Opinions
Edi tor // Marco Ferreira // o pi ni o ns @ c api l ano c o uri e r. c o m
Beyond Cruelty An overlooked argument for a meatless diet By Brittney Kroiss // writer
T
he occurrence of food shortages and malnutrition are increasing rapidly in our growing world, even more so with climate change. The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization reported that roughly 925 million people, 13.6 per cent of the world population, were “undernourished” in 2010. Out of the world’s population of 6.8 billion, only an estimated 2 billion people live predominantly on a meat-based diet. A United Nations report, put together by the UN Environment Program’s International Panel of Sustainable Resource Management, states that “eating less meat and dairy is necessary to avoid catastrophic effects of climate change, global hunger and energy shortages.” In our world facing overpopulation and overconsumption, food is at the top of our list of priorities when addressing sustainability. With all the talk out there as to what is really sustainable and what isn’t, it can be hard to determine what our best alternative is. Could a vegetarian or vegan diet be the answer? In a 2002 study, Cornell University’s Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology compared the amount of energy, land and water required to produce meat-based and plant-based diets. While neither diet is truly “sustainable” due to the food industry’s heavy dependence on fossil fuels, the plant-based diet was indeed much more sustainable. According to the study, for every 1 kg of good-quality animal protein produced, the livestock are fed on average about 6 kg of plant protein and required 100 times more water. “Environmental vegetarianism” is based on the indication that animal production, particularly by intensive agriculture, is environmentally unsustainable as it increases pollution and uses
a large amount of natural resources. Industrial monoculture, the harvesting of a large crop of a single food species, contributes to soil erosion, air pollution, excessive energy use, deforestation, loss of biodiversity, and climate change. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the UN’s report “Livestock’s Long Shadow”, the meat industry makes up about 18 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions. Methane, which is 23 times more powerful than carbon dioxide, makes up a large portion of these emissions. Cows produce a comparable amount of methane as an average car per day. So given the state of our current meat industry, is the answer to stop eating meat altogether? Perhaps the answer lies in finding a balance between the two extremes by reducing our consumption of meat-based protein to a few times a week instead of every day and making more informed decisions when grocery shopping. One thing to keep in mind when it comes to the sustainability of plant-protein based diets is whether processed, soy-based “fake meat” products, such as “tofurky” or “vegan sausages”, are much better than meat. In an interview with foodandwine.com, Ashley Koff, a registered dietician in Los Angeles, said, “What we know about soy is that as you process it, you lose a lot of the benefits. Any soy-based fake meat product is incredibly processed, and you have to use chemicals to get the mock flavor.” The Swedish Institute for Food and Biotechnology found in a 2009 study that “while producing a plate of peas requires a fraction of the energy needed to produce the same number of calories of pork, the energy costs of a pea-burger and a pork chop are about equal.” Whether excluding meat or not, whole food diets are usually, if not always, a healthier and more sustainable option than processed products. Our individual decisions as to what we eat
// Kailey Patton on a daily basis, when looked at from a larger scale, make a huge impact on our planet. In the end, what one chooses as the best alternative, whether eating a vegetarian diet, or conscious
shopping for free-range, naturally-fed meat from local farms, is up to the individual. Regardless of which route one decides to take, some action is better than none at all.
Call occupied land what it is Postal decolonization proves there’s power in a name By Adam Gaudry
the capilano courier | vol. 45 issue 13
// The Martlet (University of Victoria)
14
V
ICTORIA (CUP) – Upon their arrival to Canada, the first thing most “explorers” did was start naming things. While many of these men simply named things after themselves or places back home, it did occur to some that these places already were named, so they attempted to anglicize these foreign place names. In the 19th century, the symbolic power of renaming the landscape was not lost on these new arrivals; the naming of the city of Victoria after the reigning monarch, Queen Victoria, implied laying claim to that land for the British Crown. Naming – or, more appropriately, renaming – was part of the process of colonization. A quick jaunt around Victoria reveals an abundance of colonial names intended to glorify the presence of early British settlers as well as British leaders and heroes who would never come here: Captain Cook was here briefly;
thus, we have Cook Street; Douglas Street was named after Vancouver Island Governor James Douglas. What is absent from all of these names is any acknowledgment that there was a history on Vancouver Island that goes back further than 200 years. While the odd plaque may make mention of something existing earlier than this, it always seems to historicize the presence of indigenous peoples and confine indigenous naming to the past. This geographical reordering has removed an indigenous presence from the landscape. It has rendered invisible the ancient and permanent relationship between indigenous peoples and their lands. One way to make that relationship visible again is through postal decolonization. Postal decolonization is the use of traditional indigenous place names on mail instead of the more recent names imported and invented by the new arrivals to this continent. Given that the postal system is the most everyday form of organizing space in
Canada, reimagining space in the postal system can also serve to decolonize space. The goal is to get people using the Canadian postal system to think about where they are and whose land they live on. Instead of Victoria, one can list the mailing address as “Occupied Coast Salish Territories” or just “Coast Salish Territories”. Instead of Edmonton, one can write “Cree Territory”; in place of Thunder Bay, “Anishinaabe Territory”. Doing this does not actually prevent your letter from arriving at its intended destination because the postal code is coded to identify a specific block in a city. By returning to traditional place names, we can take the power to name out of the hands of those who claimed this land as theirs alone. Returning to the original names shows proper respect for the people on whose land we live. It can also serve as an educational tool. I would encourage you to research where you live: start thinking of it as an ancient place with names that go back more than a few generations.
// Marco Ferreira