Essays and Musings on Animals and Society

Tuesday, January 01, 2008

To Meat-Eaters: Easy Ways to Reduce Meat Consumption While Retaining Your Comfort Foods, Part 7 

[Updated 1/5/2008 12:45am]

Tips For Eating More Vegetables, Continued

To be continued...

Labels: ,

Comments:
Awesome post - yay vegetables! I'd recommend using stainless steel pans though, not non-stick. Non-stick pans' coating is full of chemicals that over time will make it into your body. The general consensus seems to be that this is not healthy. Also, I find stainless steel pans last longer, clean more easily, and are more attractive, if that matters.

Also, a shout out for the thrift store! Save our mother earth and buy used, not new. You'll save a ton of cash, and landfill space.
 
I hear what you're saying about the benefits of stainless steel pans and the potential dangers of non-stick. But it's a trade-off. If someone who rarely cooks, and who even more rarely cooks vegetables, will increase their veggie intake because of the convenience of non-stick cookware, and accordingly reduce their intake of meat, and makes sure not to scrape the pans with metal utensils, the health benefits may outweigh the risks.

Excellent suggestion on thrift stores. I agree on all counts. Although I might just add that even if people buy new, if it results in them eating more vegetables and buying fewer frozen meals, there's probably still a net gain to the earth. Especially if they buy good-quality equipment that makes cooking easier and more enjoyable (thus inspiring more homemade meals), and is durable enough to possibly last a lifetime - or longer.

But I hear you. I encourage people to re-use as much possible, as well as to donate unwanted goods to thrift stores so someone else can re-use them.
 
So when are you hosting the Tupperware party? I look forward to eating all the vegan goodies you'll prepare. ;>)

I also say non-stick pans are a no-no. Like you mentioned, they can give off toxic fumes, which are particularly dangerous for companion birds, and they chip and rust quickly. I never noticed any big convenience advantage over stainless steel, personally, and have had to toss all the non-stick because of peeling/rusting issues.
 
I have a feeling I'm going to lose this argument by a landslide, which is fine, but...The newer and higher quality non-stick pans are very chip-resistant and should last many years. Personally, I love never having anything stick, even if I make a mistake like putting in too little oil or letting things cook a litle too long. Easy to clean, too. I think both of these features appeal to novices and the cooking-averse.

I'm trying to get non-cooks to cook, and I think non-stick pans will help ease the transition; I'm trying to make it as easy as possible. And I think the health benefits of cooking fresh veggies geatly outweigh the miniscule risk from the non-stick material.

But maybe I'm wrong, and people who by nature never feel like cooking don't care about non-stickiness. If that's the case, I'm happy to be wrong. Though my experience with people who don't cook a whole lot tells me that they love non-stick pans for the convenience.

Anyway, I appreciate the back-and-forth. It's good that readers get these diverse viewpoints and can make an informed decision when they buy or otherwise acquire cooking equipment.

You're right about companion birds, and I should have mentioned something about that.

NOTE: If you live with companion birds, non-stick pans are completely off-limits: the fumes are toxic to birds.
 
Oh - the Tupperware party. I don't sell it, I just use it. But if you really want a Tupperware party, I'm sure I can arrange a Tupperware person to come over. Hey, the host gets a free gift!
 
Yes, you MUST host a Tupperware party. It is just too funny an idea to not do it! I think you may even get more than a free gift, as at some of these home parties, you get lots of free things based on a percentage of sales.

Back to the non-stick: Of course you are wrong. :>) I can understand wanting to offer reluctant cooks convenience, but I'm not sure the benefits outweigh the negatives on this. Although it's been a while since I've looked into it, I remember reading the process to make non-stick surfaces is very polluting. And although it's not the exact same substance, some study showed that pretty much all humans have traces of Scotchguard in their bloodstreams now. In any event, this stuff is nasty, so convenience or not, it just ain't worth it.
 
I actually am thinking of a Tupperware party. More on that offline.

