The Beauty of a Mapo Tofu: A Case for both Carnivores and Herbivores
To meat or not to meat? The Pickle Reaper Writes vol. 2
Mapo Tofu is a Chinese dish of Sichuanese origin, a region which is known for its use of the Sichuan peppercorn - spicy, red little balls, which, when crushed, will set fire to your mouth and insides, as God surely intended. Mapo Tofu incorporates these peppercorns as part of the sauce of the dish, coating the two main elements: the tofu and the mincemeat. The dish also happens to be the perfect metaphor for one of my most pressing issues daily: to meat or not to meat? Take away the mincemeat in the Mapo Tofu and you're left with the titular ingredient, and some happy vegetarians. Take away the tofu and you have a dish of meat for the carnivores, or the soy-averse. Increasingly, I find that there are many reasons for me to omit the meat from this dish, and yet there are equally as many reasons to keep it in…
Having grown up in Australia, ostensibly a white Australian to anyone who looked at me, I had not much reason to speak or learn Cantonese - as it stands, I have been incredibly detached from my mother’s family because I couldn’t properly communicate with them, especially the older generations. Eating meat in traditional Chinese and Hong Kongese dishes is a way for me to understand and partake in their customs, even when I could not connect with them verbally. When my uncle had large extended family gatherings pre-Covid, I’d felt out of place enough not looking like everyone there, let alone speaking their language; the least I could do was eat the food they were eating. Making an effort to eat more Chinese and Hong Kongese food nowadays looks like eating the meat in the wonton noodle soups, the char siu baos my uncle makes, the Hainanese chicken rice my mother loves so much.
Eating meat is all well and good. Connecting to family and custom is all well and good. It’s when you start to wonder things like whether or not this attempt at cultural connection should take precedence over the suffering of entire species, and the destruction of the climate, that things get a little spiky.
Some would say no, that nothing is worth these consequences. We know that the farming of red meat produces methane, consumes thousands of litres of water, and that eating it is not great for personal health, insofar as overconsumption of both dairy and meat can cause heart problems. Also, the state of the modern day slaughterhouse is unignorable - by supporting these institutions, not only do you ignore the suffering of the pigs, cows and chickens who fall victim to the process of overbreeding, torture and murder, but also that of the slaughterhouse workers who traumatise themselves to make a living wage; and maybe nothing can be worth that scale of pain. Such is the lot of the herbivore, the vegan, the vegetarian, the meat maligner, the rasher basher, the dairy denigrator, the salami scorner, the anchovy antagonist, the Jamón-hostile. (That all took me far too long).
On the other hand, you might also ask yourself if it is a form of ‘cultural imperialism’ to presume to tell people how to live, especially when their meat consumption is not the consequence of things like overfishing or slaughterhouses. Is it also better advised to follow the school of thought that delineates things like climate change as macro issues, and primarily the responsibility of apathetic/malevolent corporations and systems, rather than things that can be fixed or alleviated by the individual’s choices? In other words, is there really no ethical consumption under capitalism? Or is that just a cop out? I’ve found that for the most part, many people have no problem cutting down on their consumption of brands such as Shein, Pretty Little Thing and Cider when they find out that they are proponents of the dreaded Fast Fashion (ALLEGEDLY!!!). People scramble to make excuses to each other to justify having bought from one of these brands, and there seems to just be a general culture of shame on the internet with regards to hauls and paid influencing for them. So why doesn’t it work this way with eating meat? Is it as simple as valuing human suffering above other kinds, and choosing to put your time and effort to causes that are congruent with this?
Recently, I noticed somebody had shared an article by Bon Appétit magazine with the phrase ‘social omnivore’ in the title, which was defined as somebody who didn’t cook with meat at home, but who also wouldn’t refuse a meat dish in social situations, or when out and about. It seems not too different from the flexitarian, but with a more specific meaning. I think that those closest to me would see my identification most strongly with that label: if you come over, I will never cook you anything with meat, but if I’m out and about, or eating someone else’s cooking, it’s a different story…. cos who amongst us would turn down a their own mother’s pork wontons? Probably a lot of people, but not me, that’s for damn sure.
To me, there’s a lot of merit in the idea of meat preparation and consumption as part of historical cultural customs and rituals, and I don’t think we should downplay that. I also understand that maybe, for the individual, this is not a strong enough incentive to keep eating meat when you know the effects it has on yourself, the animal and the environment. I don’t have any of the answers to the question of which is best; I don’t think anyone does. But after about five years of ongoing transition between various stages of meatlessness - I’ve come to this conclusion, which happens to be the same refrain echoed in classrooms all around the country: just do your best. Your level of disposable income, location, cultural background, free time, physical and mental health, stressors, and a myriad of other things are going to impact your level of meat consumption. Given that no two people live the same two lives, no two peoples’ bests are going to be the same.
For me, I have chosen to honestly recognise the immense drawbacks of the meat industry, while also rejecting personal guilt - taking into consideration the fact I alone am not responsible for the suffering of all animals, and the destruction of the environment. I don’t stick my head in the sand about the impacts of meat consumption - I have greatly reduced my intake to almost none, but still listen to my body and spirit: does meat satisfy some kind of deeper purpose for me, like connection to community and ritual? A sense of nostalgia, or comfort through hardship? Is it just simply the most convenient way to get in all my nutrients, without breaking the bank on tablets and vitamins (anaemia is real, and it’s a bitch)? In the meantime, I support those that push for legislation against slaughterhouse deregulation, buy locally where I can and keep myself fed with the right nutrition to keep going. That’s the best that I can do.
I want to reiterate that this is the conclusion that I’VE drawn, and that everyone’s will be different, because everyone’s lives look different. I believe that whether or not you choose to omit that mincemeat from your Mapo Tofu is neither here nor there - not if you know you are doing your best given your circumstances. For me, I can skip the mince. No, it may not technically be a Mapo Tofu anymore to some, but it sure will still be tasty.