Humanely raised veal

[Rail Paul]

in an interview reported in September's Gourmet, Julia Child describes her likes and dislikes. Among the dislikes is "humanely raised veal."

Ms Child doesn't find the tenderness or milk-fed taste in humanely raised veal. To a person schooled in taste and texture, hrv doesn't make the grade.

So, what do you think? Do consumers have a need to consider the provenance of food before it hits their table? Should cruelty or its absence affect the dining experience?

[Fat Guy]

It's not a black-and-white question of humanely versus inhumanely raised veal. I'm surprised to hear it phrased in such terms. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that grass-fed veal doesn't have the desirable characteristics of the best veal, and perhaps isn't veal at all. Art of Eating #64 contains a huge article about veal by Ed Behr. (no. 64 CURRENT ISSUE " Good Veal " — bad veal — a barnyard and fresh milk — a market outside the commodity market — cook veal gently, as a rule — toward a definition of good veal — is it veal if it's grass-fed? — how small veal producers survive and a possible dairy-farm model for the future — addresses — recipes.) Among dozens of interesting points is: "Of course, humane and delicious veal does still exist, however little of it. Here and there a dairy farmer raises a few calves together in an outdoor pen or indoors with bedding." The point being, inhumane conditions are a result of producing a lot of veal at a low price -- they're not an inherent part of good veal. Behr also questions some of the standard claims regarding the inhumaneness of veal production, but that's another topic.

[macrosan]

I too find the questions strangely phrased.

Do consumers have a need to consider the provenance of food before it hits their table?

No, "consumers" don't have any such need. Some people will want to consider provenance, others won't.

Should cruelty or its absence affect the dining experience?

It's not a question of "should". Cruel rearing practices are generally designed to produce an improvement in the meat, unless you believe that they are gratuitous. Foei gras and veal are the two meats most supposed to involve cruel practice, and in each case for the specific purpose of producing meat in a form which is considered desirable.

So if we assume, for the moment, that milk feeding and penning of calves is cruel, and that form of rearing is what gives veal its desirable characteristics, then cruelty de facto does affect the dining experience.

The same situation occurs with rearing of fowl. Many battery-reared chickens are bred and raised to produce hugely fat chickens with a high meat to bone ratio, and a high white to dark meat ratio. Tender white meat has become desirable in the market. But then my own preference is for game birds, with tougher and darker meat. Desirability is a marketing led phenomenon in many cases, and the desirability for veal may also lessen with time.

If you're asking whether a diner should take into account rearing methods when deciding whether or not to order certain meats, then my answer would be yes. Of course, as we have discussed many times here, there is not universal agreement on the subject of what actually does represent cruelty to animals.

[Fat Guy]

Cruelty often comes not from the desire to increase quality but, rather, from the desire to increase production and decrease cost. It's possible to hand-raise calves and ducks in a relatively humane manner and produce veal and foie gras that's as good or significantly better than what's made on large scale farms, but it will be damn expensive. Will people pay for it? A few, sure. A lot, probably not.

In terms of what does or does not affect the dining experience, that depends on how the experience is defined. If the dining experience includes the knowledge of how your food was raised, then inhumane treatment will likely affect that experience -- though apparently not for Julia Child!

(By the way, just to be clear, I was reacting to the strangeness of Julia Child's phrasing not Rail Paul's.)

[Andre]

I afraid things are much simpler in my eyes.

There is money and there is a humane behavior.

Once the Israeli Prime Minester Barak authorised force feeding geese - I took the best selling item out of my deli. and I put a bid sign upfront - no foi gras.

I manage great with humanely raised veal. My own cousin used to raise and distribute the meat himself, and now, like many small businesses, he's unemployed. He tought me the "natural way". I did not have one steak returned in 5 years unless undercooked.

All we have to do is divert our energies towards the right thing and most importantly, find the time to get to know nature.

I feel blessed to be able to do that.

