| Saturday, January 10, 2009 |
|
|
Thoughts on the Morality of Meat Eating
By Monica @ 10:50 AM   
There are a few commenters that have left some witty or otherwise enjoyable comments in one of Dr. Eades' most recent posts. These comments have to do with Michael Pollan's personal prescription for a healthy diet:
Though I loved Michael Pollan’s “The Omnivore’s Dilemma”, I avoided reading his latest book “In Defense of Food”, mainly because I was turned off by the mantra “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” Sounded like the usual dogmatic nonsense to me.
Then there's this, from a different commenter:
I modified it a little: “Meat food, Not too lean, Mostly leaf plants”
I think you can see where this is going. Now this, from yet another person in the same thread:
“Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” Sounds like a living hell to me. If you don’t live forever it will certainly feel like it. Someone–I think it was MSNBC–ran a contest for viewers to come up with their own 2-3-2 guide to eating. Winner: “Ate plants. Lots of them. Still hungry.” These comments above are telling. I, too, expressed concerns in a previous piece that this "eat mostly plants" schtick seems to be the take-home message of Pollan's work, rather than the other excellent points he so often makes.
There's a reason I spend so much time on the nutritional myths of meat on this blog, and that is because there are various motivations to attack meat in our society. No one out there wants to outlaw vegetable eating for the sake of vegetable rights, human health, or the environment. There are definitely problems with the way meat is produced. Dr. Eades has pointed that out himself on at least one occasion, and he echoes my own thoughts on the industrial production of meat. However, recognizing those problems and unpleasantries doesn't mean we have to fall down the "fat is evil" rabbit hole or become vegans. That's why I spend a lot of time on the meat issue, and would likely still do so apart from my personal dietary preferences.
I've tried to treat the issue of meat eating and meat production objectively on this blog. I firmly believe that humans need meat for optimal nutrition but also believe they should be completely free to avoid it if they so choose. Unfortunately, that's not the view of so many vegetarians, vegans, animal rights activists, and environmentalists who want to force their select foods on others through the law by outlawing meat. This article, written by a farmer, is a good analysis of such concerns.
Defending meat doesn't mean defending ignorance or even widespread practices. In fact, people should be fully aware of what is required to produce their food and far too many are ignorant about it, willfully or not. However, there's a crucial distinction between revealing the truth about meat production in the United States today and claiming that it's a universal ethical issue. Food choices are particularly not a completely free will choice so long as the government influences farm and food policy, makes unhealthy products of all types cheaper, and restricts access to certain foods through various methods.
That shouldn't be taken as any kind of support for Confined Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) that result in sick animals, bacterial resistance, and obnoxious odors and water pollution for local residents. Diana wrote an excellent article about feedlot production yesterday and some of the potential free market solutions to this problem. Personally, I think feedlots would remain with us even in a free market if consumer demand doesn't shift, but I think there would be a natural tendency for them to be smaller without the EQIP program. Spending on EQIP has risen dramatically each year since the program's inception in 1996.
If a resident sues a local CAFO, all the owner has to do is apply for an EQIP grant to clean up the pollution. That's morally wrong. It's also an indication that the current cost of grain-fed feedlot beef does not reflect what the true market price should be. I don't believe that means that grass-fed meats would be excessively more expensive in a free market, though. USDA inspection regulations are much more costly to smaller producers that are producing grass fed meat. Those regulations, too, need to go. They would dramatically cut the cost of locally and humanely raised meats.
Michael Pollan largely agrees that CAFOs should bear the cleanup costs themselves without being propped up by taxpayers. But here's where he goes wildly wrong:
The government should also throw its support behind putting a second bar code on all food products that, when scanned either in the store or at home (or with a cellphone), brings up on a screen the whole story and pictures of how that product was produced: in the case of crops, images of the farm and lists of agrochemicals used in its production; in the case of meat and dairy, descriptions of the animals’ diet and drug regimen, as well as live video feeds of the CAFO where they live and, yes, the slaughterhouse where they die. The very length and complexity of the modern food chain breeds a culture of ignorance and indifference among eaters. Shortening the food chain is one way to create more conscious consumers, but deploying technology to pierce the veil is another.
It's very frustrating to see someone like Pollan nail the problem (government interference in agriculture) and call for a "solution" of yet more government interference. It's particularly frustrating since he is so widely read and people then bandy about these ideas without thinking critically about them. I simply cannot agree to the "deployment of technology", which means the deployment of my money, which means the deployment of legalized theft, to "educate" other consumers about their food. Too many Americans agree with this erroneous line of reasoning that yet more government programs are the solution to all of our ills.
