Review: Meat Me on Rationing Day

Friends, this may be the most controversial post in the long string of posts that is Rational Living.

Eating is, after all, one of the most intimate things we can do - both individually and as a group. People wax poetic over a fine meal, determine a grandmother's worth based upon her bread rolls and will defend the merits of a traditional menu until blue in the face.

We love to eat and we eat to show love. And Americans love meat.

Meat rationing was the most despised aspect of rationing during WWII. As outlined in the original "Meat Me on Rationing Day" post, red point rationing was designed to encourage Americans to eat less meat and, most importantly, to eat lower grades of meat. But Americans then, as now, loved their meat and governmental restrictions regarding meat purchases were met with great displeasure. During WWII, when Americans were polled as to which rationed products were hardest to cut down on or do without, the overwhelming response was meat (sugar was second, but with a considerably less enthusiastic response). Despite the War, Americans still wanted their steak and pot roast dinners. As a result, meat (particularly higher grade cuts of beef) was a popular black market item.

Flash forward over 60 years and you have our family starting our own year of rationing. At the beginning of the rationing year we already ate less meat as compared to the general American public; prior to the project meat was featured in dinners roughly three to four times a week and showed up in about half of the adult lunches). As such, meat restrictions as a result of rationing weren't felt as keenly by us as they may have been for other families. What meat shortages we did face were usually the result of market fluctuations or our self-imposed inclusion of poultry in the rationing program.

That said, we like our meat. Chicken, bacon, pork chops...we all have a strong appreciation for meat.

Which is why it's quite surprising that, at the conclusion of the rationing project we find ourselves a household of vegetarians.

Yes, you read that correctly. It wasn't the jellied ham loaf or the heart kabobs that turned us, it was the environmental and ethical consequences of animal farming.

One of the catalysts for the rationing project was a desire to live a more environmentally conscious and sustainable lifestyle. In one aspect, the rationing year has been an attempt to move beyond the "easy" practices of recycling and line-drying clothes and to dig deeper into ingrained practices and habits that need changing. Our goal was to find changes that could and should be made to reduce our carbon footprint and create a lifestyle that has a less harmful effect on people and the planet.

With that desire in mind, the hard reality is that factory farmed meat is the diametrical opposite of a sustainable practice. The waste runoff, habitat destruction and pollution caused by animal farming contributes more to global climate change than transportation. Think about it: meat production causes more environmental damage than all cars, planes, trains and boats combined - a whopping 40% more. A hybrid car is a great thing, but if your driving it to the local burger joint your doing more damage than you probably realize.

And then there's the ethics of meat production. Factory animal farming is notorious for using (and abusing) undocumented workers - creating workplace environments that constitute human rights violations. Meat processing at break-neck speeds endangers both the workers (meat processors have the highest on-the-job injury rate of any labor field) and endangers the public - E. coli outbreaks are the result of unsanitary practices resulting from factory processing (those bleach baths the meat takes before packaging don't kill everything). Cheap labor and fast processing promotes lower meat prices, but at a cost to humanitarian and health well-being.

Then, of course, there's the animals. I won't go in to the horrors of factory animal farming - there are plenty of available resources to educate you on that topic. And even if you make the commitment to purchase the more expensive, locally-raised meat there is still the slaughter to consider. Because most local slaughter facilities have been purchased ("bought out") by the large CAFO companies the likelihood that even your free-range, humanely treated animals experience a human slaughter is extremely slim.

So the only way for us to feel at peace with eating meat is to make sure the animals are treated respectfully during life and ensure that they had a humane slaughter. In the current system, the only way to guarantee both of those assertions is to have a direct part in both the raising and processing of the animal.

TMOTH and I both have strong opinions about having honest relationships with food: know what it is, where it came from and what it went through to be on your plate. This goes for meat, too, and is why when TMOTH hunts he only attempts a shot that is clear and direct and will cause the least suffering for the animal. It is also the reason why we process the venison ourselves.

But really, why should other meat be treated any differently?

Our new homestead will allow us, for the first time ever, the ability to raise our own animals for meat purposes. Whether we have the fortitude to raise an animal in an intimate setting and then slaughter it for food has yet to be determined. But know this about our beliefs: if we can't raise and slaughter it ourselves, then we shouldn't be eating it. Period.

And even the girls support this transition; even Sissy, the biggest carnivore of the family, has learned enough about factory animal farming to support this decision with maturity and understanding.

We know many, many readers will not agree with this choice. We're not telling you that you should be living by these same standards or judging your practices or insisting that our beliefs are better than yours.

We're just trying to live by our standards of what is right...and encourage you to live by your own.