[Fat Guy]

I think you're oversimplifying. It's possible to be profitable and humane. Many farmers who use factory-farming methods are constantly staring into the abyss of bankruptcy because their margins on the commodities markets are so small, whereas many of the most creative farmers are now raising boutique products and selling directly to consumers and restaurants.

[Rail Paul]

I too find the questions strangely phrased.

Do consumers have a need to consider the provenance of food before it hits their table?

No, "consumers" don't have any such need. Some people will want to consider provenance, others won't.

Should cruelty or its absence affect the dining experience?

It's not a question of "should". Cruel rearing practices are generally designed to produce an improvement in the meat, unless you believe that they are gratuitous. Foei gras and veal are the two meats most supposed to involve cruel practice, and in each case for the specific purpose of producing meat in a form which is considered desirable.

So if we assume, for the moment, that milk feeding and penning of calves is cruel, and that form of rearing is what gives veal its desirable characteristics, then cruelty de facto does affect the dining experience.

My reading of Ms Child's comments suggests that taste should be the only determinant. In my own view of dining, I think that is an element, but certainly not the only one.

My sense is that some better-off purchasers will pay a premium for cruelty free or minimized products. Evidence of that trend has already emerged in the demand for kosher and halal (cruelty must be minimized) meats, line caught fish, and humane veal. Whether that trend works its way down into the thirty cents of meat in a quarter pounder is anyone's guess. I wouldn't expect it anytime soon.

(And, after 50 years, Julia Child still draws strong reactions. She also favors genetically modified foods as a way to feed the earth's many people.)

[Fat Guy]

My reading of Ms Child's comments suggests that taste should be the only determinant.  In my own view of dining, I think that is an element, but certainly not the only one.

Taste should be the only determinant of taste. One of the problems with so many discussions of humane, organic, artisanal, etc., is that they can't even acknowledge this fundamental point. As for whether other factors -- such as how food is produced, wholesomeness, price, etc. -- should affect a person's purchasing decisions, is there even a question? I think the only debate is which factors and how relevant are they?

My sense is that some better-off purchasers will pay a premium for cruelty free or minimized products. Evidence of that trend has already emerged in the demand for kosher and halal (cruelty must be minimized) meats, line caught fish, and humane veal.  Whether that trend works its way down into the thirty cents of meat in a quarter pounder is anyone's guess. I wouldn't expect it anytime soon.

It does work its way down. McDonald's engages in all sorts of behavior along these lines: no GM foods, a new policy on antibiotics, etc. But I think it's a misconception to say that Kosher or Halal rules require minimizing cruelty. They're actually rather brutal methods of slaughter -- the bolt stunner, forbidden in Kosher (I'm not sure about Halal) is a lot more humane than the alternative method which I don't even want to describe.

She also favors genetically modified foods as a way to feed the earth's many people.

The world isn't going to be fed by Niman Ranch and the line-caught salmon industry!

[Andre]

Well said,

Kosher is much more brutal than modern methods.

"taste should be determinant of taste"

I am afraid this sentence is very subjective.

I see this as just another fight between the "big brother" and nature.

Modern research serves the means of those in control, to brand and market with what nature already provided us.

Knowledge is not always wisdom. You grow up being exposed to certain flavors and knowledge and this is what you base your assumptions on.

Old style parents used to feed you from the healthy products of the land. In the 70's these things changed favoring the new money making agriculture. Vegetables neither tasted nor had the health benefits of the naturally organic products. On the other hand, the simplest form of organic started costing 5 and 10 times as much.

processed sugar is a good example of that.

The next step - the animals. Ducks, chickens, calves, fish and so on, became too controlled by those power driven lunatics up there. I am not reffering only to cruelty here, though being humane, it should be a primary concern. The "big" chefs and Ms Child is a good example, were searching for "clean" flavors to create their perfect dishes. Luckily for goats, they are usually unable to deliver a "clean" flavorless taste.

Now all of this is going to hit us streight in the face. No more complexity, no more different, no more unfamiliar, slowly but surely we will loose track of nature to become a mere tool in the hands of power hungry players.

We could be living in a settlement in outer space for all it matters.

This may sound extreme, but we are definitely on the right track.

