How to Make a Healthy Snack
McBites = Modern McNuggets?
Slow Cooker Recipes
When Should Bars Cut You Off?
How to Scrape a Vanilla Bean
Best Riffs on Hot Chocolate
We recently blogged the Food & Wine story on the role of grass-fed, sustainable meat in the conversion of some vegetarians into (cautious) carnivores.
Skeptical true-believers have risen to the challenge. In a highly cogent rant over at On Human-Nonhuman Relations, Roger Yates writes about the conversion of Mollie Katzen (of The Moosewood Cookbook):
So—what’s missing here? ANIMAL RIGHTS is missing. There’s a little hint of it when Katzen states: ‘For people who are against eating meat because it’s wrong or offensive to eat animals, even the cleanest grass-fed beef won’t be good enough.’ Katzen, in this, is right—but I wonder if she knows the reason why she’s right? Just in case she’s an avid reader of this blog, I’ll let her in on the big secret: those who think it’s wrong are likely to believe that nonhuman animals are rightholders and eating their dead bodies is a rights violation. Cleanliness of the meat—whatever that means anyway—is not the issue.
So, not surprisingly, ethical (or “ethical”) meat hasn’t ended the debate; it has complicated it.
An equally or even more radical view (that predates the Food & Wine article) comes from Gary L. Francione of the pro-veg blog Animal Rights: The Abolitionist Approach. He argues that convincing nonvegans to move toward “humane” meat is actually a step in the wrong direction, because you’ve implied that they can satisfy their moral obligations without completely ceasing the consumption of animal-derived products.
[Y]ou can be absolutely certain that if you tell such a person that they do not have to go vegan to satisfy their moral obligations to animals, she won’t. If you tell people in this group that it’s acceptable to eat cage-free eggs, or ‘happy’ meat, or that it’s morally acceptable for them to be ‘conscientious omnivores,’ that is precisely what they will do and all that they will do.
All or nothing; absolute moral purity or total dirty stinking sin. Why bother taking steps toward goodness when only holy perfection is acceptable?
Utopian, sure. Fanatic, perhaps. But don’t most of us have some issues that we brook no compromise on? Capital punishment? Abortion? Torture? War? Ford versus Chevy?
Chance are good if you are reading this, you are not an Eskimo. You live in a modern society where abundant plant foods are available year round. You have a choice between plant foods, which cause minimal suffering, and animal foods, which cause tremendous suffering. For individuals with plenty of choices, the decision to kill animals--over 10 billion a year in the US--can only be justified by...+READ
Chance are good if you are reading this, you are not an Eskimo. You live in a modern society where abundant plant foods are available year round. You have a choice between plant foods, which cause minimal suffering, and animal foods, which cause tremendous suffering. For individuals with plenty of choices, the decision to kill animals--over 10 billion a year in the US--can only be justified by taste, habit, or culture. Animals think and feel. They feel pain and fear. Have you never felt pain and fear? Would you kill your dog and eat it? Why not spare animals when you have the choice? Just because you crave a passing taste sensation? There are sublimely good plant foods out there. Have some of those instead.-COLLAPSE
It seems to me that it's all about good taste, both metaphorically and literally.
First, it's simply wrong to unnecessarily torture others, whether they're animals or humans. Second, doing so results in bad meat. Happy meat is tasty meat. The stress caused by close confinement, bad diet, and mishandling is reflected in the texture, taste, and nutritional value of factory-farmed meat. I've seem...+READ
It seems to me that it's all about good taste, both metaphorically and literally.
First, it's simply wrong to unnecessarily torture others, whether they're animals or humans. Second, doing so results in bad meat. Happy meat is tasty meat. The stress caused by close confinement, bad diet, and mishandling is reflected in the texture, taste, and nutritional value of factory-farmed meat. I've seem some pretty solid research that proves it. D'Artagnan, a natural meat company, has links to some on their site at www.dartagnan.com/prodinfo.asp.
Then there's the no-hormone, no-antibiotic aspect of "happy meat." Periodically, the Center for Disease Control (CDC) issues warnings about excess intake of antibiotics and its effect on the immune system.
I think that meat raised ethically, without hormones and with no antibitoics, meets the needs of those of us whose primary concern is eating healthy stuff. For those that base their lifestyle on animal rights issues, happy meat's not going to cut it. To say that there should be no discussion about happy meat with anyone -- vegan, vegetarian, or happy-to-be-carnivores -- is just plain censorship and has no place in the debate.-COLLAPSE
I am one of the ex-vegetarians they're talking about. I was motivated by health concerns and the heavy environmental toll taken by factory farms. I have recently begun eating free-range locally produced chicken and bison.
I do not believe that it is inherently wrong to eat animals. Therefore this approach is completely ethically consistent for me, and I'm happy with it.
Many people don't have the luxury of popping into Whole Foods for an Amy's vegan rice bowl. They have no choice but to live off the land which includes hunting and fishing to get enough protein and vitamins in their diet. The Inuit Eskimo are not going to give up their seal and whale meat and switch to tofu. Eating meat is very much part of a population's cultural heritage.
Well, aren't there vegetarians who are such because of the environmental concerns, and about sustaining the ecosystem? Wouldn't this meat allow them to eat it without giving up their beliefs?
No kind of meat will appease a "meat is murder" vegetarian.