I write about food. I write about cooking. I take it quite seriously, but I'm here to talk about something that's become very important to me in the last year or two. It is about food, but it's not about cooking, per se. I'm going to start with this picture of a beautiful cow. I'm not a vegetarian -- this is the old Nixon line, right? But I still think that this -- (Laughter) -- may be this year's version of this.
Ja pišem o hrani. Pišem o kuhanju. Shvaćam to prilično ozbiljno, no ovdje sam kako bih govorio o nečemu što mi je postalo jako važno u zadnjih godinu dvije Radi se o hrani, ali ne o samom kuhanju. Počet ću s ovom slikom lijepe krave. Ja nisam vegaterijanac - to je rekao Nixon, zar ne? Ali ipak mislim kako - (Smijeh) - ovo može biti ovogodišnja verzija toga.
Now, that is only a little bit hyperbolic. And why do I say it? Because only once before has the fate of individual people and the fate of all of humanity been so intertwined. There was the bomb, and there's now. And where we go from here is going to determine not only the quality and the length of our individual lives, but whether, if we could see the Earth a century from now, we'd recognize it. It's a holocaust of a different kind, and hiding under our desks isn't going to help. Start with the notion that global warming is not only real, but dangerous. Since every scientist in the world now believes this, and even President Bush has seen the light, or pretends to, we can take this is a given.
Sada samo malo pretjerujem. Zašto to kažem? Zato što su samo jednom prije, sudbine pojedinih ljudi i sudbina cijelog čovječanstva bili tako isprepleteni. Tad je bila bomba, a i sad je. I kamo idemo odavde, odredit će ne samo kvalitetu i duljinu naših individualnih života, već, kada bismo mogli vidjeti Zemlju stoljeće od danas, bismo li je prepoznali. Ovo je holokaust druge vrste, i skrivanje ispod stolova neće pomoći. Počnimo sa spoznajom kako globalno zatopljenje nije samo stvarno, nego i opasno. Budući da sada svaki znanstvenik na svijetu u to vjeruje, i čak je i predjednik Bush vidio svjetlo, ili se samo pravi, možemo to uzeti zdravo za gotovo.
Then hear this, please. After energy production, livestock is the second-highest contributor to atmosphere-altering gases. Nearly one-fifth of all greenhouse gas is generated by livestock production -- more than transportation. Now, you can make all the jokes you want about cow farts, but methane is 20 times more poisonous than CO2, and it's not just methane. Livestock is also one of the biggest culprits in land degradation, air and water pollution, water shortages and loss of biodiversity. There's more. Like half the antibiotics in this country are not administered to people, but to animals. But lists like this become kind of numbing, so let me just say this: if you're a progressive, if you're driving a Prius, or you're shopping green, or you're looking for organic, you should probably be a semi-vegetarian. Now, I'm no more anti-cattle than I am anti-atom, but it's all in the way we use these things. There's another piece of the puzzle, which Ann Cooper talked about beautifully yesterday, and one you already know.
Zato poslušajte ovo, molim vas. Nakon proizvodnje energije, stočarstvo je drugo po doprinosu stvaranja plinova koji mijenjaju atmosferu. Skoro jedna petina svih stakleničkih plinova nastaje uzgojem stoke - više nego transportom. Možete se šaliti koliko hoćete o tome kako krava prdi, ali metan je 20 puta otrovniji od CO2, a ne radi se samo o metanu. Stoka je također jedan od glavnih krivaca u uništavanju zemljišta, zagađenju zraka i vode, nestašici vode i gubitku bioraznolikosti. Ima toga još. Oko polovice antibiotika u ovoj zemlji nisu primijenjeni na ljudima, nego na životinjama. Takvi popisi postaju šokantni, pa samo da vam kažem ovo, ako ste napredni, ako vozite Prius, kupujete ekološki, ako tražite organsko, vjerojatno trebate biti polu-vegatarijanac. E sad, ja nisam ništa više protiv krava nego što sam protiv atoma, ali sve je u načinu kako koristimo te stvari. Ima još jedan komadić slagalice o kojem je Ann Cooper lijepo jučer govorila, i to onaj kojeg već znate.
