Music Review: at the edge of the unknown, by Minna Bromberg

I never would've imagined myself reviewing an album in this blog, but then I popped the CD in. Here's the thing: the I Am Veggie-Mightee blog comes from a place of love, faith, and generosity of spirit - and so does this music. It's a collection I can imagine many people I know to have visited this blog enjoying, so I'm making an exception to the general rule.

The album at the edge of the unknown is the newest release from alt-folk artist Minna Bromberg. I've always thought Minna sounded a good deal like Joan Baez, with a style a bit more like Joni Mitchell. But here, in her first album since her ordination as a rabbi, Minna's style seems to become more fully her own.

Layered with the modern folk vibe are elements of world music - particularly on the track Dig Deeper - and of faith. I hear tell that the album is actually listed under "Christian and Gospel" on iTunes. Funny, on the one hand, but also not entirely inappropriate. While it's Judaism that informs Minna's songs, what comes through is faith and spirituality, not religion. As a Christian, I find the music expresses shared sentiments. And my favorite track, I Lift up this Waiting, has some commonality with old spirituals, or at least new takes on them like Allison Krauss's version of Down to the River to Pray.

While the whole album seems very personal, very real, a few songs venture into memoir territory. This is generally not my favorite type of song and I don't really love it on These Are the Words, but there's a Cat Stevens-type feel about Gone Tarshisha that makes it infectious.

Tracks like Land of Love and Will One Ocean Be Enough bring the emotion, the full heart, that threads through this album to the surface. But the biggest take-away, the memory you're left with when you're done listening to the album, is Minna's clear, true voice. Perhaps the best example is Turning Song - a lovely guitar piece with an uncomplicated, understandable lyric - where her voice simply shines.

If you're a fan of folk, you're probably familiar with the very particular progression you tend to see in artists in the genre: they tend to begin borne of passion, and eventually arrive at a point of peace. This is Minna's arrival; this is folk come to fruition.

You can sample the tracks and buy the album at cdbaby.

Full disclosure: Minna Bromberg is my second cousin. While I don't think we've actually seen each other since Minna's bat mitzvah (and we're both now closer to forty than thirty), I do love her as family. But my admiration for her as a person and a musician is based in her character and talent, and thus I feel I'm able to be objective. If you doubt me, preview the tracks!

Bad Reporting: Mother Jones thinks we should eat meat

Oh, how it pains me to be calling out Mother Jones - the last bastion of the free press - for bad reporting. Alas, it's true. While the article was published nearly two years ago, it was linked in their Facebook feed today and deserves to have the glaring fault in the article pointed out.

In the article Steak or Veggie Burger: Which is Greener, Kiera Butler describes her decision to give up life-long vegetarianism in favor of meat. Her reasoning is that... well, honestly I can't make sense of her reasoning. She compares grass-fed beef to faux meats in terms of environmental impact, concluding:

So plant protein is usually the greener choice, as long as it's not overprocessed.

 And yet she decides to eat meat. I guess the basic reason is the premise she begins with:

But a girl can only eat so much roasted kale before she starts craving protein: tofu, veggie burgers, and the (okay, creepy) occasional piece of fakin' bacon.

And therein lies the flaw in Butler's self-justification. (And I don't mean her failure to recognize that roasted kale contains protein.) While she makes a convincing argument that processed faux meats are nearly as bad for the environment as real meat, she implies these are the only two options.

Want a veggie burger? Make one at home from whole foods. Want the protein from soy with less impact than tofu? Eat edamame. To imply that processed foods are the only option that vegetarians have when they want something protein-packed or "meaty" is just a sign of utter laziness. They're called "convenience foods" for a reason.

And honestly, who are the vegetarians or vegans that are eating faux meats at the same rate that carnists are eating real meat? Most carnists I know have meat at least twice a day. If Butler was eating faux meats twice a day, I'm completely certain she was in the vast minority.

This was shockingly shoddy reporting from Mother Jones, usually such a trusted source.

TDIV Q&A: Am I any less vegan if I sneak a piece of cheese?

Q. Am I any less vegan if I slip a piece of Swiss cheese into my diet?

A. Here’s a puzzler for you: If a person is 15/16ths Native American, but had one great-great-grandparent who was European, do they have the right to call themselves Native American? What if the numbers were reversed? If a person is 1/16th Native American, do they have the right to the name?

