cream. With this video, I believe that I’m going to be straying from dairy in the near future.

As for the article about the cost of chicken, I felt that it was quite informative, but the second half seemed to be strictly about how bad Tyson Foods is. While it is important to know the ethical standpoints of the company that one purchased meat from, Tyson is not the only producer of chicken in the country, nor at the market for that matter. In the article, the Delmarva Peninsula is brought up, but no mention of Perdue is given. According to their website, “The PERDUE® brand is the number-one brand of premium fresh chicken in the eastern U.S.” My father helped to build a processing plant for Perdue, and my family lived next door to now-chairman Jim Perdue. I had the opportunity when I was younger to snoop around in the chicken houses on a Perdue farm near my home and can say that the treatment of chickens there was almost identical to what is described in the article. Although the article hit Tyson pretty hard, it seems that the factory farm industry has an overall reputation of being ethically sub-par, and will show this to us not of their own will, but of their own ignorance when we all must have a fine glass of bottled water with our drumsticks in our recently fumigated dining rooms.

Book Recommendations:

Bekoff, Marc. Animals matter : a biologist explains why we should treat animals with compassion and respect. Boston: Random House, 2007.

Pollan, Michael. The omnivore's dilemma : a natural history of four meals. New York, New York: Penguin Press, 2006.

The Next Big Diet: Watch This Before You Eat

Yes, the movie and article demonstrate how cruel, disgusting and wasteful much of the meat production in the United States is. Both were short on solutions or alternatives to raising animals for meat. The movie by PETA in particular wishes that those who view it become vegetarians. However, there's a question of ethics with non-meat production as well. What about the conditions for the workers who pick fruits and vegetables? What about the water that is diverted to irrigate fields? What about the cost and effects of fuel to ship all those products? How are the conditions in the plants that can or freeze vegetables?

I was amazed that animals raised in such conditions are still legally considered edible. If your livestock is living with the corpses of other livestock, something is really wrong with your system. I am rethinking my opinion of roadkill: it may actually be healthier that I thought, and perhaps it too is legally edible. Do the owners and managers of these places eat their own products?

That said, I like meat, and will continue eating it. One alternative, for those who don't have the resources, be they physical or emotional/mental, to raise their own meat is the 4-H Livestock Auction at county fairs. 4-Hers are responsible to raise and care for a livestock project throughout the year, and the culmination is the livestock auction. Before the auction, they show their animals to prove they know how to handle their animals, and gain a place in their class; the better their placing, based on the quality and condition of the animal, the better price they will probably earn on the animal at the auction. Many, at least in Clark County, are actually bought by local restaurants.

Books:
In WWU libraries:

• Katz, Sandor Ellix. The Revolution Will Not be Microwaved: Inside America's Underground Food Movements. White River Junction, Vt.: Chelsea Green Pub., 2006.
  

Through Summit:

• Goodall, Jane. Harvest for Hope: A Guide to Mindful Eating. New York: Warner Wellness, 2006.

EDITED 5/29/08 for formatting

Milk! Cheese! Cows! Oh my!

The strongest "culture" I identify with are the rural dwellers of my mother's family. Five generations of Zeiders have lived in Clark County, WA. Her father, Russell, was a dairy farm for many years. While he was a taciturn man, he often yodeled to his dairy cows. The farm was a functioning dairy, but was not able to support the family and the farm. So Grandpa Russell also drove trucks and school buses, and his wife Martha worked in the local post office. Milking the cows every morning eventually became too much, so Grandpa switched to beef cattle eventually.

Because my mom grew up enjoying fresh milk, cream, butter and eggs from their farm, she understandably has high standards for these foods. In my house, the DOs of food include all kinds of cheeses, butter, milk and cream. DO NOTs forbid American/processed "cheese," margarine, skim milk and Coolwhip. Psuedo-dairy products are always rejected in favor of actual dairy. As a young children, my sisters and I loved playing with the squirt cans of whipped cream. Eventually though, when we were old enough to cook, Mom was happy to introduce us to actual whipped cream: liquid cream that was beaten to a fluff by an electric mixer and sweetened with honey. All summer long, we would enjoy whipped cream with fresh berries that Mom bought in bulk from local farms.