--Rational Mama

P.S. For a thorough, even-handed examination of the implications of animal farming and eating meat, I highly recommend Jonathan Safran Foer's, "Eating Animals."

Meat Me on Rationing Day

Only 20 more days to go until rationing begins and we've been talking a lot about meat during the past week at the Rational Living household. Now, just so that you know - we are not a big meat-eating family. Mind you, we’re not vegetarians, either. During an average week about three or four of our family meals have meat as a focus; the other nights we’re content with meat-free options. But this week we've been all about the meat - at least in talk. Not just what types of meat we will/won’t be able to eat during the rationing year, but also how much a harvest or two of venison this week would help alleviate some of that restriction. You see, rifle hunting season for deer started this week and the hunter in the family hasn't had much luck so far. I’ll by-pass the hunting soap-box for now (but if you really want to hear it I recommend you visit my bloggy friend Anisa’s excellent essay here). Instead, as we pine away for a freezer full of deer meat I’ll fill you in on the meat portion of our rationing project.

The idea of meat rationing as a civilian effort to help the war actually goes back to WWI, when the U.S. government encouraged “meatless meals” as part of their voluntary rationing program. As you may have already guessed, voluntary rationing during WWI didn't really take off - I think it has something to do with the “voluntary“ part (in general, we Americans aren't very good at self-regulation). Ultimately the considerable inflation that occurred due to restricted markets and continued high demand impacted a family’s meat consumption more than any effort to support the war.

Early in WWII the U.S. government knew voluntary rationing would not be sufficient to guarantee needed resources for the military. After a brief period of “share the meat” campaigns, official meat rationing began in March 1943 as part of the “red point” rationing system that not only included meat but dairy and fats/oils (dairy and fats/oils rationing will be discussed in a different blog entry - pinky swear!) . With the point system each individual was given a set number of red points to use on meat, dairy and fats/oils purchases, with included items varying in point values. For the majority of the rationing period each individual was allotted 48 points per month, to be used (in theory) as they wished. Our family of four will get 192 total red points per month.

In reality, point values fluctuated throughout the war and shortages were common. In general, lower-quality cuts such as tougher bone-in slices and mix-em-up sausages (and SPAM) cost fewer points per pound and allowed consumers more protein for their points. While higher grade cuts were still desirable their considerable point values made them luxuries rather than necessities. Beef point values, in particular, were higher than other meats - partly due to the fact that 60% of U.S. choice beef was reserved for military consumption. Of course, families that couldn't afford the higher cuts of meats before the war were less affected by the point rationing system, while the upper class saw first-hand the affects of rationing at nearly every meal (unless they paid the extra price for choice cuts on the black market).

For our purposes we will be using the following handy-dandy point chart provided by the Ames Historical Society. It’s a chart from the Oct 29, 1943 edition of the Des Moines Tribune. The chart is really wonderful and breaks down point amounts for classic red point items (meats, dairy, fats/oils) but also blue point items (canned and frozen produce) as well. Point amounts for meat are near the center of the page - just under the scandalous headline “Butter Still at 16 Points.” Okay, maybe scandalous isn't the right word, but a pound of butter would have cost (and will cost us) one person’s entire weekly red point rations. This is serious business.




Take a peak at the meat portion of the chart - what do you notice? Okay, first of all veal = beef, very confusing. See how there are “old” and “new” point values listed? That’s demonstrating how point values fluctuated during rationing. Finally, have you noticed that something is missing? Poultry is not listed! This is because non-canned poultry was never rationed, typically because it was only locally raised and sold. The same was true of fresh fish. And game meat wasn't rationed, hence our extra-keen desire for a successful hunt this week. Now, we could happily abide by these same principles for our rationing year; we could fill up on chicken and turkey and use our red rationing points to purchase traditionally rationed meats and such. But it just wouldn't feel right. The whole point of the rationing year is to demonstrate that you can live (happily) on less so that others can have more. Modern food distribution systems make poultry and fish just as widespread and available as pork and beef. And so we’re making the following adjustments to the red point rationing system: game meat is still un-rationed but poultry and fish will be rationed following the point values listed for pork unless the poultry was produced on small-scale farms within 50 miles of our city, or if the fish was caught by ourselves or someone we personally know.

So there you have it, the meat portion of our rationing program. Of course, I didn't cover all the “meat substitute” options such as beans, eggs and cheeses yet. I think that will be more blog-worthy once rationing has begun and we‘re trying to decide what meals to make. I plan on getting a big, laminated photocopy of that chart to hang on the refrigerator for meal planning and shopping reference. In the meantime, there are seven days left of the main deer hunting season.

--Rational Mama