In 1792 when the earth's population was a mere 1 billion, British economist Thomas Malthus predicted that because the earth’s population grows at an exponential rate, while food production could only grow at an arithmetical rate, starvation would curtail population growth. Malthus was wrong. By the end of this year-2011, earth’s population will have reached 7 billion, and although there is famine and starvation in the world today, there is also annual food surpluses, and obesity in growing numbers in the so-called developed nations. As it turned out, we (earth) might be in better shape if Malthus' population prediction had been right. Growth for the sake of growth is NOT necessarily a good thing.

Mankind on the whole has an amazing track record of inventiveness, especially when faced with challenges. We have solved problems that made it possible to feed the rapid exponential growth in population when earth's population reached 2 billion around 1930, progressively widening our human footprint on the planet in visible and invisible ways with the many inventions and tools of industrial food production like pesticides, growth hormones, mechanical harvesters, antibiotics, and now the holy grail of GMO which is how corporations-armed-with-science intend to keep feeding our over-crowded and somewhat un-balanced world. The effects of global warming are a sign that the planet is in danger of mass extinction due to loss of biodiversity and the resulting damage to complex ecosystems.

FOOD-AS-PRODUCT BUSINESS MODEL NEED REVISITING?
Since Malthus' era, we have invented solutions to countless challenges and obstacles, which turned food production from manual, labor intensive work, into a much more efficient mechanized and industrial-scale endeavor. At the end of World War II, global population had reached 2 billion, and cities grew in size. A few clever people solved mankind’s glut and famine food crises with ingenious inventions like flash dried noodles, canned and frozen foods, calorie and nutrient fortified drinks, turning their inventions into hugely profitable businesses. Food production was losing its exalted place as the center of human activity. The reason we toiled in the fields, gathered wood or cow patties for the stove, or went to work daily had been to put food on the table. Food, necessary for life, was soon to become a product not different from shoes, tables, cutlery ... a business endeavor measured by profitability.

To increase profits, products are optimized by objectively stripping them down to their components, so costs can be reduced by finding cheaper sources for particular components, thus lowering costs and increasing profitability. For most products, getting products to the market faster and cheaper, and with the longest shelf life means more profit, which is good. And while there is nothing wrong with profit-making, considering the fact that profits keep companies viable, thus able to hire employees who work to innovate and keep the company strong, and capable to continue paying salaries and staying competitive. But there does seem to be something wrong with selling things (whether food, chairs, DVDs ...) that are but a pale imitation of the real thing (unable - for example - to perform its implicit, promised function). In the case of food, it would be ethically unsound, a premeditated menace to sell food that is known to be nutritionally deficient, and/or harmful to health ... no matter how inexpensive to buy or how profitable to sell. Food is for life, not profit.

OUR SCIENCE OF REDUCTIONISM NEEDS CONTEXT TO MAKE SENSE
There is no shortage of “scientific” studies and research hard-selling the notion that turning from meat/beef-eaters into organic, non-GMO, vegans would reduce methane, and carbon emissions (by 21% according to one estimate), conserve water, prevent soil erosion from monoculture industrial pesticide-dependent farming, save land and the last fragments of forests that remain on the planet. And to drive home the point, these studies claim to prove definitively how holistic, mindful vegetarianism has numerous proven health benefits, including one study that showed how women who switched from a meat-based diet to a plant-based diet reduced their body mass by 15% (which translates to between 20 and 25 pounds). Vegans -- as a type of vegetarian who does not consume any animal products such as dairy, milk, butter, cheese, or eggs -- have an even easier time lowering their calorie count, especially if they stick to whole, unprocessed foods, and don't have a sweet tooth. That is to say, vegetarians could be less healthy than meat-eaters if they eat too much processed food and sweets.

