This post is very long, but I agreed to comment on this chapter and when the dust settled I was left with a rather long response. It’s not necessary to have read the chapter to take something away from this discussion, but it would obviously help. I posted a ’sight un-seen’ response in the comment section of the aboot page, and I think what I wrote there is a perfectly valid –though shorter and less specific– response.
I want to make a few things clear, Pollan never talks about animal rights or veganism in any real or accurate way. He never considers that animals have an interest in living, though he does consider their interest in not being caused overt physical harm, at least the kind one might classify as gratuitous. That is, his arguments are inherently concerned with the welfare of animals and at no point is the morality of taking an animal’s life considered. Pollan seems to think that it is possible to treat animals ‘well’, where such treatment includes confinement and slaughter. I have no idea how anyone can seriously argue that this treatment is compassionate or humane!
From a philosophical point of view the chapter is extremely confusing since he claims Peter Singer is an animal rights thinker despite being an act Utilitarian. Utilitarianism is a school of philosophy that supposes that the most ethical action is the one that results in the most net happiness. It is completely inconsistent with the notion of rights, which supposes that beings have an untradable set of rights that must be observed; regardless of the consequences. It isn’t hard to understand why Utilitarianism is incompatible with the notion of rights, or how a Utilitarian could frame an ethical argument for performing medical research on mentally challenged humans.
The Steakhouse Dialogues:
Pollan begins the chapter by noting the cognitive dissonance he felt while reading Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation while eating a steak and contemplating the fate of his own steer (number 534) which, we learn later, would be slaughtered in a Kansas slaughter house while Pollan flew overhead. He later describes, or rather has Temple Grandin describe, how exactly his steer was slaughtered. If you want even more profound cognitive dissonance I suggest replacing all occurrences of the word steer with kitten. Here’s an example:
“The cat-rump dinner in question took place on the evening before kitten number 534’s slaughter, the one event in his life I was not allowed to witness or even learn anything about, save its likely date.”
“Does the kitten know it’s going to get slaughtered? I used to wonder that. So I watched them going into the squeeze chutes on the feed lot, getting their shots, and going up the ramp at a slaughter plant.”
It is much more disturbing to read when you imagine this happening to a kitten! Of course we have emotional relationships with cats and dogs. We understand them in a way that we don’t understand cows, pigs, chickens, etc… We know that they feel pain, and understand (at least on an emotional level) that killing them is wrong. Of course this a because our culture has not stripped us of this knowledge, we have not grown up eating these animals and in fact have grown up learning to respect and love them. My point is that there is no moral difference between a cat and a steer. There is no reason to accept the killing and eating of one, yet be repulsed by the killing and eating of another. You can shrug it off and say we should be eating cats, but if you’re honest with yourself I think you’ll at least appreciate the hypocrisy and inconsistency present in our relationship with animals.
Pollan also comments on this schizophrenic relationship, but goes on to describe that our lack of contact with the animals we slaughter has eroded our understanding of the relationship between humans and the animals we kill. He offers the following insight:
“That eye contact [with the animals we kill], always slightly uncanny, had brought the vivid daily reminder that animals were both crucially like and unlike us; in their eyes we glimpsed something unmistakably familiar (pain, fear, courage) but also something irretrievably other (!?). Upon this paradox people built a relationship in which they felt they could both honor and eat animals without looking away.”
So animals are like us in many ways, they feel pain and emotions, yet they are unlike us and it is this difference that justifies our killing them. He admits it’s a paradox, yet offers no justification for our killing them except that in some significant way animals are other. This plays directly into our sense of worth as a species, that we humans are exclusively of value, and that the suffering of other animals is justified by our most frivolous whims.
There is a lot more text in this section but I simply can’t comment on everything Pollan says. He does offer a good description of what speciesism is, and discusses what might make someone morally significant. I will touch on a few things he brings up here in later sections.
The Vegetarian’s Dilemma:
Pollan criticizes vegetarianism on the grounds that it disrupts the host-guest relationship, by having a guest with ’special’ needs. This is absurd for several reasons. All hosts, by virtue of hosting, are going out of their way to be accommodating. No host would be upset at a guest who is allergic to peanuts asking to not eat any; similarly, a guest who is vegetarian (or vegan) need not be ashamed of their choice not to consume animals. Any self respecting host would think nothing of accommodating the interests of a guest.
Why bring this up at all? Because it’s a perfect example of Pollan playing on the social conformity built into people: their knee jerk reaction to be alike and not question truly meaningful issues for fear of being different. Apparently not causing social waves is reason enough to engage in unethical behavior. The slave owner didn’t want to enslave other humans, they were simply victim to the tradition of slavery in their society. If confronted by the possibility that slaves are worthy of moral consideration, the slave owner could take refuge in asserting that humanity has a long and ingrained history of slavery, that we have many rituals surrounding slaves and that it isn’t as simple as just ending slavery because we would be ending this part of our cultural histories and surrendering a part of ourselves. This is the exact argument Pollan makes, claiming that his desire for a ballpark frank is a rich part of his cultural heritage, one that makes vegetarianism unappealing because he must forfeit a part of his traditional sensibilities.
I have very little sympathy for Pollan on this issue. He is pandering to people’s fear and is acting to alienate vegans further by trivializing the importance of the ethical choices they make. He also makes a suite of unsubstantiated claims concerning pre-historic humans, including the evolutionary function of our teeth as well as our intestinal tract, and sources of the vitamin B12. Each of these issues concerns an active field of academic research and claiming them to be one way or another is dishonest. One can find ample citations claiming that our teeth and intestinal tract have developed from the plant based diets of our ancestors, and that humans developed primarily as gatherers, not hunters. The paleolithic diet is a very active field of research and we quite frankly have no real answers at this point. As for B12, no one knows where it comes from exactly or what foods it’s in, and to what amounts, since we can’t detect it directly (here is an extensive essay on B12 http://wiretap.area.com/Gopher/Library/Article/Food/b12.txt).
Pollan ends the section by equating our desire for sex and our desire to eat meat. I would argue that our desire for sex is a fundamental human urge that would be present independently of any cultural dogma. That’s not to say that culture doesn’t play an important role in how we behave sexually; indeed culture is extremely influential in our development as sexual beings. However these influences generally inform us on what is taboo, who is a suitable partner, etc… the urge to have sex –the basic desire– will be present regardless of cultural influence. This isn’t the case for eating meat. It is not a basic human urge, but a desire that is formed completely from cultural dogma. This is clear in which animals people consider to be food. In North America pigs, chickens and cows are happily lusted after. If you suggest someone eat kangaroo, groundhog or dog they’ll almost certainly be disgusted at the idea… which is quite an odd reaction if eating meat is a basic human desire…
Animal Suffering:
Let me start by saying that Pollan is very effective at displaying the mindless cruelty in factory farming, and he even mentions the capitalist machine, that values profit over all else and will never stop to consider the lives it destroys. This applies equally well to humans and nonhumans, though there is some disparity between the type and severity of pain and suffering imposed upon nonhumans.
Which leads to his opening discussion of animal cognition. He gracefully admits that animals are not Descartian machines, mere robots acting on nothing but impulse and instinct. This should be amply apparent to a child, let alone anyone with even a passing knowledge of evolutionary biology. His argument is then that animals don’t feel pain in the same way we do. He admits that he cannot substantiate that claim, and then continues to argue for its validity. I find this very troubling, and this is an obvious incarnation of the ‘humans are better than animals’ school of thought. The premise of the claim is that we know our suffering to be suffering, and animals do not, which should only appear obviously true if you have already assumed that it is.
Again, we don’t really know the mental landscape experienced by animals, and their lack of language (as we know it) is hardly reason to think that they don’t fear death. Animals certainly experience the world. They are self-aware and they form relationships with one another, they have memories and are informed by a subjective sense of the world they experience. It ought to be obvious that they have emotions as well, if only from an evolutionary point of view. How these emotions manifest themselves in animals is sometimes obvious and sometimes not and it’s hard to argue what exactly it’s like for a deer to be shot down, or for a pig to go to slaughter. Even if we accept the claim that the suffering experienced by animals is somehow less than that experienced by humans it does not imply that we are morally justified to impose suffering on animals.
Animal Happiness
In the previous section Pollan touches on the physical horrors of the factory farm, and it certainly suggests that Pollan is placing himself in the camp of an animal welfarist. He does not consider that animals have rights, but they suffer, and that makes him uncomfortable, so if we could remove all the visual signs of suffering (save of course their slaughter, which we aren’t allowed to witness anyway), then he can be a happy meat eater. In other words, the only thing that constitutes suffering is physical pain, and an animal loses nothing in death except if that death is too painful.
This argument misses a fundamental truth, that animals have lives which are of value, that they are not machines acting on instinct alone with no inner selves. Captivity seriously affects the mental state of animals (human or not) and to make the captivity such that no physical distress is immediately apparent does not make that captivity humane, nor does it mean that those captive are truly happy. At the very least taking the lives of those animals is not in accordance with their interests.
This is a sticky spot for welfarists, who admit that animals have interests that are morally significant, but maintain that the one interest that humans consider the most vital, the interest in continued existence, is somehow non-existent in other animals. I find this an appallingly illogical train of thought and blatantly contradictory. To admit that these animals have a need for social organization, that they have relationships that are emotionally meaningful to them and contribute to their well-being, but do not have an interest in continuing to live is absurd. Pollan wants me to believe that we owe animals a happy existence, but we don’t owe them an existence. That is, if they do exist we should treat them well, but treating them well includes killing them whenever we see fit.
If this logic makes any sense to you then I urge you to join PeTA. There you will find many other people who lack an ability to think critically, act consistently and treat animals ethically.
