Comments are closed

Food, Meat, the “North” and the “South”

Posted by

I just watched a documentary called “The End of Poverty” and in it economists and other smart people from around the world discussed the evolution of poverty as we know it today. They traced the roots of contemporary poverty to the advent of “private” property, to colonialism, to slavery, to the rise of capitalism, neoliberalism, overconsumption, globalization, and supposed free trade. In the movie, the commentators divided the world into the North (Europe, the US, parts of East Asia) and the South (Latin America, the Caribbean, Africa, south/southeast Asia). Not surprising, in tracing the evolution of poverty and in giving a snapshot of just how poor the poorest of the poor are becoming, the filmmakers focus quite heavily on food, access (or lack thereof) to food, and (mal)nutrition.

Before this movie, I was fully aware of how meatlessness is rightfully conflated with privilege—particularly in the US. When I was seventeen, my two great grandmothers got into a conversation about my decision to give up meat.

One said to the other, “I grew up eating whatever I could find. Whatever we could kill—squirrels, possum, whatever. And now this girl is saying that she doesn’t eat meat?!”

Laughing, my other great grandmother agreed and replied, “I’ve eaten meat my whole life and I’m going on eighty-something. I have my right mind, I get around by myself, and I eat meat.”

That conversation, along with important distinctions between the “North” and the “South” completely, in my humble opinion, contextualize the meaning of health and the roles that meat plays in the definition of what it means to be healthy.

In the “South,” particularly in the “poor South,” people are not consuming a cow for breakfast, a pig for lunch, and a chicken or three for dinner. Meat is sacred, stretched out over many meals and over many people. Animals are reared and slaughtered personally. To equate meatlessness with health in this context—where meat is not produced and manufactured in ways that characterize the practices of the “North” is inappropriate and arrogant. That is, health should be contextually defined, taking into consideration, not only the needs of the people, but also the practices that bring food from nature (or chemistry labs) to our plates, bowls, and cups.

In the “North,” where animal abuse, manufacturing and production taints the integrity of our meat sources, consuming meat and the hormones and other toxins that accompany meat is unhealthy. And it’s an unhealthy practice that disproportionately affects the “North’s” poor.

In thinking about it, my great grandmothers were right. When they were growing up, meat meant something really different than what it means now. And that qualitative difference in what meat means is what makes our contemporary meat (particularly in the US) unhealthy. They consumed quantities of meat that were defined by “what they could find.” They ate squirrels that presumably weren’t contaminated with hormones. Their meat eating practices and their meat were healthy in comparison to our habits.

The way that I see it, our recent/”modern” global practices have created a system of food-based oppression that affects people in the “South” and in the “North.” On the one hand, there is undoubtedly a deep divide between the “South” and the “North.” Overabundance has left the people of the “North” obese and dying early as a result of that obesity. Scarcity has left the “South” impoverished and dying from paucity. Despite this divide however, there are striking similarities in the experiences of the poor in the “North” and in the “South.” Both sets of people are malnourished. Both sets of people are immobilized. Both sets of people are dependent on a food system that discriminates against them.

All of this to say, there are similarities and nuances, but I think that the nuances necessitate that “health” and “healthy” take into consideration contextual factors, particularly when it comes to the roles that meat plays in defining health and healthy. Thoughts? Can there be a contextually universal definition of health/healthy? If so, what does such a definition look like?

Written by

Tiffany M. Griffin is the woman behind Como Water, Washington DC’s premiere veg-centric cuisine consulting company. Through cooking classes, demonstrations, catering, and consultations, Como Water gives people the opportunity to learn how to prepare veg-centric cuisine that boasts maximum flavor, with minimal effort. Tiffany is quickly becoming a go-to expert on the future of veg-centric cuisine, and is a regular contributor to Como Water, the blog, as well as to vegetarian and vegan sites across the Internet. For over a decade, this self-taught, entrepreneurial expert has developed a set of tried and true techniques for making simple, delicious, and sometimes decadent veg-centric dishes. Featured on the Steve Harvey Show and other leading media outlets, Tiffany was born and raised in Springfield, MA. She then earned Bachelors degrees in Psychology and Communications from Boston College and a PhD in Social Psychology from the University of Michigan. She now resides in Washington DC, where she has worked in the US Senate and at a federal agency on issues around health, food, nutrition, and international food aid/development, and of course, as the owner of Como Water. Tiffany gets culinary inspiration from the food she grew up eating, and from her travels throughout Latin America, the Caribbean, Western Europe, and Sub-Saharan Africa. She is dedicated to sharing her wealth of knowledge on veg-centric cuisine with others and to help others live by her mantra—love life, live long, and eat veg-centric cuisine!

Comments