Abandon Confessions

Yoga, the word itself once instilled a sense of tranquility and inner peace with those who dared to utter it, but in the 21^st century yoga seems to have another meaning attached to it: consumerism. Lately it seems that more and more marketing schemes are being thought up to target aspiring and lifelong yogis. Magazines are written and produced entirely about yoga to attract the yoga community and while I am guilty of buying them (and I quite enjoy the articles) what I don’t enjoy is the continuous pushing of advertisements after every other page. Ads telling me that I’m wearing the wrong yoga pants; that Lululemon is the best there is to offer in the business, ads telling me that my $14 yoga/palates mat is inferior to the $100 Manduka mat that “serious yogis” would get.

When did yoga stop being a spiritual escape? When did it turn into a luxury? I blame the media darlings for this, the Madonna’s and the Demi Moore’s. Their constant praise did bring yoga to the forefront but it also brought corporations knocking on every yogis’ door asking them if they’d like the purchase the newest product from the newest company so that they can be stylish at that new fancy yoga studio that just popped up in their neighbourhood last week. Granted yoga is an amazing exercise and spiritual experience but can you really benefit, truly benefit, from yoga if your instructor was taught yoga in a 4 day retreat and works at LA Fitness. And what about the studios that pop up everywhere, as mentioned before. There is a new studio in my neighbourhood every 3-4 weeks offering what the other studios have to offer with the same 4 day trained “professionals” who claim to be the best of the business.

That word business, being associated with yoga, it just makes me cringe. You see I think of yoga as a deeply personal release of all things unwanted within the body and mind. It’s a chance to escape reality and get in touch with yourself and who you are. Calling something that’s supposed to insure personal growth and wellbeing a business, well that’s just wrong. And it’s not just yoga; personal health IS a booming business in the western world. Gyms, studios, fields are all being erected at an alarming rate so that businesses can tap into family homes and tell them: “I’m sorry lady/gentleman but the sidewalk just isn’t the best place to run seeing as our gym has the state of the art equipment to keep you motivated and on track,” or, “your carpeted floor is not a place to practice yoga, no sir, this prim and posh studio is where real yogis release their spiritual energies.”

I don’t see the point in letting corporations dictate what we need, and blur the line between need and want. I, as a consumer, like to spend my money on things I NEED and try not to spend on the things that corporations tell me I need. I want a Manduka mat, because it’s what the professionals use, and it’s expensive (more money = better) and it’s Manduka, the brand itself entails self value and boosts my worth so when I walk into a yoga studio and someone sees that mat I’ll imagine they’ll think I’m a very serious yogi, or that my value is a lot higher than theirs. But, and this is the huge but, Do I need this mat??? Absolutely not, but I am made to believe that I need it. This is how consumerism works to take the simple idea of want and manipulate it into need.

I guess I thought of this topic when I was discussing yoga with a colleague of mine and she happened to mention the new mat she was going to buy when I noticed her current mat sitting there, slightly used but still had a good 6 months left to it. I asked her “well what about that mat?” and she looked at it and turned to me and said, “Well, it’s old, and it’s not Manduka.” When I asked her what does she intend to do with her perfectly good mat, she simply shrugged and said: “throw it away of course.” This is definitely not what yoga teaches its students and the superficial answers she kept feeding me, I knew there was no changing of her corporate corrupted mind, so I offered to take her old mat off her hands when she eventually buys the new NAME BRAND mat. Call me frugal people, but we have to start paying attention to where our money goes and who really has their hands in our pockets because those corps are just praying we’ll get sucked into their system of buying and trashing and buying and trashing. So the next time you pick up a magazine and see an ad stating you need a new camera, when your old camera is perfectly fine and takes great pictures, and all of a sudden your wallet seems a little heavy and your palms begin to scratch, just remember me and think WWPD (what would Phoenix do).

Today I want to write about this – not as an attempt to debunk a myth, but as a way to shift the perspective on the issue.

The question: Is local and/or sustainably produced food (i.e. organic/low-spray, ethical…) more expensive?

The answer? Of course it is! And so it should be.

You get what you pay for. Feel good food, in the ethical sense of the phrase, costs more to produce. Paying people a living wage, treating the ecosystem with care, and treating animals humanely all costs more – it’s that extra bit of time and labour that the globalized, industrialized, impersonalized food system refuses to afford. Social justice advocates and environmentalists alike should take note: the current food system erodes the very things we stand for, and complaining that “conscious” food is too expensive is like wanting our cake and expecting to eat it too.