An equally troubling argument is made in this section, that our domestication of animals has been a resounding evolutionary success for the animals. Clearly Pollan understands very little about how one measures success. Is a number count of a species an indication of how well it is doing evolutionarily speaking? What does it even mean to say a species has done well? Is it a race, is there a victory point track, are the ladybugs still three points behind the hummingbirds?
The number of a given species does not indicate success, evolution is about the proliferation of genetic mutations, those that benefit thrive and a species takes shape by encountering many competing genetic alterations that get selected based on usefulness. Domesticated animals are bred by humans, and we select which animals are bred, so domesticated animals are no longer under the supervision of Darwinian evolution. However, in recent years, they are falling prey to the genetic manipulation of humans, who have bred/altered/drugged them to grow as large as possible in as short a time as possible. These modifications have not been to their benefit. In fact, they often sacrifice the health of the animal whose limbs cannot support their engorged bodies and whose lives are ended prematurely.
To say that our manipulation and confinement of animals is to their benefit is ludicrous! If an alien race enslaved humanity and bred billions of us and gave us a happy confinement (perhaps like in the Matrix movies, except with aliens instead of robots) would this be a healthy and beneficial relationship? Would the human race claim this to be an evolutionary success!? Perhaps the aliens would claim that for us, and they would note that there are no visible signs of distress, we humans seem to be happy, so the treatment is clearly ethical.
The Vegan Utopia
Pollan offers the idea that veganism can only make sense in an urban environment, where conflicts between humans and nonhumans are minimized. He does not define what veganism is, or describe the goals of veganism at all. Veganism seeks to reduce harm to animals, which necessarily includes the complete abolition of all forms of exploitation, since these forms of harm are trivially ended. So the vegan utopia would mean that we honestly balance the interests of humans and nonhumans, keeping in mind that we all have an interest in not suffering and thus we should all be considered equally when the moral question at hand is “should I make a sentient being suffer”. There are practical limitations to the extent that one can eradicate their effect on other beings on this planet, but one very easy and reasonable form of suffering that can be eliminated is our commodified use of animals for food, sport, entertainment, product testing, clothing and experiments.
Pollan notes that animals are killed during agricultural production, for example by wheat thrashers. There is no reason why we couldn’t amend the current forms of agriculture to reduce our impact on these animals. Furthermore raising animals for our consumption requires that we grow much more plant crops than would be needed to feed people on vegan diets, therefore any harm done to animals due to agriculture will be drastically reduced if we stop raising animals for consumption. Pollan seems to be arguing that because practices currently harm animals they must necessarily harm animals, which makes no sense because current practices have not been designed with the interest of animals in mind. Therefore it isn’t clear at all the extent to which animals would be impacted if we tried to reduce our impact on them!
Pollan also seems to think that a diet of vegetables will require more fossil fuels, land and resources in general. I have no idea where he gets this idea, but it is completely without merit. A vegan diet requires roughly one twentieth the amount of land as an omnivorous diet. For every kilogram of animal protein produced, animals consume almost 6 kilograms of plant protein. It takes more than 100 000 liters of water to produce a kilogram of beef, and about 900 liters to produce a kilogram of wheat (these figures are cited in Gary Francione’s ‘Animals as Persons’). I can’t imagine the contrived situation that Pollan imagines where a vegan diet would be worse on the environment than that of an omnivore. For example it would require –at a minimum– that we only raise cattle on grass, since humans can’t eat grass this is a useful form of protein conversion. Basically it would be a world of the small farm that Pollan discusses throughout the Chapter, even though he admits that this type of farm is wholly inadequate as a means to produce the amount of animals currently consumed. So that in order for animal production to come even remotely close to veganism in terms of environmental impact people would have to basically stop eating animals so that the little they do eat can be produced on such farms. If you ask me this section should have been named ‘The Omnivore’s Utopia’.
As a final note on this section I want to mention Pollan’s continued confusion about philosophy. He notes that utilitarian thinkers, such as Peter Singer, have no problem with the act of eating animals. This is not a revelation, and it certainly does nothing to address the very real concern of people who take moral issue with our eating of animals, and our use of them in general. At the very end of the section he notes that utilitarians can justify killing retarded orphans, so that killing isn’t the issue for them as it is for others, such as himself. So he admits that killing is, as a rule, a moral wrong, yet he fails to mention why it is okay to differentiate between the killing of a human animal and the killing of a nonhuman animal. He never offers a reason to exclude animals from moral consideration except that they may experience pain and suffering in a different way than humans (as expressed in the section ‘Animal Suffering’).
Concluding Remarks
The chapter on a whole probably makes omnivores more comfortable with eating meat, after all they might feel slightly guilty about harming animals and Pollan tells them that it’s okay. What he doesn’t do is properly frame the moral argument for veganism, and therefore he never actually refutes the position of veganism. When he does approach philosophical questions, he tends to use utilitarian philosophy and reaches conclusions consistent with animal welfare. Let me briefly pose the moral quandary he should have addressed.
As a general rule we agree that animals should not be made to suffer unnecessarily. The basic underpinnings of this morality is our shared sentience. All animals (human and otherwise) feel pain and can suffer, and since we share this interest we are obliged to apply the rule of equal consideration. That is, since we all suffer and have an interest in not suffering we must respect that interest in all beings that share it. To exclude animals from moral consideration requires that we have a morally justified reason to exclude them from consideration. Any characteristic that you can think of for differentiation, such as intelligence, appears in humans to varying degrees. There are smart humans and very very stupid ones too, so if you differentiate animals because of their minds you are saying that intelligence is a morally relevant characteristic and that smart humans are more morally relevant than very very stupid ones, which almost no one would agree with. There are also characteristics that animals have that humans do not, for example the ability to breath under water, or fly. We don’t consider these abilities morally relevant, a bird’s ability to fly is no more morally relevant than a person’s height or annual income.
What Pollan needs to do –what any omnivore needs to do– is ask themselves what makes the suffering they experience more morally relevant than the suffering experienced by other animals. Why are humans with far less physical and mental abilities than some animals included in the moral community and animals not? Dividing the moral relevance based on species is not a morally defensible thing to do. It is equally indefensible to exclude moral consideration from a human based on race or gender.
Suggested Reading
Anyone who seriously wants to consider animal rights should read Gary Francione’s ‘An Introduction to Animal Rights’. He also has a new book of essays entitled ‘Animals as Persons’ which (at the time of writing) can be found at a very reasonable price at chapters, $27 for a hard cover! If you want to understand the philosophy behind veganism then you have to read Francione, there are no comparable texts! Reading poorly framed and sparsely argued defenses of meat eating is not very meaningful if you don’t yet understand what it is you are defending your actions against.
I also stumbled on an article written about Pollan’s book you can read it online. I particularly like how the author describes Pollan’s tactics when it comes to discussing moral issues:
“[Pollan's] spurious show of open-mindedness recalls Hans Küng, the Swiss theologian who uses a comparable technique when defending Christianity against secular critics. The similarity is not surprising, considering that our dietary and religious habits are both acquired in early childhood, which makes them hard to break no matter what we learn in later life. The Pollan-Küng Technique goes like this: One debates the other side in a rational manner until pushed into a corner. Then one simply drops the argument and slips away, pretending that one has not fallen short of reason but instead transcended it. The irreconcilability of one’s belief with reason is then held up as a great mystery, the humble readiness to live with which puts one above lesser minds and their cheap certainties.”
Thanks for the excellent interpretation of Pollan’s views which I too find conflicted and self-gratifying. Man’s future can be sustainable through a plant based diet (veganism) – Technology and money needs to filter to urban, industrial hydroponic gardening. All necessary foods can be grown on floating greenhouses and on arid land with hydroponics. Less land use, less energy expenditure – less water resources and a healthier planet with healthier vegan inhabitants.
Thank you Jon, for taking the amount of time you did to respond to that chapter and the depths to which you did so. Even though I’m not a Vegan (yet), reading that chapter caused me to raise a questioning eyebrow every now and then, especially the bit about how evolution supposedly linked to domestication. While I think it makes sense that a species would do what it could to ensure it’s continued survival, the extremes to which domestication is taken now, makes it somewhat of a moot point.
Upon further reflection of the chapter, it seems to me that it might have been included as an afterthought: something that sort-of, kind-of addresses several issues about animal well-being that would please most people, but can’t really stand up to a more scrutinous examination. As you alluded to, it should be hard for someone really wanting to get to the issues at heart to not come accross Francione’s name.
Despite this, I did enjoy the book, especially about the history of the industrialization of agriculture. I can also understand his cultural argument about hosting and going to social events. For the most part, western society as a whole is losing it’s sense of community anyways and his point is well taken that it would be nice to hold onto something. However, just because I understand it, doesn’t mean I neccessarily agree with it. When you balance massive animal suffering with the fear of making a social faux pas, the scales invariably tip towards the former. This seems, as you suggested, that it is just a rehash of the argument “we’ve always done it this way, so there’s no reason to change.” As well, this wouldn’t be a problem if everyone was Vegan! Obviously there is going to be an awkward period of adjustment in society as some people get on the Vegan bandwagon while others lag behind. The point is that high-profile people in society should be the ones leading the change since most people tend to be followers.
Out of curiousity, you mention that a good host would accomodate the diets of his/her guests. I’m wondering if it works both ways. If a vegan has a good friend that does not eat vegetables/beans (a mainstay of a Vegan diet as I understand so far), but dined primarily on meat and dairy, should that person accomodate the diet of his guest by grilling up a cheeseburger?
