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.
Scriu despre mancare, scriu despre gastronomie. Iau treaba asta in serios, dar sunt aici sa vorbesc despre ceva care a devenit foarte important pentru mine de unul sau doi ani incoace. Este despre mancare, dar nu despre gastronomie in sine. Incep cu aceasta fotografie a unei frumoase vaci. Nu sunt vegetarian - vorba lui Nixon, nu-i asa? Cred, totusi, ca asta -- (Rasete) -- poate fi versiunea de anul asta a acestei imagini.
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.
Si este doar un pic exagerat. De ce spun asta? Pentru ca o singura data, in trecut, soarta unor indivizi si soarta intregii umanitati au fost atat de impletite. A avut bomba si avem prezentul. Si ce facem de acum incolo va stabili nu numai calitatea si durata vietii noastre individuale, ci daca, daca am putea vedea Pamantul peste o suta de ani, l-am recunoaste. Este un alt fel de Holocaust, si nu o sa ne ajute la nimic daca ne ascundem sub masa. Porniti de la ideea ca incalzirea globala nu e numai reala, ci si periculoasa. Din moment ce toti oamenii de stiinta cred, si chiar si presedintele Bush a vazut lumina, sau se preface, o putem lua ca pe un dat.
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.
Mare atentie, va rog! Dupa industria energetica, bovinele sunt cel de-al doilea mare producator de gaze care altereaza atmosfera. Aproape o cincime dintre gazele cu efect de sera este produsa de cresterea bovinelor --- mai mult decat mijloacele de transport. Evident, puteti face cate glume vreti despre basinile vacilor, dar metanul este de 20 de ori mai otravitor decat dioxidul de carbon, si nu se opresc doar la metan. Bovinele sunt vinovate si de degradarea solului, de poluarea aerului si a apei, de deficitul de apa si de pierderea biodiversitatii. Si nu e totul. Cam jumatate dintre antibioticele din tara sunt administrate animalelor, nu oamenilor. Dar asemenea liste devin amortitoare, asa ca vreau sa va spun un lucru: daca sunteti progresisti, daca aveti masini ca Prius, sau daca faceti cumparaturi bio, sau daca sunteti in cautare de mancare organica, ar trebui, probabil, sa fiti semi-vegetarieni. Nu sunt mai mult anti-vaci decat sunt anti-atomic, dar totul sta in modul de folosire. Inca o piesa din puzzle despre care Ann Cooper a vorbit ieri foarte frumos, o stiti deja.
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.
Nu e nicio indoiala - niciuna - ca asa-numitele boli ale stilului de viata -- diabet, boli de inima, accidente cerebrale, anumite canceruri -- sunt boli care sunt mai raspandite aici decat oriunde in lume. Si asta ca rezultat direct al alimentatiei vestice. Cererea noastra de carne, lactate si carbohidrati rafinati -- lumea consuma un miliard de cutii sau sticle de Cola pe zi -- cererea noastra de astfel de produse, nu nevoia, dorinta -- ne face sa consumam cu mult mai multe calorii decat este benefic. Si aceste calorii sunt in alimentele care cauzeaza, nu previn, bolile. Incalzirea globala a fost neprevazuta. Nu am stiut ca poluarea face mai mult decat vizibilitate proasta. Poate cateva boli de plamani ici-colo, intelegeti, nu-i mare lucru. Totusi, starea actuala de sanatate e un pic si mai mult cauzata de imperiul malefic. Ni s-a spus, am fost asigurati, ca cu cat mancam mai multa carne si lactate, cu atat mai sanatosi o sa fim.
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.
Nu. Consumul in exces de animale, si desigur, junk food, este problema, impreuna cu aportul neinsemnat de vegetale. Nu este timp acum sa intram in beneficiile consumului de vegetale, dar este clar ca vorbim despre plante -- vreau sa fie clar -- nu despre ingredientele din plante, despre plante. Nu despre beta-caroten ci despre morcov. Este evident ca plantele sustin sanatatea. Dovezile sunt covarsitoare in momentul asta. Mananci mai multe vegetale, mai putine alte chestii, traiesti mai mult. Nu-i rau. Sa revenim la animale si la junk food. Ce au in comun? Unu: nu avem nevoie de ele ca sa fim sanatosi. Nu avem nevoie de produse animale, si sigur nu avem nevoie de paine alba si de Cola. Doi: amandoua au fost comercializate masiv si au creat o cerere nenaturala. Nu ne-am nascut poftind la Whoppers sau la Skittles. Trei: productia lor a fost sustinuta de agentii guvernamentale in detrimentul unei diete mai sanatoase si mai prietenoase cu Pamantul.