North Americans spend about 10% of their income on food purchases – this is the lowest in the world! How can we expect our ideals to be realized when we are insisting on maintaining the status quo through our refusal back up our vision financially?

Europeans seem to have it at least somewhat more figured out: their governments have re-jigged the system by putting a lot more money into subsidized housing, and on the whole, Europeans tend to rent their homes more than they own. All of this helps in freeing up more dinero for dinner.

Some would say, “Well the globalized system is highly subsidized, can’t conscious food be subsidized instead?” Point well taken and I think this is something we should consider lobbying for. So while we wait for the world’s governments to overhaul the economic system in favour of small & sustainable (it might take a while), let’s consider the ways we can put our money where our mouth is right now – even when purse strings are tight.

1. Redirect more of your disposable income towards food

Cell phones, laptops, ipods, new clothes, travel, eating out, a few too many out at the bar last night… we live in a culture of excess. Downsizing our spending in some areas of our life will allow us to upgrade in others, and it’ll probably make us more human too.

2. Consider conscious food a donation to ‘the cause’

You may not get a receipt for a charitable donation but spending an extra $50 a month on improving people’s lives and the environment sounds like a worthwhile good deed to me.

3. Look at where your current food spending lands

Eating out, buying processed/value-added food, and the not-so-odd “treat” adds up! Not to mention the cost of meat and dairy. Buying whole, unprocessed food, in bulk when possible, is SO MUCH CHEAPER. And did I mention that dried chickpeas cost $1.50/lb? Try tracking what you’re spending for a month and see how it all breaks down. (Just keeping track may make you more conscious of how you’re spending your money.) All the money you save buying dried chickpeas in bulk can begin to go towards dried organic chickpeas in bulk! And that’s just the beginning.

At this point you’re probably thinking, “What about the people who can’t even afford to give charitable donations, or those who don’t purchase the latest gadgets because they can’t afford them?” Another point well taken: it’s true, not everyone has the ability to afford that extra spending. Probably it’s because most of their money is going to paying rent, and possibly feeding multiple people on a low (if even living) wage. The fact that our government has created a system where that kind of disparity exists is heartbreaking. It’s an institutional problem, however, that must be fixed institutionally; farmers’ incomes and the health of our ecosystems around the world should not have to bear the cost of this kind of political shortfall.

Most of us don’t want to support a food system that pays farmers pennies for their food. There is no way that local farmers, or anyone trying to farm sustainably, can compete with that. Nor should they have to. We may not want to pay more for our food, but real food does cost more. Let’s just make sure it’s not the farmers or the environment that bear that cost.

I’m a proud feminist, as anyone who cares about the plight of women on our planet should be. In many parts of the world, women are still treated as property. They have few, if any, rights and are subject to exploitation, indignities, and violence on a daily basis. As we feminists struggle for an end to female oppression, we must also consider the females that we, ourselves, unknowingly oppress. Dairy cows, though not human, are perhaps the most horribly abused females on the planet. As we fight for human equality, should we not also concern ourselves with how humans exploit the very thing that makes an animal female, that makes an animal a mother?

If you think that statement sounds crazy, it’s likely because you, like most Americans, know little about what goes on in our nation’s dairy farms. (Just last week, PETA released shocking undercover footage from a Land O’Lakes dairy supplier). You may think it’s silly, even offensive, to compare the plight of female humans with that of another species, but keep an open mind as you read further. You may just be surprised.

Let’s first begin with this: all dairy cows are female and have to be pregnant to produce milk. When stated, that fact may seem obvious, but it never occurs to most people that cows produce milk for the same reason all mammals do, to feed their babies. A cow’s gestation period is actually the same as a human being’s, nine months.

Since dairy cows are not afforded the natural act of mating with a bull, they are sent to an area of the farm called “the rape rack.” No joke. There, a metal pipe is shoved inside their vaginas to deposit sperm. Once impregnated, a dairy cow lives in a stall where she can barely turn around. As her fetus grows, she starts producing milk. At this point, a cold mechanical pump is hooked to her udders several times a day to take the milk. On most farms, hormones are given to the cows to make them produce unnatural amounts. More milk = more money for the dairy farmer. This makes the cows’ udders swell enormously, causing horrible pain and infection.
When a dairy cow gives birth, she is only allowed 24 hours with her newborn calf. After that, her baby is taken from her. If the baby is a female, she will most likely become a dairy cow. If the baby is a male, he is sold to become veal. Yes, behind every carton of milk, and every pint of ice cream, is a veal calf. If you’re buying dairy products, you’re directly supporting the veal industry. Indeed, the veal industry couldn’t exist without dairy cows.