There's no question, none, that so-called lifestyle diseases -- diabetes, heart disease, stroke, some cancers -- are diseases that are far more prevalent here than anywhere in the rest of the world. And that's the direct result of eating a Western diet. Our demand for meat, dairy and refined carbohydrates -- the world consumes one billion cans or bottles of Coke a day -- our demand for these things, not our need, our want, drives us to consume way more calories than are good for us. And those calories are in foods that cause, not prevent, disease. Now global warming was unforeseen. We didn't know that pollution did more than cause bad visibility. Maybe a few lung diseases here and there, but, you know, that's not such a big deal. The current health crisis, however, is a little more the work of the evil empire. We were told, we were assured, that the more meat and dairy and poultry we ate, the healthier we'd be.
Nema sumnje - nikakve - da takozvane bolesti uzrokovane životnim stilom dijabetes, bolesti srca, moždani udar, neki oblici raka - su bolesti koje su daleko učestalije ovdje nego igdje drugdje na svijetu. I to je izravni rezultat prehrane zapadnjačkom hranom. Naša potražnja za mesom, mliječnim proizvodima i prerađenim ugljihohidratima - svijet konzumira milijardu limenki ili boca Coca-Cole na dan - naša potražnja za tim stvarima, ne naša potreba, naša želja - vodi nas da konzumiramo daleko više kalorija nego što je dobro za nas. A te kalorije su u hrani koja uzrokuje, a ne sprečava, bolesti. Globalno zatopljenje nije bilo predviđeno. Nismo znali da zagađenje radi išta osim što uzrokuje slabu vidljivost. Možda koju plućnu bolest tu i tamo, no znate, to i nije tako velika stvar. Sadašnja kriza zdravlja, međutim, još je malo više djelo zlog carstva. Bilo nam je rečeno, uvjeravali su nas, ako ćemo više jesti mesa, mliječnih proizvoda i peradi, bit ćemo zdraviji.
No. Overconsumption of animals, and of course, junk food, is the problem, along with our paltry consumption of plants. Now, there's no time to get into the benefits of eating plants here, but the evidence is that plants -- and I want to make this clear -- it's not the ingredients in plants, it's the plants. It's not the beta-carotene, it's the carrot. The evidence is very clear that plants promote health. This evidence is overwhelming at this point. You eat more plants, you eat less other stuff, you live longer. Not bad. But back to animals and junk food. What do they have in common? One: we don't need either of them for health. We don't need animal products, and we certainly don't need white bread or Coke. Two: both have been marketed heavily, creating unnatural demand. We're not born craving Whoppers or Skittles. Three: their production has been supported by government agencies at the expense of a more health- and Earth-friendly diet.
Ne. Pretjerana konzumacija životinja, i naravno, nezdrave hrane, jest problem, kao i naša bijedna konzumacija biljaka. E sada, nemamo vremena za ulaziti u prednosti jedenja biljaka, ali dokazano je kako biljke - i tu želim biti jasan - ne sastojci biljaka, nego biljke. Ne beta-karoten, nego mrkva. Dokazi su jasni kako biljke potpomažu zdravlje. U ovoj točki dokazi pretežu. Ako jedete više biljaka, jedete manje drugih stvari, živite dulje. Nije loše. No natrag na životinje i nezdravu hranu. Što oni imaju zajedničko? Prvo: niti jedno od toga ne trebamo za zdravlje. Ne trebamo životinjske proizvode, i sasvim sigurno ne trebamo bijeli kruh i Coca-Colu. Drugo: oboje se intenzivno reklamiraju, stvarajući neprirodnu potražnju. Nismo rođeni sa željom za hamburgerima i bombonima. Treće: njihovu proizvodnju podupiru vladine organizacije nauštrb više zdravlja i ekološke hrane.
Now, let's imagine a parallel. Let's pretend that our government supported an oil-based economy, while discouraging more sustainable forms of energy, knowing all the while that the result would be pollution, war and rising costs. Incredible, isn't it? Yet they do that. And they do this here. It's the same deal. The sad thing is, when it comes to diet, is that even when well-intentioned Feds try to do right by us, they fail. Either they're outvoted by puppets of agribusiness, or they are puppets of agribusiness. So, when the USDA finally acknowledged that it was plants, rather than animals, that made people healthy, they encouraged us, via their overly simplistic food pyramid, to eat five servings of fruits and vegetables a day, along with more carbs. What they didn't tell us is that some carbs are better than others, and that plants and whole grains should be supplanting eating junk food. But industry lobbyists would never let that happen. And guess what? Half the people who developed the food pyramid have ties to agribusiness. So, instead of substituting plants for animals, our swollen appetites simply became larger, and the most dangerous aspects of them remained unchanged. So-called low-fat diets, so-called low-carb diets -- these are not solutions.
