What is religion’s role in food politics? — “Lifting the cellophane veil.”
The Stroum school of Jewish Studies at UW (“Jew Dub”) hosted a thought-provoking panel called “What is religion’s role in food politics?” on Thursday, February 23. Nigel Savage, Executive Director of Hazon, and UW PoliSci Professor Karen Litfin led the evening.
While a better title would have been “what is Judaism’s role in food politics?” — I had flashbacks to being the lone blonde girl playing Book of Ruth Around the World at my best friend’s Synagogue in grade school — the experience ultimately was the same as it was as a child at Temple Beth Israel: a pleasant and welcoming one, despite my being a gentile.
My first thought when I first heard of this event (lifelong non-believer that I am) was, bah — religion’s role in food politics should be the same as in other politics: none.
I entered with a contrary attitude.
However, the panelists brought up an interesting point: change in food policy (the session didn’t really focus on actual politics, like the Farm Act or subsidies, but more on the sustainable food movement) needs to be at the grassroots level. Our government is not going to stop subsidizing corn or allowing CAFOs to get away with horrible practices because of the lucrative cash flow involved.
And, because the majority of Americans identify as non-secular, religious organizations already play a large role in their lives, so these groups have the opportunity to influence many areas that need change.
Plus, food is already deeply tied in with religion, making the connection even more natural. Islam and Judaism have dietary codes (halal and kosher), many Buddhists are vegetarian, Hindus do not eat cows, Catholics give up fish on Fridays and consume wafers and wine at mass, Seventh Day Adventists are flexitarians, Pastafarians worship a giant plate of Spaghetti (juuust kidding), and so on. Therefore, it is natural for religion and food to come together.
(As an aside, it’s interesting to note that “kosher” means “is this fit for me to eat?” Ethical veganism asks a similar question: is the food I am eating fit to be food or does it have a greater level of consciousness? We — vegans, Jews, and others following a dietary code — don’t eat what we eat to be annoying to others. We do it because our inner sense of morality tells us it is best.)
Of course, food is also inextricably linked to the very essence of humanity, not just religion: we need to eat to live, and thus this has become ritualized and fetishized, even in secular circles. As professor Liftin said, “food is the part of the environment that we eat” and the most likely area for overcoming differences between cultures — everyone eats. This is where I think veganism grates on non-vegans: by separating ourselves from the mainstream and placing judgement (be it real or perceived) upon them, we alienate ourselves.
Nigel used the phrase I refer to in the title, “lifting the cellophane veil” to explain how raising greater awareness about where what we eat actually comes from helps us to really understand our decisions. As an example, he asked how many of the audience of 100 or so ate meat but wouldn’t if they had to kill it themselves. A few hands raised. Next, he asked how many were vegetarian or vegan but would eat meat if they killed it themselves. A few more hands raised.
Nigel then told an anecdote about killing three goats; his organization had decided to slaughter animals from a local farm to teach parishioners to question their food choices. He asked the same questions to a similar group of 100 people, with similar responses as we experienced, then killed and dismembered the goats in front of them.
His group prepared the flesh in a banquet. Of that group, around 40 of the meat eaters decided not to eat the meat, while 20 or so vegetarians did.
This was the “cellophane veil.” Some people think of meat just as food, not about the animal from which it came, because it comes wrapped in plastic on a slab of Styrofoam. Others know where meat comes from, but elect not to eat if because of the negative conditions the meat industry creates for animals, humans, and the environment. Putting the responsibility for an animal’s welfare onto the consumer allows them to step back and examine their decisions.
While I do not support the killing of animals by any method (my decision has been made), this was interesting in thinking about how to get people to reduce their meat consumption.
The act of showing some people brutal violence can get them to change their tune. Nigel also noted that the Jewish version of PETA contacted him to express their disgust; his point was that his inviting people to watch goats being slaughtered was much more effective than just sending emails, like this vegetarian organization did, in reducing meat consumption.
We vegans focus a lot on sharing pictures of happy cows, though clearly the mainstream has no problem eating — and even romanticizing the killing of — happy cows because “they lived good lives.” Maybe it’s time to start leafleting pictures of meat industry carnage? As Lenin said, “You cannot make a revolution in white gloves.”
On a final note, Professor Liftin mentioned that secular organizations can have religious elements to them. I would never say that veganism is a religion (it’s a lifestyle), but there is some overlap. I haven’t felt as much community as I felt tonight since Vida Vegan Con, just in the magnitude of people with the same ethics and values together in one room. This made me crave interaction with like-minded individuals.
image by Mike Licht, NotionsCapital.com via Creative Commons
This entry was posted on Friday, February 24th, 2012 at 12:00 AM and is filed under opinion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.