Best browser : Firefox !
鼓勵此網誌：0
當你有了蟲時，誰還會需要肉？
Who Needs Meat When You've Got Bugs?
By Kerry Trueman, Huffington Post. Posted February 14, 2008.
http://www.alternet.org/environment/76948/
But people all over the world have been eating bugs on a regular basis for centuries without bugging out about it, as Sam Nejame's "Man Bites Insect" article in the New York Times the other day noted.We may find the concept of insects as livestock disgusting, but could an insect farm possibly be any more revolting than our fetid feedlots? (Read All...)
但是全世界的人類幾世紀以來己經在日常生活中吃蟲了。紐約時代雜誌中一篇 Sam Nejame 寫的“人類吃蟲”提到。我們可能發現令人作嘔的事實（concept）：蟲就是牛肉（家畜類），但一個蟲的畜牧場比我們惡臭的飼育場可能更令人噁心？
Insects may even be nutritionally superior, according to Nejame: Bugs compare favorably to traditional livestock in available protein and fatty acids; for some vitamins and minerals, they better them by a wide margin. David Gracer, a connoisseur of bug-based cuisine, told Najame, "Insects can feed the world. Cows and pigs are the S.U.V.'s; bugs are the bicycles." Way to get us eco-weenies to board the bug-eating bandwagon; who doesn't love bicycles?
蟲甚至可能更營養，根據 Nejame 所說：蟲甚至比傳統牛肉（家畜類）較有有效蛋白質和酸脂肪，及一些維他命和礦物質。以蟲來烹飪的行家 David Gracer 告訴 Najame 說：蟲可以餵飽全世界。牛和豬是S.U.V.'s（休旅車、汽車？）蟲是腳踏車。（意思是即然要吃，就直接吃蟲蟲，因為蟲沒有污染，牛和豬就像汽車一樣會有污染，而且蟲還更有營養。）
Food-insects.com also touts the "future potential of insects as a global food resource." Dr. Gene DeFoliart, Food-insects.com's editor, predicted in 1992 that if insects "become more widely accepted as a respectable food item in the industrialized countries, the implications are obvious.
Food-insects.com也強調“未來蟲將成為全球食物的來源”。其編輯Dr.Gene DeFoliart在1992預測：在工業化的國家，如果蟲變得廣為接受為有價值的食物項目，這推論是無疑的。（閱讀全部）
有趣的是，裡面還提到各種蟲類吃起來的味道與口感，呵呵．．！還提到「石油時代之後的生存之道與烹調書」，亞馬遜網路書店有在賣哦！
I do have a recipe for grasshopper（蝗蟲） quesadillas in Albert Bates' excellent Post-Petroleum Survival Guide And Cookbook
試著把盤中之物和氣候變遷連結在一起
Trying to Connect the Dinner Plate to Climate Change
By CLAUDIA H. DEUTSCH, Published: August 29, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/29/business/media/29adco.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
 |
| The Humane Society links environmental issues and food. 圖片放大 |
最大的動物權利團體並不想重複同樣的任務，但他們綜合了所有的資訊顯示：吃肉造成環境的破壞更勝於開車。（Read All...）
In late November, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization issued a report stating that the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined.
在11月的最後，聯合國糧食與農業組織（FAO）發行一份報告描述：肉品市場（畜牧業）產生由體內（動物）排出的溫室氣體超過所有形式的運輸工具的總合。
When that report came out, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and other groups expected their environmental counterparts to immediately hop on the “Go Veggie!” bandwagon, but that did not happen. “Environmentalists are still pointing their fingers at Hummers and S.U.V.’s when they should be pointing at the dinner plate,” said Matt A. Prescott, manager of vegan campaigns for PETA.
當報告出來時，人類對動物的道德對待（PETA）及其它團體期待他們的環境對策立刻把希望放在素食的風潮，但卻沒有發生。環境保護主義者仍然指出他們手指在鍋爐（或發電機）和汽車，他們應該想想那盤中之物（指肉類）。
由於需要帳號密碼，所以把全文Post在後面。
重新找回失去的農場
Rediscovering the forgotten crops
Last Updated: Friday, 15 February 2008, 17:57 GMT
BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7247218.stm
 |
| Many farmers have stopped growing traditional crops, such as millet |
上世紀未，世界農場多樣性約75%已經消失了，資料來自聯合國糧食及農業組織（FAO）提出。
UN researchers say that we now rely on just three crops: wheat, rice and maize. The fact that poorer nations are almost twice as dependent on these cereals as richer nations has led to the question: are we now too reliant on too few crops? (Read all...)
聯國研究人員說：我現在只依賴三種農作物﹣小麥、米、玉米。事實是窮國依賴這些麥片粥程度幾乎是兩倍於富國，富國發出問題：我們現在太過於依賴太少的農作物了嗎？（閱讀全部）
聯合國推廣昆蟲菜單
中廣新聞網, 2008/02/25／郭希誠
http://tw.news.yahoo.com/article/url/d/a/080225/1/u4py.html
為了解決糧食問題，聯合國正認真討論開發昆蟲食品。
照聯合國糧農組織的統計，世界各國食用的昆蟲有一千四百多種。最合人類口味的是甲殼蟲、螞蟻、蜜蜂、蟋蟀和蝗蟲。糧農組織表示，昆蟲跟肉類和海鮮一樣都有豐富的蛋白質。以些昆蟲的幼蟲還有脂肪、維生素和礦物質。對解決人類糧食短缺有相當的幫助。
糧農組織一名專家說，森林裡面有很多可以供作食物用的昆蟲。但是，人類對這些昆蟲的生態循環、商業以及管理都不了解。這名專家建議商家，可以在包裝和市場推廣上下一些功夫，讓昆蟲看起來更可口，賣得更好。
Trying to Connect the Dinner Plate to Climate Change
EVER since “An Inconvenient Truth,” Al Gore has been the darling of environmentalists, but that movie hardly endeared him to the animal rights folks. According to them, the most inconvenient truth of all is that raising animals for meat contributes more to global warming than all the sport utility vehicles combined.
