future of food
22 Feb 2010
Tofu-Gate
Shock: Last week's headlines about vegetarians being bad for the planet turn out to be completely distorted. Anna Greer looks at how hard the media had to work to get it so deliberately wrong
Conservative media around the world flipped a collective bird at "smug" vegetarians last week, claiming that a report commissioned by the World Wildlife Fund had found that changes to land use meant that a vegetarian diet was more harmful to the environment than eating meat.
The London Times reported that "Becoming a vegetarian can do more harm to the environment than continuing to eat red meat, according to a study of the impacts of meat substitutes such as tofu." The Daily Mail made even more sport out of the study’s findings, announcing that "Meat free diets can be bad for the planet."
Unfortunately plenty of other mainstream media outlets, including the Australian, gleefully picked up this reading. In an I-told-you-so editorial, titled "Tuck in and save the planet", the Australian again ridiculed the idea that eating a lot of meat was a problem: "Now a study for environmental lobbyists WWF, a body not usually noted for its conservative viewpoint, concedes our argument was correct. The study, by Cranfield University, found that turning vegetarian can do more environmental harm than eating red meat."
In fact the study found nothing of the kind.
The WWF’s study was titled How low can we go: An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions from the UK food system and the scope for reduction by 2050. After the reception the study got from the media its authors are not at all pleased at the way some editors have managed to turn their comprehensive research into a green light for business as usual.
"It’s a good example of journalism clearly failing to serve their readers honestly," one of the study’s authors, Dr Donal Murphy-Bokern, told newmatilda.com. "It leaves science in an impossible position."
What the study actually found was in fact very much in line with the broad argument made by environmentalists advocating a reduction in meat consumption. It found that the UK food system directly accounts for one fifth of the UK’s carbon footprint, and that if indirect consequences such as deforestation are taken into account this rises to almost a third. According to the report, emissions from the food system are dominated by the livestock sector, and livestock rearing alone accounts for 57 per cent of agricultural emissions. Not surprisingly, the study found that reducing livestock consumption is the single most effective way of reducing the carbon footprint of the UK food system. UK meat consumption is more than twice the world average, and three times that of developing countries on a per capita basis.
"Removing meat from the diet and replacing it with plant foods with similar protein contents reduces the carbon footprint of diet by one fifth," Dr Murphy-Bokern said. "Removing all animal products removes nearly a third."
Red meat currently produces almost four times the emissions of vegetables and legumes in the UK at 19,400 kilo-tonnes of CO2 equivalent emissions in primary production.
That’s what it said, but what came out the end of the media churner was: The emissions involved in producing meat substitutes are quite high, so eating meat is the green choice.
How could this happen?
Certainly, scientific studies are time-consuming to wade through and a busy journalist may make the odd slip-up, but that doesn’t explain how the media’s message differed so greatly from the study’s actual findings or intent.
The media failed to provide context and one would be forgiven for thinking that the study was merely a comparison of the environmental impact of a vegetarian versus an omnivorous diet, rather than a plan for reducing the global impact of the UK’s food system as a whole. Describing the study, as the Times did, as "a study of the impacts of meat substitutes such as tofu" is misleading to say the least.
But to really traduce the study’s purpose, the outlets had to go further and completely distort its findings.
"The Times article ignored the report’s main results and conclusions and focused on a minor part of the study that looked at some potential but unlikely consequences of reducing meat consumption for land use," Dr Murphy-Bokern said.
That was the relatively small part of the study that considered some of the ways the UK might change. Amid the clear message that reducing the reliance on livestock would significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the report raised concerns about how the UK’s meat-heavy diet would be substituted if meat consumption was reduced:
"Our analysis indicates that the effect of a reduction in livestock product consumption on arable land use will depend on how consumers compensate for lower intakes of meat, eggs and dairy products. A switch from beef and milk to highly refined livestock product analogues such as tofu and quorn could actually increase the quantity of arable land needed to supply the UK. In contrast, a broad-based switch to plant based products through simply increasing the intake of cereals and vegetables is more sustainable."
This was a warning that there could be unintended consequences to changes in the food chain if the policies governing it aren’t carefully considered. The study emphasised that more carbohydrates would be a preferable substitution to globally sourced soy-based analogues, which could lead to increased deforestation in countries that produce soy and quorn (also known as mycoprotein, a patented meat substitute made from processed fungus).
It’s a valid point — but a complex one — to note that some livestock can live off pasturelands which are not very suited to crops, making these lands productive for food where they might otherwise not be. The result is that some meat products use less arable land than that used for growing high-protein plant-based alternatives. Fair enough, but in focusing on this, the media missed the point and conveniently ignored the rest of the study.
An honest report of the study would have explained that it identifies food as a significant factor in overall greenhouse gas emissions and outlines the changes needed if the UK is to make a dent in its global greenhouse gas contribution. It also acts as an inventory of emissions from different areas of the food chain and it asks people to consider how their food consumption habits contribute to environmental problems.
"Food is comparable to transport and domestic energy consumption in terms of its role in personal carbon footprints," the report stated.
How low can we go? recommends holistic change to the food system along with changes at the policy level with regard to how food is produced and what is consumed. A reduction by 66 per cent in the amount of dairy and meat consumed in the UK diet is only one part of the study’s recommendations. The study also outlines improvements that can be made through the decarbonisation of energy and improved energy efficiency in agricultural systems, a conversion to organic farming, confining livestock production to land not suitable for other food production and adopting technology that reduces nitrous oxide emissions from soils and methane from farm animals. It finds that all these measures will be important factors in achieving an emissions reduction of 70 per cent by 2050.
You’d think there’d be plenty of interesting headlines in that lot but it seems that rather than reporting the study accurately, what the papers really wanted was a sexy headline that feeds into a growing backlash against environmentalism.
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Reddit
Newsvine
Facebook
Twitter
Discuss this article
To participate in the discussion Sign in or Register
this doesn;t really address the public health issues of these choices however. Growing evidence supports the view that increaseing carbohydrate intake in diet leads to diabetes and obesity. There remain significant concerns regarding some vegetable based proteins such as the hormones in Tofu that also raise questions about the sustainability of a vegetarian approach.
Surely encouraging people to eat less meat if the alternatives have health risks is highly irresponsible.
Is tofu really so highly processed that it costs more carbon to produce than beef? I could understand if such a finding was made for fake bacon. Tofu is a type of food which has been produced at home for centuries. A meat substitute would require more elaborate transformation in factories.
Hi GPN,
The report is here if you want to read it - http://www.wwf.org.uk/research_centre/?3678/How-low-can-we-go
It does taken into consideration dietary requirements and adequate replacements for a lower meat intake.
Excellent article by Anna Greer. Your namesake Germaine is one of my heroines.
I was appalled to see these further examples of more extreme right wing media obfuscation of the science.
I recently gave a lecture on Biofuel Famine and Biofuel Genocide to final year Agricultural Science and Economics students at a leading university. Here are some key snippets: “Conversion efficiency (kg grain to produce 1 kg gain in live weight): herbivorous farmed fish (e.g. carp, tilapia, catfish; less than 2), chicken (2), pork (4), and beef (7). In 2003, 37 percent of the world grain harvest, or nearly 700 million tons, used to produce animal protein… Meat eating is an indulgence in a starving world threatened by a worsening Climate Emergency – livestock production involves huge and inefficient diversion of grain foods” (see: http://globalavoidablemortality.blogspot.com/2008/05/biofuel-famine-biof… and http://climateemergency.blogspot.com/2008_04_01_archive.html ).