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.
Sa ne imaginam o paralela. Sa spunem ca guvernul nostru a sustinut o economie bazata pe petrol si a descurajat forme mai sustenabile de energie, stiind tot timpul ca rezultatul va fi poluare, razboi si costuri in crestere. Incredibil, nu-i asa? Totusi o fac. O fac si in cazul nostru. E aceeasi treaba. E trist ca, atunci cand vorbim de alimentatie, chiar si bine-intentionatele agentii guvernamentale care incearca sa ne ajute, esueaza. Fie ca sunt in minoritate fata de marionetele agricultorilor, fie chiar sunt marionetele lor. Cand Ministerul Agriculturii a recunoscut, in sfarsit, ca vegetalele, mai degraba decat animalele, mentin oamenii sanatosi, ne-au incurajat, cu foarte simpla lor piramida a alimentatiei, sa mancam cinci portii de fructe si legume pe zi, impreuna cu mai multi carbohidrati. Ce nu ne-au spus este ca unii carbohidrati sunt mai buni decat altii. Si ca plantele si cerealele integrale ar trebui sa inlocuiasca junk food-ul. Dar cei care fac lobby pentru industrie au avut grija sa nu se intample asta. Si stiti ceva? Jumatate dintre cei care au dezvoltat piramida au legaturi cu agricultura. Si in loc sa inlocuim animalele cu vegetalele apetiturile noastre exagerate au devenit si mai mari, si cele mai periculoase aspecte ale lor au ramas neschimbate. Asa-numitele diete sarace in grasimi sau in carbohidrati - nu astea sunt solutiile.
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.
Dar in timp ce o gramada de oameni destepti se concentreaza sa vada daca mancarea este organica sau locala sau daca suntem draguti cu animalele, cele mai importante probleme sunt ignorate. Nu ma intelegeti gresit. Imi plac animalele, si nu cred ca e in regula sa industrializam cresterea lor si sa profitam de ele ca de niste unelte. Dar nu ai cum sa te porti frumos cu ele cand omori 10 miliarde pe an. Asta e numarul nostru. 10 miliarde. Daca le insiri pe toate pe o sfoara - pui, vaci, porci si oi - catre Luna, ar ajunge pana acolo si inapoi de cinci ori. Acum, matematica mea e cam subreda, dar e destul de precis ce va arat si depinde daca un porc are 1.2 sau 1.5 metri, dar intelegeti ce vreau sa spun. Si asta doar in Statele Unite. Si cu super-consumul nostru de animale care produc gaze cu efect de sera si boli de inima, a vorbi de bunatate este poate o pista falsa. Haideti sa micsoram numarul animalelor ucise pentru mancare, si atunci de-abia sa ne preocupam de cat de frumos ne purtam cu cele ramase.
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).
Alta pista falsa poate fi exemplificata prin cuvantul "locavore" care tocmai ce a fost numit Cuvantul Anului de catre Dictionarul American New Oxford. Serios. Si locavor, pentru cei care nu stiu, este cineva care mananca numai mancare produsa local. Care este ok daca esti in California, dar pentru noi, restul, este o gluma proasta. Intre povestea oficiala - piramida alimentatiei - si viziunea locavor la moda, ai doua versiuni de imbunatatire a nutritiei. (Rasete)
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)
Ambele sunt gresite, totusi. Prima, macar e populista, si a doua este elitista. Cum am ajuns aici tine de istoria alimentatiei in Statele Unite. Si o sa trec prin ea, macar ultima suta de ani, foarte rapid. Acum o suta de ani, ce sa vezi? Toti erau locavori, chiar si New York-ul avea ferme de porci in apropiere si transportul alimentelor peste tot tinea de ridicol. Fiecare familie avea un bucatar, de obicei o mama. Si acele mame cumparau si gateau mancarea. Era ca imaginea romantica a Europei. Margarina nu exista. Mai mult, cand margarina a fost inventata, mai multe state au facut legi care spuneau sa fie colorata roz, pentru ca noi toti sa stim ca e un fals. Nu au existat snacks pana in anii '20, si pana la Clarence Birdseye nu existau alimente congelate. Nu erau lanturi de restaurante. Erau restaurante de cartier ale oamenilor din zona, dar nimeni nu se gandea sa-si mai deschida inca unul. Mancai mancaruri straine doar daca erai strain. Si mancarea extravaganta era in intregime frantuzeasca. Ca o paranteza, cei care isi aduc aminte de Dan Aykroyd in anii '70 imitand-o pe Julia Child isi pot da seama, din poza asta fabuloasa, de unde i-a venit ideea sa se injunghie. (Rasete)
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.
