To eat, or not to eat.
Last semester I took a class on food ethics, taught by Dr. Jonathan K. Crane, one of the leading academics in the realm of food ethics. I read and deconstructed, the ethical arguments related to the food industry and journalism, so that YOU, don’t have to. Here are my views:
P.s: My sources are cited at the bottom, so you know I’m legit. If this article gets traction I might consider posting regularly on this topic.
Happy Reading.
There is an incredible amount of literature pushing forward diverse sets of gastronomic propagandas. In the last few decades, there has been a sharp rise in production of books, self-help guides, and even journalism that attempts to propagate what their creators think are the proper guidelines to a healthy lifestyle, and in the end, they all talk about something very innate to our existence and sustenance, the food we consume. The new-age content related to contemporary food philosophy is a terrain that the average person would find incredibly confusing to navigate through. The advice is conflicting, interesting, and always sensational. Dairy is the devil, go for the alternatives. Lose weight on a diet of eggs. Eat whole foods that are locally produced. Yeah, that last one doesn’t seem too enticing, does it? Probably because it’s not something that we don’t know. We grew up learning to avoid packaged food, consume good amounts of vegetables and whole grains, in addition to a healthy amount of protein. But among the plethora of sensational media surrounding food, these pieces of advice seem to have been overshadowed by journalism that pitches an ethical dilemma, promises fast results, and is verified by “experts”. We live in an age where food is so intertwined with the other aspects of our lives, that the more famous individuals linked with food philosophy often have little to no background in food science. Even pop psychologist Jordan Peterson came up with his instructions, “the beef-salt diet”; the controversial psychologist consumes three servings of beef: fried, roasted, even boiled, with salt for taste. Does he consume fruits and vegetables? Not anymore, it’s only meat and sparkling water. While this is just an example, it is important to note that the rising tide of food ethics and journalism is very related to concepts like this. Put it simply, the reason meat might be getting a bad name could be because of the ethical passivity of the arguments for it. Vegan philosophy and journalism have their roots tied to sustainability, ethics, and health. It’s not surprising that most individuals that we think of when considering veganism, are celebrities and athletes: Venus Williams, Joaquin Phoenix, Natalie Portman, etc. Vegans, thus, have gained notoriety for having health-seeking attitudes. Be it a product of culture, media, or business, when we think about unhealthy, fast foods, the image that conjures up is often of chicken nuggets, cheeseburgers, and fried chicken washed down with gallons of coke. Probably because there aren’t many vegan options that one can find in these hotspots of obesity, diabetes, and health emergencies. But all this doesn’t prove that veganism is the most healthy diet for everyone. Rather, it shows that vegan individuals are less likely to eat unhealthy food.
There is a stark difference between not eating unhealthy foods, and having a sustainable and healthy diet. While self-reported vegans and vegetarians are more likely to belong to higher socio-economic categories than meat-eaters and are likely to pursue choices that represent a healthier lifestyle (for example, lower prevalence of drug and alcohol usage) [2,3], these factors don’t necessarily point towards a healthier body composition or nutrient profile. Studies have shown that vegans are more likely to have a nutritional profile than under-compensated proteins, while overcompensating carbohydrates, with a lower than needed profile for essential nutrients like riboflavin and B12 [1]. However, the use of dietary pattern analysis, which some proponents refer to as a more holistic study, show that vegans and vegetarians have the healthiest eating habits [4]. One of the shortcomings of this study was the concept of pitching the diets against the USDA requirements for daily caloric intake and macro profile, that doesn’t take into consideration the individual nutrients that could be harder for vegans and vegetarians to consume as a lot of these nutrients are abundantly found in animal proteins and products, but not so much in vegan foods. This however doesn’t mean that the vegan diet is any less healthy, these shortcomings can just as easily be corrected with proper dietary diligence and supplements. It does however mean that it is easier for health-seeking omnivores to have a better nutrient profile, and thus a healthier diet than a vegan, but such differences can quite easily be treated. But the inherent problems with these studies and the sensationalizing of these findings can be directed to the problem of accurate representation. Unlike popular vegan media’s portrayal of the issue of health, the problem and the solution has nothing to do with non-vegetarian being unhealthy and vegans being healthier. The discrepancy lies in the simple fact that the “default setting”, for most individuals in western countries, is non-vegetarianism, and thus when more people start consuming unhealthy, fast foods, the worst hit is the non-vegetarian. And as veganism, in a lot of cases, is a conscious decision, most vegans are likely to have a health-seeking attitude and thus make healthier dietary choices. In short, it’s not about eating or not eating meat, rather it is about the attitude most vegans have towards their lifestyle. Unsurprisingly, studies have found no significant difference in