World Bank experts have recently determined that man’s annual greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution is 50% bigger than hitherto thought and that livestock contribute over 51% of the expanded figure (see: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6294 ).
Yet the outrageous Rudd-Turnbull pro-coal ETS (defeated by the Greens and the Coalition) proposed to permanently exclude agriculture from consideration i.e. for the World’s worst annual per capita GHG polluter, Australia, to ignore over 51% of the GHG pollution problem for ever!
An expertly devised vegetarian diet is what is needed in a world acutely threatened by poverty and man-made global warming.
Peace is the only way but Silence kills and Silence is complicity.
I’m 100% with you Dr. Polya. I read articles in both the main papers and the editorial in the Oz. It was so evident it was a load of ………
And to answer your question about responsible eating GPN - I have been a dedicated vegetarian for 25 years and its easy to keep carbs low and avoid tofu -lots of other options out there.
Well all of this tells more about media reporting than it does about diet.
On the infamous ‘climategate’ the media’s shallow reporting of that event aroused the following observation from a climate scientist:
To those familiar with the science and the IPCC’s work, the current media discussion is in large part simply absurd and surreal. Journalists who have never even peeked into the IPCC report are now outraged that one wrong number appears on page 493 of Volume 2. We’ve met TV teams coming to film a report on the IPCC reports’ errors, who were astonished when they held one of the heavy volumes in hand, having never even seen it. They told us frankly that they had no way to make their own judgment; they could only report what they were being told about it.
Well, gosh, one very good reason why we need independent media like N.M.
Yes there are so many other plant-based nutrients out there besides tofu, with foods such as chick peas, lentils, baked beans… so it is actually very easy to eat a plant-based diet without tofu or meat substitutes, if you are concerned about these foods.
Of course some vegan (no animal products) foods are healthier than others, however, advocating for veganism is certainly not advocating an unhealthy diet. The American Dietetic Association has explained that well-planned vegan diets ‘are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes’. Moving away from animal-based foods can also reduce the chance of some common diseases:
http://www.eatright.org/search.aspx
Not only this, but often environmental articles talk about meat being bad for the environment and vegetarianism being the solution. There are similar environmental problems with animal products besides meat such as dairy and eggs, which the article mentioned - therefore veganism is a much better solution than vegetarianism.
Whether it’s meat, dairy or eggs - we feed animals food, then get the nutrients of these foods through consuming animal flesh, dairy, eggs or whatever - rather than just consuming the nutrients directly ourselves. This not only causes totally unnecessary harm and death to animals, but is a very inefficient use of resources. Currently, ‘most edible grain is used to feed animals for meat, dairy and egg production’:
http://www.vnv.org.au/site/files/articles/eatinguptheworldv2.pdf
Cut out the “middle animal” and go straight to the source for your nutrients by going vegan. Whether you’re concerned about the environment or animal rights (or hopefully both), animal products in general are similarly as bad as meat.
It is a reflection on the poor standards of The Australian that they copied The London Times, without apparently bothering to read the report themselves: perhaps next time they could at least read the abstract, if they can’t be bothered with all the technical stuff.
grumpyoldman2
Unfortunately all this and the responding comments tells me is that there are a lot of people out there who still have not got it into their thought pattern that there is only a postulate based on several ‘ifs’ that CO2 is in some way related to or causing our climate change patterns. And that to somehow reduce our ficticious carbon footprint will benefit future generations. There is no proven scientific cause and effect. The extension of this postulate to include more ‘ifs’ into whether we should produce meat or vegies is just an absurd waste of time and energy.
It would be nice if we could avoid turning this into a climate change debate. We all know where we stand. Moving on. Thanks.
Go vegan!
The issue underlying climate change is resource allocation. Or consumption. Or wealth distribution.
First world countries have over several centuries of colonial expansion accumulated a lot of the world’s resources. Economic systems have been devised which have separated wealth collection from the messy and tedious tasks of ownership. But it is the concept of ownership which gives rise to the untrammelled exploitation of resources which include land, water and air as well as gold, oil, coal and iron.
The real argument is not whether or not climate change, anthropogenic or otherwise, is happening, and if so, why. The real argument is: who gets to decide who owns what, and on what basis?
In fact, the core of the argument is: what is the relationship of people to planet? This is actually quite easy. People depend on planet. Most of our current problems, and you can ignore climate change entirely, arise from the actions of people who think they own the joint.
Many of those folk claim that God made it, therefore owns it, and gave it to them. So they can do what they like with it. I say that if God made it, they should treat it with a lot more respect and care and affection than they show. Especially if it is a gift from God.
Of course if God didn’t make it, or didn’t give it to them, then who can say that he has any more right to the earth and its resources than does any other species, plant or animal? And why should not the rights of rocks to a fulfilling existence also be respected?
Whether it’s meat, dairy or eggs - we feed animals food, then get the nutrients of these foods through consuming animal flesh, dairy, eggs or whatever - rather than just consuming the nutrients directly ourselves. This not only causes totally unnecessary harm and death to animals, but is a very inefficient use of resources.
I think the problem is that we, as human being, simply do not have the digestive system that most pasturing animals possess and are thus unable to sustain, say, an all-grass diet (you know there is a reason that cows belch methane, right?). What’s more, when you substitute a meat-included diet with a vegetarian or vegan one, you are required extra consciousness and careful planning in order to obtain just all the needed amino acids, vitamins and minerals you need. For a low income family, the loss of mass-produced meat invariably would mean their well-being would no longer be dictated by the market values of a set of competing close substitutes, but a set of plant-based alternatives that might or might not be diverse enough for them to pick and choose from practically. We are not just talking about some artsy-fartsy, save-the-world kind of arm-waving problems here, but the immediate possibly of an epidemic of malnutrition in the low-income spectrum of the society.
Now, speaking of society, how would you describe the one that we live in? A utopia full of windmills and solar panels, or a less-than-ideal place where fossil fuels are burnt day and night? And as far as you can see, is there really a single part of the agricultural process that does not generate massive carbon footprints? The tons and tons of diesel required to operate farming equipment, the megajoules after megajoules of electricity used to manufacture fertilizers, the fleets atop fleets of trucks and trains employed to transport produce to the market… None of these things come from thin air, and none of them will simply stop spewing CO2 just because you want them to bad enough. In other words, substituting meat with plants simply will not stop climate change, but merely shift carbon pollution from one form to another.
Thanks for the info, fellas! But I think I’ll just keep my meat - at least for now.
I could lower my meat consumption, maybe at a push drop it, but I couldn’t go vegan because I like cheese too much. All types of cheese, soft, hard, runny, wax covered, mould covered, mould infused or even bland on a Jatz, cow cheese, goat cheese, sheep cheese, buffalo cheese and a combination of several at one time. My mouth is watering just thinking about it.
I believe this article was as much about the issue of poor journalism as it was about tofu. Is our currently disappointing media quality due more to a lack of research capacity or deliberate misdirection? Perhaps both? Whatever the reason, it is clear that many/most media outlets today have very poor standards of accuracy and objectivity, and we are poorer as a society becuase of this.