Now, just in case you’re unfamiliar with the practices of veal farms, here’s a quick overview. Once veal calves are sold, at just a day or two old, they are chained inside a crate so small they can hardly move. And that’s exactly the point, because the less they can move, the more tender their “meat” will be when they are slaughtered (between 8 and 14 weeks old). Veal calves are also fed an iron-deficient diet so their flesh will be white instead of red or pink. They are often seen licking the metal bars of their crates in search of the iron that would be abundant in their mother’s milk.

Back on the dairy farm, mother cows cry, moan, and bellow for days, sometimes weeks, after their newborns are taken from them. Some have literally broken their necks trying to run after their children. One can only imagine the depression and distress of losing your baby. Since the cow is still producing milk for her calf, the dairy farmer continues to milk her. She will never know what it’s like to nurse the child that lived in her womb for nine months. Instead, her milk will become butter, cheese, cream, and of course milk sold in markets. And when the dairy cow becomes too “spent” after four years of pregnancy after pregnancy to produce milk at sufficient quantities, she is rewarded with a trip to the slaughterhouse, where she will become hamburger. That’s right, between almost all hamburger buns are the remains of America’s spent dairy cows.

Again, I know some may have a problem with comparisons between the suffering of animals and people. But what exclusive right do humans have to the mother-child bond? There is no sure way for us to know what a cow may feel for her newborn, but certainly we can all agree on something called a mother’s instinct. We recognize it in all animals. If a cow’s love is anything close to what a human mother feels for her baby, we can only imagine the emotional pain we are inflicting, and the injustice we are committing.

As feminists, should we not stand up for all females? Should we not cry out in protest when mothers, human or not, are so blatantly exploited?
Or should we remain silent in denial?

And for what good reason? There is no human dietary requirement for cow’s milk. In fact, when you start to think about it, consuming cow’s milk seems downright unnatural. Humans are the only mammals that drink milk past childhood, and we’re the only species that drinks the milk of another species. Many recent studies now also show that milk may be detrimental to our health. For not only are a substantial number of Americans either lactose intolerant or allergic to milk, but what’s worse is that casein, an animal protein abundant in milk, has been proven to be a powerful carcinogen.

And remember all that talk about calcium and how milk is good for your bones? Well, it’s true that milk does contain around 300 milligrams of calcium per glass, but that’s only because dairy farmers nowadays administer calcium supplements to their cows. You see, cows would naturally eat grass, which contains calcium (as do all green leafy vegetables), but since dairy cows are now primarily fed corn, farmers have to add calcium to their feed, fortifying it, so their milk contains adequate amounts. It should be noted that for all the calcium hype, a cup of collard greens contains even more calcium than a glass of cow’s milk and a glass of fortified rice or soy milk matches the calcium content of cow’s milk exactly.

Wonderful sources of calcium are: Leafy Greens, Sesame Seeds, Almond Milk, Broccoli, etc

Today there are amazing alternatives to cow’s milk: almond milk, soy milk, hazelnut milk, oat milk, hemp milk, rice milk, etc. And there are numerous butter and cheese substitutes. Many luminaries through the ages, from Pythagoras to da Vinci to Tolstoy, have reflected on how our treatment of animals influences our treatment of our fellow human beings. Is it just a coincidence that a world that blindly exploits the female in animals also often turns a blind eye to the exploitation, suffering, and oppression of women? Isn’t it time we show compassion to all females, to all mothers, even outside our species?

The Facts About Eating Animal Products… by John Robbins, author of “Diet for a New America” and founder of Earthsave International.

The Hunger Argument:
Number of People worldwide who will die of starvation this year: 60 million
Number of people who could be adequately fed with the grain saved if Americans reduced meat intake by 10%: 60 million
Human beings in America: 303,824,640
Number of people who could be fed with grain and soybeans now eaten by US livestock: 1.3 billion
Percentage of corn grown in US eaten by people: 20%
Percentage of corn grown in US eaten by livestock: 80%
Percentage of protein wasted by cycling grain through livestock: 90%
Percentage of oats grown in US eaten by livestock: 95%
How frequently a child starves to death: every 2 seconds
Pounds of potatoes that can be grown on an acre: 20,000 lbs
Pounds of beef produced on an acre: 165 lbs
Percentage of US farmland devoted to beef production: 56%
Pounds of grain and soybeans needed to produce 1 pound of feedlot beef: 16 lbs.