It's hard to say which was better: our homemade whipped cream with berries, or the Clark County Dairy Women's milkshakes. Once a year, they sell milkshakes at the county Fair, and on hot days they have loooong lines. The shakes are made with ice cream so thick that you can barely get the milkshake up a straw, and fresh berries in their syrup flavors. I love the chocolate-raspberry shake that comes complete with raspberry seeds.

Now that I live six hours north of Mom, I still like my dairy products. Like in her fridge, I always have some cheddar cheese, and often other kinds of cheese as well. My twin and I were quite happy to find that several grocery stores in Bellingham sell milk in glass jars from a Ferndale dairy. I like the idea that I could meet the cows that produce the milk I drink.

I'm not always sure that it is still well understood where milk comes from. On one of my many, many train rides home, I saw a movie called Barnyard. It's protagonist was a young bull. This bull, and all the other bulls in the movie had an appalling feature in common: udders. Yup, that's right. All the MALES in this movie essentially, had female breasts. Apparently, no one involved in the drawing, editing and other parts of production in this movie thought realized that udders are reserved for cows old enough to have given birth and now have pronounced udders to provide the calf with milk. Strangely, I can understand a later scene in which a cow gives birth while laying on her back and a blanket over her. All the bovines walked upright on their back legs and one even snowboarded; clearly they were trying to humanize all the animals, as is usually done in cartoon movies. But the change in anatomy for the bulls was just disturbing. The cartoonists wouldn't have able to draw what bulls actually have located in that area, but still, giving bulls udders was NOT a good artistic solution.

In the continuing theme... a book on where milk comes from, and a book about my favorite dairy product: cheese.

• Schloat, G. Warren. Milk for You. New York: Scribner, 1951.
• Wilson 4E-Children's Collection SF239 .S36 1951
  

• Eekhof-Stork, Nancy. The World Atlas of Cheese. Trans. Adrian Bailey. New York: Two Continents Publishing Group, 1976.
• Wilson 4W Books-Oversize SF271 .E34 1976
  

Its From My Garden...

As a child my avid-gardener mother made it a pretty general rule that my sister and I eat one green thing every dinner. I grew up eating a lot of salads and vegetables. Outside my house at home are two large metal vegetable boxes containing tomatoes, lettuce, pees, parsley and who knows what. My mother takes pride in saying “it’s from my garden” when having dinner guests over. My mother’s sister and my cousins live in Tennessee and have a deer head in their living room, the men in the family regularly go hunting. As a child it was very hard for me not to be upset by the image of the deer head and know that my cousin could kill rabbits so effortlessly. It’s interesting now to compare my mother’s love of gardening with my uncle’s love of hunting. Both involve a hobby and bring satisfaction and pride in consuming the results, and bring good taste and sustenance to their families’ tables. Both are acceptable in U.S culture.
Growing, hunting, and purchasing were the only ways I have thought it possible to get an adequate supply of food, until I recently heard about a relatively new movement know as Freeganism. Tuning into the Oprah show, I watched in disbelief as families were shown getting their entire food supply from dumpsters outside grocery stores and bakeries. What was most surprising to me was that all of the featured Freegans had chosen this lifestyle by choice, not for convenience or financial reasons. The majority of Freegans are so fed up with the economic system that’s profit motive has so many harmful impacts; that they avoid buying anything. Supermarkets throw away mass amounts of good fruits, vegetables, dairy and packaged foods merely because they do not look perfect- what better way for freegans to get their food (safely). After getting over my initial feeling of disgust and appall, I find the Freeganism lifestyle to be a really inventive way to consume food. Granted I don’t think I will ever try it, I have respect for people that take their beliefs to that level. Freegan eating culture involves satisfaction in knowing that you are taking a stand for what you believe is right, and involves the manual labor of finding enough food to sustain yourself or family. Freeganism is not socially acceptable in the U.S and might never be. But when it comes down to it, foraging Freegan style is not so different from gardening and hunting. The way in which you get your food can truly be an ultimate representation of who you are.