[Katherine]

"taste should be determinant of taste"

I am afraid this sentence is very subjective.

On the contrary, I find this statement to be entirely objective.

Subjective is when you balance a combination of factors when determining how good something tastes to you, only one of which is how it would taste if you didn't know where it was from, who raised it and how, what the ingredients were, which factory it came from, etc.

In other words, something that came out dead last in a blind tasting might be judged by some to taste good because it's raised according to certain standards, or it's supposedly really good for you.

More specifically, my mother, who was capable of being a really good cook, would feed us stuff that would have tasted like crap to any objective person, full of brewer's yeast, raw soy, liver powder. She thought it tasted good because it was "good for you".

Taste is taste. When you weigh other considerations, you may be making educated judgements, but they are no longer based on taste.

[Andre]

"

More specifically, my mother, who was capable of being a really good cook, would feed us stuff that would have tasted like crap to any objective person, full of brewer's yeast, raw soy, liver powder. She thought it tasted good because it was "good for you". "

Ouch,

And I thought my childhood was bad when I was forced to eat chicken.

We have to differetaite between what nature provides us and things we tamper with in relation to the term taste.

If we grow up to eat MacD. This is what meat should taste like for us. Modern parents find this quick and available solution comfortable with little thought about the aquired taste of the young ones.

Mass marketing forces you to go with the flow.

[macrosan]

She also favors genetically modified foods as a way to feed the earth's many people.

The world isn't going to be fed by Niman Ranch and the line-caught salmon industry!

The world isn't going to be fed by Tesco and the net-caight cod industry either !

[Rail Paul]

I too find the questions strangely phrased.

Do consumers have a need to consider the provenance of food before it hits their table?

No, "consumers" don't have any such need. Some people will want to consider provenance, others won't.

Should cruelty or its absence affect the dining experience?

It's not a question of "should". Cruel rearing practices are generally designed to produce an improvement in the meat, unless you believe that they are gratuitous. Foei gras and veal are the two meats most supposed to involve cruel practice, and in each case for the specific purpose of producing meat in a form which is considered desirable.

So if we assume, for the moment, that milk feeding and penning of calves is cruel, and that form of rearing is what gives veal its desirable characteristics, then cruelty de facto does affect the dining experience.

My reading of Ms Child's comments suggests that taste should be the only determinant. In my own view of dining, I think that is an element, but certainly not the only one.

My sense is that some better-off purchasers will pay a premium for cruelty free or minimized products. Evidence of that trend has already emerged in the demand for kosher and halal (cruelty must be minimized) meats, line caught fish, and humane veal. Whether that trend works its way down into the thirty cents of meat in a quarter pounder is anyone's guess. I wouldn't expect it anytime soon.

(And, after 50 years, Julia Child still draws strong reactions. She also favors genetically modified foods as a way to feed the earth's many people.)

In follow-up to macrosan's usual, thoughtful comments, I'd suggest the consumer should consider the provenance of the food they eat. I see the penning up of veal and the administration of, for example, hormones as two sides of the same coin.

If the intent is to produce a more flavorful meat, then anything which produces more flavor is appropriate (extending Julia Child's logic, not yours). That slippery slope leads us to any number of balance items (grain use for cattle, fertilizer pollution, pig lagoons, etc) with consequences beyond the plate's rim

Edited August 25, 2003 by Rail Paul (log)

[Hest88]

I read the article this weekend and just made allowances for her advanced age and the era she lived in. I don't think she's very media-savvy and suspect that if she were exposed to the barrage of info all of us read regularly she might change some of her opinions. For instance, the genetically-modified foods *sound* good in theory, but would any of us be surprised if it turns out to have long-term negative ramifications or, at best, be useless?

[macrosan]

... with consequences beyond the plate's rim

That's a nicely terse summation of the problem, Paul.

Taste is not a sufficient justification for everything that might be done in its name. There must come a point where the taste of the ingredients has to be subordinate to the requirement that food is food. To some extent at least, this must require naturalness, safety, and acceptable production practices.

