Can we talk?

Organic or not

    Yesterday I discussed the vulnerability of the organic customer and the looseness of terms on products considered to be legal. Pure, natural, all natural, organic, etc., conjure up images that may have little to do with the product at hand. They are marketing terms. Let's delve a little further into terminology.
   
    Free-range. What does that mean? It means no restrictions, like cattle on hundred acre spreads, or chickens who wander from the coop freely. True free-range animals are susceptible to predators. It doesn't make an animal happier; that's a human conception. The meat of free-range animals is stringy and not as tasty, and definitely leaner. And the government doesn't have a strict definition of free-range for labels, so again your vision may not be the one the farmer has.

      Now I can understand why people might object to milk-fed veal: the animal is never allowed to move its entire short life. In fact it doesn't get to move his head freely or raise it up completely. It never exercises or walks. It eats 24 hours a day if it wants,  and only milk or cream are offered constantly. It is very tender and very tasty. But even a meat-lover like me can't eat milk-fed veal now that I now how it's created. It's a little bit cruel no matter how tough you may be when it comes to farm life. Some companies do chickens that way. The chicken never moves from it's spot. It's hemmed in. This bird will have more fat to make it juicy. It too lives a short life; younger animals are more tender.

    However, free-range is not the only alternative to the seemingly cruel lock'em in place method. Free-range is not the best quality meat. Ever had deer meat? That's free range. Or wild turkey? Both are very lean. Both are gamy. They have tougher muscles, more bruises, scars (bad spots) that affect what goes on your serving platter. if you have seen a wild turkey cooked, you will notice it may not be symmetrical; the carcass could be crooked. The fencing and barns provide protection and security for the animals. They keep them clean and away from infectious diseases. Most farms have something in between free-range and lock their heads in place.

    It is understandable that people don't want to eat meat or eggs that have been boosted with steroids, or other chemicals, even less direct ones like fertilizers on grain or herbicides in water the animals consume. I've had a problem ever since I learned that fresh chicken manure is mixed in with cattle feed and "turned over" for the heat of decomposition to sterilize the feed and add nutrition for the cow. The idea itself is repulsive, but a lot of things can go wrong, like it doesn't get mixed up frequently enough or it cools off too fast, not destroying all the bacteria. But it hasn't been enough to make me a vegetarian or to give up milk.    I heard a woman ask a butcher where the steaks came from. Was that farm local? Did they treat their animals well? I thought to myself, "You mean before they kill them and cut them in little pieces?" If you can get past the idea of raising animals for food, then your concern for their welfare seems a little inconsistent, doesn't it?

    Which brings me to the inconsistency I hear so often. Someone says he refuses to buy regular milk for his children. He buys organic which costs almost twice as much. Then he'll take the kids to McD's for a happy meal and lets them drink water from the faucet without filtering it. Or people express such concern for the welfare of a food animal, but they wear leather and fur without hesitation. How were those animals treated before being slaughtered? And some of that leather, like key chains or sneakers, comes from road kill, mostly in other countries, but road kill, nonetheless. Or the same people that don't want you to use a disinfectant in the office don't mind wearing enough cologne to choke a horse. Or they demand to know if your grapes are organic before they take some, but they don't wash their hands first and touch every grape you have.

    We have a tendency to compartmentalize things. We get an obsession about one little area of nutrition without taking a 
look at the big picture and letting that big picture determine all of our behavior. For instance, if you are a vegetarian because of animal rights, you should never have leather on your furniture, your car, your belt, your shoes or sneakers, key chains, wallets, purses, or clothing. Using even a little leather would be like eating a little meat when you've declared to the world you don't believe in doing that. If we truly want organic, shopping becomes a lengthier, tougher job for us. Restaurants are almost all off limits. To go organic, in the sense of not taking unnatural elements into our bodies requires that we do that in all areas of consumption. And why go organic and continue to smoke or consume alcohol?

    Why am I so involved if I haven't made the organic or vegetarian commitment? I'm just tired of encountering so much misinformation and so many people, many of whom are self-righteous, being so inconsistent, so critical, and sometimes narrow-minded. It doesn't seem to me that they know their own goal or are managing to accomplish one because of the inconsistencies that many of us detect in their speech and actions. I've talked to retailers who feel like customers are making conclusions without having all the facts. Even doctors don't have all the answers. Some are more informed than others, some don't care; you'll have to discern that for yourself by the way she talks. You are your own best defender. If you want to go organic, inform yourself. Study up. I hate seeing people duped or being misled by marketing schemes.