Zamislimo sad paralelu. Pretvarajmo se da naša vlada podupire ekonomiju baziranu na nafti dok destimulira održive oblike energije, znajući cijelo vrijeme da će rezultat biti zagađenje, rat i povećanje troškova. Nevjerojatno, zar ne? Ali to ipak rade. To rade i ovdje. To je isti dogovor. Tužna stvar je, kada se radi o hrani, da čak i kada dobronamjerni vladini dužnosnici žele učiniti ispravnu stvar, ne uspiju. Ili su nadglasani lutkama agrarnog biznisa, ili su sami lutke agrarnog biznisa. Američko Ministarstvo poljoprivrede napokon je priznalo da biljke, a ne životinje, čine ljude zdravima, potakli su nas, pomoću pojednostavljene piramide ishrane, da jedemo pet obroka voća i povrća na dan, zajedno s više ugljikohidrata. Nisu nam rekli da su neki ugljikohidrati bolji od drugih, niti da biljke i cjelovite žitarice trebaju zamijeniti prehranu nezdravom hranom. Ali lobisti industrije nikada to ne bi dopustili. I pogađate? Polovina ljudi koji su razvili piramidu hrane imaju veze u agrarnom biznisu. Tako umjesto zamjene životinja biljkama, naši ionako napuhani apetiti, jednostavno su postali veći, i njihovi najopasniji aspekti ostali su nepromijenjeni. Takozvane dijete s malo masnoća, dijete s malo ugljikohidrata - nisu rješenja.
But with lots of intelligent people focusing on whether food is organic or local, or whether we're being nice to animals, the most important issues just aren't being addressed. Now, don't get me wrong. I like animals, and I don't think it's just fine to industrialize their production and to churn them out like they were wrenches. But there's no way to treat animals well, when you're killing 10 billion of them a year. That's our number. 10 billion. If you strung all of them -- chickens, cows, pigs and lambs -- to the moon, they'd go there and back five times, there and back. Now, my math's a little shaky, but this is pretty good, and it depends whether a pig is four feet long or five feet long, but you get the idea. That's just the United States. And with our hyper-consumption of those animals producing greenhouse gases and heart disease, kindness might just be a bit of a red herring. Let's get the numbers of the animals we're killing for eating down, and then we'll worry about being nice to the ones that are left.
Ali s puno inteligentnih ljudi usredotočenih na to je li hrana organska ili lokalna, te jesmo li dobri prema životinjama, najvažniji problemi još nisu dotaknuti. E sad, nemojte me krivo shvatiti. Ja volim životinje, i ne mislim da je dobro industrijalizirati njihovu proizvodnju i štancati ih kao ključeve. Ali nema dobrog načina tretiranja životinja kad ih ubijaš 10 milijardi godišnje. To je naš broj. 10 milijardi. Ako ih sve povežete jednu za drugom - piliće, krave, svinje, janjad - do Mjeseca išle bi tamo i natrag pet puta - tamo i natrag. E sada, moja matematika nije sjajna, ali to je prilično puno, i ovisi je li svinja duga 1 ili 1.5 m, ali shvatili ste sliku. I to je samo u SAD-u. Uz našu hiperkonzumaciju tih životinja, koja proizvodi stakleničke plinove i srčane bolesti, ljubaznost tek odvlači pažnju s glavne stvari. Smanjimo prvo broj životinja koje ubijamo za hranu, a tek onda brinimo o tome kako ćemo biti bolji prema onima koje su ostale.
Another red herring might be exemplified by the word "locavore," which was just named word of the year by the New Oxford American Dictionary. Seriously. And locavore, for those of you who don't know, is someone who eats only locally grown food -- which is fine if you live in California, but for the rest of us it's a bit of a sad joke. Between the official story -- the food pyramid -- and the hip locavore vision, you have two versions of how to improve our eating. (Laughter).
Primjer još jedne distrakcije je riječ "lokavor", koja je proglašena za riječ godine od rječnika New Oxford American Dictionary. Ozbiljno. A lokavor je, za vas koji to ne znate, onaj tko jede samo lokalno uzgojenu hranu. Što je u redu ako živite u Kaliforniji, ali za nas ostale to je pomalo tužna šala. Između službene priče - piramide ishrane - i popularne vizije lokavora, imate dvije verzije kako popraviti našu ishranu. (Smijeh).