Here are books for anyone interested in growing vegetables or making tasty salads:

Wickers, David. The Complete Urban Farmer; how to grow your own fruits and vegtables in town. New York: Viking Press, 1977.

Uvezian, Sonia. The Book of Salads: an international collection of recipes. SanFrancisco: 101 Productions, 1977.

Man vs. Squirrel

Upon moving to the Pacific Northwest, I had discovered that there were real people who did not eat meat, by choice no less. I had heard tales in my adolescents of such people, sometimes referred to as vegetarians, but never thought that I would ever meet one. Naturally, I was quite inquisitive upon my first encounter. Coming from a culture where chicken was eaten during more meals than not, it was initially difficult to understand why some people would never touch the stuff. It soon became apparent that there were different beliefs of food taboos in different cultures.
As I am slowly becoming more educated, I find it easier to realize that what I consider as things that are meant for consumption – while some would agree – are considered taboo by others. An easy example is that of the cheese that I eat. Whenever possible, I try to purchase cheese from small producers, but on a college budget, this is not always possible. Some would say that eating cheese at all is not acceptable. I’ve found it difficult in the past to see why someone may not accept a food that I do. I’ve also found that it is important to look at the other side of the coin. I know that I’ve got reasons acceptable to myself not to eat meat, just as someone else has for choosing not to eat cheese.
In our economy, it seems as though a high profit margin is often sought after. Since consumers rarely want to pay more money for the “same” product, means are sought to find the lower prices for raw material. This leads to finding ways which are more efficient in the short-term to produce these raw materials. It is often cheaper to purchase a mechanized chicken feather beater and pay for maintenance than it is to pay people fair wages to manually pluck chickens. Grain is often cheaper in bulk quantities, which provides incentive to raise a large number of cattle, which gets very costly to slaughter and butcher manually.
I think that as a people, the majority of us have never even learned to forage and hunt. We don’t need to pay for food. The price that we pay for food at the market seems to me to be a kind of convenience fee for having someone else gather your food for you. We have “evolved” to a place where eating, one of – if the not the – most important necessity for our own survival, has been pushed to the back burner. We are at a point where it is viewed by many omnivores to be gross to eat a wild animal, killed by themselves or someone they know. Interestingly enough, many omnivores are alright with purchasing meat from a wild animal that was killed by someone they don’t know, as long as it is aesthetically pleasing. Perhaps there is an ethical convenience fee here… Maybe hunting and foraging have become taboo as a result of a social class system, where those not on the bottom have no time to do such things, as they need to make money to survive. It seems to me that a career is an incredibly inefficient work system. If one spends one time foraging, one would find that all work put out yields some sort of income (while still only having to put in about half the hours to survive).
As for myself, I am at a crossroads in my eating endeavors. I have stopped eating meat because everything at the supermarket is from a mystery animal that I never had any knowledge of until I had seen it in on a Styrofoam slab. I am still debating with myself as to whether or not it is ethical to take the life of an animal myself for sustenance. If one delves deeply into the matter, it could be argued that by eating fruits and nuts, one is taking away the life force of another organism. Since a squirrel has no ethical quarrels with eating an acorn however, it tends to make me believe that it is alright for me to eat an acorn as well. But if there are a limited number of acorns, when I eat some, there are that many less for squirrels, and visa versa. One of us would starve. I suppose that it all boils down to finding one’s place on the earth, and whether or not that place involves being eaten, which could be viewed as being fine depending upon your culture.
I would like to recommend the following books to serve as valuable introductions and guides to foraging and the benefits that come with it, and to show that it is not only for nomads and the impoverished:

Barbour, Beverly. The complete food preservation book : how to can, freeze, preserve, pickle, and cure edibles. New York, NY: D. McKay, 1978. Wilson 4W, TX601 .B3.

