190
« on: September 29, 2016, 04:46:18 am »
I've long since given up on the idea that there's a perfect diet, either in general or for anyone in particular. The human body is very adaptable, and any individual person could probably live well on multiple different diets. Finding a diet that renders us free of disease is a useless ideal, in my opinion. This isn't to dismiss the value of eating clean, whole food, obviously. Just that it's important not to view diet as a perpetual work-in-progress rather than to turn it into a dogmatic ideology.
I honor Derek's pursuit of a better relationship with the landscape one inhabits. That's a huge driving force behind my dietary choices too. The healthy diet that one piece of land can provide might (and most likely will) be very different from the one another can, though.
Here in Vermont, for instance, there are a lot of farmers growing grass to feed cattle. But is the northeast really the place for cattle? Cattle are grazers, and prior to the introduction of domestic sheep and later cattle with the Europeans there were no large grazing animals here. None! Perhaps a wood bison wandered into the state once in a blue moon, but they were never here frequently enough for the resident indigenous peoples to even create a word for them. Given this reality, I don't think cattle have a place here. They're only here now because farmers force the landscape to be something they can inhabit, force the land to be pasture when it wants to become savannah or forest. What did live here? Browsers, like caribou, elk, deer and moose, all of which do very well in forests and savannahs. A grazer is very different, ecologically, from a browser.
Perhaps what Derek means by "beyond grass fed" is to rekindle an awareness of the ecological appropriateness of food animals?