The answer to the question is that it depends on the purpose for which they are identifying themselves that way. If they are attempting to register as Native American for scholarships or other financial benefits, a person must generally be at least 3/4 Native American to qualify. However, if they are simply trying to describe the culture they identify with, the label they use is a personal decision.

Labeling is a complex issue, but it’s generally accepted in Western society that people have the right to self-identify. For example, while modern convention tells us that African-American is the correct term to identify an American person of color who is of African descent, if a person preferred to refer to themselves as “black,” would we correct them? Of course not. Whether a person is “African-American” or “black”, “learning-impaired” or “dyslexic”, “Mrs.” or “Ms.” after marriage, “disabled” or “differently-abled” or even “crippled” is their choice. In our culture, we allow people to select the label that’s comfortable for them when the purpose is self-identification.

Interestingly, however, this attitude hasn’t carried over to the vegan community. It seems many people want to tell you whether you’re vegan enough. Two notable cases involve authors of vegan cookbooks, Alicia Silverstone and Lindsay S. Nixon, and both had different outcomes.

Silverstone - actress, author, and vegan activist - admitted to US Magazine that she occasionally cheats on her vegan diet with a piece of cheese at a party. The vegan blogosphere exploded with criticism, anger, and even sadness. Many declared that a person who occasionally eats cheese was simply not vegan, and that the actress should refer to herself as a “strict vegetarian” instead. Silverstone went about her business, continued to promote veganism, and eventually vegan bloggers went back to referring to her as “vegan.”

Lindsay Nixon, the author of several vegan cookbooks and the popular blog Happy Herbivore, faced an even more extreme example. After being called out, not for “cheating” but for failing to question the source of the sugar in cotton candy she ate at a baseball game, Nixon gave up the term vegan altogether, preferring to be referred to as “an herbivore.”  [See correction at the end of this article.]

Why are we as vegans so protective of the term? Why are we policing its use so carefully? Because it’s human nature to be protective of something you care about that is frequently maligned and misunderstood.

Let’s be plain: veganism is not a diet. It’s not a fad, a trend, a religion, a cult, or even a lifestyle. Veganism is an ideology. It’s an shared belief system with defined tenets and principles. The basic tenets (or beliefs) of veganism are:

1. Animals are sentient and can experience pain.
2. As sentient beings, animals deserve our care and compassion.
3. We must seek to avoid animal exploitation or suffering in all its forms.

Whatever other reasons a vegan has for not eating animal products - be they health, environment, religious, or based on anti-speciest ideals - are secondary to these essential beliefs. A person may choose a plant-based diet for other reasons without having moral or ethical objection to eating animal products; that person is a strict vegetarian, not a vegan.

It’s for this reason that “cheating” throws so many vegans into a tizzy. If even those people calling themselves vegan don’t understand the difference between a vegan and a strict vegetarian, how can we expect anyone else to get the distinction?

However, the simple fact that veganism is a belief system is the reason why we can’t decide whether someone is vegan by their actions alone. Who among us hasn’t, at one time or another, taken an action that is not in line with some belief we hold? Maybe we believe lying is wrong, but find ourselves saying, “Gee, Mom, dinner was great!” in appreciation for Mom’s first attempt at a vegan meal. Maybe we find ourselves saying, “No, Officer, I didn’t see the speed limit sign,” as we rush home to get some antacids after Mom’s “great” dinner.

If veganism is a belief system, then what is required to be called a vegan is simply to believe. Technically, you could eat cheese every day and still be vegan. (A very bad vegan, but a vegan all the same.) It is for no one but you to decide what it is you really believe.

However, if you were a vegan who found yourself eating cheese every day - or more realistically, every once in awhile - there would come a time when you would have to question what beliefs you really hold. Do you really believe that we must avoid animal exploitation in all its forms if your conscience allows you to consume the products of that exploitation with any regularity? Or is it that, deep down, you feel it’s okay if it’s not an everyday thing? If that’s the case, then stop and think about whether it’s fair to call yourself a vegan, or whether you’re contributing to the misconceptions about veganism that so many vegans are fighting against.