On the subject of tofu, I am a vegan who doesnt much like the stuff, but I manage to eat well without it. Shorn of any hyperbole, I believe there are a number of reasons for considering a reduction in eating animal products
- the (at the very least) possibility that huge numbers of farmed animals contribute to climate change in a greater way than plants do
- The absolute science that a diet high in fresh unprocessed fruits and vegetables is very healthy for humans
- The undeniable evidence that the global population’s demand for meat had led to the appalling cruelty of animal factory farming processes
Tofu aside, if every reader were to have just one meat free day a week you would help save an animal from suffering, increase your physical wellbeing - and help a planet that is groaning under the weight of ever growing human demands
Must be my pollyanna day
Good article Anna. Surprise surprise, but mainstream media (even Media Watch!) normally
love to put the boot into any of their kind who get things so badly wrong … but not
when it comes to meat issues. Misreporting about meat is the house-red for
mainstream media. I’m guessing they simply don’t care about accuracy if the REAL
story might reflect poorly on their personal dietary habits. The really funny thing
about the whole big beat up is that British beef is just 1% of calories in the UK … hardly
anybody eats it. Despite this, it generates plenty of greenhouse emissions.
And … GPN … have you tried tracking down that “growing evidence” back to
its source? The fact that people claim there is growing evidence
doesn’t mean that anything of any quality actually exists. The occasional mickey
mouse study is immediately contradicted by the simple fact that most of the world
has been living on high carb diets for centuries without either obesity or diabetes.
Excellent article, Anna. I saw those stories around the web for the last few days and did a double take since it ran counter to everything I knew about diet, land use and vegetarianism. I didn’t have time to do more research, though, so I really appreciate you clearing it up.
For more info on climate change and diet, check out this article about Al Gore’s interview with Larry King:
http://www.downtoearth.org/blogs/2010-02/environment/climate-change-caus…
Love Life!
Spot on Anna! Well researched and truthful article from a high quality journo … hoooray!
Along with many others, I too was incensed on reading this latest rubbish in The Weekend Australian. When I realised the article they sourced came from The Times, another Murdoch paper, I put 2 and 2 together. Not only do climate change denial articles and right-wing opinion dominate News Ltd, but Rupert’s meagre investment portfolio includes significant cattle properties.
The Oz even had the sheer audacity to include the mini headline claim atop their World news section page stating “Vegetarians are killing the planet”! Thought I had turned to the new look comics page!
When I read the actual WWF commissioned report then emailed Dr Donal Murphy-Bokern that weekend with this disturbing load of lies from our national broadsheet, he did promptly send a letter to the Oz editors clearly pointing out their significant error in reporting. But alas, they chose not to print his letter, nor mine, nor the many others that I just know they would have been flooded with. So much for presenting both sides, let alone the actual truth.
GraemeF: It can be tough to wean yourself off a taste you enjoy. I actually found it really easy to go vegetarian, but not so easy to drop dairy, especially cheese. It became a whole lot easier once I did some research into the dairy industry (checkout http://www.milksucks.com/index2.asp for starters) and also had a very disturbing conversation with someone who spent time on a dairy farm. I’ve now been a happy healthy vegan for 9 years.
Well vegemites, you must remember put simply, vegetative growth is by arithmetic progression, and animal reproduction is by geometric progression.
Be advised that a substance doubling in magnitude every year, once it reaches 50% of the area it occupies, has only one year until it fully occupies the entire area.
A plant will take as long again as it took to get half way, to fill up the area.
So animal husbandry and meat/dairy production in terms of land degradation and tree clearing are leading to the desertification and increasing salinity of our country.
This is unsustainable and will create a greater demand for imported food as our own natural resources dry up and dwindle after all the plundering and over exploitation of our land up til now.
sorry, but the elephant in the room is becoming restless.
cheers, oli
Advocating a vegan diet is certainly not calling for people to eat ‘an all-grass diet.’
And no one says it is.
The amount of protein we think we need is greatly exaggerated anyway - too much protein is the problem in our society, rather than not enough
The problem is, “which part?” You see, there are different people in the society with different backgrounds and different incomes. To say “too much protein is the problem in our society”, you are basically ignoring the fact that people simply don’t eat the same things for a meal.
Ofcourse there are more expensive “luxury” vegan products, but these certainly aren’t essential to get all the nutrients you need - there are more than enough easy to obtain and cheap vegan foods to get everything you require.
You remind me of this famous saying - “Qu’ils mangent de la brioche”.
The problem here is not about “luxury” vegan products, Mr. Pendergrast. It is about how food is actually produced and distributed in practice, how it is affected by economic downturns, agricultural protectionism and crop failure and how it in turns affects people in different age groups in various income brackets. All these are real threats that require careful economic assessments, not some feel-good, inane vegan advocacies that advice people to buy beetroot when they can’t even afford potatoes.
I don’t think that enjoying a food is enough justification when it is at the expense of someone elses life.
Malnutrition is an adequate justification. And the potential adverse effects on people below the age of 15 also are adequate justifications.
Environmentally, ofcourse plant-based foods are going to have some impact on the environment. I’m certainly not saying a vegan diet has no impact on the environment, but I believe it is clear that going vegan is an easy way to have much less impact on the environment.
Then, by all means, enjoy your fossil-fuels produced, animal-killing, environment-unfriendly fruits and vegetables. I am quite sure you will have a great time feeling good about yourself while sharing your utopian dreams with your artsy-fartsy friends at Starbucks.
JMonco
Great to see you are interested in animal welfare. So am I, so we have a meeting point which is aways good.
I am a vegan who tries to reduce both my environmental footprint and my harm to animals.
The article you linked regarding utilitarian ethics was a good facet of the dialogue, and a great reason to avoid broadscale agriculture and grow our own food to avoid harming field animals. So thank you.
FOr me, the whole issue of food is one of balancing our wants as human beings with animal rights, the environments needs, social justice - the list is complex and difficult. It is impossible to harm nothing - just by being here we harm something, even if its an ant we tread on unknowingly or a plant that we eat, or a child we give birth to when we cant feed it. As more and more people clog up the planet and leave ever dwindling resources for every other species, we just have to try to contribute to that balance as best we can. .
You believe poor people will be malnourished if they dont eat meat - I disagree, but even if I did agree, I would rather be malnourished than eat factory farmed animals - I simply cant contribute to that level of cruelty. You point out that human activities result in animal death, no matter what we do, and I agree with you. I can only try my best to reduce that killing to its barest minimum within my own ethical boundaries.
I realise welathy countries also have poor people, but to talk about malnourishment as a barrier to food choice in societies where the vast majority eat far too much and where many suffer extremes of obestiy is not logical. Most wealthy country residents eat much more protein than needed and our high levels of “modern” illnesses are not caused by malnutrition - the opposite in fact. It is much easier to be healthy on an inexpensive vegan or vegetarian diet. In Australia it is ridiculously easy as we are blessed with a huge array of good quality fresh food.
What we eat should be a personal choice of values and priorities that are informed by factual information and that genuinely recognise and accept the cost to others of our choices. Factory farming doesnt match most people’s values of compassion or kindness, but many people take the decision to just pretend it doesnt happen, rather than learning about it and then deciding.
If you had to milk a cow constantly bellowing from the pain of its mastitis, or wade through the bloody, faecal stench of modern chicken factories to collect your own eggs you would at least be making an informed decision about what went in your mouth. However, very few people want to know about pigs that spend a lifetime unable to sit, stand or lie comfortably, superflous baby chicks that are flicked into a mincer while alive, lambs that have their backsides sliced off, - its easier to buy the meat in sanitised packs of nicely cleaned up meat that doesnt look anything like a creature and just not think about the ethical cost.