Back to the non-stick controversy...

If non-stick gets people to eat more veggies and cook at home rather than buy carry-out and pre-fab meals, they'll probably reduce their pollution contribution by a far greater amount than that produced in the manufacture of the two skillets they buy - at most - once a decade.

I think the health benefits will win by a landslide, also. We have trace amounts of a million things in our body, and we also get electromagnetic radiation from cellphones, but we know that people in this country, in droves, get cancer and heart disease from lack of vegetables and too much meat.

Yes, ideally people should avoid non-stick pans, buy organic and locally-grown vegetables whenever possible, avoid buying soymilk from Silk since it's a major dairy subsidiary, and avoid nearly all veggie meat substitutes since they're high in salt.

But my target audience is people whose meals during the week are Lean Cuisine, KFC, Chinese takeout, and the cooked half chicken at the Safeway deli. My goal is to get folks to break that cycle and introduce more fruit, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes into their diets. I want to make the barriers to doing that as low as possible. I don't tell people they must buy non-stick. If someone prefers stainless steel or cast iron, that's great. I support that choice 100 percent. Whatever gets you to put the vegetables in the pan and start sauteeing. But I'd be remiss if I did not mention what I have found to be the significant convenience of non-stick pans.

If some folks change from never cooking to occasionally cooking, they're not going to use the pans enough to matter re: health risks. If other folks take a shine to cooking and become whizzes in the kitchen, they'll probably refine, upgrade, and expand their repertoire of kitchen tools. So the problem is almost self-limiting and self-correcting.

All the other refinements - those will come later. Right now my goal is to get people eating and cooking veggies and other plant-based foods by any reasonable means necessary. I'm perfectly comfortable mentioning the convenience (and lower fat) advantages of non-stick cokware. You might say that's my story and sticking with it. ;)
 
If people are cooking averse, I'm not sure the type of cookware surface will make that much of a difference, but I guess it's possible.

We all choose to draw our lines somewhere, and anything that is known to give off toxic fumes, when there are safer alternatives, is where I draw mine. Maybe I feel strongly about this because I have birds living with me, but the idea of bits of toxic compounds flaking off into my food is just not a personally appetizing prospect.

So if you are planning to cook for me in the future, remind me to lend you some pots.
 
If people are reluctant to cook, convenience makes a huge difference. Maybe more than anything else. And non-stick pans are convenient - that's why so many people use them.

Our homes are full of toxic fumes. Candles give off toxic fumes. Plywood and particle board emit formaldehyde. Flame retardants in clothes and furniture emit harmful chemicals.

I know the fumes from non-stick cookware (at least some non-cook cookware - not all surfaces are the same) are deadly to birds. But not to humans. As we know very well, toxicity in birds cannot be extrapolated to toxicity in humans.

Everything is toxic at some dose - including the vegetables I'm so enthusiastically promoting. The question is, under reasonable circumstances - bascially, not cranking the heat way up, which is something I don't do when using these pans, in part because the food would burn - how much would we have to cook with them before there was some measurable effect on our bodies? I suspect the risk to our health is a million times less than driving fast or driving while talking on a cell phone. Or eating too few vegetables.

Also, if you're using plastic utensils, I think the danger of a chip flaking off into your food is neglible, but if that did happen it would mosty likely pass right through your body.

Again, I'm not forcing you or anybody to use non-stick pans. I can certainly understand why you'd avoid non-stick pans, living with birds. And I fully support anyone else's decision to avoid non-stick cookware, non-organic fruit, microwave ovens, artificial sweeteners, or countless other possible human health hazards. But yes, I do feel comfortable mentioning non-stick cookware in this series because I think in the vast majority of cases, if it helps get someone to cook more healthy food - and with less fat, which is also potentially deadly - the benefits greatly outweight the risks.

I'd be happy to cook for you as long as you don't complain about my cookware. FWIW, if you come over for a Tupperware party, our rather porous old house "breathes" very well.
 
Post a Comment

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?