I think I put as much thought, if not more, into my choice of eating meat. I think it is sad when the 4% don't listen to that objectively, but I think they can't, because they so firmly believe that their choices are the only right ones.
In my case, it is more honorable to eat meat mindfully, than it would be to become vegetarian (of any sort).

I don't understad the pithy omnivores who will chew rare cow with their mouths open and sneer when they discover I don't like it. Because I may choose not to eat meat for periods of time or not eat certain kinds of meat... my opinion differs from their own, apparently I haven't taken the appropriate amount of time/effort/care in coming to my own conclusions. And it's not just me, but anyone who still makes a choice to eat meat.

This is one of the reasons why it's difficult for me to take omnivores seriously. And when I say "omnivores", I mean the 4% who feel the need to vocally judge opposing choices based on "their" criteria, when in fact the criteria of judgements vary from person to person, and culture to culture.

Eating cow, pig, or horse are perfectly acceptable choices when it comes to diet. But it's not a choice for everyone. It's too bad that there are some omnivores out there who don't understand that.

*glare*

I'm just getting towards the end of the michael pollan book. I've been a veggie for 17 years but I've been eating fish for 7. I couldnt ever feel right about telling other people what they should be eating, but its hard sometimes when you know an animal has been treated so badly to produce your food. This whole thing has got me really confused about what I feel is morally acceptable to eat. If I could stomach meat, I'm sure I would eat free range pasture fed happy meat but it still makes me feel sick thinking about it.

I don't get your point Tara. Show me anywhere that I say that being an omnivore is superior to being a vegetarian.

The distinction, I think, has a lot to do with the difference between the notion of absolute moral wrong vs. costs and benefits.

You claim that you've weighed your meat-eating practices as much, or more, than most vegetarians. And you're probably right. You've probably carefully considered the costs and benefits of your actions. However, once somebody decides that something is an absolute moral wrong, why would they waste their time weighing costs and benefits?

To use a counterexample, would you allow a slaveholder in the antebellum South to tell you that they had considered abolishing slavery as much as you and decided it was ok? Of course not, because you think slavery is an absolute moral wrong.

Once one side takes the stand that something is an absolute moral wrong, there's nothing that argument will do to persuade them otherwise. You will never convince someone who is vegetarian on moral grounds to eat meat.

That said, I'm on the costs and benefits side. I like meat, and I will happily continue to eat it.

Great post, Kate!

I am an animal lover. I am also an animal eater. My body needs a certain amount of protein and though I try to get protein through many different sources, chicken and fish remain the best and healthiest source of protein for my body.

My body is reactive to soy and so I simply cannot use soy beans and tofu as alternate forms of gaining protein.

What's important is to eat what is the best and healthiest diet for you, and to do your best not to support harmful practices while you do so.

I know vegetarians who are fat because they still eat crap and junk food, and vegans who are constantly sick because they don't get all of the nutrients they need, just as I know meat eaters who have these same problems.

Clearly the choice to cut one type of food out of your diet does not confer any sort of magical health benefit or moral superiority on its own. Nor does it make one a hippie or a freak, on the other hand. It's just a choice and no matter which choice we make, there is still work to be done in ensuring our health and our morality. No one choice can do that for you.

You don't say that being an omnivore is superior to being a vegetarian.

My point was that it isn't just 4% of vegetarians who sneer at the omnivores. Some ominvores do it too, and not in retaliation. There is plenty of goading on both sides.

Unfortunately, it's the vocal minority that gives vegetarians the bad rap--we're not all crazy, blood-splashing, whale-boat-shackling, Anna-Wintour-hating terrorists! (Ok, I'll have to agree with the Anna Wintour part, though.)

But, on a leavening note, I get a lot of criticism about my choice not to eat meat, as well, and have been faced with violent, self-defensive reactions without any prompting from me whatsoever.

I do, however, respect meat-eaters who rear their own animals in a humane and just fashion--like Liz from Pocket Farm (http://www.pocketfarm.com/)

My only wish is that every person who chose to eat meat followed her example.

The sneering that goes on on both sides of the issue is regrettable and irritating. I would rather that people dialogue about what they eat and why they eat it, rather than getting all ego-laden over it and arguing which is "better" or "morally superior."

I do tend to think that there are morally superior ways of eating; however, I recognize that if I am trying to change another person's mind, the quickest way to close the door on that mind is to adopt a morally superior tone or claim that my position is the only morally defensible one.

That is often why I seduce people into eating local farm fresh foods, including pastured meats, by getting them to -taste- how good the stuff is. I don't preach--I let the food do it for me, and really, in using the rhetorical device of allowing the foods to speak for themselves, I have had a better effect on people.