For me, having recognised the cost of my food, there is no way to “unlearn” - even if I wanted to.
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. Ralph Waldo Emerson
GPN’s comment doesn’t really address the lower financial and economic cost of a vegetarian diet. It is well known that high costs of living can lead to indebtedness, poverty and restriction of life choices. There are significant cost concerns regarding some animal protein products such as abalone, lobster, whale, monkey’s brains and lynx that raise questions about the long term economic viability of some meat based diets.
Surely pointing out that eating meat makes it easier to satisfy basic nutritional requirements is highly fiscally irresponsible if these carnivorous food alternatives place a bigger strain on the household budget.
Have you ever met anyone with low protein? Basically, if you’re getting enough food, you’re getting enough protein. Protein should be your last concern, rather than your first. In the past, it was thought we needed a huge amount of protein, but that certainly isn’t the case now
So is this the best you can come up with, Mr, Pendergrast? I wished I could see some intelligent replies to my comments given a little bit of patience, but obviously I was sorely mistaken.
Let me put this in your head, Mr. Pendergrast:
enough food =/= enough nutrients
I just love when you insist on quoting hyperboles from pro-vegan sites, since nothing else really does more to show how credible you really are. Look, here some high-school biology that you probably didn’t care enough to pay attention to:
Not everything in proteins is essential to a human body.
That’s right - the physiological make-up of our bodies dictate that we must acquire certain amino acids from somewhere else. The same rule also applies to breast-feeding mothers. You know how you can be absolutely certain that you are taking an adequate amount of these amino acids? Well, since you seem to like quoting from sources, may I kindly refer you to this website?
http://www.cdc.gov/nutrition/everyone/basics/protein.html
(warning: contains imagery of meat consumption)
“A complete protein source is one that provides all of the essential amino acids. You may also hear these sources called high quality proteins. Animal-based foods; for example, meat, poultry, fish, milk, eggs, and cheese are considered complete protein sources.”
Oops, what does it say again? “Complete protein sources”! That’s right - there is no easier way to obtain a complete set of amino acids than from meat. What’s more - do you see that girl at that corner there eating a (gasp) hamburger? This is what the blurb has to say:
“Most people eat more protein than they need without harmful effects”.
“Most people”? “Without harmful effects”? As you may not have been aware, your body is supposed to break down excessive amino acids and discard them in the form of urea (you know, in the stuff that we usually called “urine”). If yours happens to have trouble doing exactly just that, there is something wrong with you to begin with anyway. But, wait - here’s more:
“However, protein contributes to calorie intake, so if you eat more protein than you need, your overall calorie intake could be greater than your calorie needs and contribute to weight gain. Besides that, animal sources of protein can be sources of saturated fat which has been linked to elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, a risk factor for heart disease.”
“Calorie”? So there is this thing called “calorie” that your body stores as fat, which you can end up with with carbohydrates from plants anyway? And there is this devilish little nasty-nast know as “LDL” that can silently take your life away way, way before you run into any trouble with proteins themselves? What magic!
the number of animals killed in the study you referred to is inaccurate and has been disproved
Sorry for baiting you on that one, but it just goes and shows what kind of moral relativism you are trying to pull off here. Let me put the reality in a very plain and simply way:
You are killing animals - and in your case, curelly - regardless of what you are eating.
Is killing one person any different from killing one hundred people? No, it isn’t. You are still a monster notwithstanding. At least, slaughterhouses have to adhere standards in which animals are put down, whereas wildlife caught in farming machinery are just nothing more than roadkills.
A non-vegan diet leads to the consumption of more plants, as many plant-based foods are fed to animals, then we get the nutrients indirectly and inefficiently from the animals.
Let me repeat this again just for you - you can’t eat what pasturing animals eat and survive. Honestly, are you trying to compare the human body to creatures with multiple stomachs? Why not go and eat nothing more than what farmers feed cattle with and see how long you can stay alive? Besides, unlike grass, plants suitable for human consumption often require more selective conditions and more tedious due care to flourish. Now, add this to the fact that most plants are incomplete protein sources and you end up with a situation in which you need to keep half a dozen things in place of meat and feed just to satisfy both the market and the population. On the other hand, with livestock rearing, farmers get to stay in the workforce for growing what is easy to produce and less affected by climate and water supply, the market gets to relieve its excess to something that is sell-able without wastage, and people get to have all they need on the table without breaking their banks. Oh, and did I mention that mass-produced meat is one of the main reasons that wealthy countries have far less trouble with malnutrition than those that are poor?
Again, plant-based foods do have SOME impact on the environment, but clearly less than animal products.
Clearly, you say?
“Groundwater contamination by nitrate associated with fertilization practices is a ubiquitous environmental issue”.
“A ubiquitous environmental issue”? It can’t be, can it?
Honestly, go back to school already, the lot of you.
I cannot understand why dialogue about meat eating or otherwise so often deteriorates into venomous attacks. Disagreement and challenge are great and necessary, but the importance of the topic should be treated with respect.
I have been a vegan for years and am very healthy so I obviously get all my dietary needs met without deliberate ingestion of any animal products. Maybe I ingest some animal products unintentionally, maybe I cause some harm unintentionally. However, my INTENT is to live an ethical life and for me that means not harming animals if I can help it. I am as entitled to that belief and set of values as others are to theirs.
If the global population continues to climb as is forecast, we will all have to make huge changes to our diet - we wont have a choice.
To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment. Ralph Waldo Emerson
JMonco, regarding me quoting pro-vegan sites to support my arguments, the environmental impact of animal products has been established by reports and sites that have come up with a pro-vegan message, however, are not supporters of animal rights.
So is this what you call a “pro-vegan message”?
ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0701e/a0701e07.pdf
“The livestock sector is also a primary player in the agricultural economy, a major provider of livelihoods for the poor and a major determinant of human diet and health. Hence its environmental role needs to be seen in the context of its many different functions, in many diverse natural and economic environments, subject to diverse policy objectives.”
You are really getting desperate, aren’t you, Mr. Pendergrast?
As far as health, complete proteins do not just come from animal products, for example, soy is a complete protein and is the ‘least expensive source of protein’
WorksForMe(TM):
“Vegetarian families with soy allergies will face several challenges, including having to avoid many convenience foods. Many vegetarian cookbooks, too, rely on tofu and soy products.”
So whether or not we can “cope” with too much protein, my point that it is easy to get enough protein on a vegan diet seems quite obvious and is supported by many sources, including ones that do not believe in animal rights.
More WorksForMe(TM) rhetorics.
Unfortunately, humans and animals can be “incidentally” harmed through the food we consume, however, I don’t think this means that we should not try and minimise this harm if this can be done easily.
You mean by turning wildlife into roadkills? Sure that’s sounds humane enough to me! Hey, I have even come up with a slogan just to show my support to your cause:
“Help wildlife out of their misery - be a vegan today!”
You have a lot of faith in animal welfare actually protecting animals, rather than just legitimising practises that are unnecessary and inherently lead to suffering and death.
Again, the same can be said about crop harvesting, Mr. Pendergrast. Just spare the world from your self-contradicting moral values, won’t you?
But onto your main point that we can’t eat what cattle eat – actually cattle mainly consume foods such as soy and corn, which we certainly can eat, of course combined with a wide variety of other plant-based foods.