Moving on, I obtained a copy of Pollan’s somewhat sequel: “In Defense of Food” about how the American diet doesn’t really thrive on food any more, but on nutrients, which are not the same thing according to him. The book also starts with a good overview of how marketing and “nutrition science” flip flops every few years to keep consumers guessing about what is best for them to eat. On the same vein, the B12 article you linked to was interesting. Do you know of anything that is updated with current information as that article looks to be 15 years old. A site I’ve been reading lately that discusses/debunks media nutri-science is Junkfood Science.
I think the biggest starting point to moving off a primarily animal diet is to simply eat less of it and gradually wean yourself off it and buy it from local farms that treat their animals better while you do it. This is the point I am at now as I’ve eaten very little animal flesh in the past month or so. To have less animal exploitation, I think making the animal slaughtering industry more transparent and providing more exposure to the conditions animals experience from agri-business will turn many people away from meat. Massive social change doesn’t happen overnight though.
I’d like to relay a conversation/comments I over heard in a school staff room that I think would have caused your head to pop. The staff in question are two females, Bethany, Christie, and Bethany’s son in anecdote.
Here is the story she related:
Bethany: “So my son, the other day at dinner, asked me ‘Mommy, where do hamburgers come from?’”
(to her son”: “Sweety, they come from cows.”
Her son: “Cows?”
Bethany: “Yes, honey, cows.”
Her son: “Well do they poop it out?”
Bethany: “…no, they kill the cow and it turns into hamburger”
Her son: (thinks for a minute, picking at his hamburger) “I’m not going to eat hamburgers anymore. I’m going to eat chicken!”
After relaying that story, Christie chimes in saying that the only way she can eat meat is to not associate it as being from an animal at all. She said if she thought of those animals as being living beings that were killed for food, she wouldn’t be able to eat it. It’s that mentality and that disconnect that’s helping perpetuate meat eating in North America. Again, by throwing the conditions animals face in front of people on a regular basis, hopefully that will be the catalyst to get real sustainable change going.
For more food for thought Jon, a site I stumbled upon is Mark’s Daily Apple who preaches a neolithic diet that is very vegetable and meat rich. This ties back to some of my initial questions back in your veganism justification post where, morals aside, what is the “best” diet that our bodies are designed for to be most efficient. Here are two articles as a sample: Grains are Bad and The Primal Blueprint.
Again, thanks for responding. I greatly appreciate the effort and your keeping to the committment to post it.
To Bea Elliott: how does a hydroponics system that you suggest use less water resources? Do you mean it is this less in compared to raising domesticated livestock (I assume it would be) or from traditional growing methods in soil? Both?
Hey John,
I was happy to comment on the chapter, it just took a little while as life got in the way a bit… I moved and summer started…ect…
Thanks for the links and reflection.
I contacted the author of the B12 article because I was having trouble finding more current and equally thorough work, he’s retired and isn’t up to date on current work. If you find anything more recent let me know.
The responsibility of a host does not extend to performing acts they would consider unethical! That is obviously true and of course you already knew the answer to that question. If a guest was unable to eat all vegetables then they would be dead from malnutrition, otherwise the vegan host could find a suitable meal that excluded the sub-set of offensive veggies. If I had a guest that enjoyed a little after dinner rape, I would not be obliged to bend over and resist them, however if they liked Beethoven I would happily comply (even if I find his latest record a bit old skhool).
That conversation is hilarious! It’s amazing how the word chicken doesn’t even register with people as being an animal, they only think of it as a food item.
I have a question for you. I feel I have presented the moral argument for veganism with some level of clarity and completeness. As an omnivore who has taken the time to listen to the logic behind veganism how can you continue to justify consuming animals who have a clear interest in not being consumed?
“We know that [cats and dogs] feel pain, and understand (at least on an emotional level) that killing them is wrong.”
I don’t think this statement is universally true. While a majority of people would agree with the statement, fewer would actually fit the description. Just watch the first 15 minutes of “Earthlings” or read “Redemption” by Nathan J. Winograd and the general public’s moral schizophrenia about cats and dogs will become apparent. Every year over 5 million cats and dogs are killed by “humane” societies & animal shelters in America, yet “animal lovers” continue to support them by donating time and money to such places and by going to fund raising BBQs where meat is served.
Hey Tom,
Yes you’re quite right that we don’t even treat cats and dogs in a consistent way. For those unfamiliar with Winograd’s book it’s about running no-kill shelters, and how –despite much opposition from people who claim to love animals– he has succeeded in executing the no-kill model in cities throughout the United States. The vegan freak podcast interviewed him a while back; I think it’s one of their better episodes (for prosperity you can download the episode here).
My point was that most of us have had a relationship with a pet, and in that context we have recognized the inherent value of the animal’s life. We have known these animals to be self-aware and possess emotions, and we would be appalled at the notion of causing them to suffer for our amusement. There are, of course, counter examples, those who maintain that animals don’t feel pain.
I suppose I should have said that “we understand (at least on an emotional level) that causing them to suffer is wrong”. This is really what I meant to say. When organizations like PeTA are killing cats and dogs for their best interest, it’s quite clear that we don’t yet understand that killing them is wrong.
Thanks for the comment!
Hi John….
I meant “both”…..
I know Livestock’s Long Shadow supports this as does this report…. warning almost a decade ago of pending fuel, grain and water issues:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/aug97/livestock.hrs.html
Anyway, it’s a tidy presentation – and documents the huge disparity of water use between growing plants and “livestock”…..
I just might add that growing plants (food) hydroponically (and in it’s own greenhouse environment) – is more efficient than roots in soil because as the plants “sweat” – the humidity cycles to “rain” almost self-sustaining……. Add a little sunshine….. and you’ve got yourself a meal!
I did want to agree with several points you made – I didn’t know about the ““nutrition science flip flops” – but I’m not surprised. And it happens this way with all consumables….. At that time the media can be found skipping merrily down “Mis-information-Lane” with new “studies” in their hands….. Often courtesy of the USDA/FDA or some other “council” promoting a “product”…..
Yes, indeed “eating less meat” is a good starting point. Pity that when the momentum feels like it could make headway here in the U.S. – we’re Global and the world has an “appetite” for Western (meat)ways….. Two steps forward, one back, I guess…..
You also make a sound argument that keeping others aware of the peril that animals are in is critical: “…… by throwing the conditions animals face in front of people on a regular basis, hopefully that will be the catalyst to get real sustainable change going.” Short of physical violence I can’t think of a thing that’s “off limits” to get more people aware and concerned about helping the “farmed animals” they consume. Pollan at least opened a dialog – fortunate for vegan causes that he’s left his audience and followers with some wide gaps in reasoning – let alone “ethics”….. Incremental change is inevitable – and often hard to see, but looking at events historically there only was recently the cultural upheavals concerning the meat industry: after the publication of “The Jungle” and a mere 5 decades later: “The Humane Slaughter Act”…… (by the way, I’m not saying either was a “victory” – just that they boosted public perception and awareness). We are here now, with the most powerful tools to dispell untruths and myths about “meat” and to expose the insane cruelty to make the poisionous stuff…. Socially and environmentally, the time is ripe….. between contaminated foods, flood water toxins, slaughterhouse dairy cows, hamburger recalls (And could today, July 4, have been a better day to recall 250 tons of e-coli laced meat?)…. I do believe the Veg Gods were on our side on this one….. :)
And jonben – No we don’t even treat cats/dogs consistently – just look at the plight that greyounds are in…… since they’re used as “race-dogs” – they’re classified as “livestock”….. That’s a vicious betrayal of man’s best friend indeed.
Hi Jon,
I also feel that you have presented the moral argument for veganism with clarity and completeness and have been more than willing to address concerns and questions that I have about it. Thus, I think I owe it to you to honestly try to give some reasons why, at this time, I still eat meat. Note, I am not trying to excuse anything. These are just the reasons I’ve thought about since you made your last comment to me. Some are more important to me than others though. Some of them come from my initial impressions and would go away under further investigation.
Laziness – Like inertia, it is much easier to continue my current lifestyle than to make a very substantial change to it. The effort of learning what I can and can’t eat/buy based on the vegan lifestyle would take time away from other pursuits that I would enjoy more.
Social – I do sympathize with Pollan a bit here as I stated I understand his argument. I don’t think it’s a good reason, but it’s a reason nonetheless that I’ve found myself also worrying about. However, there’s another part of it that he neglected to mention. If you are at a social eating function and someone asks why you are avoiding all things meat, you explain that you are Vegan, and they ask why, I do not think there is a way to explain it to them that does not come off as if you are superior to the other person. Granted, I shouldn’t care what other people think, but in most cases, I think people would then have a negative impression of you.
Enjoyment – I want my meals and my preparation thereof to be enjoyable and tasty. Cooking and eating should not introduce additional anxiety into my life. For reasons mentioned below, it is a concern that depends on other things. If preparing and eating Vegan dishes turns out to be a chore (I expect some frustrations to being with, but it would smooth out over time), I likely would slip back into old habits. I know this based on other situations I have esperienced.
Dairy I can see myself being a vegetarian, but I am very hesitant to say I could be a Vegan. Eggs, cheese and milk are both nutritious and delicious and I would have a very difficult time giving these up. This very well might be a position I would be comfortable in as making this choice, while not eliminating suffering, is definitely reducing it.
Certain Situations I have a hard time seeing what is wrong with mutually beneficial relationships. If I have a chicken on my property, that I provide food, shelter and protection from predators from, then I don’t see a problem with eating that chicken’s unfertilized eggs. This is if I continue to provide these things after the chicken gets older and stops laying eggs and then dies of old age. As well, if the same things are provided to an animal in exchange for labor in plowing fields (that’s how rice is harvested), is that ok?
