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.
我寫有關食物、寫有關烹飪的文章 我很認真對待這份工作 但我在這裡要向大家講及有關 一些在最近一兩年前開始對我很重要的事情 那是有關食物,但不是有關烹飪的本質 讓我用一幅美麗的母牛照片作開始 我不是一位素食主義者 -- 這聽起來好像是尼克森的用語吧! 但我仍然認為這 -- (笑) -- 可能是現在的情況
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.
只不過有一點誇張罷了 我為什麼說這些呢? 因為以前曾經有一次,個人的命運 和全人類的命運是 緊緊連在一起的 過去是原子彈,而這個是現在 我們現在的決定 不單影響到個人生活的質素和長短 還影響我們是否在一個世紀後 仍能認出我們的地球 這是另類的大屠殺 而逃避於事無補 由全球暖化的概念開始 我們知道這不僅是真實的而且是非常危險 自此,每一位科學家都對此表示認同 連總統布希亦領悟此事實,縱然他可能只是假裝領悟 我們可拿此作假設
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.
請各位聽我說 家畜是繼能源生產之後 產生最多改變氣候氣體的元兇 近五分之一的溫室氣體 是由畜牧業產生 -- 這比運輸業還要多 現在,你可盡情地開有關牛屁的笑話 因為,甲烷的有害程度是二氧化碳的20倍 而這不止於甲烷 畜牧業是土地退化、空氣食水污染、 食水短缺和喪失生物多樣化的最大元兇之一 還有更多 這個國家有一半的抗生素 不是用在人類上而是用在動物上 列舉這些會變得有點麻木,因此容許我這樣說 倘若你是一位革新主義者 倘若你駕駛著Prius混合動力電動汽車,或你支持綠色消費 或你尋找有機食物 你大概是一位半素食主義者 我反對進食牛肉有如反對原子彈一樣 但這視乎我們怎樣利用這些東西 昨天安古柏(Ann Cooper)的演講很精彩地講到 構成這現象的另一實情 你已經知曉
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.
無可否認地,那些所謂的都市病 -- 如糖尿病、心臟病、中風、幾種癌症 -- 這些疾病在這個國家裡 比其他國家來得普遍 這就是西方飲食方式所導致的直接結果 我們對肉類、奶類產品、和精煉碳水化合物的需求 - 全球每一天消耗十萬罐或十萬樽可樂 - 我們對這些東西的需求不是我們所需要的,而是我們的慾望 驅使我們吃比我們最佳攝取量更多的卡路里 而在食物中的卡路里導致了疾病的產生,而非防止 現在全球氣候暖化是預料之外的 以前我們不知道污染除了降低能見度外還有什麼其他影響 可能在這裡或那裡造成肺癌 但你知道這些都沒大不了 但是現在的健康危機 比一個邪惡帝國的危害還要嚴重 我們被告知並確信 越是多吃肉類、奶類、或家禽 我們就越健康
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.
不是。過度進食動物,當然也包括垃圾食物, 是一個問題,還有對植物攝取不足。 我們現在這裡沒有時間說明進食蔬菜的好處 但有證據證明植物 -- 我重申 -- 不是植物的組成部分,而是植物本身 不是胡蘿蔔素,而是胡蘿蔔本身 證據清楚顯示植物有助健康 這證據在這點上更加充分 我們多吃蔬菜,我們少吃其他物質,我們會更長壽 不錯吧 讓我們回去動物和垃圾食物這個問題上 兩者有什麼共通點呢? 一:我們不需要它們任何一個來維持健康 我們不需要動物產品 我們當然更加不需要白麵包或可樂 二:它們兩者都過份廣泛推銷 這形成不自然的需求 我們不是天生渴望得到 Whoppes 或 Skittles 彩虹糖 三:它們的生產是由政府機構所支持 犧牲了食用更健康和更天然食物的選擇
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.