Which we can’t eat. That’s said, I can’t really be sure that Mr. Pendergrast indeed isn’t fond of grass - you know, the stuff dairy cattle in this country predominantly eat for its protein, energy, minerals and vitamins. Heck, maybe he’s even got a part-time job working for Google at its headquarters! Who knows?
So again, if you really are worried about “incidental” animal deaths…
No, I am not. Unlike you, most people don’t need hypocritical, self-righteous values to justify what they eat for a meal. It’s too bad that cows are being raised in farms only to be eaten by another species of animals. Cry me a river, really.
And animal industries such as dairy are huge contributors to groundwater contamination, if that is an issue that concerns you
Again, no, I don’t care even if the farmers take their dairy cows to the Darling River for a dump every day. I am not the one here claiming that one food source is inherently more environmentally friendly than another, and I don’t go onto the Internet to preach to other people about my stupid diet.
The burden of proof is on the claimant, my friend.
JMonco,
Regarding the UN Report, here is the paragraph above the one you quoted:
‘…the livestock sector is a major stressor on many ecosystems and on the planet as whole. Globally it is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases and one of the leading causal factors in the loss of biodiversity, while in developed and emerging countries it is perhaps the leading source of water pollution.’
While neither me nor the report deny that animal agriculture does provide essential nutrients, I simply claim that all of these essential nutrients can easily be obtained from plant-based sources. So while some of the nutrients in animal products are essential, animal products themselves are not, because we can get these essential nutrients from elsewhere.
This is the case even for people allergic to soy. Here are some quotes from a link from a site you gave: ‘If you’re allergic to soy, it is possible to get adequate protein, but you’ll need to be sure to plan your meals to get four to eight ounces of protein per day’. However, this small amount of protein is easy to obtain because: ‘Most foods, even green vegetables such as broccoli and cabbage, contain at least a small amount of protein’ and ‘your body’s protein needs are generally easy to meet with plant sources’. ‘In general, people eating a sufficient number of calories would only be deficient in protein if their diets were highly dependent on a few very low-protein foods…Most people, even vegetarians, meet and even exceed their protein needs without even thinking about it’.
http://foodallergies.about.com/od/livingwithfoodallergies/a/vegetarian.h…
I don’t see how going vegan leads to more roadkill deaths – maybe you could provide a link with a study or any source that proves such a link?
Rather than being “fond of grass”, I merely point out that cow’s and other animals we raise for food consume foods such as soy and corn which could be more efficiently fed directly to humans. How can people not consume soy and corn? Yes, the grass which forms part of the diet of cows could not be fed to humans, but even the site you give (from the dairy industry) explains that as well as grass, cows are also fed grains and protein meals – as I said, corn and soy.
Regarding me (or I guess you imply anyone promoting animal rights) being stupid or self-righteous, I don’t see why this is more so than any other social justice movement. I think that social justice movements fighting against sexism, racism, homophobia and many other forms of discrimination have done so much excellent work that these movements are now more accepted. The fight for animal rights against speciesism is a much newer struggle and therefore of course will be ridiculed more, but I don’t think that means it is any less valid - or is preaching any more than someone going on the Internet to speak against racism.
Again, this is a very new struggle so many people do not know much about animal rights, so yes ‘the burden of proof is on the claimant’. This is partly why I have given so many links – it is hard to make a totally new argument to people without writing even longer posts, whereas many people are already of aware of many of the arguments against other forms of discrimination.
I simply claim that all of these essential nutrients can easily be obtained from plant-based sources
You see, this is exactly why your argument is logical fallacy at its finest. Yes, certainly it is easy for you Nick Pendergrast to obtain all nutrients from Nick Pendergrast’s diet, but is the same thing bound to work for everyone else on this entire planet? Tell me, what do I need to do so I can put it in your skull the fact that not everyone has the same requirement for nutrients? I am not just talking different age groups and different sexes but also people with different occupations and physiological circumstances. We grown-ups tend to take matters like these seriously and will simply not advice people to take on endeavours that will potentially wreak havoc on the economy and public health without substantial risk assessments and careful estimations on economic impacts. Sure, in the world according to Nick Pendergrast, what worked for you would definitely work for everyone else without a doubt, but in reality, WorksForMe(TM) rhetorics are only good for filling pages on an Internet website, not for setting policies with real people and real stakes involved. Please, just cut the nonsense and spare me and the rest of the world from reading the same old regurgitation over and over again, already.
I don’t see how going vegan leads to more roadkill deaths – maybe you could provide a link with a study or any source that proves such a link?
What the… I have already given you a link on that already, and you have even responded to said link. Were you too busy mowing lawns at Google’s headquarters to remember that, or did you happen to have come to the conclusion that handing out a red herring like this was going to help you in any way with your argument?
The fight for animal rights against speciesism is a much newer struggle and therefore of course will be ridiculed more, but I don’t think that means it is any less valid
You kind of remind me of that cat massage lady on the Late Show with David Lettterman:
Letterman: “Do animals… Do… Do animals need a massage?”
Ballner: “An animal who needs a massage (pauses, squeezes Letterman’s arm) really needs a massage.”
…
Letterman: “And… Um… When did this first occur to you that the kitty would like a massage?”
Ballner: “I am a New York State licensed massage therapist who graduated from the Swedish Institute back in 1993.”
Letterman: “Real damned good, huh?”
Ballner: “Yeah.”
I have got news for you, Mr. Pendergrast - animals get eaten by other species of animals everyday, and you are basically making about as much sense here as this Maryjean Ballner character on the show. For Pete’s sake, why not go and file a complaint to the Discovery Channel and tell them to stop broadcasting “inhumane” stuff on cable?
And you are wondering why people look at you like you were from a Russian circus…
JMonco,
I think when Nick states that these essential nutrients can be easily obtained from plant sources he is talking about iron, calcium, zinc, complete proteins, etc - not just what “works for him” but the essential vitamins, minerals etc that the human body needs to function. You know, the ones conventional doctors learn about because it has been proven through clinical research.
It is easy to get these nutrients from plant sources e.g.
Calcium - soy milk
Iron - Lentils
Protein - chickpeas, nuts, soy products, etc (protein is in pretty much everything!)
Yes the amounts required will differ according to your weight, gender, etc but that doesn’t alter the fact that the essential nutrients people need can be easily obtained from plant sources. If you need a little bit more protein or iron, etc than other people you simply eat slightly more of that source. It doesn’t mean that you can’t get what you need from a plant-based diet.
“What the… I have already given you a link on that already, and you have even responded to said link.”
Why didn’t you respond to his link? He cited a source in which two independent people disproved the study you cited, one published in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics and the other in the Journal of Social Philosophy.
“Davis’s analysis has itself been criticized, such as by Gaverick Matheny, a Ph.D. candidate in agricultural economics at the University of Maryland, College Park, and by Andy Lamey, a Ph.D. student at the University of Western Australia. Matheny argues that Davis miscalculates the number of animal deaths based on land area rather than per consumer, and incorrectly equates “the harm done to animals … to the number of animals killed.” Matheny argues that per-consumer, a vegan diet would kill fewer wild animals than a diet adhering to Davis’s model, and that vegetarianism “involves better treatment of animals, and likely allows a greater number of animals with lives worth living to exist.”[76]”
Yes non-human animals eat other non-human animals every day. What’s your point? Where in any of the comments or the article did someone state that we should be stopping non-human animals eating other non-human animals? Those animals also rape each other, have incestual relationships and eat their mates after sex. Does that mean you want to do those things too? Your point is completely irrelevant to the entire debate but thanks for playing.