Even some people who hold to the vegan ideology and practice those beliefs to the letter choose not to label themselves as vegan. For a number of reasons, they may prefer to be called vegetarian, strict vegetarian, an herbivore, a plant-based eater, a raw foodist, and so on and so on.

Self-labeling is a highly personal issue. How you identify is up to you. But consider how the choice you make affects the efforts of others to erase misconceptions and share their vegan beliefs. It’s your choice, but please make it responsibly.

* Correction: While Nixon did receive criticism for not sourcing the sugar, that was one of several incidents leading up to her decision, which culminated with criticism for her stance on the controversial issue of honey.

Photos: Loxahatchee NWR, North Levy

I went out to the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge on a Sunday afternoon. It had been raining all weekend - the first two days of National Park Week - and the sun had only just peeked out. I decided to walk out on the North Levy toward the pine woods, in hopes of making it there and back by sunset. I didn't quite make it, mostly because I spent too much time admiring the turtles. But I got far enough out where I neither saw, nor heard, nor sensed any sign of civilization. It was glorious.

Box turtle

This had me singing "Wide Open Spaces." The park was pretty empty to begin with, but this trail was desolate. Not another soul around for miles.

Kildeer

I believe this was a fish crow.

Juvenile white ibis

Gopher tortoise! I love the spiky tail.

   

Turkey vulture.

Photos: Green Cay Nature Center, Delray, FL

Wild honeysuckle

Arrowroot flowers, otherwise known as duck potato or katniss

A great blue heron watching over her nest

I can't for the life of me figure out how these guys got up there. 

 

Green heron

 

Female red-winged blackbird

Pig frog

Photos: Okeeheelee Nature Center, WPB

While on my little field trip with the Audubon folks, I mentioned that I'd never seen a painted bunting. Immediately, my host Linda started giving me directions for a nature center that was on my way home. I found it easily enough, and this is what I saw:

 

Bad Reporting Alert: NYT article asserts veganism is a bad choice for children

In the New York Times' Room for Debate feature on veganism, lard-advocate Nina Planck (not kidding - it's in her bio) asserts that veganism is "A Choice with Definite Risks" for infants and children.

Anjali Sareen does an excellent job of debunking the bad science in Planck's piece in a rebuttal article on Intellectualyst.So I'd simply like to address the heart of Planck's argument - that a vegan diet requires supplementation to meet all dietary needs, and that supplementation is inferior to nutrients obtained from food.

She begins her argument by saying:

The American Dietetic Association asserts that a “well-planned” vegan diet — by which the experts mean one with many synthetic supplements — can be adequate for babies; I disagree.

And concludes with:

Some things cannot be replaced. Real food is one.

Well, first of all, that the experts define "well-planned" as "must include supplements" is patently false. The ADA position statement says this (emphasis added):

It is the position of the American Dietetic Association that appropriately planned vegetarian diets, including total vegetarian or vegan diets, are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and may provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegetarian diets are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes. A vegetarian diet is defined as one that does not include meat (including fowl) or seafood, or products containing those foods. This article reviews the current data related to key nutrients for vegetarians including protein, n-3 fatty acids, iron, zinc, iodine, calcium, and vitamins D and B-12. A vegetarian diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients. In some cases, supplements or fortified foods can provide useful amounts of important nutrients. An evidence-based review showed that vegetarian diets can be nutritionally adequate in pregnancy and result in positive maternal and infant health outcomes. 

So the ADA clearly states that all nutritional needs can be met through a vegan diet. It states that supplementation may be useful, but not that it's necessary or even specifically recommended. In other words, all dietary needs for mother and child can be acquired through "real food." Since Planck seems aware of the ADA's position statement, I can only conclude this was intentionally misleading to support her pro-meat position.

But let's assume she's sincere in her anti-supplementation stance regarding pregnancy, lactation, and early childhood years. I'd be curious to see what the March of Dimes (who recommend supplementing folic acid for all potential moms-to-be) or the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (who recommend a prenatal vitamin for "most women", meaning those who aren't in danger of having too much of certain potentially harmful vitamins by doing so), or the Centers for Disease Control (who recommend vitamin D supplements for all breastfed children) have to say about that. The idea that pregnant or nursing mothers shouldn't supplement is contrary to all conventional medical advice.