I don't like feedlot practices, either. That's why I attempt to sponsor local producers so that I know exactly how my food was produced and where it came from. I certainly don't need a "live video feed" to tell me about the local farm I've visited or the local slaughterhouse where the animal is killed. To force me to pay for an incredibly expensive system in an attempt to educate others about their food is morally wrong.
In any case, can acknowledgment of the reality of meat production really be forced on an individual? It cannot, no matter how much money is spent. Evasion of reality is morally wrong but no one can force a mind, and too often such "public education" projects designed to do just that only result in indifference and resentment rather than the desired "educational" goals. People either wish to be educated about their food or they do not -- besides the more fundamental point that it's not the government's job to do so. If consumers do wish to be informed, there are far better sources of education than an expensive government program.
Further, a picture is not an argument. Should the Type II diabetic in the middle of Windsock, Nebraska -- with only one grocery store around for miles on end -- feel guilty at the cash register for choosing feedlot bacon over pasta when he sees a live video feed of a slaughterhouse? Morality is contextual. This reader over at Eades' blog hits it straight on:
At the end of this work (Omnivore's Dilemma) he moralizes extensively after shooting a feral pig. Absent was any recognition that killing is sometimes a necessity. He would have felt differently if he had to feed a hungry family.
While I don't agree with everything said in this essay, this statement from Garrett Hardin in Tragedy of the Commons is appropriate:
In passing, it is worth noting that the morality of an act cannot be determined from a photograph. One does not know whether a man killing an elephant or setting fire to the grassland is harming others until one knows the total system in which his act appears. "One picture is worth a thousand words," said an ancient Chinese; but it may take ten thousand words to validate it. It is as tempting to ecologists as it is to reformers in general to try to persuade others by way of the photographic shortcut. But the essence of an argument cannot be photographed: it must be presented rationally -- in words.
Update: 12PM, fixed some typographical errors and added a link.
Labels: Ethics, Individual Rights
|
 E-mail Monica
 PermaLink
|
|
2 Comments:
if you did scientific, unbiased research, as i have, you would find that meat is not necessary for optimal nutrition. in fact, long-term vegetarians are more fit, more active, less prone to numerous disease including several types of cancer, and live an average of 3 years longer.
Also, you claim that eating meat should not be considered a universal ethical issue when in fact it must be. The cold hard truth is that killing a sentient being (which pigs and cows undoubtedly are) in order to satiate a desire rather than a need cannot be deemed anything but wrong.
If the village needs to kill their 8 year old pig because there was a drought, so be it. But when a 260 pound 13 year old buys 4 big macs because his mother thinks she's saving money (which is entirely false, try buying beans in bulk) and the public education system is too inert to include accurate environmental education, someone has failed. In fact, everyone has failed. society has failed. our treatment of our animal brethren will leave the human race starving, perishing of thirst, suffering from neurological disorders (those fumes from CAFOS are more than obnoxious, they have been definitively linked neurological disorders and death in local residents) and our coastal cities underwater.
Eating meat unnecessarily is wrong. there's no two ways about it. And industrializing the raising of animals is more than wrong, it's satanic.
I'm not going to argue with your values, since they're your values. I don't believe in the existence of a satan or god(s). My morality comes from determining what is best for my mind and body.
If you did scientific, unbiased research, as I have, you would find that there is no traditional culture subsisting solely on plant foods that attains optimum health. That research was done by Weston Price many decades ago and recorded in his excellent book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration. For more on the facts of human evolution and what humans have eaten for 99.5% of their evolutionary history, see here:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/03/what-can-evolution-teach-us-about-human.html
Deviate from the path of evolution at your own peril. That's your choice. However, don't be deluded into thinking that if you're a vegan or vegetarian that no animals are killed to provide your food. The cold hard truth is that even if you are a vegan, hundreds of animals must die to provide your food, including mammals:
http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html
I have a PhD in biology and used to pretty much be a lacto ovo vegetarian myself. You chose the wrong target. However, I'm not going to argue with you over the facts because you're driven by ideology, not facts. You're welcome to educate yourself about human evolution and nutrition and come back and have an intelligent, informed discussion with me, but my property is not going to become a soapbox for ignorance, bad attitude, or moralizing.
Post a Comment
<< Home