Pe vremea aia, chiar inainte de Julia, pe vremea aia nu era o filozofie a alimentatiei. Doar mancai. Nu sustineai ca esti in vreun fel. Nu era marketing. Nu erau produse nationale. Vitaminele nu erau inventate. Nu erau atentionari medicale, cel putin nu unele impuse de autoritati. Grasimi, carbohidrati, proteine - nu erau rele sau bune, erau mancare. Mancai mancare. Pe eticheta vedeai un ingredient, pentru ca era un ingredient in sine. Fulgii de porumb nu fusesera inventati. (Rasete) Pop-Tart, Pringles, Cheez Whiz - nimic nu exista. Pestisorii de acvariu inotau. (Rasete) E greu de imaginat. Oamenii cultivau mancare si mancau mancarea. Si din nou, toata lumea manca local. In New York, o portocala era un cadou de Craciun obisnuit, pentru ca venea tocmai din Florida. Incepand cu anii '30, sistemul de strazi s-a extins, camioanele au luat locul cailor ferate, mancarea proaspata a inceput sa fie deplasata mai mult. Portocalele au inceput sa fie obisnuite la New York. Sudul si vestul au devenit noduri agricole, si in alte parti ale tarii suburbiile au luat locul fermelor. Urmarile acestor evenimente sunt stiute, sunt peste tot. Si disparitia fermelor de familie e o parte a acestui puzzle, cum aproape totul este, de la decesul comunitatii adevarate la provocarea de a gasi o rosie buna, chiar si vara. Intr-un final, California a produs prea multa mancare pentru a fi transportata proaspata si a devenit esential sa comercializeze produse conservate sau inghetate. Asa a aparut comoditatea. Au fost vandute casnicelor protofeministe ca o modalitate de a munci mai putin acasa.
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.
Acum stiu ca tuturor peste, sa zicem 45 de ani, le ploua in gura in momentul asta. (Rasete) (Aplauze) Si mai mult daca am fi avut o friptura Salisbury, nu? (Rasete) Toate astea au facut munca mai usoara acasa dar au redus varietatea de alimente pe care le mancam. Multi dintre noi au crescut fara sa manance o leguma proaspata, ocazional poate un morcov sau o salata ofilita. Eu, de exemplu, si nu glumesc, nu am mancat spanac sau broccoli real pana la 19 ani. Si cui ii trebuia? Carne era peste tot. Ce putea fi mai usor, mai satios sau mai sanatos pentru familia ta decat o friptura la gratar? In momentul acela vacile erau deja crescute nenatural. In loc sa isi petreaca viata pascand iarba, pentru care au fost concepute stomacurile lor, au fost fortate sa manance soia si porumb. Normal ca au avut porobleme in a digera cerealele, dar asta nu era o problema pentru producatori. Medicamente noi le tineau sanatoase. Ma rog, le tineau in viata. Sanatatea era o alta poveste.