I'm going to take a leap and assume that Planck is not opposed to all supplementing of vitamins during pregnancy and early childhood. I bet she'd be right on board with taking folic acid to prevent birth defects. So why is it okay for meat-eating mothers, but not okay for vegan mothers?

Vitamin deficiencies are fairly common in the general population. According to a CDC report, one in 10   Americans has a vitamin deficiency, the most common being B6, D, and iron. Who today has a doctor who hasn't told them to take a multivitamin daily, or checked their vitamin D and iron levels? If you do, it's time to get a new doctor. The fact is that vitamin deficiency is not a vegan issue, it's a human issue.

This isn't to say that there aren't genuine issues that vegans need to be aware of when it comes to their own nutrition and that of their child. But what do we do about those types of issues with meat-eating moms? Like the March of Dimes, the CDC, and the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, we educate. We get the information out there, we make people aware.

So why the choice to call for all hands to abandon the vegan ship, instead of educating folks to right the course? Because Planck's real concern is not health, but a pro-meat justification.

Photos: STA-1E with Audubon of the Everglades

I had the opportunity to visit a storm treatment area that's usually closed to the public with the Audubon of the Everglades group. If you're not familiar, storm treatment areas (STAs) are huge impounds designed to clean run-off water from local agriculture before it goes into the aquifer or the Everglades. This 6,500 acre compound is a haven for birds and other wildlife. 

Juvenile gator

Turkey vulture

Osprey with fish

One of the impounds - it's quite pretty.

Black-bellied whistling ducks

Great blue heron

Black skimmer skimming for fish

Roseate spoonbills

A flock of skimmers takes flight

Roseate spoonbill and a black-necked stilt

Photos: Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge

Merritt Island NWR surrounds NASA's Kennedy Space Center. From certain places within the refuge, you can glimpse the tall platforms used for launches. But most of the island is the untouched beauty of natural Florida.

On the Scrub Ridge Trail:

I love how vultures seem to prefer skeletal trees. Something fitting about that.

The endangered Florida scrub jay.

From the Haulover Canal manatee viewing area:

Bad Reporting: Grist says we should "shut up and drink" bug juice

In an article today on Grist.org, Why you should be glad there are bugs in your Frappuccino, Jess Zimmerman asserts that "vegans, corporation-haters, and bloggers who like writing about gross things you just put in your mouth" should "get off your high horse" and "shut up and drink your bug juice." Zimmerman bases these bold statements on three points:

1. the completely false assertion, copped from an entomologist, that the only viable alternative to cochineal is a petroleum-based food dye.

2. the fact that the production of cochineal provides income in impoverished areas

3. that the product in which the colorant is used is "not food" - i.e. unhealthy.

So let's look at the ways this is nonsense.

1. The fact that Starbucks made the change because they wanted to get away from artificial dyes automatically takes Red 40 out of the equation. You therefore cannot defend the change by saying it's better than Red 40 because the entire point was to choose a natural alternative to Red 40. As stated in the petition that moved Starbucks to reconsider their use of cochineal,

While it’s commendable to move away from artificial ingredients, there are other natural means to achieve the red coloring. Red beet, black carrot, purple sweet potato and paprika are all-natural alternatives to artificial dyes and safe for those with dietary restrictions. (And those who don’t want crushed bugs in their designer drink.)

If you're going to choose a natural alternative to Red 40, you don't choose the one with the highest potential for causing severe allergies, and which violates vegetarian, vegan, and possibly Kosher guidelines without telling your clientele.

2. Does cochineal provide income to impoverished areas? So would beet farming.

Yes, I'm being glib, but to suggest that the only solution to poverty is crushing bugs is spurious reasoning. Loss of jobs is propaganda often used against veganism, but food and dyes still need to be produced. We only want to see them produced from non-animal ingredients.

3. I am so tired of the 'throw the baby out with the bathwater' approach. This is an absurd justification. Because other ingredients aren't healthy, we should not care about one that can cause severe allergic reactions and violates the ethics of 10% of the US population (vegetarians and vegans) being introduced with no warning?

So as if it wasn't bad enough that Jess Zimmerman's article was offensive and rude, it's also complete bunk.