Think of all the possible carbon emissions eliminated by eating veal. Better yet, I have a modest proposal (if we really want to reduce carbon)âŚ
Ruminants can turn much of the non-arable land into food. Ungulates are an important part of the prairie ecosystem, and a healthy prairie stores much more carbon than a grain field. I suppose they are also going to stop publishing anything with cheese. There are responsible ways of animal husbandry and wrong ways. Iâm left with Aldo Leopoldâs land ethic, âA thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.â I support banning CAFOsâbut am sure Ted Turnerâs bison ranches are reducing greenhouse gasses.
Sister publication & site Bon Appetit did that last year.
Conde Nast clearly added management to focus on exactly this sort of thing along with trying to write recipes & articles that arenât completely appropriated. I wish I could applaud that but their motive was always suspect as it happened across platforms after Rapaport was outed with his blackface on socials. I was receiving Bon Appetit monthly and used Epicurious semi-regularly and while they had already moved into the âsheet-pan everythingâ & constant grain bowl riffs, it all changed quite quickly. I stopped using Bon Appetit & Epicurious pretty much at the same time. That they will not publish new beef recipes is not surprising, but expected. I assume they will go fully vegetarian or vegan. To be clear - Iâm not anti vegetarian (we enjoy veg/ vegan meals often), Iâm anti Conde Nast.
I think the fact that no one noticed was a factor driving the business decision to take this a step further.
Look, for all I know this may turn out to be a stupid business decision. If so itâs not the first, and it wonât be the last. Either way they are responding to what they perceive to be the preferences of their customers, which is how I thought capitalism is supposed to work. Also, given that their website is an historical accumulation of recipes, the entirety of which their users can refer to, the site is probably more weighted towards beef in particular, and meat in general than is in sync with current consumer trends. Since they are on the record as saying that they are not eliminating any previous content, the end result of this change will probably result in a totality of offerings that better reflects what their customers are looking for. Or not, in which case they will pay the price.
This is purely a business decision. Beef producers donât advertise and beef brands are few and far between in a commoditized categoryâŚMorningstar/Beyond/Impossible and all the other startups have massive marketing budgets and are going to fight for market share. I dont know if they actually believe the environmental part (if they do they are easily mislead and shouldnât be publishers) but its likely just cover.
this is very importantâŚruminants have been part of these ecosystems for millions of years, they have evolved together. The problem is us and our digging up of fossil fuels and burning them. Very simple.
âSea bassâ is a very broad word to identify one of so many species. Thatâs not chilean seabass, black seabass or anything endangered, thatâs for sure. Looks like a barely legal striper or rockfish like a johnny bass, or calico.
LOL, I read that as âI support banning CFOsâ and was starting to think about some where I could understand where you were coming from when I saw my mistake.
Anyway, I find the decision silly but meaningless.