讓我們想像一個平行面 我們假設政府支持以石油主導的經濟 同時亦阻止更加可持續發展的能源 亦知道這些都只會帶來 污染、戰爭和更高的成本 不可思議吧! 但這就是他們的所為 他們對食物也是如此。如出一轍。 可悲的是,當飲食這個問題 就算聯邦政府那麼用心地 嘗試規範我們,他們亦失敗 他們若不是被農產業的傀儡以票數擊敗 或者他們本身就是農產業的傀儡 所以,當美國食品安全管理局終於承認 是植物而不是動物能令人類更健康 它們用過於簡化的食物金字塔來鼓勵我們 每天吃5份水果蔬菜 以及大量的碳水化合物 但他們沒有告訴我們某些碳水化合物比較好 亦沒有告訴我們植物和全穀類食物 應取代垃圾食物 而業界的遊說者不容許這樣發生 你知嗎? 發明食物金字塔的人 有一半與農產業有關聯 因此,與其以植物取代動物 他們簡單地把人的食量變大 而最危險的部份卻維持不變 所謂的低脂食物或低碳水化合物的食物 都不是解決的方法
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.
但很多有知識的人士 只著眼於食物是否有機種植或是否出自原居地 或"是否善待動物" 最重要的一環卻沒有涉及 不要誤會我 我很喜歡動物 但我不認為應該把牠們工業化地生產 和大量生產牠們猶如牠們是機器一般 當你們每年殺死一百億的動物時 無一種方法你可以說是友善的 這是我們的數字,一百億 如果你把牠們綁在一起 -- 雞、牛、豬、羊 -- 牠們可以來回地球和月球五次 -- 是來回 我的數學有灰色地帶,但也很不錯的 當然你要視乎那頭豬是四呎長還是五呎長 但你應該可以得到一些概念 這只是在美國 我們過度食用動物 產生溫室氣體、引致心臟病 善待動物只是為了轉移視線罷了 只有減少那些因我們食用而被殺害的動物 我們才能想如何善待那些剩下來的
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).
另一個轉移焦點的典型代表是"土食主義" (locavore) 這個字剛被新牛津美國詞典列為年度單詞 很嚴肅的 而"土食主義", 若你們不知, 是指那些只吃本地種植食物的人 如你住在美國加州當然不成問題 但對於其他人,這只是一個可悲的笑話 在官方的故事 -- 食物金字塔 -- 和時興的土食主義的觀念中 你有兩個改善飲食的方式 (笑)
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)
但兩個方式都是錯誤的 第一個方式至少是大眾化,而第二個方式就只是精英論調 我們如何弄到如斯田地正是美國飲食文化的發展史 我很快地為大家講解 距今大約至少一百年的演變 你知在一百年前是怎樣的? 所有人都奉行土食主義。連紐約也有畜豬場在附近 把食物運到全世界各地是天方夜譚的事情 每個家庭都有一位廚師,通常都是媽媽 而那些媽媽會買和準備食物 這好像歐洲浪漫的景象 麥淇淋(人造奶油)並不存在 而實情是當麥淇淋發明時 有數個州通過法律要求麥淇淋必須染成粉紅色 使我們知道它是人造的 那時沒有零食小吃。直至二十年代 伯宰(Birdseye)的出現才有冷凍食物 那時沒有餐廳連鎖店 只有由本地人經營的鄰居小店 沒有人會想開分店 民族食品是聞所未聞,除非你是其他種族的人 特級的食物全是法國菜 順便一提,如果你們記得 丹·艾克洛德 (Dan Aykroyd) 在 20 世紀 70年代模仿朱麗亞 (Julia Child) 可以看到他用難以置信的滑行刺傷自己的想法 (笑)
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.
那時,比朱麗亞更早的時代 是沒有食物理論 只有食 你不會要求什麼 那時沒有市場行銷,亦沒有全國品牌 維他命還沒發明 那時沒有醫療索賠,至少沒有聯邦政府認可那種 脂肪、碳水化合物、蛋白質 -- 沒有好壞之分,它們只是食物 你們吃食物 幾乎所有東西不會含多過一種的原料 因為它們本身即為一種原料 玉米片還沒發明 (笑) Pop-Tart 、Pringle 薯片、Cheez Whiz,這些都沒有 金魚是在游泳(沒有金魚餅乾) (笑) 很難相信吧。所有人在種他們的食物,食他們的食物 再次,每一個人都食本地食物 在紐約,橘子是一個常見的聖誕禮物 因為它們從佛羅里達州遠道而來 自從三十年代,道路系統不斷擴展 貨車取代鐵路 新鮮的食物開始往來頻繁 橘子在紐約變得更加普遍 南部和西部地區變成農業中心 在其他地方,村鎮取代了農田 它的影響很深遠,而且隨處可見 而家庭式農場的末落只是其中的一部分 因為幾乎所有 從實際消亡的社區 到夏天為找尋美好的番茄而遇到的困難 到最後,加州生產的食物過剩 於是市場必須把食物裝成罐頭和冷藏 從而更加方便運輸 它們如售賣給支持女權主義的家庭主婦 來減少家務
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.