Calcium - soy milk
Iron - Lentils
Protein - chickpeas, nuts, soy products, etc (protein is in pretty much everything!)
No, apparently no one on this planet is allergic to nuts and soy. Good, now we can reiterate the same arguments all over again!
It doesn’t mean that you can’t get what you need from a plant-based diet.
You see, again, the last Groundhog Day foretold there would be six more weeks of winter. Now it appears that there will be six more weeks of the same darn discussion going on, too!
Why didn’t you respond to his link? He cited a source in which two independent people disproved the study you cited, one published in the Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics and the other in the Journal of Social Philosophy.
“Sorry for baiting you on that one, but it just goes and shows what kind of moral relativism you are trying to pull off here. Let me put the reality in a very plain and simply way:
You are killing animals - and in your case, curelly - regardless of what you are eating.
Is killing one person any different from killing one hundred people? No, it isn’t. You are still a monster notwithstanding. At least, slaughterhouses have to adhere standards (sic) in which animals are put down, whereas wildlife caught in farming machinery are just nothing more than roadkills.”
Yes non-human animals eat other non-human animals every day. What’s your point?
My point is simple - in what are human beings any different in consuming other species? Look - for how many thousand years have we been eating other animals now? Honestly, you do know I am talking about. but instead you just insist on confronting me over an argument that even nature itself apparently disagrees with. What you and Mr. Pendergrast are trying to promote here are nothing more than moral values that are alien to the majority of this society, and if you ever want to convince me or anyone else to take them on board, then you will need to at least come up with some darn good reason rather than “to decrease needless suffering of animals” to justify your stance.
Is that clear enough to you or what?
JMonco,
I am not just saying that because I get everything I need on a vegan diet that everyone can. For example, I have quoted The American Dietetic Association who explain that well-planned vegan diets ‘are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes’. Yes, I have already given this quote, so this is “regurgitation”, but you continue to argue that I’m saying the diet works for me therefore it must work for everyone. But numerous sources (including from sites that you gave) say that it is very easy for everyone to get vital nutrients such as protein from a plant-based diet. So it is not just me assuming everyone can do it because I can.
And yes, you did give a site to support your road kill argument, although, as I said, these conclusions have been disproved multiple times in academic studies and I have given the links for this. I guess I should have asked for a credible link not just a link.
I’m not sure if anyone else is still reading this, but if anyone does, I’m sure they will know that there is a big difference between saying cats need massaging to saying we should not breed cats (or other sentient animals) to be killed because we like the taste of their flesh or by-products.
There is a big difference between animals (whether human or non-humans) consuming other animals out of necessity, and killing and consuming animal products just because we enjoy the taste of their flesh or by-products. One case can be justified as necesary suffering, whereas the other is clearly unnecesary suffering, which most people claim to be opposed to.
And no, people don’t look at me like I’m from a Russian circus when I speak about animal rights, in fact most people I’ve spoken to about these issues are very interested/supportive of arguments for animal rights. They may not necessarily put these arguments into action by going vegan, but they do not argue that they are ridiculous idea.
I guess you took my list food products to be exhaustive (even though I said e.g.) . It wasn’t. If you are allergic to nuts and soy there are hundreds of other things you can eat to get the right nutrients.
So according to the sources (which disproved the study you cited), a vegan diet would kill fewer animals than the diet advocated by Davis. I accept that in order to produce plants to eat, there will some unfortunate environmental consequences. But I need to eat plants to survive. Luckily I can reduce the harm I do to the world by living a vegan lifestyle. Directly, no animals should suffer as far as what I consume. Indirectly, there will be environmental consequences and animals may also die. However, I am doing the least harm by following a vegan diet. I am not making the choice to exploit other animals for my own pleasure.
I’m not interested in what humans have been doing for thousands of years. For many thousand years doctors/healers had know idea what they were doing! Until the invention of modern medicine and the clinical trial most of what they were doing was total quackery. And for thousands of years people have believed in a Saviour that rose from the dead and went to heaven. Just because something has been happening for thousands of years doesn’t mean it has to keep on happening or that it is a logical thing to do.
How many animals do you know that take babies away from mothers so they can exploit the mother’s milk? How many animals do you know that erect a fence, put a weaker animal inside it, and then kill it using unnatural means (e.g. a gun) in order to make themselves feel manly? How many animals do you know that drink the milk of another species beyond infanthood? How many animals do you know that take male chicks and gas them or grind them up alive into fertiliser because they are useless to our egg industry? Our relationship to other animals is nothing like non-human animals’ relationships with each other. Nature disagrees with my argument? Nature agrees that all the above things are completely “natural”? So do you agree with this Nature that animals raping each other, having incestual relationships and eating each other have sex is ok? You don’t? Oh no! Nature disagrees with you!
We don’t know if animals are capable of moral reasoning. But we know that human beings are. So we, as human beings, are able to make a moral choice. The only justification you have for consuming animal products is that you derive pleasure from it. You don’t need it for health or to survive. In many cases it is detrimental to your health and the environment.
White people oppressed black people because they got a benefit from it.
People rape other people because they enjoy it.
Homophobes will abuse gay people because it makes them feel manly.
People eat animals because they enjoy it.
All of the above things involve a person being exploited and oppressed for no other reason than the pleasure of the other “superior” being.
Maybe you should watch “Earthlings” (link below) and tell me you are okay with all of that humans do because you enjoy it.
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=6361872964130308142&ei=EkCOS_…
I am not just saying that because I get everything I need on a vegan diet that everyone can. For example, I have quoted The American Dietetic Association who explain that well-planned vegan diets ‘are appropriate for individuals during all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence, and for athletes’
Ah! So is your “low income” due to the fact that you daily activities involve nothing more than moving the goalposts around in football fields?
Me: “[W]hen you substitute a meat-included diet with a vegetarian or vegan one, you are required extra consciousness and careful planning in order to obtain just all the needed amino acids, vitamins and minerals you need. For a low income family, the loss of mass-produced meat invariably would mean their well-being would no longer be dictated by the market values of a set of competing close substitutes, but a set of plant-based alternatives that might or might not be diverse enough for them to pick and choose from practically.”
You: ” I do not carefully plan my diet, I simply eat a wide variety of foods and I easily get all the nutrients I need. These nutrients are easy for me to obtain even though I am on a relatively low-income. There are so many nutrient-rich vegan foods that are everywhere - very ‘practical’, easy to find, and cheap. Vegan sources of amino acids include chick peas, lentils, baked beans, kidney beans, nuts, seeds, some vegetables…”
Your original response to my argument was a blatant WorksForMe(TM). There were no links to the American Diabetic Association in that response, either. You only quoted it some time after I had reiterate my argument repeatedly, and even then, you had still failed to given reason as to why narrowing your dietary choice in such a drastic way was in any sense feasible for the general public given the needed planning and wholesale exclusion of complete protein sources.
And yes, you did give a site to support your road kill argument, although, as I said, these conclusions have been disproved multiple times in academic studies and I have given the links for this. I guess I should have asked for a credible link not just a link.
