Karen Pendergrass tries to get out the word that people are destroying the world with their pastries
Karen Pendergrass: Alan Aragon "if someone enjoys grains, dairy, & legumes, and can tolerate them just fine, proactively avoiding them to follow the 'rules' of a fad diet is just plain dumb." Is that so? Wow.. talk about a narrow frame of reference there, oh men's health guru http://eatpaleosavetheworld.com/?p=65
Ăric LĂŠpine: Karen, the article you posted above is *seriously* flawed. I mean, it's comparing industrial agriculture with everything else, and making a case against the former based on soil degradation/erosion. That's like vegans saying meat as a whole is bad, and comparing their permaculture ways with industrial CAFO methods of raising animals. I mean, there are ways of doing any type of agriculture sustainably, while preserving existing ecosystems and preventing soil degradation. Permaculture, biodynamic, forest gardening, etc., all these are not the sole domain of pastured animals. Ultimately, the sustainability of a food system is dependent on many factors and, assuming you can grow what you eat close to your location and without destroying the ecosystem, there are many viable approaches. And, some of them do involve grains and legumes and dairy production, all neolithic foodstuffs.
Karen Pendergrass: @Ăric Do you suspect that grain agriculture is sustainable? Tell me about a sustainable monoculture, too. Tell me that losses in biodiversity are OK.
Karen Pendergrass: And for the record, there is a bell curve of people who have either adapted to an grain-based diet, and who haven't. Some people CAN tolerate grains. That doesn't inherently make them healthy, or nutritious.
Ăric LĂŠpine: Karen, yes, it can be. Not large, industrial monocultures of course (just like large, industrial CAFO meat production is anything but) and, we should simply be careful not to group all different types of agricultures together. And, some people don't tolerate eggs. Others don't tolerate milk. Some don't tolerate chocolate. Others don't tolerate coconuts. Some don't tolerate chitinases, allergens responsible for reactions to latex, and causing reactions to a host of fruits (bananas, kiwis, avocados, etc.); unlike what you are proposing however, I wouldn't conclude that this means they are inherently unhealthy for everyone. Simply, that any nutritional approach warrants caution based on the individual, and not be derived from some blanket statement-based ideological notion formulated mostly from speculation...
Karen Pendergrass: That which is deleterious to biodiversity is unsustainable. Period. Yes I am prepared to back up that statement. Go into a supermarket, and grab any bag of cereal, any loaf of bread, any popcorn, any pastry... and tell me if that was grown in an unsustainable monoculture or not. Then, tell me about the biodiversity found in the land that was used to grow those products. Do look up David Littshwagers "One Cubic Foot" and Apocalyptic Planet by Craig Childs. Then tell me about the health of the soil, rotated crops or not. Yay legumes are nitrogen-fixing, but how much organic matter (which electromagnetically holds 5 times more nutrients than inorganic stuff) is lost? Then, tell me about the deforestation that occurs from expansion of agricultural systems to produce said "nutritionally-void" products. Then we can talk about the climate change that happens in tandem with deforestation, too. Oh, and for shits and giggles.... lets talk about petroleum based fertilizers, Pfisteria and algal blooms that cause dead zones the size of New Jersey (granted, partially CAFO fault too), and the aftermath of what happens when they blow up 35 people in Waco. How about we talk about the money that these large companies make from Price-fixing. And let's pretend like corporate lobbying doesn't change the federal food guidelines... or get Monsanto execs positions as FDA Comissioner or USDA Secretary.... Yes. Go ahead and bag on the Paleo Diet and people who abstain from paying into a system which has arguable set us in motion for the 6th mass extinction period because we want our âfood freedom.â Awesome.
Karen Pendergrass: I forgot to mention that I recently heard from a friend that there are grain-based agricultural systems that DO seem more sustainable...only problem is the corn looks like crap and doesn't yield well. So I guess it can be done... but is it worth it? I don't think so.
Ăric LĂŠpine: Karen, do you hunt and gather all your food then, right in your own forested backyard or within walking distance? Otherwise, your whole argument is moot... The whole food system as it stands, even the most sustainable products, are never completely sustainable. I get all my grains (barley, oats, spelt and rye) from small farms that grow and raise dozens of different species (of plant and animals). They are building top soil every year. Fully closed-loop system. Again though, you are talking about extremes. Petroleum-based industrial agriculture is NOT what I am implying here. So, your bringing GMOs, Monsanto, dead zones, the FDA and supermarket food shopping to this discussion is completely irrelevant to the point I am hoping to make. You're seeing this through a completely reductionist, black and white lense and, although your passion is admirable here, you're also making a grave mistake by ascertaining that only "paleo" can bring an end to the suffering you talk of...
Karen Pendergrass: Fully closed-loop? Is that what they told you? Or have you studied their system and come to that conclusion? They use zero inputs from petroleum-based fertilizers on their farm? And praytell... where do they get the feed for their animals? Because if the animal feed is outsources and comes from a monoculture, they are relying on an unsustainable form of ariculture for one, and for twoâ it is no longer a closed system. Especially once you factor in the inputs for that monoculture. If youâd like, Iâll show you some diagrams of an actual closed-loop system, and another system that is what I call âonly looks closed loop if youâre not really looking that hard.â Feel free to PM me, or even friend me so you can come argue with me on my page more often. I enjoy it, sincerely. Having said that... if theyâre fully closed-loop with grain agriculture I totally want to know about it, because I've never seen/ studied one before. I'm sure it's possible, just not sure it's done yet. And hell no, Iâm not living sustainably either.. I still wear cotton and drive 10 miles to get the bulk of my food. My plan in the next 2 years is to move into a tiny house in Eagle, Colorado and raise animals, xeroscape, and hunt. Also, I do my best not to put money towards systems that I donât think deserve support. At this point, even if I *could* eat grains I wouldnât. Ignorance was bliss. If everyone did their best not to foster those systems... weâd see a huge change in 10 years. The day we stop financially supporting monocultures is the day they go away. Decreasing the consumption of grains (and CAFO) is far easier than any other measure of conservation. And yeah, itâs extreme. Most conservationist-types are. 99.99999% People in the US get their grains from a monoculture. If monocultures are the problem we say they are, shouldnât we be acting like it?
Ăric LĂŠpine: The grain they produce is mostly for their free-range fowl (supplemented year-round, but more important in the winter time). Their goats, lamb, llama and cattle are all exclusively grassfed. Pigs and fowl (turkey, chicken and geese) are free-range, but pigs get tubers and fruits (mostly apples), supplemented with aforementioned grains. They have one old beat-up tractor to run this whole operation. And a solar generator to run the pumps for irrigating the pasture and crops (water comes from natural water sources on their acreage). NO petrochemical fertilizers whatsoever. So, technically speaking, they use petroleum (for that old tractor; and also to run an ATV and a few powertools), so aren't completely closed-loop but, darn, relative to almost anything in this industrial world, they're as close to it as can be. And, if everyone aspired to that, or even as close as possible to that ideal, we would be in good hands, irrespective of the foods being produced. I didn't mean "extreme" in terms of your actions or what we should aspire to. I'm all for it. I've been a WAPF Chapter leader and an active member of the latter and this movement for well over a decade (and half even). And volunteer much time to the cause of everyone acquiring a family farmer, and organizations such as l'Union paysanne (http://www.unionpaysanne.com/) and the Raw milk movement. I only meant that you were using an "extreme" (albeit the dominant approach) definition to describe all grain agricultural processes according to strict parameters, when that is clearly not the only option.
jacobvanloon
gummygunk
baratheonpilled
jbbartram-illu
janainaart
titsay
stormborns
izzy806
turnnoffyourmind