Edit: Awful syntax needed changing

Edited August 25, 2003 by macrosan (log)

[Hest88]

There must come a point where the taste of the ingredients has to be subordinate to the requirement that food is food. To some extent at least, this must require naturalness, safety, and acceptable production practices.

There's also the point that's been made earlier that our tastes have been changed by our highly processed society. Corn-fed beef, lean pork, un-gamy poultry are all examples of unnatural meat that we've grown so accustomed to that the "real thing" tastes inferior to us. In the article, they also commented that Julia didn't like crispy vegetables, which is also, I know, the classic French standard. As someone who grew up eating Cantonese meals most nights, it's really hard for me to enjoy veggies that are cooked so long that they *don't* crunch.

Anyway, before I ramble further, my point is that choosing more natural and/or humane methods doesn't necessarily equal compromising taste; it could just mean opening ourselves up to different tastes than we've been used to in the last 50 years.

[Fat Guy]

There goes Julia Child being un-media-savvy again.

One lucky component of reality, for those who favor natural, artisanal, etc., foods, is that they most often do taste better. For the most part, food-mass-production technology isn't about making food taste better, but is rather about making more of it for less money, and achieving compromises between the needs of producers, shippers, retailers, and consumers. The goal of an heirloom tomato grower is going to be to make the absolute best tasting tomato possible, and it will be necessary to charge a lot of money for it. The goal of a mass producer is to make the best tasting tomato possible that can also last for a month in the hold of a ship, take a lot of abuse, grow in massive quantities, and still be really cheap to buy. Likewise, genetic modification of crops is mostly about making those crops resistant to pests, more productive, etc., and not really about taste (though if they can provide better taste in the process, the engineers will try to do that). The artisans are not being challenged, for the most part, on the flavor front.

My comment above was simply meant to illustrate that heirloom tomato growers and other artisans simply can't feed the world, not unless we wanted to revert to being an agricultural society and perhaps not even then. Those items are luxuries, plain and simple, for affluent citizens of industrialized nations and also for royalty and aristocrats in the rest of the world -- especially in urban settings where it's impossible even to have a small garden. With five billion inhabitants or whatever the latest count is, advanced food technology -- the kind that doesn't necessarily promote flavor or any other gourmet goals -- is essential to feeding the world.

[Rail Paul]

Steven -

back in 1920, exactly half the US population lived on farms. economists extrapolate that this half fed the half which lived in the cities and provided some export grains.

After 1920, that balance has shifted until 5% of the US population now feeds the other 95% and exports huge crops of soybeans, corn, wheat, etc. Surely the Bobolinks of the world will not feed that 95%, but Jonathan's humane care for his cows and chickens provides a model for people who will pay $4.50 a dozen for eggs and $17 for cheese.

I think we're on the same page in our belief that the provenance of foods is a consideration in the purchase and appreciation decision. Not the only one, and maybe not even the primary determinant, but definitely a consideration.

Now, we should discuss Julia's views on genetic modifications...

Paul

[Fat Guy]

Now, we should discuss Julia's views on genetic modifications...

In terms of the equations we've been talking about -- who's feeding whom and how -- I find Norman Borlaug's thesis compelling: "Without biotechnology the world will need to clear more forests and wildlife habitats to keep food production balanced with rising populations." As for whether there are risks to utilizing biotechnology, I don't suppose it's possible to rule them out. But I haven't found the speculation to be particularly compelling. So when Hest88 says, "the genetically-modified foods *sound* good in theory, but would any of us be surprised if it turns out to have long-term negative ramifications or, at best, be useless?" I'd say yes, I would be surprised.

[macrosan]

I find Norman Borlaug's thesis compelling: "Without biotechnology the world will need to clear more forests and wildlife habitats to keep food production balanced with rising populations."

The fallacy of this argument is the same fallacy that projects the need to cover half the surface of a city with roads to keep traffic moving.

The more roads we build, the more people will find that travel by car is cheap, fast and convenient. So more people will buy cars that they will use more often, clogging up the roads and enforciing the need to build yet more roads.

