Kangaroo: It's What's for Dinner

Katherine Mangu-Ward | October 11, 2007

In a report released yesterday, Greenpeace suggests dining on kangaroo, a far more environmentally-friendly red meat than beef.

Report author Dr Mark Diesendorf said reducing beef consumption by 20 per cent and putting Skippy on the dinner plate instead would cut 15 megatonnes of greenhouses gases from the atmosphere by 2020.

"Kangaroos do not emit greenhouse gases. They are not hooved animals either so they don't damage the soil,'' Dr Diesendorf said.

Obviously, I'm on the meat/methane beat these days. But I, for one, support Dr. Diesendorf. Kangaroo is delicious. For those squeamish about eating roo, there was a movement to start calling the meat "australus" after Food Companion International magazine held a contest to give it a culinary name (think "beef" for cow and "pork" for pig). If it catches on, that should help.

So what's the problem (other than wimpy eaters)? It seems that kangaroo meat is tightly controlled in Australia:

The Greenpeace report has renewed calls for Victoria to lift a ban on harvesting roos for food.

Kangaroo Industry Association of Australia spokesman John Kelly said roos invading farmers' crops were already being illegally shot.

"They are being culled and left to rot," Mr Kelly said.

For more, check out my upcoming article in Doublethink about my quest to eat as many beasts as possible. It includes a recipe for kangaroo in fig sauce that was one of the best meals I've ever cooked. Of course, I still haven't had springbok.