They both get it wrong, though. The first at least is populist, and the second is elitist. How we got to this place is the history of food in the United States. And I'm going to go through that, at least the last hundred years or so, very quickly right now. A hundred years ago, guess what? Everyone was a locavore: even New York had pig farms nearby, and shipping food all over the place was a ridiculous notion. Every family had a cook, usually a mom. And those moms bought and prepared food. It was like your romantic vision of Europe. Margarine didn't exist. In fact, when margarine was invented, several states passed laws declaring that it had to be dyed pink, so we'd all know that it was a fake. There was no snack food, and until the '20s, until Clarence Birdseye came along, there was no frozen food. There were no restaurant chains. There were neighborhood restaurants run by local people, but none of them would think to open another one. Eating ethnic was unheard of unless you were ethnic. And fancy food was entirely French. As an aside, those of you who remember Dan Aykroyd in the 1970s doing Julia Child imitations can see where he got the idea of stabbing himself from this fabulous slide. (Laughter)
Obje su krive, doduše. Prva je u najmanju ruku populistička, a druga elitistička. Kako smo dovde došli jest povijest prehrane u SAD-u. Proći ću kroz nju, barem kroz zadnjih 100 godina, vrlo brzo i upravo sada. Prije sto godina, pogodite što? Svi su bili lokavori, čak je i New York imao farme svinja u blizini i slanje hrane bilo kuda, bila je smiješna ideja. Svaka obitelj imala je kuhara, najčešće majku. I sve te mame kupovale su i pripremale hranu. To je bilo kao vaša romatična vizija Europe. Margarin nije postojao. Štoviše, kada je margarin izmišljen, u nekoliko država uveden je zakon da ga se mora obojati u ružičasto tako da svi znamo da je lažan. Nije bilo brze hrane, do 20-tih godina, i dok nije stigao Clarence Birdseye, nije bilo niti smrznute hrane. Nije bilo lanaca restorana. Postojali su restorani u susjedstvu koje su vodili lokalni ljudi, i nitko nije pomišljao otvoriti još jedan. Za nacionalne kuhinje nitko nije čuo osim za onu svoju. Sva pomodna hrana bila je francuska. Usput, oni od vas koji se sjećaju kako je Dan Aykroyd 1970-tih imitirao Juliu Child mogu vidjeti odakle mu iz ove nevjerojatne slike ideja da se rani. (Smijeh)
Back in those days, before even Julia, back in those days, there was no philosophy of food. You just ate. You didn't claim to be anything. There was no marketing. There were no national brands. Vitamins had not been invented. There were no health claims, at least not federally sanctioned ones. Fats, carbs, proteins -- they weren't bad or good, they were food. You ate food. Hardly anything contained more than one ingredient, because it was an ingredient. The cornflake hadn't been invented. (Laughter) The Pop-Tart, the Pringle, Cheez Whiz, none of that stuff. Goldfish swam. (Laughter) It's hard to imagine. People grew food, and they ate food. And again, everyone ate local. In New York, an orange was a common Christmas present, because it came all the way from Florida. From the '30s on, road systems expanded, trucks took the place of railroads, fresh food began to travel more. Oranges became common in New York. The South and West became agricultural hubs, and in other parts of the country, suburbs took over farmland. The effects of this are well known. They are everywhere. And the death of family farms is part of this puzzle, as is almost everything from the demise of the real community to the challenge of finding a good tomato, even in summer. Eventually, California produced too much food to ship fresh, so it became critical to market canned and frozen foods. Thus arrived convenience. It was sold to proto-feminist housewives as a way to cut down on housework.
Tih dana davno prije, i još prije Julie, tih dana nije bilo filozofije hrane. Jednostavno ste jeli. Niste tvrdili da ste išta. Nije bilo marketinga. Nije bilo nacionalnih marki. Vitamini nisu bili izumljeni. Nije bilo tvrdnji o zdravlju, barem ne onih koje bi država odobrila. Masti, ugljikohidrati, proteini - nisu bili ni dobri ni loši, bili su hrana. Jeli ste hranu. Skoro ništa nije imalo više od jednog sastojka, jer je ono samo bilo sastojak. Kukuruzne pahuljice nisu bile izumljene. (Smijeh) Kolač Pop-Tart, čips Pringle, namaz Cheez Whiz, ništa od toga. Zlatne ribice još su plivale. (Smijeh) Teško je to zamisliti. Ljudi su uzgajali hranu i jeli hranu. I opet, svi su jeli lokalno. U New Yorku, naranča je bila uobičajeni poklon za Božić, jer je prošle cijeli put od Floride. Od 30-tih na ovamo, razvio se cestovni sustav, kamioni su zauzeli mjesto željeznica, svježa hrana počela je više putovati. Naranče su postale uobičajene u New Yorku. Jug i zapad postali su poljoprivredni centri, a u drugim dijelovima zemlje poljoprivredna zemljišta zamijenjena su predgrađima. Učinci toga dobro su poznati, i oni su posvuda. I smrt obiteljskih farmi dio je te zagonetke kao što je i skoro sve od nestanka stvarne zajednice do izazova traganja za pravom rajčicom, čak i ljeti. Na kraju je Kalifornija proizvodila previše hrane da je šalje svježu, pa je postalo ključno započeti trgovinu konzerviranom i zamrznutom hranom. Tada je stigao komfor. Prodavan je pretečama feminističkih kućanica kao način da smanje kućanske poslove.