No, like I said, I was just baiting you on your moral relativism with that link. The conclusion of the article was never my concern and the only thing that mattered was your less-is-better view on the supposed suffering of animals. Look, let me lay this out for you in black and white - what I am pointing out here is that being less a monster is still being a monster. Knowing the fact that you are reducing the suffering of animals does not exclude you from the reality that you are still incurring the suffering of animals regardless. Your diet at the end of the day will only serve for soothing your guilty conscience and not a reassurance of any kind for animals that are haplessly caught in farming machinery irrespective of the amount in question.
This is a debate that’s been done to death already - get over it.
How many animals do you know that erect a fence, put a weaker animal inside it, and then kill it using unnatural means (e.g. a gun) in order to make themselves feel manly?
Boy, Elmer shot Bugs Bunny! Can someone call the whaaambulance? I see a grown man is crying very loudly here for something that obviously I have made the choice to not care about.
There is a big difference between animals (whether human or non-humans) consuming other animals out of necessity, and killing and consuming animal products just because we enjoy the taste of their flesh or by-products
BecauseNickPendergrastSaysSo(TM). I rest my case, Your Honour.
Boy, Elmer shot Bugs Bunny! Can someone call the whaaambulance? I see a grown man is crying very loudly here for something that obviously I have made the choice to not care about.
I’ll correct the above statement since obviously I have scrolled two notches too far and confused KatieBatty’s comment with Nick Pendergrast’s.
“Boy, Elmer shot Bugs Bunny! Can someone call the whaaambulance? I see a grown woman is crying very loudly here for something that obviously I have made the choice to not care about.”
Now that’s better.
For many thousand years doctors/healers had know idea what they were doing! Until the invention of modern medicine and the clinical trial most of what they were doing was total quackery. And for thousands of years people have believed in a Saviour that rose from the dead and went to heaven.
So what do all these things have to do with eating meat? I smell red herring here.
Nature agrees that all the above things are completely “natural”? So do you agree with this Nature that animals raping each other, having incestual relationships and eating each other have sex is ok?
Again, what do all these things have to do with eating meat or just eating anything? Besides, even if I was to follow this flow of logic, your argument still wouldn’t make much sense since what you were advocating there was in obvious contradiction with established values and lacked support from the majority of the society.
We don’t know if animals are capable of moral reasoning. But we know that human beings are. So we, as human beings, are able to make a moral choice.
Again, I and the majority of this society have apparently made the moral choice to not give a flick about that. So there.
White people oppressed black people because they got a benefit from it.
People rape other people because they enjoy it.
Homophobes will abuse gay people because it makes them feel manly.
People eat animals because they enjoy it.
So have we now entered the discussion of cannibalism, or is this just another red herring of yours?
If you don’t care about this issue so much why are you still commenting on it? You must care on some level to spend so much coming up with your joke’s about Nick mowing Google’s lawn and your rational rebuttals (“So there” for instance).
Your first argument: We can consume animals because we’ve been doing it for thousands of years.
I made those examples of what happened thousands of years ago because your justification for humans eating animals was that we have been doing that for thousands for years ( Look - for how many thousand years have we been eating other animals now? ). So I mentioned other examples of things we have been doing for thousands which we don’t necessarily think are morally rational things to do. I was proving that your argument was flawed because it falls down in relation to many other stupid things humans have been doing for thousand of years.
Your second argument: We can consume animals because that’s what “Nature” dictates.
Same thing here again - your argument was eating animals is okay because “Nature” agrees with you ( but instead you just insist on confronting me over an argument that even nature itself apparently disagrees with ). This is why I mentioned the other things “Nature” does which you might not necessarily agree with. So again, your rationing is flawed because there are lots of things that happen in Nature that you wouldn’t agree with.
You added a little subpoint here, about the fact that the majority of the population doesn’t agree with these values in relation to animals. So I guess when people were fighting for other oppressed groups e.g. women, black people, gay people you would have said “Uh…sorry you don’t fit in with these ‘established’ norms. You know, all the great sexist/racist/homophobic attitudes we’ve got going on.” If we all dismissed new social movements simply for being outside the little bubble of dominant values that we are taught to believe, there would be no social justice or social progression.
The fact that you have resorted to saying “I don’t give a flick, so there” shows you have nothing better to say in relation to my other point. Again, if you don’t care so much why are you here?
Where did I raise cannibalism anywhere in my argument? When I talking about humans eating animals I was referring to human animals eating non-human animals. I think you’re the one throwing red herrings in.
I think all your sacarstic extrapolations of me and Nick’s arguments do very little to convince people that you are coming from a rational, well-reasoned perspective.
I also note that you failed to commment on the ‘Earthlings’ video that I posted a link to.
I know you directed this comment to Nick but I HATE it when people make false statements about vegan nutrition. Soy is a complete protein source, see Journal of American Academy of Family Physicians. http://www.aafp.org/afp/2009/0101/p43.html Other proteins can easily be combined over a few days to get a complete protein. If you’re getting enough food, you’re getting enough protein! Protein deficiences are very rare, you’d basically have to be malnourished.
Because a scientific journal said so(TM)
Can I just add it is interesting that your comments are now so brief, more sarcastic and full of more “I don’t cares” (Ironically relying on your own opinion rather than what can be argued on a philosopical/scientific level, which is what you accuse Nick of doing). Could that be because you actually don’t have any credible arguments to support your case?
If you don’t care about this issue so much why are you still commenting on it? You must care on some level to spend so much coming up with your joke’s about Nick mowing Google’s lawn and your rational rebuttals (“So there” for instance).
Let’s say it’s my hobby to poke fun at Internet crusaders like yourself. At the same time, I am sort of getting the kick out of showing how smug and self-absorbed vegetarians and vegans of your kind really are. Honestly, I don’t care what other people eat for a meal, but I can’t say I don’t get put off when some schmo comes out of nowhere and declares a millennia-old dietary habit “immoral”. But, then again, who doesn’t anyway?
So I mentioned other examples of things we have been doing for thousands which we don’t necessarily think are morally rational things to do. I was proving that your argument was flawed because it falls down in relation to many other stupid things humans have been doing for thousand of years.
Following your logic, I am quite sure archeologists in 7010 will be quite fascinated by what you and Mr. Pendergrast have left in this comment section when they discover the remains of newmatilda.com’s storage hard drives.
I am quite reluctant to point out what kind of hole you are digging yourself into (since this would ruin this whole… Well, thing), but nevertheless let me just put the argument into some perspective so hopefully you will have a better idea where you stand.
In archeology, there are these interesting artifacts called “cave paintings”. What these cave paintings tell you is that human beings collectively have likely been killing animals for food for as long as at least since the Stone Age - when our ancestors walked the earth with the mammoths - before all known ancient medicine, religion, ideology, and civilisation. It is a practice that has survived the rise and fall of political powers, the scrutiny of scholars and philosophers, the trials and tribulations from humans and nature, and it is the very thing that has brought to you your very own existence. Now, what are you trying to suggest about meat-consumption again? “Immoral”? “Unnatural”? “Unnecessary”? Well, good luck with that!
Same thing here again - your argument was eating animals is okay because “Nature” agrees with you ( but instead you just insist on confronting me over an argument that even nature itself apparently disagrees with ). This is why I mentioned the other things “Nature” does which you might not necessarily agree with. So again, your rationing is flawed because there are lots of things that happen in Nature that you wouldn’t agree with.