Morals vs. Availability and Globalization – PEI has a smaller population than Vancouver, and thus there is a correspondingly lower number of Vegans. This means there is less demand for non-meat products and the market place reflects this. As well, if I am going to up my veggie intake, then I have to rely on a global system of distribution, which itself relies on fossil fuels. I don’t particularly like that system. I wonder everytime I reach for an avacado, how much I’ve added to global warming. I’d have to run the numbers, but the reduction in greenhouse gasses from not eating meat, might be nulled by an increased variety of vegetation. This is due to the limited supply of local produce on PEI. This is less of a concern in BC where tons of stuff is produced in the Okanagan. I don’t want to sustain myself on processed food and turnips during the winter.
Morals vs. What’s best I’m interested in what the “best diet” for human bodies is to run most efficiently. In Defense of Food, Pollan sites ample evidence that we can sustain ourselves very well on a variety of diets, from high dairy, to high grains, to high meat (traditional Masai trbies for instance), except for the typical Western Diet of refined carbs and large portion sizes. Mark’s Daily Apple takes that approach too. As well, I do not think taking supplements should be part of any diet. We should be able to get everything our bodies need from food sources.
Caring – I might not care enough to make the switch as I have no emotional connection to animals. I have never had a pet and it is hard for me to care about something I don’t have much experience with. Even if I acknowledge that it is morally wrong to kill animals for food, that in and of itself, might not push me over that line. It’s the same thing with starving kids in Africa. I have no expereince with that, thus I don’t send $5 a month to feed them. Maybe that makes me a bad person, but it’s the truth. However, I think I owe it to myself to look into this further. Possible ways to do this it to begin by reading An Introduction to Animal Rights and by visiting some local farms to see animals in that environment.
There you go. Those are some things that are still on my mind regarding diet and the changing thereof. I expect from your perspective that all of the above are silly and without merit compared to the lives of animals, and they very well might be. However, you asked, I thought about it, and here is your response. I do have some additional questions though: Can you give me an idea of what you typically buy for groceries and how often you buy them. I would guess that if fresh food is constantly being consumed, that more than 1 trip a week would be required. As well, can you highlight items that are part of a standard (and yours if your is non standard) vegan diet that I might not be familiar with. Again if these are “out there” items, it might limit what I can buy here in Charlottetown.
Finally, and not really related to Veganism, if you are interested in food and it’s history and why things are the way they are, I’d like to hear what you think of Pollan’s In Defense of Food. I haven’t finished it yet, but it is very interesting. It is available from the Vancouver Public Library.
Hi John,
I didn’t really think I would have anything to contribute to this discussion but after reading your comment I think I do. First off I should let you know I’m an omnivore too but am married to a vegan (who became vegan after reading Jon’s blog). You were talking about how you were concerned about your carbon footprint. I recently read an article (http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=06&year=2008&base_name=its_the_food_stupid) that talks about the carbon footprint of foods. Only 4% of the carbon footprint is from transportation of food from the grower to the seller. They conclude that cutting out 21% of red meat in a typical diet has the same effect on the environment as buying locally. So you shouldn’t worry too much about where the food you’re eating is coming from but worry more about what you are eating.
Can you provide the full link to that article as the link as written in your comment does not direct to anything.
Thanks
It works for me. Here is a clickable link to the article:
http://www.prospect.org/csnc/blogs/ezraklein_archive?month=06&year=2008&base_name=its_the_food_stupid
Thanks!
John,
You clearly have plenty of time to read and think about these issues, you also claim to be interested in changing your diet in some way (i.e. your interest in the paleolithic diet) so to say you are too lazy seems to be a blatant lie. Cooking vegan food is no more difficult or nerve wracking than cooking any new meal, if you buy a vegan cookbook (Vegan with a Vengeance, La Dolce Vegan, Vive le Vegan, eat drink and be vegan, etc…) then you will have as much fun cooking healthy and delicious meals as you ever have.
Being vegan isn’t complicated and should be motivated by a desire to change our relationship with non-human animals. It’s extremely easy to change to a vegan diet: you stop eating animals, you stop eating dairy and eggs. Meatless eating is easy, replacing cow’s milk with soy/almond/hemp/rice milk is easy, replacing eggs with flax seeds or banana in baking is easy. There are some weird ingredients that you will eventually want to eliminate from the food you eat but by and large the switch is as easy as eliminating the obvious non-vegan foods and buying a cookbook that will help you make delicious meals. You could also read some vegan cooking blogs, I don’t know of any good ones…. but I’m sure you can find some :)
If you are in a social situation and someone asks why you’re vegan you simply tell them ‘for animal rights reasons’. Typically people will not push you for more, and if they do you can always say you would prefer not to talk about it. There is no reason why you have to sound superior. That’s like saying I don’t want to get an education because being well educated will make people I meet think that I’m smarter than them. You have to live your truth, and if that includes recognizing that animals are sentient beings with the same interest in not suffering that all sentient beings have, then that is your truth and you should be happy to tell people about it. Any assumptions they make because of that is a reflection of them, not of you.
If you manage to make friends with a wild chicken, and that chicken lays eggs and leaves them as gifts for you, and you decide that eating the menstrual output of an animal isn’t disgusting then by all means enjoy your eggs. The fact that you even bring up this hypothetical makes me think that you haven’t really appreciated what it is to be vegan; what exactly the motivation is. In most cases you can substitute the animal for a human and ask if you made that substitution would the hypothesized act be immoral? If yes then it probably isn’t in line with veganism.
You say you couldn’t give up dairy because it’s nutritious and delicious. There is plenty of research to contradict your claim of nutritious, not to say there is no nutritional value in dairy, just that it tends to come coupled with saturated fats and cholesterol. Dairy is also really easy to switch over to vegan equivalents, non-dairy milk and yogurt are nutritious and delicious. Although non-dairy cheese is not so tasty… still some like it. In fact I had a sandwich with vegan cheese in it today and it was very tasty.
Eating locally is a good idea, but it is not of paramount importance. You save the planet in a lot of other ways by eating vegan, even if it means vegetables will be shipped further on average. If there were local produce available that used human slaves would you choose that because the environmental impact is less? Of course not, don’t forget that we have no direct moral commitment to the environment. The only reason we care is because of the impact it can have on people/animals who we do have moral obligations to. So causing direct anguish to animals (who are worthy of moral consideration) can hardly be justified because you might impact the environment less. Of course as Bridget pointed out, you will actually impact the environment less by being vegan…
Not sending $5 to a child in Africa is not equivalent to actively involving yourself in the destruction of sentient life. You are not saying that children in Africa deserve to be impoverished, and that their suffering raises no moral problem. However, by eating animals or using any animal product you are saying that animals have no moral standing and that their interests in life are meaningless compared to your interest in a glass of milk or a down-filled jacket. This is a direct action on your part. They are not the same… If they were the same, your comment would basically be justifying one immoral action by pointing out that you are immoral in other ways as well…
I don’t take supplements, however I don’t really think they’re bad… in theory. Humans can clearly eat a lot of different diets and be very healthy, for example the paleolithic diet and the raw food vegan diet are very different yet somehow both sides find ample evidence to show that their diet is ‘better’. It’s not at all clear that there is a single optimal diet for humans, in fact it’s probably clear that there isn’t one. It is clear that someone can be just as healthy on a vegan diet as any other diet, and much more healthy than the average american diet (though that’s not hard to accomplish).
I’m not sure how engaged you are by the paleolithic diet but there are a lot of conceptual problems inherent in the naive assumption that the diet humans ate hundreds of thousands of years ago was somehow optimal for their health. I don’t want to ramble on about it if you aren’t really interested, but there are many glaring problems with that logic.
If you have the time to read all of these books by Pollan I think you have the time to read Introduction to Animal Rights. And if you’re concerned with sustainability and environmental concerns then I think becoming vegan is an obvious choice.
As for our food purchasing habits, we eat a lot of fresh veggies. Our diet is primarily a whole food diet, which is easier, healthier and cheaper (if you ignore all the cookies and the occasional soy ice cream). We usually shop a couple times a week (2-3) for produce, I’m not sure what the dollar figures are but I reckon it’s something like 50-80 dollars a week for the two of us. I’ll keep track of the next little while if you’re really interested in knowing, it’s probably a good idea for us to know how much we spend anyway.
What we eat is kind of represented on this blog, but I’ll give you a more specific list:
-greens (lettuce, kale and spinach)
-onions
-broccoli
-carrots
-zucchini
-cucumber
-peppers
-mushrooms
-tomato
-avocado
-bananas
-peas/corn
-bean sprouts
-lentils
-beans (chickpeas, kidney, black, etc..)
-potatoes/yams
-bread
-rice
-quinoa
-couscous
-nuts (walnuts, sunflower seeds, cashews, sesame seeds)
-tempeh
-tofu
condiments
-olive oil, sunflower oil, flax oil
-mustard, ketchup, salad dressing, soy sauce
-soymilk, margarine (Earth Balance)
-jam, peanut butter
-vinegars (rice, apple cider)
-nutritional yeast
So aside from some condiments, tofu and tempeh it’s largely a whole foods diet. You might not be familiar with tempeh, it’s similar to tofu but has a different texture. Nutritional yeast is great because it tastes a bit like cheese… it gives things a cheesy flavour anyway, it also has B12, as do most non-dairy milks. Flax oil might be unfamiliar as well, though with the current concern about omega fatty acids more people are aware of it. As you can see there isn’t really anything scary or weird about what we eat, in fact it’s mostly the stuff people tend to associate with healthy eating.
Thanks Jon for the detailed reply regarding my concerns. Many of them were ideas that were kicking around in my head about the issue, and I knew before writing about them that further investigation or new information would likely deflate them pretty quickly.