Now, I know everybody over the age of, like 45 -- their mouths are watering at this point. (Laughter) (Applause) If we had a slide of Salisbury steak, even more so, right? (Laughter) But this may have cut down on housework, but it cut down on the variety of food we ate as well. Many of us grew up never eating a fresh vegetable except the occasional raw carrot or maybe an odd lettuce salad. I, for one -- and I'm not kidding -- didn't eat real spinach or broccoli till I was 19. Who needed it though? Meat was everywhere. What could be easier, more filling or healthier for your family than broiling a steak? But by then cattle were already raised unnaturally. Rather than spending their lives eating grass, for which their stomachs were designed, they were forced to eat soy and corn. They have trouble digesting those grains, of course, but that wasn't a problem for producers. New drugs kept them healthy. Well, they kept them alive. Healthy was another story.
E sad, znam da svakom starijem od 45 godina - sline cure u ovom trenutku. (Smijeh) (Pljesak) Ako bismo pojeli Salisbury odrezak, još i više, zar ne? (Smijeh) Ali to je možda smanjilo kućanske poslove, ali je također smanjilo i raznolikost hrane koju jedemo. Mnogi su od nas odrasli, a da nikad nisu jeli svježe povrće osim poneke sirove mrkve i lista salate. Ni ja za početak - a ne šalim se - nisam jeo pravi špinat ni brokulu do moje 19. godine. Tko je to trebao? Meso je bilo posvuda. Što može biti jednostavnije, zasitnije i zdravije za vašu obitelj od prženog odreska? No u to vrijeme stoka je već uzgajana neprirodno. Umjesto da provode svoje živote jedući travu za što su njihovi želuci dizajnirani, prisiljavani su jesti soju i kukuruz. Naravno, imali su problema s probavom tog zrnja, ali to nije bio problem proizvođača. Novi lijekovi održavali su ih zdravima. Zapravo, održavali su ih živima. Zdravlje je druga priča.
Thanks to farm subsidies, the fine collaboration between agribusiness and Congress, soy, corn and cattle became king. And chicken soon joined them on the throne. It was during this period that the cycle of dietary and planetary destruction began, the thing we're only realizing just now. Listen to this, between 1950 and 2000, the world's population doubled. Meat consumption increased five-fold. Now, someone had to eat all that stuff, so we got fast food. And this took care of the situation resoundingly. Home cooking remained the norm, but its quality was down the tubes. There were fewer meals with home-cooked breads, desserts and soups, because all of them could be bought at any store. Not that they were any good, but they were there. Most moms cooked like mine: a piece of broiled meat, a quickly made salad with bottled dressing, canned soup, canned fruit salad. Maybe baked or mashed potatoes, or perhaps the stupidest food ever, Minute Rice. For dessert, store-bought ice cream or cookies. My mom is not here, so I can say this now. This kind of cooking drove me to learn how to cook for myself. (Laughter)
Zahvaljajući subvencijama za farme, i dobroj suradnji agrarnog biznisa i Kongresa, soja, kukuruz i stoka postali su kraljevi. A piletina im se ubrzo pridružila na tronu. Upravo unutar tog perioda je ciklus prehrambene i planetarne destrukcije započeo, stvar koju shvaćamo tek sad. Poslušajte ovo, između 1950. i 2000. svjetsko stanovništvo se udvostručilo. Konzumacija mesa porasla je pet puta. E sad, netko je trebao pojesti sve to, pa smo dobili brzu hranu. I ona se pobrinula za situaciju glasno odjekujući. Kuhanje kod kuće je ostalo norma, ali mu se kvaliteta srozala do dna. Bilo je manje obroka s domaćim kruhom, desertima i juhama, jer ih se sve moglo kupiti u bilo kojoj trgovini. Nije da su bili dobri, ali bili su tamo. Većina majki kuhala je kao moja - komad prženog mesa, na brzinu pripremljena salata s umakom iz boce, juha iz konzerve, voćna salata iz konzerve. Možda pečeni ili pire krumpir ili valjda najgluplja hrana ikad - "riža za minutu". Za desert, kupljeni sladoled ili keksi iz trgovine Moja mama nije ovdje, pa to mogu sad reći. Ovaj način kuhanja natjerao me da sam naučim kuhati (Smijeh)