It's the same with food. Food availability is a natural delimiter on world population. The more food we provide to the world, the more the population will grow, demanding ever more food.

Whilst some may take offense at that idea, the reality is there today, staring us in the face. All the first world countries have food surplusses. They are producing far more food than their own population needs, or enabling other countries to produce the food for them to import. This has been so for the past hundred years, without the existence of GM foods.

At the same time, the third world countries almost all suffer from food shortages. Now there are two different ways to define a food shortage --- too little food supply for the existing population, or too great a population for the existing food supply. Whichever definition you prefer, the important question is why do not the countries with food surplusses transfer them to the countries with shortages ?

The answer is nothing to do with the cost of food production which is the angle that GM foods purport to address. It is due to the unavailability in third world countries of the means of distribution, and to do with the capitalist demand to maintain order in the worldwide food market. Neither of these problems is addressed by GM food production.

In fact, many GM crops have been carefully and wickedly designed with a genetic makeup which disables the crop's ability to self-propagate. This means that the third world country will in perpetuity have to buy new seed from Monsanto and the like, placing them in thrall to those companies forever into the future.

On the subject of cost, I would like to see evidence that GM foods, which have been sold in the USA for up to tewnty years (?) have had the claimed effect of reducing food prices. All my instinct says they have not. So why would they suddenly start to do so in the third world ?

The whole argument for GM as a means to "feed the world" is specious. What the world needs to do is to decide how much food can safely and sustainably be produced on this planet, and then stop producing more. The population of the world will naturally adjust to that availability.

[oraklet]

macrosan, a beautiful post. i hope it will open some eyes. in particular, i find this thought-provoking:

In fact, many GM crops have been carefully and wickedly designed with a genetic makeup which disables the crop's ability to self-propagate. This means that the third world country will in perpetuity have to buy new seed from Monsanto and the like, placing them in thrall to those companies forever into the future.

[Fat Guy]

Food availability is a natural delimiter on world population. The more food we provide to the world, the more the population will grow, demanding ever more food.

Whilst some may take offense at that idea . . .

If you are suggesting that the food supply should be restricted as a means of population control, I think more than some people will find that notion offensive.

Not all people live at the extremes of being well fed or being dead. To be sure, there are deaths due to famine, but the vast majority of people in areas where food is scarce live in the horrible purgatory of malnourishment. Malnourished populations can and do grow. The next several billion people are going to be born no matter what, and while we have a food surplus now it certainly won't be enough to feed them. So we will have to choose between making our current agricultural system more productive, or "clear more forests and wildlife habitats to keep food production balanced with rising populations."

In the shallowest, ignorant-of-history, head-in-the sand sense, it's certainly true that a person will die without food. It is absolutely not possible to infer from that obvious premise, however, that "the more food we provide to the world, the more the population will grow." Were that argument true, population would be growing faster in countries where there's a food surplus than it is in countries where there isn't enough food. That is obviously not the case. Well fed populations are far better at self-limiting than starving ones. The keys to population control have nothing to do with food production. Show me a single credible source from the field of population studies that says overpopulation is occurring because we have too much food. Overpopulation occurs for a variety of reasons, but food surplus is not one of them.

the important question is why do not the countries with food surplusses transfer them to the countries with shortages ?

They do. There are 8.5 million tons of food aid being shipped each year, more than half of it by the United States (see http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/y6000e/y6000...5.htm#P90_15843 ). The major problem on the recipient end is inadequate distribution.

Many GM crops have been carefully and wickedly designed with a genetic makeup which disables the crop's ability to self-propagate. This means that the third world country will in perpetuity have to buy new seed from Monsanto and the like, placing them in thrall to those companies forever into the future. On the subject of cost, I would like to see evidence that GM foods, which have been sold in the USA for up to tewnty years (?) have had the claimed effect of reducing food prices. All my instinct says they have not. So why would they suddenly start to do so in the third world ?