To add to the confusion, for every study supporting organic, non-GMO, vegetarianism as a cure-all solution, from a way to reduce our destruction of precious rainforest ecosystems for pasture and livestock feed farm land, to a way to live longer and healthier lives, to the ethical questions of humans benefiting from the suffering of animals raised in horribly inhumane conditions for the expedient purpose of feeding humans, there are other studies questioning or outright disproving the science and methodology of those claims. An important and often overlooked fact is that humans are not static clones of each other, and for every rule uncovered governing our health and well-being, there are exceptions, and often complete reversals of "expert" recommendations. In the 1980's studies said saturated fats are so harmful that people switched from using butter and lard to margarine. After a decade, new studies completely overturned those initial findings. So, it needs to be said that human physiology derives many nutritional benefits from eating meat. But much depends on the quantity and quality of the meat, whether the animals were raised organically or in cruel and unnatural conditions.

To further complicate the picture, often, what passes as "science" are misleading over-simplifications that miss the point and misrepresent reality, otherwise, employ a questionable reliance on a science of reductionism that forgets to put findings back into context of the always more complex reality. Under such circumstances, we as consumers must take the time to fill in the blanks, putting "expert advice" in context. In the final analysis, the wisest choice seems always to be moderation, NOT in either extreme of excessive meat-indulgence, nor -- for the sake of long-term health -- of an exclusively plant-based diet, which is why we are asking readers to consider Part-time Vegetarianism.

"YOUR DOLLAR IS YOUR VOTE" ... Vote for Partial-Veganism, Be a Weekday Vegan!
A positive action anyone, any age, anywhere in the world can do, is to switch to an organic, non-GMO, vegan diet of whole and unprocessed, non-packaged foods for at least one, if not five days a week. The reason for "whole and unprocessed, non-packaged foods" is to avoid all manner of food additives, and the excessive sugars used to keep processed foods fresh longer.

NOTE: Some surprising sugar facts: many “juice drinks” have a hidden sugar content that is higher than sodas~! And, pound for pound, eating sugar causes more damage to health than fat does~!

For the affluent, asking for organic, non-GMO vegan or vegetarian options when eating out, will leave a collective impression. Switching to veganism once a week already makes a difference, as a first step towards more mindful for-yourself-the-planet-and-your-wallet eating. Switching to become a Weekday Vegan/Vegetarian makes a much bigger positive impact. Cooking at home with ingredients like quinoa, amaranth, millet, semolina, barley, and couscous, with non-meat proteins like beans, nuts and assorted fresh vegetables in every color insures your food will be delicious, visually appealing, and vibrant with a balanced mix of vital nutrients guaranteed to improve health.

With a falling demand for processed, unwholesome foods, and factory-style inhumane meat products, food companies might be encouraged to reconsider the food-as-product model of business. Food's purpose is to nourish us. Your dollar is your vote!

If you've ever asked yourself, "I'm just one person, what could I do about these huge looming problems?" Here's the answer. By adopting weekday or part-time vegetarian/vegan practices, and asking for quality ingredients when you shop or eat out you'd be adding your vote, staying slim and healthy, saving money -and- contributing to a collective solution for world problems like global warming, pollution and ethically unsound practices.

Awareness alone doesn't change the world, ACTION DOES.
Switching to an organic, non-GMO, vegan diet of whole and unprocessed, non-packaged foods for a few days a week, and buying quality meat from trusted sources, is a step anyone can take. Do your part to change the world for the better.




"About Thomas Malthus"

"Would YOU eat meat grown in a laboratory?" Cloned livestock makes its way to U.S. market WOULD YOU EAT YOUR DOG TO SAVE THE PLANET? - New book about the huge ecological footprint of owning carnivorous pets Adopting a VEGAN lifestyle will SAVE THE WORLD from CLIMATE CHANGE, says U.N. report World Environment Week: WORLD POPULATION PROJECTED to INCREASE BY ONE-THIRD, from 6 billion to 9 billion by mid-century! (video) GO MEATLESS THIS FRIDAY - in honor of EARTH DAY! DIET RIGHT: Don't Just Count Calories, EAT for NUTRIENTS instead iCUBED.us Cares! Global Warming Watch, Sustainable Eating and Environment, Pollution & Over-Population

Tweet