Now, that said--the "seduction by taste" method--or the "hedonist's gambit" as I sometimes call it, tends to only work face to face. So, when I am writing in the 'net, I try to work from a point of rationality and logic, rather than from an extreme emotional position, recognizing as I do so that many others make their food decisions based on emotional consideration.

Even when I speak about ethics, I try to keep moral judgements as non-personal and non-directed as possible--simply because I have better luck getting people to listen to my points of view that way.

Argument of moral considerations is rarely productive, but sometimes, plain old dialogue and conversation is.

I meant "overly defensive," not "self defensive"--otherwise it'd sound like I received a huge karate chop on the shoulder blade or something ;)

Kate, the reason that we 4 percent are so vocal about being vegetarian is that it is a matter of ethics, not just a dietary decision. The point is that making a choice to eat meat means making a choice to support an industry that causes 26 billion animals a year to suffer in ways that no compassionate person would stand for if it were to happen to their dog or cat.

Unfortunately, you can't reasonably answer this point by saying "it's my choice to do this and I can do what I want" any more than you could say that about turning a blind eye to child abuse or racism, or any activity that causes profound suffering. Yes, it is your choice, but you could also make a choice to promote kindness and compassion to animals, and with so much misery at stake, we 4 percent are going to encourage people to make that choice as long and as loud as we have to.

As a former vegetarian of 9 years, followed by vegan of 3 years, until 1 year ago, I have this to say:

1) If you're vegetarian, and you ever want to travel the world, it sucks to be you. Pity that you're gonna miss out on a lot of tasty cultural food that has meat in it. (This is, incidentally, why I gave up my vegetarianism... because I didn't want to eat salad and beans & rice for months on end. Selfish? Maybe.)

2) I hate it when vegetarians say "Well, if we just took all the grass/grain/etc that we fed to animals and fed it directly to humans, there would be more food to go around!" (ie. The law of thermodynamics).

First of all this is a bullshit argument, because animals can graze on land that is absolutely unsuitable for cultivating crops for humans. Unless you want to start farming steep hillsides and rocky terrain. Good luck.

This is the reality in most of the rest of the world -- by eating animals, humans are harnessing solar energy (through the plants that the animals eat) that would otherwise NOT be available for consumption.

(Of course this argument doesn't really apply to CAFO's)

When I'm home in the states I try not to eat meat that I know most likely came from a factory farm. But sometimes, it happens. The tide is changing though, primarily through Whole Foods and the resurgence of Farmer's Markets... I think in another 5 years we will see organic, true pastured meats available in many more places.

I respect everyone's choice, no matter what you choose to eat. I'm just tired of people who try to force their beliefs on others (this applies to everything).

During the time that I was a vegetarian, I never really gave my family any shit for eating meat. I would occasionally try to educate them so they were armed with more facts, but never did I tell them "Please don't eat that steak in front of me" etc. I was mainly concerned about their health due to antibiotics, growth hormones, BSE, cholesterol, etc... not that they shouldn't eat meat because it's "wrong".

So, to each his own.

Ben

Jack said, "The point is that making a choice to eat meat means making a choice to support an industry that causes 26 billion animals a year to suffer in ways that no compassionate person would stand for if it were to happen to their dog or cat."

Okay, so what about those of us who eat meat and still don't support CAFO's? Those of us who eat meat from pastured animals are -not- supporting the industrialized meat farming industry, so how is our diet unethical?

And speaking of cats--you -do- know that cats are carnivores, and -must- eat meat, and therefore, some other animals have to die for them to eat, right? So, where do you stand on that issue?

Personally, my cats and I dine very happily on meats produced outside of the typical feedlot situations, and I don't see an ethical problem with that.

I agree with Ben, that by grazing animals on marginal lands that cannot be farmed, humans are utilizing the solar energy that we could otherwise not use by consuming the meat, eggs and dairy products of these animals. There is nothing unethical or inherently wasteful or environmentally unsound (unless the land gets overgrazed) about such sustainable animal or grass farming practices.

My problem with the 4% of vocal vegans is that they tend to see no other ethical alternative than the one they themselves have made, and will not see any other point of view as viable.

In other words, they are as easy to talk with as those Fundamentalist Christians who take the view that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

I think this blog item stinks of relativism, seeming to assert that "everyone has their opinions" they be accepted with equal weight so that everyone can understand everything that everyone else does. It has to be the most frustrating type of argument to hear, and I feel it is so often used as a cop-out in the vegetarian debate.

Everyone has their opinions, has their right to them, and I never assume that someone who I feel is on the "wrong" side hasn't thought it out. And many opinions should be respected or at least given consideration. That said, I do think that vegetarianism is the most morally respectable way to approach a diet, and I do think this item stinks of something else -- hypocrisy.