It wasn't all bad. By the '70s, forward-thinking people began to recognize the value of local ingredients. We tended gardens, we became interested in organic food, we knew or we were vegetarians. We weren't all hippies, either. Some of us were eating in good restaurants and learning how to cook well. Meanwhile, food production had become industrial. Industrial. Perhaps because it was being produced rationally, as if it were plastic, food gained magical or poisonous powers, or both. Many people became fat-phobic. Others worshiped broccoli, as if it were God-like. But mostly they didn't eat broccoli. Instead they were sold on yogurt, yogurt being almost as good as broccoli. Except, in reality, the way the industry sold yogurt was to convert it to something much more akin to ice cream. Similarly, let's look at a granola bar. You think that that might be healthy food, but in fact, if you look at the ingredient list, it's closer in form to a Snickers than it is to oatmeal. Sadly, it was at this time that the family dinner was put in a coma, if not actually killed -- the beginning of the heyday of value-added food, which contained as many soy and corn products as could be crammed into it.
Nije sve bilo tako loše. Do 70-tih, ljudi naprednih razmišljanja počeli su shvaćati vrijednost lokalnih namirnica. Težili smo vrtovima, postali smo zainteresirani za organsku hranu, poznavali smo ili smo sami bili vegetarijanci. Nismo svi bili ni hipiji. Neki od nas jeli su u dobrim restoranima i učili kako dobro kuhati. U međuvremenu proizvodnja hrane postala je industrijska. Industrijska. Možda zato što su je proizvodili racionalno kao da je plastika, hrana je dobila magijsku ili otrovnu snagu, ili oboje. Mnogi ljudi postali su masno-fobični. Drugi su obožavali brokulu kao da je božanstvo. No uglavnom nisu jeli brokulu. Umjesto toga prodavana je u jogurtu, jogurtu koji je gotovo jednako dobar kao brokula. Osim što je, u stvarnosti, način na koji je industrija prodavala jogurt bio takav da ga se pretvori u nešto više nalik na sladoled. Slično, pogledajmo muesli pločicu. Pomislite kako to može biti zdrava hrana, ali zapravo, ako pogledate popis sastojaka, po obliku je bliži Snickersu nego zobenoj kaši. Tužno, no upravo u to doba obiteljske večere su pale u komu, ako nisu u stvari ubijene. Početak vrhunca snage poboljšane hrane, koja je sadržavala onoliko sojinih i kukuruznih proizvoda koliko se moglo u nju natrpati.
Think of the frozen chicken nugget. The chicken is fed corn, and then its meat is ground up, and mixed with more corn products to add bulk and binder, and then it's fried in corn oil. All you do is nuke it. What could be better? And zapped horribly, pathetically. By the '70s, home cooking was in such a sad state that the high fat and spice contents of foods like McNuggets and Hot Pockets -- and we all have our favorites, actually -- made this stuff more appealing than the bland things that people were serving at home. At the same time, masses of women were entering the workforce, and cooking simply wasn't important enough for men to share the burden. So now, you've got your pizza nights, you've got your microwave nights, you've got your grazing nights, you've got your fend-for-yourself nights and so on.
Razmislite o zamrznutim pilećim popečcima. Piliće hrane kukuruzom, zatim se njihovo meso melje i miješa s još kukuruznih proizvoda kako bi im se dodala masa i vezivo, i potom se peče u kukuruznom ulju. Samo ga ubacite u mikrovalnu. Što može biti bolje? I grozno ozračeno mikrovalovima, patetično. Do 70-tih kuhanje kod kuće bilo je u tako tužnom stanju da su visoke razine masti i začina u hrani poput McNuggets i Hot Pockets - a svi imamo svoje favorite, zaista - učinile te stvari primamljivijima nego što su one pristojne stvari što su ih ljudi imali doma. Istovremeno, horde žena su postajale radna snaga, a kuhanje jednostavno nije bilo dovoljno važno da bi muškarci podijelili teret. Tako sada imate vaše večeri pizze, imate vaše mikrovalne večeri, imate vaše večeri jedenja po malo, imate vaše večeri u kojima se svatko pobrine za sebe, i tako dalje.