Mohney, Russ. Why wild edibles? : the joys of finding, fixing, and tasting west of the Rockies. Seattle, WA: Pacific Search, 1975. Wilson 4W, TX357 .M8.

The ethics of recreational food foraging.......

Since a very early age I have learned that the recreational harvest of fish, game, and wild edible plants such as berries and fruits can provide not only a unique opportunity to avoid the monotony of everyday eating habits but also a successful means for attaching the eater to the eaten.

Meat from the butcher arrives to the consumer on a styrofoam boat wrapped neatly in tightly stretched cellophane; unfortunately, this phenomena may completely detach human beings from both the instinctual as well as gory side that comes with being a carnivore.

By removing the undesirable aspects associated with the killing and consuming of countless different species of animals we as citizens have been able to dodge an ethical curve ball. For instance, when you hunt a deer (weighing an avg. of 90lbs) the deer does not commit suicide and magically transform into 500 conveniently wrapped packages of steaks, sausages, and roasts before your very eyes...... instead, the hunter must intentionally pull the trigger; he must chose (willingly) to take the animals life, to stop their heart so that their own may continue to beat. In doing so, it is important for the hunter to analyze a way in which to not only ensure the least amount of suffering by the prey, but also ensure the seizure of the food necessary for the harvester's longevity. From the point of squeezing the trigger to the point in which the remnants of a venison pot roast dinner evacuate your body you have been 100% engaged with the animal and have earned your meal in a way that few can appreciate.

I would argue that, if educated properly, almost anyone can harvest fish, game, and wild edibles on their own, however the ultimate dilemma becomes whether or not that person is physically and mentally capable of overcoming the norms of the supermarket butcher window or vegi-section.

If done with proper intention, recreational fishing and hunting offer not only stress relief but very lucrative benefits to those who chose to participate. Fish such as salmon, halibut, trout, and steelhead are all readily available in the beautiful pacific northwest yet the masses continue to spend eight to fifteen dollars per pound of flesh for such "delicacies" from the local supermarket. It seams as though many people would rather pay the large capital to avoid the messy hands-on work that is necessary. Further, deer, elk, moose, bear, grouse, pheasants, rabbits, quail, ducks, geese, and many many more species of recreational harvestable species of animal are also available here in Washington state and the greater pacific northwest. Big game such as deer and elk offer hundreds (sometimes even thousands) of pounds of harvestable meat that can be used to supplement the daily diet of beef chicken and pork from the supermarket. If properly executed, it is 100% possible to balance game and fish harvests in such a way so as to completely eliminate the necessity for visits to the butcher or fish market.

Unfortunately, this entire document speaks to the carnivorous crowd and does not take into account vegetarian or vegan dieters. Understandably it may sometimes be hard for those who do not eat meat to comprehend the necessity for recreational harvest; when the present market is so flooded with commercial product why shoot bambi instead? The answer, in my opinion, is quite simple; the quality of commercially produced meat is far inferior to the quality of wild edible species and this void is only widening. With genetic engineering controlling much of the modern day food market and the space for grazing cattle or raising crops quickly diminishing food standards in the U.S. are in rapid decline.

When all is said and done, fishing, hunting, and gathering are not for everyone. In fact, only a very small percentage of the population can tolerate the more grim aspects of taking a life for the betterment of self.

Just some food for thought.

The following are suggested readings for anyone interested in further information:


Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Fishing in Washington, Sport Fishing Rules. Olympia: WDFW, 2007.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pathway to fishing: Sportfishes. Washington, D.C: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1993.