我知道現在若然你們的年齡超過45歲 你們在此刻應該垂涎三尺 (笑) (鼓掌) 倘若我們有一張Salisbury牛排的幻燈片,你們應該更甚,對嗎? (笑) 雖然這可能減少了家務 但同時亦減少我們吃食物的種類 很多人長大時從未吃過新鮮蔬菜 除了偶然吃過生蘿蔔或古怪的椰菜沙拉 我就是其中一位 -- 我不是說笑 -- 我未曾吃過一個真正的菠菜或西蘭花(花椰菜)直至我十九歲 誰要這些呢?肉類到處都有 有什麼東西比煎一塊牛排能供給你家人更加的 簡單、飽足和健康呢? 但自此,牛隻就開始不自然地飼養 牠們不再吃草 就好像牠們的胃所設計的那樣 牠們被強迫吃著黃豆和玉米 當然牠們的胃不能消化這些穀物 但這對生產者來說不成問題 新的藥物令牠們健康 或者可以說令牠們生存 與健康是兩碼子的事
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)
由於農業補貼、 農產業與議會的合作 黃豆、玉米和牛隻成為王者 而雞隻也很快地加入其中 就在這段時期裡 飲食的規定和地球的破壞開始了 但我們直到現在才意識到這事實 聽著 在1950年至2000年裡,世界人口增長一倍 而肉類的消耗量卻增加五倍 現在某些人只吃這些,因此我們有快餐 這成功地解決問題 在家煮食仍然普遍,但它的品質下降 少了那些自家製的麵包、甜點和湯 因為它們全可在店舖裡買得到 不是因為它們比較好,而是因為那裡可以買得到 很多母親像我的母親一樣 用一片烤過的肉和一瓶沙拉醬、罐裝湯、 罐裝水果快速地弄成沙拉 或許有烤薯或馬鈴薯泥 或者有史以來最愚蠢的食物 -- 一分鐘米飯 關於甜點,你可在店裡買到冰淇淋或甜餅乾 我的母親不在這,所以我現在可以說 這樣的煮食方法驅使我學習烹飪 (笑)
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.
不全是糟糕的事 在七十年代那些前衛的人 開始發現在地食材的價值 我們走向田園,我們對有機食物更感興趣 我們知道、或我們本身是素食者 我們不全是嬉皮族 我們有部份人會到好的餐廳進食和學習如何煮出好的食物 同時,食物的生產變成工業化。工業化 可能是因為它們可全面生產 如同塑膠一般 食物可以供給奇妙的能量或有毒的能量,或兩者都有 很多人得了脂肪恐懼症 有些人崇拜西蘭花如同敬拜神一樣 但他們多半是不吃西蘭花的 相反地,他們被說服吃酸乳酪 (優格) 酸乳酪差不多與西蘭花一樣有益 除了在實際情況下,他們售賣酸乳酪的方法 是將它轉化成類似冰淇淋一樣的東西售賣 同樣地,讓我們看看能量條 (granola bar) 你會想它們應該是一種健康食品 但實際上如果你看看它們的成分表 它們類似士力架(Snickers)多於燕麥片 可悲的是,就是那個時候,家庭的晚餐陷入呆板的狀態 如果不致於死亡 食品加工的全盛期開始時 食物包含很多大豆和玉米材料 添加在其中
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.
想想冷藏的雞塊 它們用玉米飼養雞隻,然後把牠們的肉磨碎 與摻雜更多的玉米類製品使其更加膨脹和黏結 然後把它用玉米油來煎 而你只在微波爐中加熱。還有什麼比這更好呢? 非常糟糕可悲 到了七十年代,家庭煮食變成一件可悲的狀況 高脂肪和香料成為食物的主要內容 如麥克雞塊和 Hot Pockets -- 我們其實各有所好,事實上 -- 他們把這些東西弄得比那些在家吃到的平淡東西 還要更加吸引人 同時,大量女性加入勞動人口的行列之中 煮食又不足以 讓男士來分擔 因此,現在你們有披薩之夜、或微波爐之夜、 或小吃之夜、 或自顧自之夜等等
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.