Leading the way -- what's leading the way? Meat, junk food, cheese: the very stuff that will kill you. So, now we clamor for organic food. That's good. And as evidence that things can actually change, you can now find organic food in supermarkets, and even in fast-food outlets. But organic food isn't the answer either, at least not the way it's currently defined. Let me pose you a question. Can farm-raised salmon be organic, when its feed has nothing to do with its natural diet, even if the feed itself is supposedly organic, and the fish themselves are packed tightly in pens, swimming in their own filth? And if that salmon's from Chile, and it's killed down there and then flown 5,000 miles, whatever, dumping how much carbon into the atmosphere? I don't know. Packed in Styrofoam, of course, before landing somewhere in the United States, and then being trucked a few hundred more miles. This may be organic in letter, but it's surely not organic in spirit. Now here is where we all meet. The locavores, the organivores, the vegetarians, the vegans, the gourmets and those of us who are just plain interested in good food. Even though we've come to this from different points, we all have to act on our knowledge to change the way that everyone thinks about food.
A vođa puta - što je vođa puta? Meso, nezdrava hrana, sir. Upravo one stvari koje će vas ubiti. I sada glasno zahtijevamo organsku hranu. To je dobro. A kao dokaz da se stvari stvarno mogu promijeniti, sada organsku hranu možete pronaći u supermarketima, čak i u radnjama brze hrane. Ali organska hrana isto nije odgovor, barem ne na onaj način kako je sada definirana. Da vas pitam nešto. Može li losos uzgajan na farmi biti organski kad se ne hrani ničim što je njegova prirodna hrana, čak i ako je sama hrana, pretpostavimo, organska, a ribe gusto pakirane u torove, plivaju u vlastitoj prljavštini? I ako je taj losos iz Čilea i ubijen je tamo dolje i onda letio 8000 kilometara, koliko već, izbacujući koliko ugljika u atmosferu? Ne znam. Pakiran u stiropor, naravno, prije nego sleti negdje u SAD i onda se vozi kamionom nekoliko stotina kilometara dalje. To je možda organsko u riječima, ali sigurno nije organsko u duhu. E sada se svi tu sastajemo. Lokavori, organivori, vegetarijanci, vegani, gurmani i oni među nama koji su samo zainteresirani za dobru hranu. Iako smo ovamo došli iz različitih smjerova, moramo djelovati na naše znanje kako bismo promijenili način na koji svi razmišljaju o hrani.
We need to start acting. And this is not only an issue of social justice, as Ann Cooper said -- and, of course, she's completely right -- but it's also one of global survival. Which bring me full circle and points directly to the core issue, the overproduction and overconsumption of meat and junk food. As I said, 18 percent of greenhouse gases are attributed to livestock production. How much livestock do you need to produce this? 70 percent of the agricultural land on Earth, 30 percent of the Earth's land surface is directly or indirectly devoted to raising the animals we'll eat. And this amount is predicted to double in the next 40 years or so.
Moramo početi djelovati. I to nije samo pitanje društvene pravde, kako je Ann Cooper rekla - i, naravno, potpuno je u pravu - nego i pitanje globalnog opstanka. Što me vodi da zatvorim krug i izravno ukažem na ključni problem, pretjeranu proizvodnju i konzumaciju mesa i nezdrave hrane. Kao što sam rekao, 18% stakleničkih plinova potječe od stočarske proizvodnje. Koliko nam stoke treba da to proizvedemo? 70% poljoprivrednih zemljišta na Zemlji. 30% Zemljine kopnene površine izravno je ili neizravno posvećeno uzgoju životinja koje ćemo pojesti. A predviđa se da će se taj broj udvostručiti u sljedećih 40-tak godina.
And if the numbers coming in from China are anything like what they look like now, it's not going to be 40 years. There is no good reason for eating as much meat as we do. And I say this as a man who has eaten a fair share of corned beef in his life. The most common argument is that we need nutrients -- even though we eat, on average, twice as much protein as even the industry-obsessed USDA recommends. But listen: experts who are serious about disease reduction recommend that adults eat just over half a pound of meat per week.