The biggest animal rights groups do not always overlap in their missions, but now they have coalesced around a message that eating meat is worse for the environment than driving. They and smaller groups have started advertising campaigns that try to equate vegetarianism with curbing greenhouse gases.
Some backlash against this position is inevitable, the groups acknowledge, but they do have scientific ammunition. In late November, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization issued a report stating that the livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined.
When that report came out, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and other groups expected their environmental counterparts to immediately hop on the “Go Veggie!” bandwagon, but that did not happen. “Environmentalists are still pointing their fingers at Hummers and S.U.V.’s when they should be pointing at the dinner plate,” said Matt A. Prescott, manager of vegan campaigns for PETA.
So the animal rights groups are mobilizing on their own. PETA is outfitting a Hummer with a driver in a chicken suit and a vinyl banner proclaiming meat as the top cause of global warming. It will send the vehicle to the start of the climate forum the White House is sponsoring in Washington on Sept. 27, “and to headquarters of environmental groups, if they don’t start shaping up,” Mr. Prescott warned.
He said that PETA had written to more than 700 environmental groups, asking them to promote vegetarianism, and that it would soon distribute leaflets that highlight the impact of eating meat on global warming.
“You just cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist,” said Mr. Prescott, whose group also plans to send billboard-toting trucks to the Colorado Convention Center in Denver when Mr. Gore lectures there on Oct. 2. The billboards will feature a cartoon image of Mr. Gore eating a drumstick next to the tagline: “Too Chicken to Go Vegetarian? Meat Is the No. 1 Cause of Global Warming.”
•
The Humane Society of the United States has taken up the issue as well, running ads in environmental magazines that show a car key and a fork. “Which one of these contributes more to global warming?” the ads ask. They answer the question with “It’s not the one that starts a car,” and go on to cite the United Nations report as proof.
On its Web page and in its literature, the Humane Society has also been highlighting other scientific studies — notably, one that recently came out of the University of Chicago — that, in essence, show that “switching to a plant-based diet does more to curb global warming than switching from an S.U.V. to a Camry,” said Paul Shapiro, senior director of the factory farming campaign for the Humane Society.
The society, Mr. Shapiro said, is not only concerned with what happens to domesticated animals, but also with preventing the carnage that global warming could cause to polar bears, seals and other wildlife. “Our mission is to protect animals, and global warming has become an animal welfare issue,” he said.
Even tiny pro-veggie operations are starting to squeeze dollars out of their shoestring budgets to advertise the eating meat/global warming connection. Vegan Outreach, a 14-year-old group in Tucson with just three full-time workers and a $500,000 annual budget, is spending about $800 this month to run ads and links to its Web page on about 10 blogs. And, it will give more prominence to the global warming aspect of vegetarianism in the next batch of leaflets it orders.
“We know that vegetarian organizations have sometimes made exaggerated health and environmental claims, but that U.N. report is an impartial, unimpeachable source of statements we can quote,” said Matt Ball, executive director of Vegan Outreach.
Like Mr. Prescott, Mr. Ball is incensed that high-profile people like Al Gore — or environmental groups with deeper pockets than his — have not stepped up to the plate.
“Al Gore calls global warming an existential risk to humanity, yet it hasn’t prompted him to change his diet or even mention vegetarianism,” he complained. “And I guess the environmentalists recognize that it’s a lot easier to ask people to put in a fluorescent light bulb than to learn to cook with tofu.”
•
Advertising specialists warn that this new attention to global warming may attract enemies as well as converts.
“Using global warming as a tactic for advancing the cause of vegetarianism feels a bit opportunistic,” said Hank Stewart, senior copywriter at Green Team Advertising, which specializes in environmentally themed ads.
He also questions the logistics. “You want to get the message as close to the meat-purchasing moment as possible,” he said, “but can you imagine a supermarket allowing ‘Attention, Planet-Destroying Carnivores’ on the in-store radio?”
Environmental groups, meanwhile, readily concede that mobilizing against meat eaters is not their highest priority.
“We try to be strategic about doing the things where each unit of effort has the most impact,” said Carl Pope, executive director of the Sierra Club. Mr. Pope notes that his group has stopped short of castigating people for driving S.U.V.’s or building overly large homes, too.
“We’ll encourage companies to make more efficient S.U.V.’s, and we’ll encourage consumers to buy them,” he said, “but we do not find lecturing people about personal consumption choices to be effective.”
Environmental Defense is also “in agreement on the value of eating less meat,” said Melanie Janin, director of marketing communications. But, she added, her group would rather spend its time and money influencing public policy — specifically, getting Congress to regulate greenhouse gases.
Mr. Gore declined to make himself available for comment. Chris Song, his deputy press secretary, simply noted that a suggestion to “modify your diet to include less meat” appears on Page 317 of Mr. Gore’s book version of “An Inconvenient Truth.”
He did not address Mr. Gore’s personal food choices.
Correction: August 30, 2007
The Advertising column in Business Day yesterday, about animal rights groups promoting vegetarianism as a way to curb greenhouse gases, misstated the annual budget of Vegan Outreach, a nonprofit group that has campaigned on the issue. It is $500,000, not $5 million.