all-cause mortality between non-vegetarians and vegetarians who follow comparable health-seeking lifestyles [5,6]. Most studies that deal with such issues are epidemiological, however, biased journalism uses these studies without mentioning that they show a mere correlation and not causation. Epidemiological studies on vegetarians and non-vegetarians have shown that most vegetarians have lower all-cause mortality rates than non-vegetarians, but this by no sense means that the higher all-cause mortality rate in non-vegetarians is purely due to eating meat. Which is the sort of argument most of these articles use, however, such an argument is akin to saying that Nicholas Cage movies cause a rise in death by drowning in a pool. There is a strong correlation between his movies and the number of people drowning in personal pools, but there is no causation that can be proven. The two studies, previously cited, take into consideration a very important factor in all-cause mortality: health-seeking attitudes. And as the studies done in the UK and Australia, using more than 60,000 and 267,000 people, respectively, noted, when factoring in the health-seeking attitude, or the term used by the researchers: comparable lifestyle attitudes, there are no significant differences in all-cause mortality between vegetarians (including vegans) and non-vegetarians. Hence, it is important to realize that there is no perfect diet, or that no reasonably healthy diet is worse than the other. In the end, it is not about eating or not eating meat that affects our health as much, as long as it is done in moderation and the diet involves whole foods and grains. The health arguments for, or against, vegans or omnivores are largely biased and mostly based on correlation, ignoring important nuanced factors that can show a more honest picture. But the issues related to veganism and meat-eating become more complicated when considering the ethical, environmental, and moral consequences of either one of those ways of living.
The environmental factors, however, make consumption of meat a larger issue for the long term survival of our species. Ruminant meat, the main culprit for the impacts of meat consumption on the global environment, produced almost 175 million metric tons (mmt) in CO2 equivalents of enteric methane in the U.S. in 2017, which accounts for an output of 62g of CO2-Ceq per gram of protein [7], making ruminants, such as factory-farmed cows, sheep, goats, etc., making their meat the most carbon expensive at the moment. In addition to that methane produced by ruminant cattle is one of the biggest contributors to large scale global warming. And while such statistics are true and frankly worth pondering upon, it is important to note that most critics are quick to include grass-fed beef into the same category. In her book Eating Earth, Lisa Kemmerer is quick to note: “Those consuming is grass-fed beef are responsible are responsible for even more methane emissions” [8]; while that is a fact, and she doesn’t shy away from putting it out there, observable by the italics, she conveniently doesn’t mention how different the impact is for grass-fed cattle. The important process that she leaves out is called carbon sequestration. Carbon sequestration is the process by which the soil absorbs the carbon emissions produced by the environment. It is a natural process that has existed since eternity and is part of the reason why global warming could be kept in control since the dawn of life. Even though grass-fed cattle produce 20% more carbon throughout its life, mostly due to its long, natural lifespan [10], the overall impact of it is mitigated by rotational grazing land, which encourages new growth while working manure and other natural fertilizers into the soil. By allowing the development of healthier soil and robust grassland, grass-fed cattle can indirectly help in increasing carbon sequestration, the only reason, and natural way of ensuring the reversal of global warming while ensuring that the caloric requirements of the world can be met [9]. Reducing meat consumption to the extent that climate change can be controlled is a distant dream, mostly due to the eating behaviors and the constant rise in the consumption of meat. However, many critics of factory farming agree that 100% grass-fed cattle and sustainable meat production could be the only way to save the planet. Michael Pollan, the writer of The Omnivore’s Dilemma, is also a big proponent of sustainable farming. One of the farms he mentions in his book, Polyface Farms, is a perfect example of productive sustainability. He mentions that Joel Salatin (Polyface Farms) “by the end of the year…will have transformed that grass into 30,000 pounds of beef, 60,000 pounds of pork, 12,000 broilers, 50,000 dozen eggs, 1,000 rabbits, and 600 turkeys — a truly astonishing cornucopia of food from such a modest plot of land. What’s more, that land itself will be improved by the process.” [11] Such farming methods, while being sustainable, can provide a higher quality pasture, output, and meat, all of this while helping regenerate the soil, so that it can increase the net sequestration capacity of the fields, in doing so, such methods not only become a better alternative to factory farming, but also necessary choices to help feed the world while helping the environment. So why aren’t these methods used? They are labor-intensive and produce a net revenue less than that of the multibillion-dollar factory farming industry that is also backed by the USDA. The movement towards a more sustainable meat option, for the sake of the environment, thus needs more government backing and popular support as it may be the only possible alternative that could successfully save the planet while feeding the population.