No joke! Can you choose to photosynthesize for your sustenance? Can you choose to undergo asexual reproduction like fungus? No? Then the point of argument is now more about what nature decides you to be and not what you choose for yourself, right, Ms. Red Herring?
The fact that you have resorted to saying “I don’t give a flick, so there” shows you have nothing better to say in relation to my other point.
I am afraid there has been some kind of misunderstanding going on here. You see, before everything in this comment section, I have already made up my mind about the issue, and so does the majority of this society (with their conscious decision of purchasing meat and dairy products, of course). You, on the other hand, are amongst the minority that promotes the meat-is-murder line of arguments. Until the day supermarket delis start selling tofu instead of shaved leg ham, your opinion will always be nothing but white noise in the background, and I apologise for misleading you with the impression that your moral values are being taken seriously by more than just your own peers.
Where did I raise cannibalism anywhere in my argument?
Neither did I mention anything about slavery.
The fish market is that way. —>
Can I just add it is interesting that your comments are now so brief, more sarcastic and full of more “I don’t cares” (Ironically relying on your own opinion rather than what can be argued on a philosopical/scientific level, which is what you accuse Nick of doing)
Maybe that’s because you and Mr. Pendergrast have got nothing left, and I am kind of getting bored from reading the same tired talking points from both of you?
JMonco,
Regarding the reasons for my relatively low-income – how is that relevant at all to this debate? Right from the start, I have never assumed/speculated anything about you based on your comments – I have simply responded to the arguments. I recommend in future debates with anyone you do the same – I think these assumptions/speculations reflect badly on you, not the person you are speculating about/stereotyping or whatever.
In my very first comment (22/02/10 6:02PM) I referenced the American Dietetic Association, so I did not start with a “WorksForMe” argument. In my first response to you I did not reference this organisation again because I didn’t want to repeat the same thing (which you have accused me of and which I try to avoid). I did, however, reference the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. So from the very start I have not simply stated that the diet works for me so therefore should work for everyone, but have supported this argument with a variety of sources – sources that support animal rights as well as many that do not.
I don’t think that I am the one with a guilty conscience, as I do everything I can practically do to reduce my impact on animals. I think that the guilty conscience is more likely to come from people who are consuming animals and cannot justify the suffering and deaths they cause with anything better than the enjoyment they get from doing this – similar to practises that are generally frowned upon by our society eg cruelty to companion animals, dog fighting, seal clubbing etc.
Regarding KatieBatty’s comment on humans erecting a fence to kill a weaker animal inside it to make themselves feel manly etc, which you initially attributed to me - I think it is ridiculous to make fun of a grown man “crying” very loudly, as you say. I don’t see how standing up for the most oppressed groups in our society against social norms can be equated with crying/being weak or anything that you’re implying there.
Regarding your comment: ‘BecauseNickPendergrastSaysSo(TM)’ – yes, obviously I am making a comment – I am stating my opinion. I am arguing that there is a difference between killing animals out of necessity and killing animals for enjoyment. Not everyone will agree with this argument, I believe many people will, but either way I think it is clear in all my (or anyone else’s) comments, people are stating opinions/making arguments.
Also, on your responses to KatieBatty, which are relevant to anyone promoting veganism including me – let’s remember that the values of society change over time. So yes, animal rights is currently ridiculed by many people, but so were other causes eg the fight for gender equality, against homophobia, against racism etc: “All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident” - Arthur Schopenhauer. Of course in earlier stages of such movements people like you may have ridiculed and opposed them simply because a majority of people didn’t these ideas, however, now these ideas are accepted by a majority of society. All kinds of practises have been going on for so long, this does not mean they are automatically right. I believe that the fact that we have been doing something for a long time and most people support it is a weak argument for anything. And actually, many philosophers do not look into the animal rights issue, but those that do often struggle to come up with adequate justifications for consuming animals.
I am not an Internet crusader – I never go on forums or anything and very rarely comment on articles online. Nor do I believe that I’m smug – quite the opposite. I don’t think that it is really brilliant of me to be vegan or that I am doing anything particularly amazing. I am opposed to speciesism, so I do not directly participate in speciesism by consuming animals as products and therefore treating animals as “things” or “resources” for me to use. This is similar to me refusing to directly participate in racism, sexism, or homophobia – by refusing to make racist, sexist, homophobic remarks/acts etc. This is nothing amazing, and is simply the absolutely least we should be doing to oppose these injustices, similar to going vegan to oppose speciesism. Also, I think it is very easy to live a vegan lifestyle, I don’t think I’m part of a very small section of society that is so “special” they can take the “sacrifice” of going vegan. I don’t see how that is smug.
Finally, you say ‘This is a debate that’s been done to death already - get over it’ – yes I certainly am over it, so this will probably be my last comment on this article. I believe that veganism is the best lifestyle for animals, the environment, and your health. I know that JMonco does not, and does not care about animal suffering, but this doesn’t make my arguments wrong. If you are interested in animal rights and veganism, read my comments/links, read JMonco’s comments/links, read far and wide about the issue and think about where you stand and the lifestyle this requires.
Returning to the article, thanks for the great article Anna, it really cut through the media spin and pointed out the devastating environmental impact of not just meat, but other animal products such as eggs and dairy as well. Thanks.
Wow. I can’t believe you just repeated your same arguments again.
Your first point - cave paintings show people have been eating meat for thousands of years. Therefore we should eat meat. You’re just repackaging your argument. I won’t both repeating myself about this, I will just refer you to the second paragraph of my previous comment in which I explained with examples how just because something has been happening for thousands of years doesn’t mean it should continue happening.
What Nature decides me to be? Well I was born a human being and in the modern day and age we have the choice to be omnivores, vegetarians or vegans. I really don’t understand your point here, especially bringing plants into it which reallly isn’t relevant.
I used the example of slavery to draw an analogy with animal exploitation. You failed to use cannibalism is any argument, you just threw it out there.
Again, you failed to comment on the ‘Earthlings’ link and concede that you were wrong regarding the issue of complete proteins.
Whereas Nick and I continue to cite sources and draw analogies between animal rights and other rights movements, you dig yourself deeper into a hole by misrepresenting facts and failing to come up with a logical argument in response to what is put to you.
I think it is sad that you spend your time just making fun of people when you could be actually promoting a cause you believe in and making a difference in this apathetic world.
I can’t believe you accuse vegans of being smug, especially after condescendingly telling me about “cave paintings”, and also after this comment:
“I have already made up my mind about the issue, and so does the majority of this society (with their conscious decision of purchasing meat and dairy products, of course). You, on the other hand, are amongst the minority that promotes the meat-is-murder line of arguments.”
Congratulations on having the majority of the population on your side. Such “majorities” also didn’t want women to the vote, gay people to live without persecution and didn’t want Aborigines to have rights. Yay, you conform to what everyone else believes! Congratulations.
When I consider what the majority of the world does, I’m glad I’m not like that. We live in a violent society in which the strong will oppress the weak. We live in fear of progression and of thinking critically. All I’m trying to do is the least harm do animals, humans, the planet. Why is that something you would spend your time crusading against? Why don’t you go after people who are racist, xenophobic or have really backwards views on gay rights?
If something is wrong I don’t care what the majority thinks. I know the majority of people are misinformed, easily swayed by the media, and generally taught not to think for themselves. I think you should always stand up for what is right, even if you are the only one. I don’t see what is so wrong with people being passionate about injustice and wanting to make this world a better place for everyone, not just the few privileged humans.