導致了 -- 這些導致了什麼? 肉類、垃圾食物、乳酪 這些都在減少你的壽命 所以現在我們嚷著要有機食品 非常好 這證明了事實上,事情是可以轉變的 我們可在超市找到有機食物 甚至在快餐連鎖店 但有機食物也不是解決方法 至少在現在的定義下 讓我問大家一個問題 農場飼養的三文魚 (鮭魚) 是否有機? 當牠們所吃的食物不是自然的食品 就算牠們所吃的食物是有機,牠們被擠在 魚池裡,在自己的污穢物中游泳 如果在智利的三文魚在智利被殺 然後飛往五千英里外 在大氣中產生這麼多二氧化碳,這樣仍然有機? 我不知道 當然包裝在聚苯乙烯泡沫塑料中 然後才在美國境內某一處著陸 然後再被卡車運送幾百英里 你可以在字眼上說牠們是有機,但牠們本質上肯定不是 我們在此相遇 土食主義者、有機主義者、素食主義者、 嚴守素食主義者、美食家、 和那些純粹喜歡美味食物的人 雖然我們的出發點不同 我們都可憑我們的學識來 改變所有人對食物的看法
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.
我們必須行動 這不單只是安古柏所說的社會正義 -- 當然她說的完全對 -- 但這亦是有關地球的存亡 我們回到問題的關鍵 肉類和垃圾食物的過份生產與過度消耗 如我之前所說,百分之十八的溫室氣體 是歸咎於家畜的生產 需要多少的家畜才能產生這些呢? 地球上有百分之七十的農地 在地球上有百分之三十的土地是直接或間接用於 飼養那些供給我們食用的家畜上 而這個數量預計在未來的四十年裡增加一倍
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.
如果這個數字是來自中國 是我們現在看見它們的那樣 這將不需要四十年 我們沒理由像那樣吃這麼多肉 我是以一個這輩子吃了相當份量鹹牛肉的人的身份這麼說的 最常見的反駁是: 我們需要營養 即使我們平均食用的蛋白質已相當於 美國食物安全管理局所建議的兩倍 但聽著 -- 那些對減少疾病非常認真的專家 建議每一位成年人每一星期食少於半磅的肉
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.
你知不知你每天吃多少肉? 半磅 我們不是需要肉類來使我們更壯健和強大嗎? 肉類不是對我們的健康很重要嗎? 過多的水果和蔬菜不是把我們 變成無慾無求,缺乏剛陽味和自由派嗎? (笑) 某些人認為這可能是不錯的事情 但不是,縱然你是一個填滿類固醇的美式足球員 那個答案仍然是"不" 而事實上,世上沒有一個滿足基本營養需求的飲食 是不促使成長 而有很多東西能比我們現在的更健康 我們不是為了有充足的營養才吃肉類食物 吃牠們反令我們營養不良,並把我們推向死亡 為了美國人的個人以及人類的健康著想 吃比現在少一半的肉類 -- 這個減少雖然不夠,但也是個開始
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.
它看上去好像很荒謬,但這正是應該發生的事情 亦是那些進步的人、思慮周全的人 所應該做和應該鼓吹的事情 同時,相應地增加食用蔬菜 我過去三十年來一直寫作不同種類的食物 可說是沒有任何揀選 在那時候我吃著和 鼓勵別人吃著所有東西 我不會停止吃動物,我確信 但我相信為著所有人的利益著想 現在是時候停止用工業式的方式飼養牠們 和無意識的濫吃
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.
安古柏說得對 美國食物安全管理局不是我們的盟友 我們必須靠自己的雙手 不單向別人鼓吹一個更好的飲食方式 -- 這是最難的一部分 -- 亦必須改善自己的飲食 這相對比較容易 少肉,少垃圾食物,多蔬菜 用這個簡易的方程式來進食 食真的食物 我們可繼續享受食物,我們繼續吃得健康 而我們可以吃得更好 我們可以繼續尋找我們喜歡的食材 我們可以繼續講有關我們所喜歡的佳餚的故事 我們不但能減少卡路里亦能減少碳排放 我們令食物更加重要而不是輕視它們 我們亦把自己拯救出來 我們必須作出這個選擇 (謝謝)