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)
Multumita subventiilor pentru ferme si bunei colaborari dintre agricultori si Congres, soia, porumbul si vitele au devenit regi. Si puii li s-au alaturat pe tron in curand. In perioada asta a inceput distrugerea ciclului alimentar si planetar, lucru de care ne dam seama de-abia acum. Fiti atenti: intre 1950 si 2000 s-a dublat populatia lumii. Consumul de carne s-a marit de cinci ori. Si cum cineva trebuia sa manance toata carnea aia, am primit fast food. Care s-a ocupat foarte bine de problema. Mancarea gatita a ramas etalon, dar calitatea a scazut dramatic. Erau mai putine mese cu paine, deserturi si supe facute in casa, pentru ca puteau fi cumparate din orice magazin. Nu ca ar fi fost bune de ceva, dar erau acolo. Majoritatea mamelor gateau ca a mea - o bucata de friptura, o salata rapida cu sos la sticla, supa la conserva si salata de fructe la conserva. Poate cartofi piure sau la cuptor sau poate cea mai proasta mancare - orezul la minut. La desert, inghetata sau prajituri de la magazin. Mama nu e aici si pot sa spun. Modul asta de a gati m-a facut sa invat sa-mi gatesc. (Rasete)
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.
Nici nu era asa de rau. In anii '70, oameni cu viziune au inceput sa recunoasca valoarea ingredientelor locale. Am facut gradini, am inceput sa fim interesati de mancarea organica, stiam sau eram vegetarieni. Nu eram toti hippie. Unii dintre noi mancam in restaurante bune si invatam sa gatim bine. Intre timp, productia alimentara a devenit industrie. Industrie. Poate pentru ca era produsa rational ca si plasticul, mancarea a dobandit puteri magice sau otravitoare, sau ambele. Multi au devenit graso-fobici. Altii venerau broccoli ca si cum era dumnezeiesc. Dar cel mai des nu mancau broccoli. In schimb o dadeau pe iaurt, iaurtul fiind aproape la fel de bun ca broccoli. Cu diferenta ca, in realitate, modul industriei de a vinde iaurt era sa-l transforme in ceva mai inrudit cu inghetata. La fel, sa ne uitam la batoanele de cereale. Credeti ca ar putea fi mancare sanatoasa, dar de fapt, daca va uitati la lista cu ingrediente e mai aproape de Snickers decat de cereale. Din pacate, in perioada asta masa in familie a fost pusa in coma, daca nu a fost chiar ucisa. Era inceputul gloriei mancarurilor cu valoare adaugata care contineau atit de multe produse de soia si porumb cit de multe puteau fi inghesuie in ele.
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.
Ganditi-va la bucata inghetata de pui pane. Puii mananca porumb, dupa care carnea este tocata si amestecata cu mai multe produse din porumb pentru volum si sustinere, si apoi este prajita in ulei de porumb. Tot ce faci este sa distrugi carnea. Ce poate fi mai bun? Si apoi incalzit la microunde, oribil, patetic. In anii '70 gatitul mancarii era in asa hal ca, concentratia mare de grasimi si condimente din mancare - ca McNuggets si Hot Pockets - si toti avem un fel preferat, de fapt - au facut sa fie mai apetisante decat mancarea insipida pe care oamenii o serveau acasa. In acelasi timp, multe femei intrau in campul muncii, si gatitul nu era destul de important pentru barbati ca sa imparta povara. Asa au aparut serile cu pizza, serile cu mancare la microunde, serile numai cu aperitive servite in fata televizorului, si serile "descurca-te singur" si asa mai departe.
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.
La putere - ce e la putere? Carne, junk food, branza. Lucrurile care te omoara. Si acum facem galagie pentru mancare organica. E bine. Ca proba ca lucrurile chiar se pot schimba, se poate gasi mancare organica la supermarket, si chiar la fast-food. Dar nu mancarea organica este raspunsul, cel putin nu asa cum e definita acum. Sa va intreb ceva. Poate fi organic somonul crescut in ferme cand ce mananca nu are nicio legatura cu alimentatia naturala, chiar daca ce i se da e probabil organic, si cand pestii insusi sunt inghesuiti in tarcuri si inoata in propria lor murdarie? Si somonul din Chile este omorat acolo si apoi adus cu avionul 8.000 de km lasand cat carbon in atmosfera? Nu stiu. Ambalat in polistiren, desigur, inainte de a ateriza undeva in State si apoi dus cu camionul inca niste sute de kilometri. Asta poate fi organic ad literam, dar nu este organic in spirit. Uite de ce ne-am intalnit. Locavorii, organivorii, vegetarienii, veganii, gurmanzii si toti aceia dintre noi care doar suntem interesati de mancarea buna. Chiar daca am ajuns la asta din puncte de vedere diferite, trebuie sa actionam cu totii pe baza cunostintelor noastre de a schimba modul in care oamenii gandesc despre mancarea.