Are you seriously suggesting there's any question that GM crops are more productive than non-GM crops? I can't imagine anybody would think that. Whether they're wicked or costly (I'd happily prove you wrong on those points, but it seems your thinking on this is so entrenched that it would be a waste of time and would take us too far off topic) doesn't have any bearing on this issue. The issue is that, over a given period of time, you can get more corn out of an acre of land.

What the world needs to do is to decide how much food can safely and sustainably be produced on this planet, and then stop producing more. The population of the world will naturally adjust to that availability.

We are very fortunate indeed that nobody in a position to make such decisions would ever think this way.

[macrosan]

Food availability is a natural delimiter on world population. The more food we provide to the world, the more the population will grow, demanding ever more food.

Whilst some may take offense at that idea . . .

If you are suggesting that the food supply should be restricted as a means of population control, I think more than some people will find that notion offensive.

Nope, I'm not suggesting that restriction of food supply should be used as a policy tool for controlling population. I'm saying that whatever restrictions happen to exist will delimit population. That's just a simple statement of self-evident fact. I'm saying that to promote a hypothetically limitless means of food supply is foolish and misjudged. There are many socially natural delimiters of population, and availability of food is just one of those. Others include genetics, disease, natural disaster, land area, culture and natural resources.

Your suppositions that GM food is cheaper, that it can be delivered to those who need food, and that those people will be able to afford it when it arrives are all unproven hypotheses.

You say that "The next several billion people are going to be born no matter what" but you have no rationale upon which to base this assumption. As you say, the population in first world countries is broadly stabilising. Well why is that ? Could it be that as a civilisation develops and matures, it instinctively regulates its population size so as to ensure that it can properly feed and maintain its population ? And do you find that notion offensive ? Nevertheless, if that is the case then why do you assume it will not happen in the third world ?

Are you seriously suggesting there's any question that GM crops are more productive than non-GM crops?

Of course a simple reading of my post would have shown you that isn't what I was suggesting I suggested that GM foods aren't cheaper than non-GM foods.

...it seems your thinking on this is so entrenched that it would be a waste of time...

That's just the words of someone who is entrenched in his thinking, and doesn't ever want to risk being proven wrong And when you delete that section of your post, I'll delete this section of mine.

QUOTE 

What the world needs to do is to decide how much food can safely and sustainably be produced on this planet, and then stop producing more. The population of the world will naturally adjust to that availability.

We are very fortunate indeed that nobody in a position to make such decisions would ever think this way.

What is sad is that there are still people who aren't willing to address the difficult questions, and would rather hope that the nasty realities in the world just went away.

Anyone "in a position to make such decisions" who isn't concerned with the safety and sustainability of food production is the person we should be fearing.

[Fat Guy]

I'm not suggesting that restriction of food supply should be used as a policy tool for controlling population.

I see, that must be what you meant when you said, "What the world needs to do is to decide how much food can safely and sustainably be produced on this planet, and then stop producing more. The population of the world will naturally adjust to that availability."

I'm saying that whatever restrictions happen to exist will delimit population. That's just a simple statement of self-evident fact.

If we limit their food, people may eventually be lucky enough to watch their children die of starvation (what an ambition!), but first they will fight wars, destroy their environments, and oppress their populations.

You're continuing to dig yourself into a hole here, Macrosan. Perhaps your best move would be to retract the numerous factually incorrect statements you've already made. The rest of it is here in black and white already -- you can certainly attempt to bait me with statements like "Could it be that as a civilisation develops and matures, it instinctively regulates its population size so as to ensure that it can properly feed and maintain its population ? And do you find that notion offensive ? Nevertheless, if that is the case then why do you assume it will not happen in the third world ?" But people can read what I've already said, and of course you're the one who said "What the world needs to do is to decide how much food can safely and sustainably be produced on this planet, and then stop producing more. The population of the world will naturally adjust to that availability." I don't plan on engaging in a sustained dialog with someone who so plainly advocates such an offensive policy, so this will be my final word on the subject.

[macrosan]

Twaddle

Well at least I'm happy to engage in discussion of an important topic, although I feel we've moved away from Paul's original subject