I suspected that switching to a vegan diet in reality wouldn’t be that much different than an omnivorous diet. The extra work involved could have just been made up by me as an excuse to not change (ie. it’s too hot out, so I’m not going to exercise).
I think soy milk is tasty. Is there anything a bit more neutral in flavour that can be used in recipes? I wasn’t aware of the substitution for eggs. How do flax seed/bananas do the job? What did you mean by “There are some weird ingredients that you will eventually want to eliminate from the food you eat”?
The hypothetical came from a nature perspective. There are many examples of animals in nature that both depend on and provide benefit to other animals. I’m just wondering why humans can’t live in balance with the rest of the living things on the planet.
Why don’t we have a direct moral commitment to the environment?
I never meant to equate animal rights with supporting starving children in Africa. I was using it as another example of something, though while disturbing, does not fire up a zealous light in my gut to make change. In other words, at this time in my life, it is not a passion that drives me.
I agree with you that humans have survived very well on a variety of diets and that there probably isn’t a “best one” for us. I was interested to see if there was though.
I am going to try and find a copy of Introduction to Animal Rights at the library. They might not have it so they’d have to get it in from an out-of province one. I’ll let you know when I get it and read it and my thoughts on it.
Thanks for giving the list of grocery items. I’m glad to see that most of it is very similar to what I normally get anyways. I took a look for flax/linseed oil today, but didn’t see it in the cooking oil section of the store. I’ll ask about it. The Earth balance margarine might be hard to come by here, but I’ll take a look for it. The only other things that are different are the tempeh, sunflower oil, and the nutritional yeast. Do you get miso? Where does one find nutritional yeast? Is that what it is labeled as? I saw something at the store that said it came from yeast…starts with an “M” I think…
If it’s not too much trouble, a firmer estimate on the cost would be appreciated. I suspect you are probably right in that figure, since our grocery bill is roughly the same, even though we don’t buy meat every week.
Anyways, thanks for the additional information. I am a planner by nature and I wanted these things addressed before I make any changes. I wanted to figure out how things would go first before going gung-ho about it. I think if I just up and did it without thinking things through that it probably wouldn’t stick. All I’m trying to do is set up something that is going to work for me so that I am successful with it.
[...] without fully considering both sides of the issue. Also, this post is partially a response to this blog post, which is a response itself, but my post has been written to stand on its own. The following [...]
John-
I’ve used soy milk in recipes and I’ve never found that it imparted any distinctive flavour, but rice milk seems even less flavourful to me so maybe that would help. You could also try unsweetened soy milk.
Half of a mashed ripe banana (~1/4 cup) can be used to replace an egg. One Tbsp ground flax seeds with 3 Tbsp of water can replace an egg (mix together in a bowl and let sit for ~5min). There is a product called Ener-G Egg replacer which can be used to replace eggs, 1+1/2 Tbsp Ener-G powder with 2 Tbsp water. There are more ideas on the post punk kitchen site, and the internets in general.
Flax oil is typically not near the cooking oils because it needs to be refrigerated. In grocery stores it’s usually near the soy milk, tofu or other ’specialty’/health food items. The IGA here in Vancouver has Earth Balance, and I know that at least one Sobeys in Dartmouth has it, so it might be easier to find then you might think. Though you might have to track it down in a health food store, which Jen and I did in North Bay Ontario.
Sometimes you can find Soy Garden and not Earth Balance, they are made by the same company and are the same product (I think). You can find pictures of the tubs here.
I use sunflower oil because it’s not canola oil, which has a lot of controversy due to much of it being genetically engineered. In particular Monsanto owns a GM strain of canola which is being used world wide. I don’t know many details and couldn’t make a strong argument against using canola oil, but sunflower oil is just as easy to buy :)
We do eat miso, it doesn’t get used very quickly but it keeps for eternity in the fridge. There are lots of different kinds, white, red, yellow, etc… They differ in taste with some being milder than others, you have to try a few and decide which you like more for particular uses. Nutritional yeast is labeled as such and it looks like yellowish flakes. Be sure to buy a variety that has B12 in it, Red Star Nutritional Yeast does have B12 and is the most popular brand as far as I can tell.
If you can’t find a certain product in PEI, then I suggest ordering it from a vegan web site. We order things from them every few months because you can’t even find everything you might want in Vancouver, also it’s easier to have them shipped here then to hunt for things all over the city. A great site is http://www.veganessentials.com but there are loads of others.
By weird ingredients I just mean things that are not obviously non-vegan, or things that you would need to read the entire ingredient list to discover. For example gelatin, skim milk powder, whey and vitamin D3 (made from sheep hair, other D-vitamins are vegan just not D3). There are quite a few odd ingredients, some which are never vegan and some which are vegan sometimes, there are lots of lists scattered around the internets. These types of lists can be overwhelming to look at, I certainly felt anxious the fist time I saw them. After a while I found myself simply avoiding products with huge lists of ingredients that I couldn’t recognize. This turns out to be a good idea in the first place! Why are we consuming products with laundry lists of ingredients? So most of the time I never have to worry about some crazy sounding chemical being vegan because my food tends to be made out of easily recognizable food items.
It’s important to keep in mind that veganism is not about being perfect! Given the world we live in you can not aim to exclude all forms of animal exploitation from your life. The goal is to reduce your contribution to the extent to which it is possible and practical. I don’t suggest –as some do– that one should slowly eliminate meat and dairy from their diets, I think it’s far easier to remove them all at once. However I do think that one shouldn’t obsess over every obscure ingredient, especially when they have just started to adopt a vegan lifestyle. Eliminating everything that is obviously non-vegan is easy and I suggest doing that in one fell swoop, but one might want to save examining the laundry list of ingredients until after they are comfortable with their plant-based diet.
The environment is not a member of the moral community, you can not have a moral obligation that you owe to the environment anymore than you can have an obligation that you owe to a jar of peanut butter. The environment has no interests and you can not do wrong by it. You may have moral obligations that concern the environment, such as not contributing to global warming, but this has nothing to do with saving the environment for its own sake. Rather it is an obligation you owe all sentient begins living on the planet because you have a moral obligation not to make the world uninhabitable. The moral obligation is owed to those sentient beings, not the environment. In this context it’s clear that you can not sacrifice the basic rights of an individual for the ‘greater good’ of saving many individuals by way of improving the environment. The basic right not to be treated as a resource should be granted to all beings with an interest in not being treated in such a way; this right can not be sacrificed irrespective of any perceived benefits that would result in doing so.
I’ll be keeping track of our food purchases for the next while. We have a loose idea for May and June but it’s hard to say what exactly we consumed since we just moved and many condiments were needed. Also we eat lots of unnecessary food, for example we bake cookies and buy chocolate bars. The blind purchasing at grocery stores for these months seems to be about 80 dollars a week. It depends a bit on what expenditures you speak of, since the actual food consumed in meals is significantly less than that. For example the $9 Pad Thai that I cooked on Tuesday night fed three people dinner and provided 3 lunches. If that efficiency were continued then lunch and dinner for a week would be $42, so a week of food might be $42 + breakfast ~ $55. So with some meals being more expensive or less efficient than the Pad Thai and adding in snacks and cravings for cookies the $80 figure seems very reasonable to me. Though if we were trying to be cheap I think we could make that number considerably smaller! Anyway I will get back to you with firmer numbers.
The other thing to remember about flax oil is that it shouldn’t be heated, so you don’t use it for frying or cooking things. You can add it to cooked food at the end, and use it in sauces, salad dressings, etc.
Thanks Jon and Jen for the comments regarding my questions. The more I thought about the environment/moral question, I realized it was silly. You are right in saying the moral obligation is for us to not help make the planet uninhabitable and to all living things on it, rather than to the planet itself.
I picked up Francione’s book and will start reading it after I get a few others off my plate.
Sobey’s has Earth balance margarine and I picked up a rather smallish tub for $3.99 (niche market I suppose). Why this brand and not others? I took a look at some other margarines and the common link amongst some of them was the whey powder, but others didn’t have it. Maybe there are other non-vegan ingredients I wasn’t familiar with.
I tried Sensational Soy brand milk based on the recommendation of a vegan co-worker and found it sweeter than the brand I had previously gotten (PC at Superstore), though the flavour wasn’t as strong. Its good to know that it works fine in cooking without imparting it’s distinct flavour.
I recently read an interesting article about laundry lists of ingredients that you might find interesting too.
I found the nutritional yeast as well and it seemed reasonble at $4.99, though I don’t know how much is typically used in recipes.
I also found the flax oil. Holy shit it’s expensive! Despite the fact it is a good source of omega three, I’m not sure the <a href=”http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid#Flax”conversion efficiency from the omega 3 it has to what we need, justifies the cost. How much do you guys go through?
I’m curious too as to the following. It sounds as if after reading Francione’s book, you went cold tofurky on the eating meat issue right away. Did you finish off the meat you had in your kitchen, throw it out, or give it away?
The links above didn’t seem to format properly.
Here is the ingredient one
and here is a flax one
Earth Balance is the only vegan margarine I know of… it is expensive, and pretty bad for you… but sometimes you need that buttery flavour on toast or pancakes! In baking you can usually use oil instead of butter/margarine if you want anyway. The reason other margarines aren’t vegan is that they are fortified with vitamin D3, which comes from either fish or sheep’s wool. In fact, the Soy Sensation soymilk you mentioned contains D3 so it isn’t vegan (its made by a dairy company, so go figure). I never liked it much anyway because its very thick and it is sweeter than others. My favourite soymilk is Natura unsweetened, but I think that was an acquired taste, I started off drinking sweetened soymilk. One of the reasons I like it is that it has very few ingredients. I would recommend the brand So Nice if you can find it, So Good is good too.