The Environmental Argument:
Cause of global warming: greenhouse effect
Primary cause of greenhouse effect: Carbon Dioxide from fossil fuels
More beneficial for global warming–Switching to a Toyota Prius vs. Switching to a Vegetarian Diet: Vegetarian Diet
Fossil fuels needed to produce a meat-centered diet vs. a meat-free diet: 50 times more
Percentage of US topsoil lost to date: 75%
Percentage of US topsoil loss directly related to livestock raising: 85%
Number of acres of US forest cleared for cropland to produce meat-centered diet: 260 million acres
Amount of meat US imports annually from Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama: 200,000,000 pounds
Average per capita meat consumption in Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, and Panama: Less than eaten by average US house cat
Area of tropical rainforest consumed in every quarter-pounder hamburger: 55 sq. ft.
Current rate of species extinction due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses: 1,000 species extinct per year

The Cancer Argument:
Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat meat four times a week vs. less than once a week: 4 times
Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat eggs daily vs less than once a week: 3 times
Increased risk of breast cancer for women who eat cheese and butter 3 or more times a week vs less than once a week: 3 times
Increased risk of ovarian cancer for women who eat eggs 3 or more times a week vs less than once a week: 3 times
Increased risk of fatal prostate cancer for men who consume meat, cheese, eggs and milk daily vs sparingly or not at all: 3.6 times

The Natural Resources Argument:
User of more than half of all water used for all purposes in the US: Livestock production
Amount of water to produce a pound of wheat: 25 gallons
Amount of water to produce a pound of meat: 2,500 gallons
Cost of common hamburger if water used by meat industry was not subsidized by US taxpayer: $35/pound
Current cost of pound of protein from beefsteak, if water was no longer subsidized: $89
Years the world’s known oil reserves will last if every human ate a meat-centered diet: 13 years
Years the world’s known oil reserves will last if human beings no longer ate meat: 260 years
Barrels of oil imported into US daily: 6.8 million
Percentage of fossil fuel energy returned as food energy by most efficient factory farming of meat: 34.5 percent
Percentage returned as food energy from least efficient plant food: 328%
Percentage of raw materials consumed by US to produce present meat-centered diet: 33%

The Cholesterol Argument:
Number of US Medical Schools: 125
Number requiring a course in nutrition: 30
Nutrition training received by average US physician during four years in medical school: 2.5 hours
Most common cause of death in the US: Heart attack
How frequently a heart attack kills in the US: Every 45 seconds
Average US man’s risk of death from heart attack: 50%
Risk for average US man who avoids the meat-centered diet: 15%
Risk for average US vegan man: 4%
Amount you reduce risk of heart attack if you reduce consumption of animal products by 10 percent: 9%
Amount you reduce risk of heart attack if you reduce consumption of animal products by 50 percent: 45%
Amount you reduce risk by changing to a vegan diet: 90 percent
Meat, dairy, and egg industries claim you should not be concerned about your blood cholesterol if it is: “normal”
Your risk of dying of a disease caused by clogged arteries if your blood cholesterol is “normal”: >50%

The Antibiotic Argument:
Percentage of US antibiotics fed to livestock: 55%
Percentage of staph infections resistant to penicillin in 1960: 13%
Percentage of staph infections resistant to penicillin in 1988: 91%
Response of European Economic Community to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: Ban
Response of US meat and pharmaceutical industries to routine feeding of antibiotics to livestock: Full and complete support

The Pesticide Argument:
Percentage of pesticide residues in the US diet supplied by grains: 1%
Percentage of pesticide residues in the US diet supplied by fruits: 4%
Percentage of pesticide residues in the US diet supplied by vegetables: 6%
Percentage of pesticide residues in the US diet supplied by dairy products: 23%
Percentage of pesticide residues in the US diet supplied by meat: 55%
Pesticide contamination of breast milk from meat eating mothers vs non-meat eating: 35 times higher
What USDA tells us: Meat is inspected
Percentage of slaughtered animals inspected for residues of toxic chemicals such as dioxin and DDT: <0.00004%

The Ethical Argument:
Number of animals killed for meat per hour in US: 500,000
Occupation with highest turnover rate in US: Slaughterhouse Worker
Occupation with the highest rate of on-the-job injury in US: Slaughterhouse Worker
Cost to render animal unconscious with “captive bolt pistol”: 1 cent
Reason given by meat industry for not using “captive bolt pistol”: Too expensive