A ako brojevi koji dolaze iz Kine budu imalo nalik na ono na što sada sliče, neće nam niti trebati 40 godina. Nema dobrog razloga za jesti tako puno mesa kao što činimo. A to kažem kao čovjek koji je pojeo popriličnu količinu usoljene govedine u svom životu. Najčešći argument je da trebamo hranjive sastojke - iako jedemo, u prosjeku, dva puta više proteina nego što nam je čak industrijom opsjednuto Američko Ministarstvo poljoprivrede preporučilo. No slušajte - stručnjaci koji su ozbiljni u vezi smanjenja bolesti preporučuju da odrasli jedu 25 dekagrama mesa na tjedan.
What do you think we eat per day? Half a pound. But don't we need meat to be big and strong? Isn't meat eating essential to health? Won't a diet heavy in fruit and vegetables turn us into godless, sissy, liberals? (Laughter) Some of us might think that would be a good thing. But, no, even if we were all steroid-filled football players, the answer is no. In fact, there's no diet on Earth that meets basic nutritional needs that won't promote growth, and many will make you much healthier than ours does. We don't eat animal products for sufficient nutrition, we eat them to have an odd form of malnutrition, and it's killing us. To suggest that in the interests of personal and human health Americans eat 50 percent less meat -- it's not enough of a cut, but it's a start.
Što mislite koliko pojedete na dan? 25 dekagrama. Ali zar ne trebamo meso da budemo veliki i jaki? Nije li meso nužno za zdravlje? Neće li nas prehrana puna voća i povrća pretvoriti u bezbožne, kukavičke, liberale? (Smijeh) Neki od nas možda misle da bi to bila dobra stvar. Ali, ne, čak i da smo steroidima punjeni nogometaši, odgovor je ne. Štoviše, nema načina prehrane na Zemlji koja ispunjava osnovne prehrambene potrebe a koji neće poticati rast, a mnogi će vas učiniti puno zdravijima nego naš. Ne jedemo životinjske proizvode za dostatnu ishranu, jedemo ih da dobijemo čudan oblik neishranjenosti, i to nas ubija. Predlažem da u interesu osobnog i ljudskog zdravlja Amerikanci jedu 50% manje mesa - to nije dovoljan rez, ali je početak.
It would seem absurd, but that's exactly what should happen, and what progressive people, forward-thinking people should be doing and advocating, along with the corresponding increase in the consumption of plants. I've been writing about food more or less omnivorously -- one might say indiscriminately -- for about 30 years. During that time, I've eaten and recommended eating just about everything. I'll never stop eating animals, I'm sure, but I do think that for the benefit of everyone, the time has come to stop raising them industrially and stop eating them thoughtlessly.
Izgledat će apsurdno, ali to je upravo ono što se mora dogoditi, i što napredni ljudi, naprednih razmišljanja trebaju raditi i zagovarati, zajedno s odgovarajućim povećanjem konzumacije biljaka. O hrani pišem više manje kao svejed - rekli bi neselektivno - već 30 godina. U toku tog vremena jeo sam i preporučio za jelo gotovo sve. I nikad neću prestati jesti životinje, siguran sam, ali mislim da je za dobrobit svih, došlo vrijeme da ih prestanemo uzgajati industrijski i prestanemo ih jesti bez razmišljanja.
Ann Cooper's right. The USDA is not our ally here. We have to take matters into our own hands, not only by advocating for a better diet for everyone -- and that's the hard part -- but by improving our own. And that happens to be quite easy. Less meat, less junk, more plants. It's a simple formula: eat food. Eat real food. We can continue to enjoy our food, and we continue to eat well, and we can eat even better. We can continue the search for the ingredients we love, and we can continue to spin yarns about our favorite meals. We'll reduce not only calories, but our carbon footprint. We can make food more important, not less, and save ourselves by doing so. We have to choose that path. Thank you.
Ann Cooper ima pravo. Američko Ministarstvo poljoprivrede nam ovdje nije saveznik. Moramo stvari uzeti u vlastite ruke, ne samo zagovaranjem bolje prehrane za svakoga - to je težak dio - već poboljšanjem naše vlastite. A to je prilično jednostavno. Manje mesa, manje nezdravog, više biljaka. Formula je jednostavna - jedite hranu. Jedite pravu hranu. Možemo nastaviti uživati u hrani, i možemo nastaviti jesti dobro, a možemo jesti još i bolje. Možemo nastaviti potragu za namirnicama koje volimo, i možemo nastaviti ispredati priče o našim najdražim jelima. Smanjit ćemo ne samo kalorije, nego i naš utjecaj na okoliš. Možemo hranu učiniti važnijom, a ne manje važnom, i spasiti sami sebe čineći to. Moramo odabrati taj put. Hvala.