Lucía Martínez: “Seriously, can't you spend ten more minutes thinking about the menu when we are destroying the planet and the animals?”

For the dietitian-nutritionist Lucía Martínez there are many parallels between the vegan struggle and that of women's equality, "like the

who continue to mess with feminism with the same arguments as 30 years ago."

Born in Mieres 41 years ago, but raised in Mallorca, her outreach work on this vital option has helped to reduce many prejudices against her: they are not "four hippies who have seen Disney movies" or sad people who "eat lettuce undressed”.

Although, above all, her fight is from the nutritional point of view, as shown in her latest book:

(Paidós).

Ask.

Food issues make many people feel their identity is being questioned.

Response.

Of course.

Food, gastronomy, has a cultural and social aspect.

It's not just a health issue, but not remotely.

What we eat is part of our identity as human beings and our culture and how we have been educated, including what you ate at home as a child.

When you get into the subject of children, fathers and mothers can feel attacked: let's see if you come to tell me that I don't feed my son well.

And the “well, when I was little I had breakfast with colacao and cookies every day and here I am”.

The message collides with all that.

It's very complicated.

And with meat, we also collide against the economic interests of a

very powerful and whose foundations have been moving a bit in recent years, something that had never happened before, they had always been the fucking masters of 'here I am with my cigar'.

That generates an often visceral response.

And visceral, but calculated, by those who have power: there you have Pedro Sánchez telling you that a good steak to the point...

Q.

Do vegans cause discomfort?

A.

Carol Adams wrote that when a vegetarian person walks into the room, the rest go from being people who eat to people who eat meat.

Veganism, simply by existing, already generates a dissonance.

And there is always the complaint that vegans feel morally superior.

Obviously there will be vegan assholes of course calling you a killer and such.

But in general, that moral dilemma comes to people on their own.

We don't need to transmit it directly, we don't go around saying that.

Q.

Now it is no longer just for the animals.

R.

The argument of sustainability has been key in veganism beginning to have a little more acceptance.

As a viable option and not just like four hippies who have seen many Disney movies and believe that animals talk.

Many people have reduced meat consumption and that has been an argument that has helped us a lot.

It has helped that high-level scientific establishments began to say: let's see, humans, this global warming is no joke and one of the things that pollutes a lot is livestock.

Now, veganism is a political movement and its subject is animals.

Veganism fights for the end, or decrease, of animal exploitation because it thinks that the way we are treating animals right now is not acceptable.

And we have to change things so that doesn't happen.

That later there are other arguments that help and reinforce this, seems fantastic to us.

But they are not the political subject.

Veganism is a political movement and its subject is animals

P.

But going vegan forces you to think a lot about new menus.

R.

The change of diet, of customs is going to cost.

A large part of the population has to make a change in their diet for health, they have to eat more fruit and vegetables, they have to lower their meat consumption even if they are not vegetarians, they have to reduce alcohol consumption, etc.

All this is complicated, it costs.

If we introduce the vegan option to that situation, I don't think it will cost much more.

From the outreach we try to give resources to help people, we publish menus, recipe books, ideas for the kitchen... we always try, apart from giving the theoretical plate, to give practical help.

So far my politically correct answer.

But I would also tell you, let's see, are you seriously going to give me the excuse that you can't spend ten more minutes thinking about the menu when we are talking about destroying the planet,

that we are doing an atrocity with animals?

Seriously, the excuse of people from the first world, with access to all kinds of food in the supermarket, is that it takes me ten more minutes to think of the menu?

It will cost you a little more the first two weeks.

I think that complaining about that little effort is being a complainer and a conformist.

Let's do a little more of our part.

Q.

But it is a very sad meal…

Q.

Do not confuse being vegan with eating lettuce without dressing.

It could be sad in the 80s or 90s, you had to settle for eating legumes.

Right now I don't think you can say that vegan food is unappetizing.

It could be, just like you can make unappetizing traditional food: a very appetizing white rice is not, but if you make baked rice it is something else.

There it depends a bit on your skills.

I think it is an argument that we must begin to recycle.

To be a vegan

we have to start innovating the arguments.

We are being

with veganism with the same arguments as in the 90s. And of course, the world has changed, gentlemen.

like the

who continue to mess with feminism with the same arguments as 30 years ago.

We have to get out of there, we have already overcome this.

To mess with vegans you also have to start innovating, which we continue with about the malnourished person who eats lettuce.

Garzón is having the fight as a politician that we promoters had ten years ago.

I want to give him a hug because... poor thing.

P.

And the noise of the political debate?

R.

It is progress that a minister [Alberto Garzón] has come out to say that we should eat less meat.

That's a milestone.

Such a thing had never been said from government bodies, neither for the environment, nor even for health.

In fact, the normal is the opposite.

Garzón is having the fight as a politician that we food disseminators had ten years ago.

And he has to fight it now with the politicians.

In fact, he sends a super-moderate message, he doesn't even talk about animal exploitation, and a little more and they hang him from the tower in the church, not even his own government colleagues give him support.

That you say that and your boss [Pedro Sánchez] comes out to make a comment [like the one about the steak] must be very demoralizing.

I want to hug Garzón because... poor thing.

Little by little, public opinion will consider these inappropriate attitudes:

about making fun of and about looking at my ribeye.

They will be fewer and fewer and more and more public opinion will draw their attention.

Maybe this is too optimistic on my part, but I want to think that all of these are going to have to start shutting up or give a message that makes others less embarrassed.

Including Pedro Sanchez.

Q.

It was surprising.

A.

He was

, because he didn't even give an argument, as if Garzón had said any kind of bullshit.

Ah, well, a steak to the point is unbeatable, right?

In other words, these people are supposed to have things planned.

Did his advisers really think that was a good idea?

How far are they from reality?

That's what I find worrying.

You can write to us at

50% off

Exclusive content for subscribers

read without limits

subscribe

I'm already a subscriber