Flax oil is also expensive, but I don’t worry about it since most things we buy are cheap, and I don’t always pay close attention to prices in general. Flax oil is really tasty and good for me so I figure its worth buying. I don’t know how it compares to other things in terms of Omegas, there are lots of other good sources. Walnuts come to mind, but nuts are expensive too. I think to get the daily requirement of Omega-3 you only need about a teaspoon of flax oil a day (not 100% sure about that, you’d have to look it up), but we don’t use it every day. The thing we use it for the most is making the sauce for the Brocolli and Couscous recipe Jon posted which we eat often, and a bottle lasts at least a few months but obviously it depends on what you use it for.
When Jon went vegan he was already vegetarian so didn’t have any meat, but threw away anything non-vegan in the fridge and donated his non-vegan clothing. I also went vegetarian first, and going vegan was a bit of a gradual process for me… I started replacing things one at a time like drinking soymilk instead of cow’s milk, etc. When I made the firm decision to go vegan, I tried to finish whatever food I had in the fridge that I didn’t find too disgusting. Throwing things out isn’t going to help anything so if you can eat it or give it away I think that’s better.
For the record I wasn’t actually a vegetarian before going vegan. Although I had been living with one for over a year and in that time I had virtually never eaten meat at home. Some non-vegan products were used by my roommate so I think I left them in the fridge and stopped using them, but others were thrown away.
I did stop eating meat for about two weeks prior to going vegan because I was thinking about things and I couldn’t bring myself to eating meat before I had reached a decision.
[...] response to Jon Ben’s comment to my previous blog post, which was only a partial response to his blog post. Some assumptions were made in my arguments, but as this post doesn’t represent an end to the [...]
You can delete my previous failed efforts at formatting html.
Hi Jon
I am interested in what you have to say against the primal diet of a pre-agricultural human race. Again, my interest comes mainly from Mark’s Daily Apple who does back up many of his ideas with recent research. Some good links that show his philosophy are here,
here, and here
From a quick skim of Mark’s Daily Apple, as well as a skim of the Google search results of subjects of a similar nature, the Primal Diet is [supposed to be] solely based on human history and the evolutionary history of the human digestive tract, not morals or ethics.
While it might be construed that completely ignoring the history and science behind a healthy diet is morally questionable, the basis for any morally correct choice must consider the big picture and not just the human impact. While eating meat might be morally justifiable 1000 to 10000 years ago due to issues of practicality, it can’t be justified today no matter how healthy it makes you because simple alternatives exist that only compromise your health minimally, if at all.
At least that’s what I think.
/another whopper for the copper!
Hi John,
My earlier statement was that the paleolithic diet isn’t necessarily optimal for human health. I have several complaints, but I’m obviously not an expert on this topic.
1) There is not one single paleolithic diet, people ate according to what was available to them. So people’s diets were a function of geography and I assume people moved around so that diet was a function of time as well (more so than the annual variation). Which of the multitude of paleolithic diets is supposed to be the optimal one? It seems to me that all of this variation would result in humans being adaptable in our diets and that a large range of diets would suffice. Of course the point of the paleolithic diet might just be a very general sketch such as 65% animal and 35% plant. There is considerable debate about these numbers, but there is no doubt that humans ate animals and that it was a significant contribution to their diets.
2) Evolution should favor an adaptable human, and I fail to see how it could result in a single optimal diet. Moreover it seems very difficult for evolution to select strongly for diet. All that’s needed is for the diet to be adequately nourishing to reach reproductive age, so a diet that would result in a lot of hip fractures in old age would not get selected against.
3) Early humans did not live as long as we do so even if the paleolithic diet was optimal for them it would not necessarily apply to us. We also lead very different lives, as Mark points out in his blue print, so the diet that fueled that life might not work well for our lives.
4) We have no idea how healthy the paleolithic human was, perhaps their diet wasn’t really the best thing going… perhaps it was… but we don’t know. We also don’t know the specifics of their diet, in fact we don’t know much about the general properties either. Of course they didn’t eat the grains that we now do, but to what extent and what combinations they ate other foods is not known well.
5) We evolved from apes and apes eat mostly vegetables, aside from some insects and the rare occasion for meat. It depends on the species of ape. At some point in evolutionary history this started to change and we started to hunt animals regularly and that became an important contribution to our diet. It would be interesting to find out how much evolution occurred between then and now, and just how attuned to animal flesh our bodies are.
Schaef is quite right in pointing out that the moral question is not addressed, regardless of how good for you the paleolithic diet is. Vegans thrive on a plant based diet and their health is at least as good as omnivores so there isn’t much concern in my mind about which is optimal. If you want to consume, on a nutrient level, what paleolithic humans did you can do that on a vegan diet too. You can not eat grains and make sure to eat lots of protein and saturated fats. Soy beans are very similar to meat in their protein content since most of the carbohydrate they contain is not accessible to us when we eat them.
I have looked around on pubmed (an archive of medical research papers) and found multiple studies supporting the health benefits of whole grains. I just typed ‘whole grains’ into the search box. There is no doubt that refined carbs are bad for us and are certainly contributing to the bad health of north americans. Processed foods often contain a lot of refined carbs which is one reason to avoid them.
The paper Mark quotes is a comparative study of different weight loss diets, so it really isn’t very useful in this discussion. I also want to stress that I’m not saying the paleolithic diet is not healthy, it may very well be healthy, but I don’t think it’s any more healthy than any number of healthy diets. There are healthy vegans, healthy raw foodists, healthy vegetarians, healthy omnivores and I hear stories of healthy frutarians. So I think it’s more a question of eating a healthy combination of things you consider food.
Given that there are no health problems associated with going vegan the moral problem presented by killing a nonhuman being should be reason enough to stop eating them. The only vitamin you need to concern yourself with is B12 and that can either be planned for or supplemented. Needing to supplement a vitamin is not reason to exploit beings that are in every relevant way like us.
Hi Jon,
Thanks for the response. The more I read of Mark’s Daily Apple in the archives, the more my Spidey sense tingles. The Low-carb, Mediterranean, and low fat diet comparison was touted by him as a nail in the coffin for his diet, yet over at Junkfood science, she tore apart the study and boiled it down to there being no significant differences in results. I’m finding it seems like he is picking and choosing little bits of information that help him promote his diet.
A final concern that I have yet to previously mention is that of Pam. Any stories about how difficult it is for a Vegan to live comfortably with an omnivore? Keep in mind that she has ulcerative colitis which prevents her from eating many of the staples of a Vegan diet: beans, whole grains, many fruits and vegetables.
Hey John,
Yea I’m not sure what the Daily Apple is really about either, he has a store where he recommends the supplements he’s selling for various desired outcomes. He also seems to take an extreme position (i.e. all carbs are bad) while criticizing people for doing the same thing (e.g. all fat is bad). He’s not being grossly misleading but it seems he’s constantly erring on the side of his biased view instead of being completely honest. We didn’t eat grains so all grains are bad is a seriously unfounded statement given the amount of health benefits whole grans have been credited for.
I like Junkfood science I tend to enjoy her criticisms and they’re often entertaining if not informative. That being said I didn’t really agree with her processed food article. I did on some level, I mean obviously canned/frozen food is processed but when people say processed food is bad I don’t think they mean chickpeas or frozen corn. I guess the problem is how unspecific the term processed is, and that part of her post I fully agree with.
She also says that everything is made of chemicals therefore chemicals on ingredient lists are not bad. I found this to be misleading at best. Manufactured chemicals are not the same as chemicals available in food. Our bodies process food differently than isolated chemicals, that’s why vitamin supplements often give several times more of a given vitamin than is recommended. In food these vitamins are accessible to us in a way isolated synthetic vitamins are not. The bio-accessibility of nutrients is a very important aspect of nutrition and diet, you can’t just isolate every nutrient and take a handful of pills instead of eating food!
In fact there have been several studies showing that supplementing certain vitamins instead of getting them from the diet is actually harmful to your health! Which is in direct contradiction to her statement that your body can’t tell the difference. For more info on that I suggest listening to a recent podcast from Compassionate Cooks that talks about supplements.
When she concluded by saying that cheez whiz is a healthful food I was beside myself… I mean come on… look at the nutritional info it’s got calories (protein, carbs, and fat) but other than that it’s devoid value. Cheez whiz is not a part of a healthy diet anymore than MacDonalds is. I mean a Big Mac is made of chemicals and has calories so I guess it’s healthy. I still can’t figure out if she was trying to be tongue-in-check when discussing cheez whiz as healthy or if she meant what she said.
When I say processed foods are bad I mean the ones that are rich in sugar and refined carbs, or are high in hydrogenated fats, or don’t contribute any nutritional value aside from the fact that you can digest them. White bread, faux meat, juices with added sugar, anything with high fructose corn syrup, these are the kinds of processed foods I don’t like. Maybe the problem is my fault… I should be calling these foods junk food not processed food, since saying the latter isn’t very specific since a lot of processed foods are in fact very healthy.
Anyway… that was kind of tangential. Tom might comment on life with an omnivore, although he doesn’t live with his yet, he did marry her :) So he must have a game plan in mind and think that it’s doable. I know a lot of people do this so it must possible. I don’t know anything about colitis, but looking up colitis and vegan on google resulted in this page, which discusses using a vegan diet to help treat/cure colitis. I’m not sure what to make of the site since they have a book to sell and if the claim were true I can’t image why you wouldn’t have heard about it from your doctor. Except that doctors are usually better at prescribing medication than they are are providing nutritional info. Anyway you might want to look at that site.