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.
Trebuie sa incepem sa facem ceva. Si nu e numai o chestiune de dreptate sociala, cum spune Ann Cooper - si are, desigur, perfecta dreptate - ci este si o chestiune de supravietuire globala. Care ma aduce de unde am plecat si arata direct la problema principala: super-productia si super-consumul de carne si junk food. Cum am mai spus, 18 la suta din gazele cu efect de sera sunt atribuite productiei de carne de vita. De cate bovine ai nevoie pentru a produce atat? 70 la suta din terenul agricol de pe Pamant. 30 la suta din suprafata terestra a Pamantului este direct sau indirect dedicata cresterii animalelor pe care le mancam. Si predictiile arata ca se va dubla in urmatorii 40 de ani.
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.
Si daca cifrele sosite din China sunt apropiate de cele de acum, nu vor fi 40 de ani. Nu este un motiv plauzibil sa mancam atata carne ca acum. Si spun asta ca un tip care a mancat o parte importanta de carne de vita in viata lui. Cel mai frecvent argument este ca avem nevoie de nutrienti - chiar daca mancam, in medie, de doua ori mai multe proteine decat ne recomanda obsedatul de industrie Minister al Agriculturii. Ascultati - experti care se ocupa serios de reducerea bolilor recomanda ca adultii sa manance cam 250 de grame de carne pe saptamana.
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.
Cat credeti ca mancam pe zi? Aproape 250 de grame. Dar avem nevoie de carne sa fim mari si puternici, nu-i asa? Nu este consumul de carne esential sanatatii? Nu ne va transforma o dieta bogata in fructe si legume in liberali pacatosi si cam timizi? (Rasete) Unii dintre noi ar putea crede ca asta ar fi un lucru bun. Dar, nu, chiar daca am fi sportivi plini de steroizi, raspunsul e nu. De fapt, nu exista nicio dieta pe pamant care sa implineasca nevoile alimentare de baza si care sa nu promoveze cresterea, si multe dintre ele va vor face mai sanatosi decat o fac ale noastre. Nu mancam produse animale pentru o alimentatie suficienta, le mancam pentru a dobandi o forma ciudata de malnutritie, si asta ne omoara. Sugerez ca in interesul propriu si al sanatatii umane americanii sa manance cu 50 la suta mai putina carne - nu este o reducere suficienta, dar este un inceput.
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.
Ar parea absurd, dar asta este exact ce ar trebui sa se intample, si pentru care progresistii si vizionarii ar trebuie sa pledeze, impreuna cu cresterea corespunzatoare a consumului de vegetale. Am scris despre mancare mai mult sau mai putin omnivora - fara discriminare ati putea spune - de peste 30 de ani. In tot acest timp am mancat si am recomandat sa se manance cam orice. Nu o sa ma opresc din a manca produse animale, sunt sigur, dar cred ca, in beneficiul tuturor, a venit timpul sa oprim cresterea lor industriala, si sa incetam sa le mancam fara discernamant.
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 are dreptate. Ministerul Agriculturii nu este aliatul nostru in asta. Trebuie sa luam problema in propriile maini nu numai prin incurajarea unei mai bune diete pentru toata lumea - si asta e partea cea mai grea - dar si prin a ne imbunatati propria dieta. Si asta nu e greu deloc. Mai putina carne, mai putin junk food, mai multe vegetale. E simpla formula - mancati mancare. Mancati mancare reala. Putem continua sa ne bucuram de mancarea noastra, si sa continuam sa mancam bine si putem sa mancam chiar mai bine. Putem sa continuam cautarea ingredientelor preferate si putem sa stam la povesti despre felurile noastre favorite. N-o sa reducem numai caloriile, ci si amprenta noastra de emisii de carbon. Putem face ca mancarea sa fie mai importanta, nu mai putin importanta, si sa ne salvam in felul asta. Trebuie sa alegem aceasta cale. Multumesc.