[SouthBayVeggies] But I only eat organic, free range... Etc, etc...

[Guest guest]

Have you seen the Compassionate Cooks website?

Colleen often has essays about these kinds of

things. Here's an excerpt from a recent one. I

highly recommend the Sept 07 Atlantic review she

mentions.

 

" info " <info

 

 

 

FOOD FOR THOUGHT: COMPASSIONATE COOKS NEWSLETTER

August 30, 2007

ESSAY - THIS I KNOW

 

As many of you know, the notion of " humane meat "

or " humane any kind of animal product " is an

oxymoron to me. There is simply no such thing.

(See

<http://www.compassionatecooks.com/word/satya_sept_06.htm>From

Cradle to Grave: The Facts Behind " Humane "

Eating.)

 

Over the years, I have become increasingly

distressed by the romantic assertions posited by

those who consider themselves " foodies " or

" gourmands " or " slow-foodists " or " consumers of

sustainable meat or humane meat or organic meat. "

Anyone who's ever been uncomfortable at the

thought of killing animals for human consumption

but who has resisted taking responsibility for it

(i.e. most of us) has always sought to have their

meat and eat it, too. That is, they figured if

something was labeled in such a way that enabled

them to enjoy their steak but still sleep at

night, then that was good enough for them. So,

they abandon their ideals of compassion,

nonviolence, kindness or whatever it is that

makes them feel inclined not to eat animals at

all and put their trust in the very industries

who have the most to gain from such spurious

labels and feel-good marketing campaigns.

 

But alas, it wasn't until the spring of 2006 with

the publication of Michael Pollan's The

Omnivore's Dilemma that meat-eating was elevated

to such a degree that you'd think the very

animals themselves gave their blessing. With

lyrical language, Pollan turns pig slaughter into

poetry and likens the consumption of animals'

bodies to a spiritual transcendence that

" transforms the body of the world into our bodies

and minds. " The romanticizing of something so

ugly belies a desperate attempt to deny what's

true.

 

A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down,

they say, and Pollan's text is awash in all

manner of sweeteners. For those who so

desperately wanted to rid themselves of their

nagging conscience and to wash clean their

blood-stained hands, they now had their messiah,

their liberator. Pollan became canonized,

" ethical ranchers " became idolized, and veganism

- the one true response to the violence inherent

in turning beautiful beings into butchered bodies

- became perceived as a naïve (and even

dangerous) ideal. Pollan admits he " pities " the

vegetarian, ironically (and arrogantly) asserting

that " dreams of innocence are just that; they

usually depend on a denial of reality that can be

its own form of hubris. "

 

With that, Pollan completely dismisses the idea

of not eating animals at all, not because the

arguments for veganism and animal rights aren't

convincing enough or sound enough or compelling

enough but, in short, because he wants to keep

eating animals. Period. Pure and simple. He says

it himself: " If I believe in equality, and

equality is based on interests rather than

characteristics, then either I have to take the

interests of the steer I'm eating into account or

concede that I am a speciesist. For the time

being, I decided to plead guilty as charged. I

finished my steak. "

 

Throughout the book, he skillfully makes it

appear as though he thoughtfully considers an

alternative to killing animals for human

consumption, but it is all a ruse. He is a

meat-eater and wants to defend his meat-eating;

his arguments against vegetarianism are unfounded

and embarrassingly pedestrian. But for all the

praise and accolades he received, not one

reviewer ever questioned his logic. He kills a

pig to " see if I could, " and not one reviewer or

interviewer questioned this unethical decision,

which, among other things, breeches the

journalist's code of ethics to " minimize harm. " I

suppose, however, that the " harm " refers to human

beings - not all beings. He uses the pathetic

argument that humans are physically designed to

eat animals and even says that we're denying our

heritage by not eating animals.

 

And nobody questioned any of this. Nobody!

 

Well, *I* did. And so did like-minded folks who,

having no need to spend hundreds of pages

defending an unnecessary habit, saw right through

Pollan's lofty language. But my

<http://www.compassionatecooks.com/blog/index.html>blog

posts and

<http://feeds.feedburner.com/VegetarianFoodForThought>podcasts

didn't exactly have the power to overturn the

damage Pollan caused.

 

In my

<http://feeds.feedburner.com/VegetarianFoodForThought>podcast

version of my article:

<http://www.compassionatecooks.com/word/satya_oct_06.htm>The

Rise of the Excuse-itarians, I read Hans

Christian Anderson's fable,

<http://hca.gilead.org.il/emperor.html>The

Emperor's New Clothes, because I find it a

fitting analogy to the " sustainable meat "

phenomenon. In summary, it's a morality tale

whose message is " Just because everyone else

believes something is true, doesn't mean it is. "

And it takes the voice of innocence, of truth, in

the form of a little child to pierce the illusion

and lift the veil from everyone's eyes.

 

Well, I'm now thrilled to report that another

voice has just pierced the illusion - and what a

voice! B.R. Myers, a book critic for the

<http://www.theatlantic.com/>Atlantic Monthly

magazine, has written a fiercely honest criticism

of Pollan's book in the Sept. 2007 issue of the

magazine. It's called " Hard to Swallow: The

gourmet's ongoing failure to think in moral

terms. " I ran to my local bookstore, sat down,

and almost squealed with delight as I read it. In

fact, I did squeal and sigh and cry, and I'm sure

my fellow book patrons were wondering what the

heck I was reading!

 

Myers adeptly scrutinizes Pollan's arguments,

chews them up, and spits them out. Though the

doublespeak of such " excuse-itarians " as Michael

Pollan has always been very clear to me, it was

incredibly satisfying to have a respected writer

agree that Pollan's justifications leave as

bitter a taste in his mouth as they do in mine.

And to have it published in a magazine such as

The Atlantic gives me great reason for hope.

 

I read the article in my next podcast episode,

but I highly recommend that everyone get

themselves a copy and more importantly write a

letter to The Atlantic Monthly magazine. The

email address is

<lettersletters.

Thank them for publishing Myers piece, a powerful

piece of truth-telling that recognizes that the

emperor is indeed wearing no clothes.

 

(You can read the beginning of the essay

<http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200709/omnivore>here,

but do help make this the best-selling issue of

the magazine by purchasing it, and tell them why!)

 

 

At 6:43 PM -0700 9/14/07, cybrena wrote:

So often I run into vegetarians who, when they find out I'm vegan, say

something like this:

 

" Well I eat eggs and dairy but I only eat organic, free range...etc,

etc... " or " I get my goat cheese (or eggs or milk, etc) from a local farm "

or something like that.

 

Assuming others run into this same situation I'd greatly appreciate hearing

feedback on what to say or do with the goal of promoting veganism in that

moment. Sometimes this happens with someone I'm not going to see again and

other times it happens with people I have ongoing relationships with.

 

I also have this same dilemma with environmentalists except it goes

something like this:

 

" I only eat niman ranch meat " or " I only eat free range chickens " or " I eat

only organic, humanely raised beef " , etc...

 

Any advice would be appreciated.

 

Please feel free to email me on or off the group list

 

~Cybrena