Further google research found some unsubstantiated claims that vegetarian eating would improve colitis. I found a pub med article that substantiated this claim. However there doesn’t seem to be any research on treating colitis with a veg*n diet. There was a study on the risk factors associated with diet, but I couldn’t get the full article so I don’t know what range of diets they sampled, or how they characterized the diets, but they found no significant correlations. All the treatment papers I can find deal with a long list of drugs, and don’t even mention diet at all. Maybe this is why your doctor would not have suggested eating less meat despite there being evidence that that would help.
Another study shows that relapse might be affected by diet, but I haven’t looked at the details. Pub med is a pretty great resource you might want to poke around there for more info.
Thanks for checking about colitis a bit Jon. I managed to snag both of those studies you linked to and will show them to Pam. I also did a skim of Google with “Vegan colitis” as a query and turned up buddy with the $25 book. That seems a tad sketchy but I’m open to the possibility that a change in diet could benefit a disorder of the digestive system.
As for myself, I am going to go the Vegan route. I picked up some nutritional yeast (which is tasty) and plan to make a “cheese” sauce with it to see how that tastes. We will be purchasing reduced quantities of meat, milk, eggs, and cheese until we figure out what to do with Pam. Obviously this isn’t the best solution, but it’s as far as we can go right now.
exciting!
I agree, that’s very exciting! I hope that it helps Pam too, that would be great. It certainly does make sense that diet would affect colitis.
I have a hit and miss relationship with “cheese” sauce, I’ve found that I like it more now than I did the first time I had it. I also find I like it a lot more inside things than as the main feature as a dipping sauce. We made calzones with a “cheese” sauce and they were incredible… yumm!
I hope you have fun making delicious vegan food. There are quite a lot of recipes online at vegweb.com if you’re in search of ideas. I also think that “La Dolce Vegan” is perhaps the most useful cookbook since there are tons of great and easy recipes inside. I also suggest reading “Becoming vegan” at some point since it talks all about vegan nutrition.
Notes on the Introduction to “Introduction to Animal Rights”
page xxxv
Francione argues that a moral view should presumably be adopted when supported by better reasons than others. However, he neglects to define exactly what constitutes a “better” reason. This line of reasoning seemed to me very similar to the scientific method with one important difference. In science we try to come up with explanations for the natural world based on objective observations and rigorous experiments. The nature of morals however (at least as it appears to me) is that they are mainly subjective things that are created as a part of the culture you happen to live in. For example, I’d be in deep shit if I caned one of my disobedient students in Canada, but it is morally acceptable to do so in some African schools.
He then goes on to say that we can offer many reasons why the Holocaust is blatantly immoral, yet misses the fact that we likely only consider it to be so because Germany did not win. If they had and then took over the world, we would most likely think that the killing of X number of Jews was necessary to cleanse the Earth (or some other such rubbish).
My thinking so far is that morals come about from a numbers game and things are not likely to change until you get 51% of the people on your side or have a much more vocal minority.
Again, this has a disclaimer that Francione clears these matters up later on, so feel free to say “keep reading.”
Delicious tip: get some olive oil going in a frying pan, toss in some onions, garlic, green pepper, and small tofu chunks. Heat until the tofu gets some color and put 4-5 big spoonfulls of salsa in the mix. Heat until some of the water from the salsa steams off and grind in some pepper. Spoon the tofu scramble mixture into wraps and serve for a great breakfast.
Sorry for usurping your comments Schaef,
Notes and comments on Chapters 1 and 2 for Introduction to Animal Rights
The Simon case study on page 4-5 is a good way to show that we don’t like being confronted with high levels of pain to animals.
I really liked his evolutionary argument why plants don’t feel pain. since pain is an indicator for an animal to avoid the cause of that pain and run away, it doesn’t make much sense for plants to develop that indicator if they can’t do anything about it. Though one could make the argument that some plants have developed defenses that prevent it’s destruction (ie. spines on cactii).
The rest of chapter 1 talks about animals for food (we like the taste of their flesh), hunting (it’s recreational), and entertainment (it’s entertainment), and goes to great lengths to show us the kinds of poor treatment that animals endure (and sometimes don’t).
On page 16 he basically dismisses the possibility that some people would live in areas where non-animal food sources are readily available. I don’t quite understand his statement: “…any such reliance on animal foods, must constitute a miniscule portion of the total consumption of animal foods. This seems like a redundant statement. Upon further reflection, I think it means that if such situations in the world exist, then those situations are a very small portion of the total use of animals for food worldwide. He offers no real additional information about this. Despite his willingness to share data on the horrors of animal food production, hunting, and animals for entertainment, you would think he could find a study that shows the number of isolated groups of peoples around the world who rely on animal products. However, I suspect that showing so would indirectly support the use of those animals, which is not his agenda.
On the same page. I will never beleive that eating meat/fish is bad for you. Over-eating meat to the point where consuming fruits and vegetables falls to the wayside is a completely different story. Saying that eating meat (in general) directly causes the high rates of obesity, heart disease, and diabetes in those who eat a Western Diet, ignores all the other lifestyle choices that those same people make. The evidence for this can be seen in the “French Paradox”, where the French consume foods rich in saturated fat, yet have markedly lower rates of the diseases listed above. It is because the way they eat is very different that how typical North Americans dine. They stretch the meal into a lengthly procedure and think it rude to take seconds. Again, stating so would hurt his main points, so I can understand his exclusion.
For chapter 2, I especially liked his argument of causality where we assume that scientific breakthroughs would not have been possible without the use of animals. How do we know? He offers good alternatives for many “traditional” methods and it’s good to see that research labs seem to be getting on board with this since it makes so much more sense to use human analogs/computer modelling rather than
try to extrapolate results between species. It was also interesting to see that there is resistance to this since it is such big business to provide labs with animals
This is a bit of a nitpick, but on page 37 he states that redirecting funds from animal AIDS experiments to education about needle exchanges, condom use, and safe sex would (emphasis mine) reduce the number of new HIV cases. He can guess at this, but to say something like that with certainty is potentially misleading.
I liked how in Britain they haven’t used animals to teach upcoming doctors about surgery and the like for 100 years, yet we still consider them highly qualified (as we should) once they graduate.
Francione may get to this in later chapters, but something that bothers me so far, is that his argument likely won’t be persuasive to the masses. You can tell them all the horror stories you want about the treatment of animals, and most people will agree with you that that treatment needs to stop. However, it is much more difficult for people to see why mom and pop farms that “treat their animals right” without typical farm factory methods, are wrong. I think the Abolitionist movement needs to focus on explaining in a concise why, that makes sense to people, why keeping animals as property is wrong. If they do not, what will happen is that factory farms will be converted to “ideal” places for animals to be. If that new status quo is achieved, then I think it will be even harder to get people away from it. They would see animals being treated well, despite them being killed, and be very happy to dig into a 20pc bucket of KFC. I used to think, as many welfarists seem to do, that making the transition from factory farming to the more humane environments of the traditional farm would be a stepping stone to eliminate animals as food completely. However, I now agree with Francione that this would simply make more people comfortbale with eating meat and would not likely result in less animals used as food.
A big hurtle to this effect seems to be the language of the situation. The terms suffering and sentience used by Francione have different interpretations to the general public. Sentience being confused with sapience and suffering being associated with physical rather than emotional damage. People should work on cleaning up the language in this matter somehow so that the real issues when dealing with animals come through.
Hi Jon,
Great article! I especially like your comparison of cows and kittens. I am always so appalled when I meet hardcore meateaters who also love puppies–it just seems so irrational to me.
I still have a lot of problems with Pollan, but I have met so many people who were inspired to go vegetarian/vegan from his books. It’s amazing how different our reactions can be!
I appreciated all your comments on my blog–and meant to get back to you sooner. Keep up the great blogging!
Carynne :)
I’ve been thinking more about Francione’s argument and something that Pam mentioned about it made me think of the following.
Francione’s argument seems to stem from the idea of treating like interests in the same way. He happens to choose the like interest of sentience, which is defined by him (an others) as the ability to feel pain and suffer. It seems to me that it wouldn’t have mattered what common interest there was, so long as there was one. The one he chooses is a good one for supporting his argument.
I thought about this more. What is the reason that humans and non-human animals can feel pain? One could say that it is an evolutionary development designed so that they can identify situations that might infringe upon their interest in continuing to exist until natural biological functions end their lives and to escape said situation. They can escape since animals tend to be mobile. Thus one could argue that we share an additional common interest with other animals in continuing to exist until natural biological factors terminate us.
So going by Francione’s argument that we should treat like interests in the same way, we could also use this to exclude our exploitation of animals. However, let’s look at plants. I completely agree that it does not make sense for plants to have developed the ability to feel pain since they are not mobile and can not escape from that situation and that the ability to feel pain would be a useless evolutionary feature. That does not mean that plants (neglecting human interference for the time being in selectively breeding plants that are more desirable to us) have not developed defense systems, such as thorns, poisons, etc… to protect themselves from maintaining their interest to continue to exist until natural biological functions end their existence. Using this logic, I would say that plants have an interest in continuing to exist until biological functions take over and kill them, an interest shared by human and non-human animals. Thus if we are to treat like cases in the same way, we should not raise plants for the sole purpose of food (gardens), sport (flower competitions), or entertainment (massive public flower gardens). At this point, I feel that by making the deciding point sentience and by extension, evolutionary mobility, the factor in deciding what to eat, it seems rather arbitrary.
The extension of my argument above is that basically we can’t eat anything and if we were to eat something, we should have no preference over what to eat if we are to treat all things with similar interests in the same way.
I need this point explained away before I can fully accept Francione’s logic.
Hi John,
Francione doesn’t talk about sentience because it just happens to support his argument. There are many similarities between humans and animals, and I guess you can find similarities between humans and plants too. The point is that no characteristic other than sentience is relevant to the question of whether we should exploit animals (or plants).
Evolution has produced plants with self-defense systems that help them stay alive, but I’m sure you agree that a plant with thorns is much different from a self-conscious being who experiences pleasure and pain. To say that there is any like interest between an animal and a plant is absurd – plants have no interests, just like rocks have no interests. In other words, it doesn’t matter to the plant whether it is alive or not. As Francione points out, if you take a piece of hot metal and touch a pig with it, the pig will squeal and try to get away from you, but if you do the same thing to a plant nothing happens.
Hi John,
I guess Jen beat me to it… but I also touch on your earlier comments which I’ve labeled based on the comment number.
comment #33
This goes back to the point of language you brought up in comment 31. Sentience as it is used by Francione is the ability to feel; both emotionally and physically. If a being is not sentient then they can have no interests. Sentience is a prerequisite for having desires and preferences. Saying that a plant has an interest in living out its life makes no sense because a plant is not sentient, they can’t have interests at all. It’s like saying that a rock has an interest in not being made into asphalt. It’s true that plants are organic organisms, but they lack anything resembling a nervous system or brain, are you trying to claim that plants actually do have desires and preferences?
Comment #30
I don’t believe that morality needs to be subjective. I think part of the reason that people assume morality is subjective is because a lot of moral thoughts are derived from religion which is an arbitrary and inadequate foundation for moral beliefs. For example one of the ten commandments is ‘thou shalt not kill’ but this rule is not defended or logically justified. Why shouldn’t I kill?
Morality is a system of evaluating what you ought to do (or ought not to do) based on the desires of moral agents. In the context of rights theory, there are often a set of axioms that are adopted and then the consequences of the moral theory follow logically from those base assumptions.
It might be that case that cultural indoctrination can lead you astray from sound moral reasoning, but it does not mean that sound moral reasoning does not exist. If the Nazi party had taken over the world it would not have meant that what they were doing is morally correct. Morality is not a majority game! If you get 50 pedophiles together in a room the fact that 100% of the people in that room agree that having sex with children is acceptable does not make it so.
Perhaps our assumption is that sentient beings have an interest in not being exploited, owned, killed and made to suffer. Then we must ask what are the implications of this, clearly we’ve all agreed that one conclusion is that humans’ interests deserve consideration. The case for veganism is to reconsider the fallacious logic that limits this to humans. All sentient beings, including nonhuman animals, have these interests and we have no morally relevant way to distinguish between nonhuman and human. We must respect the interests of all sentient beings.
comment #31
I don’t think I understand your comment on isolated groups that might be eating nonhuman animals. There are isolated groups that engage in ritual homicide and cannibalism, does that make these activities morally correct? If we can convince these people that eating animals is wrong maybe they will seek out alternatives, perhaps having to modify where or how they live. I don’t think people relying on animal products today is an argument against veganism, anymore than the economic dependency of slave owners was an argument against abolishing slavery.
There are many confounding factors when assessing diet, as you point out, such as lifestyle choices, age, environmental factors, etc… Perhaps the best study in the world is the China Study, which has done the most complete and detailed analysis of an enormous group of people, which you need to do if you’re going to statistically sample enough lifestyles. The study shows overwhelming evidence that the best diet for overall health and well being is a whole food plant-based diet. Furthermore they show that reducing meat consumption from 10% to 0% has significant benefits. Animal flesh is not healthy, it increases the risks for many diseases. That is a fact.
I think there are examples of safe injection sites and condom distribution and education programs that have been shown to be effective in combating STDs. So I think Francione’s statement that funds going to these programs would make a difference is perfectly legitimate.
I really appreciate your point on language and the difficulty of getting through to ‘the masses’. You are absolutely right that sentience is often interpreted incorrectly, and that emotional suffering is not always considered. This isn’t helped by a lot of people (mostly confused vegetarians) constantly talking about physical suffering in factory farms. The abolitionist has a dilemma in this regard, on one hand issues of physical suffering are important and can help to get people’s attention, on the other it is not the root of the problem and can not be offered as the fundamental issue with our use of nonhuman animals. I think it’s important to discuss these issues of extreme abuse because it can open people up to the idea that something is very wrong with our relationship with nonhumans, this can be a great stepping stone for a detailed discussion of why using nonhumans is wrong. This really boils down to vegan education! We need a lot more of it.
Jen,
This might be a bit contrary, but if you put a hot poker to a brain dead human or a brain dead monkey, nothing is going to happen either. As well, if you take a plant whose petals are spread out and put it in a cold room (or something) it can react and close up. Plants feel and react to external effects.
To the brain dead point. It seems to me that by definition an organism that is brain dead would no longer be sentient which would then exclude it from the moral community.
As well, if we are to accord all sentient beings the right not to be treated as property and to not feel pain and suffer, the fact we have police to protect those interests in us, means that we would be morally obligated to protect those things in non-humans if we are to treat like situations the same. So why shouldn’t we protect animals from other animals?
Someone who is brain-dead is unconscious and cannot respond to pain, and from my understanding has no chance of ever regaining consciousness. The body would have to be kept alive using machines to keep the heart and lungs working, etc. If someone is not conscious and has no chance of recovering, they are not sentient and therefore have no interests. Doing something to the body that would cause pain to a regular sentient person, like touching it with a hot poker, would not be wrong (except maybe to other people you are offending by doing it). In most cases like this the decision has to be made to pull the plug anyway.
A plant responds to stimuli through a series of chemical reactions (or however biology works), but the plant doesn’t know that anything is happening to it because, like the brain-dead human, it is not conscious. The flower doesn’t decide to close up when you put it in a cold room any more than water decides to turn into an ice cube when you put it in the freezer. You might try to extend this reasoning to animals by saying that our responses to pain are just a series of biological reactions as well, but again the important difference is that we have consciousness. If you put me in a cold room, I will probably curl up in the corner and try to stay warm. On the other hand, I might choose to endure pain in some cases if I think it will benefit me, like when I go to the dentist for a root canal. Another example would be an animal going through the pain of gnawing off a paw that’s caught in a trap in order to get away. We can decide how we’re going to react to various stimuli – plants and other objects can’t.
As far as policing other animals, aside from the obvious practical problems with it, animals are not doing anything wrong when they eat each other. Its important to understand that just because something bad happens (ie. something bad happens to a gazelle when s/he is eaten by a lion) doesn’t mean that something immoral has happened (ie. someone purposely causes unnecessary harm to another person). We’re trying to stop interfering with the lives of other animals, not interfere more! Even the question of whether and how we should police each other (humans) is debatable and is an entirely different question, but it certainly has nothing to do with other animals who don’t even share our moral codes. The more I think about it, the more I realize I don’t really know what you mean by policing other animals… do you want to start giving lions the death penalty or lock them all up so they can’t eat anything in the first place?
The confusion might be coming from the statement that we should treat similar cases similarly. All we’re talking about here is how we can make morally consistent choices about our own actions, and we arrive at the conclusion that we should give all animals equal consideration when deciding whether to cause them harm. This doesn’t mean we’re going to start treating animals like humans in every way.
Thanks for the reply Jen. When I asked the questions in comment #36, I hadn’t read the FAQs from Francione’s site and end of book where he does address some of those points. I’ve since finished the book and it definitely made me think.
I guess my biggest issue was the interpretation of the word “interests” and what it really means.
Regarding comment #31: I was looking for clarification on what Francione meant about peoples that rely on animal products currently. As I said I think what he meant was that if there are people like this they represent a very small % of total worldwide animal use and shouldn’t be used to defend additional animal use. It was simply his wording I didn’t get.
I looked into the China Project. Are you talking about the actual study or the book by the same name? As this person seem’s to think (and backs it) that Dr. Campbell’s was pretty picky about the data he wished to talk about and seems to have a very anti-animal product bias in his work. I’ll try to find the original study and dig a bit deeper to see for myself.
Have you been keeping track of grocery costs? I think it might be more expensive than you think as when I was trying veganism hardcore out grocery bill jumped by about $20 a week to ~$70. It might have been a two week anomoly, but I would like to see your data. I will say that my rate of consumption of soy milk is much lower than regular milk (which I no longer buy for myself) so I am saving money there for sure. Plue less waste in milk cartons.
Despite my earlier statement about going the Vegan route, I do not think I will go as hardcore right away as the sudden switch has caused some friction between Pam and I. I plan to eat mostly a plant based diet and not get hung up on eating the occasional animal product. When making food for myself, I will look at non-animal products first as a preference, but am not going to get overly concerned with not eating animal products in other situations. I think eventually, by cooking vegan meals for both of us that she enjoys, Pam will come around (she really enjoyed the pancakes I made the other day). She’s not ready to make a full switch (and may never be). I realize that you will liken this to the “occasional rape” but my relationship with Pam is far more personally important to me than stopping the exploitation of animals. However, I will say that it is better than what most people are doing and even though that does not in any way justify animal exploitation, it reduces it, which I think is a positive thing. I will try my best, but am not making any promises. I think I am off to a good start by making a good batch of humus, homemade seitan, and chop suey with tofu. I hope that you both somewhat understand this position and I deeply appreciate the back and forth conversation about this very engaging topic.
Hey, I just wanted to say thank you for writing this article. I’ve not read The Omnivore’s Dilemma, but I’ve heard a lot about it, and some unclear criticism from other vegans (I’m vegan, and generally agree with Francione’s positions). Michael Pollan will soon be coming to my school to speak, and a lot of people here are fans of his writing. So, it’s good to see the some of the basic issues that vegans take with his writing, and why. I’m considering going to his talk and taking him to task on this, although he’s talking about his new book, so it may not be relevant.