When considering philosophical and ethical issues raised against the consumption of animals, the whole subject gets complicated. I’d like to start by saying that I, for one, do not disagree with most arguments against animal consumption. The tricky part about philosophy is that two arguments can be completely valid logically but also be contradictory. Coetzee, in The Lives of Animals, displays exactly this; first, he starts with the logical, and rational arguments, and unpacks why rational thinkers can’t grasp the concept of veganism, at least her stance on it, and then in the second half of the book she provides strategies that artists and poets often use to represent animals, and how those strategies can help build a sense of empathy, that transcends rationalism. The arguments she uses are akin to Michael Pollan’s. He recounts a day when he went hunting for wild boars, and after that successful game, he describes the scene of “ a dead wild animal, its head lying on the dirt in a widening circle of blood.” [12] Essentially both these arguments appeal to the same kind of ethos, that it is fine to eat animals as long as you can consider them as the wild beasts that roam freely. Coetzee’s protagonist uses Ted Hughes and his ranch, essentially coming to the same conclusion. If you can consider the meat that you consume to be of an animal that once was alive, if you can look at the bacon on your plate and know that you are eating a pig, then you are a much better meat-eater than most. Such arguments do not preach on a certain choice of consumption, rather they outline a thought process that can lead to a more conscientious form of consumption. However, arguments that appeal to a Categorical Imperative on the issue of meat-eating, lose sight of some very simple rebuttals. Kant’s Categorical Imperative talks about “objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principles that we must always follow despite any natural desires or inclinations we may have to the contrary” [13]; for most vegan advocates, this includes animal welfare and non-consumption. However, the existence of a moral system requires a social contract. An obligation by two parties to act in ways that are beneficial and reciprocative. For the issue of animal rights, that becomes a big part of the argument against animal consumption, the simple rebuttal would be that animals, due to their inability to consciously come into a reflexive agreement with human beings, cannot be a part of social contracts. As an animal can’t assure humans that it will not consume them, thus it is irresponsible to expect the same from human beings. No, I do not mean to say that I don’t believe that animals should have a good standard of living, but I do want to say that I am not against eating meat. When Hank Rothgerber lays down the foundations of cognitive dissonance towards meat consumption, he notes the different strategies that meat-eaters use to either, justify, or ignore, the moral inconsistencies of their beliefs towards animal welfare [14]. My problem isn’t with the apparent rebuttal of cartesian philosophy that comes into play in arguments against eating meat. But the problem comes from the inconsistencies in the anti-cartesian arguments that lead followers to believe that eating meat is bad because animals must not be killed. After all, even though they do not have a level of consciousness that is comparable to ours, they are still living and can feel pain. While I do not refute this, I would like to point out a very convincing argument laid out by the ecologist Carol Kaesuk Yoon in The New York Times:
“When a plant is wounded, its body immediately kicks into protection mode. It releases a bouquet of volatile chemicals, which in some cases have been shown to induce neighboring plants to pre-emptively step up their own chemical defenses and in other cases to lure in predators of the beasts that may be causing the damage to the plants. Inside the plant, repair systems are engaged and defenses are mounted, the molecular details of which scientists are still working out, but which involve signaling molecules coursing through the body to rally the cellular troops, even the enlisting of the genome itself, which begins churning out defense-related proteins.” [15]
By laying down features of plant stimulus due to harm, she lays down a very foundational argument: no living creature wants to be killed for the consumption of another. If it is morally reprehensible to eat animals, the logic plays over in plants too. The reason we choose to eat any animal over another, comes from a sense of distance that we have constructed between them and us. It is, finally, our only method of survival. Cognitive dissonance is merely a very complicated adaptation that essentially helps us survive. It is our ability to resolve moral contradictions through ignorance that helps us make the choices necessary to our survival. Morally, no human being should be causing suffering to any other living being, however, if the suffering can be reduced, while slaughter is made as human as possible, then the moral outrage of killing animals, should be matched with a moral outrage towards consuming any living being, including plants. If eating meat is inherently wrong, so is eating plants. But maybe the whole concept of inherent morality is a fallacy. Essentially, I would argue that because we can not hope to come to an objective truth about this issue, like many others, maybe the best foot forward must be put towards the movement of conscientious consumption. The question, thus, is not if humans should or should not eat meat? Rather, the question is, are humans willing to consider all the ethical and moral inconsistencies that complicate an age-old question? Unlike the ancient civilization, we can no longer suspend our guilt on the gods. We consume animals, not meat. We consume plants, not vegetables. As long as we can remind ourselves that, and still swallow the flesh in on our plates, logically, I see no reason to reduce our consumption of anything.
Bibliography:
- Allès, Benjamin et al. “Comparison of Sociodemographic and Nutritional Characteristics between Self-Reported Vegetarians, Vegans, and Meat-Eaters from the NutriNet-Santé Study.” Nutrients vol. 9,9 1023. 15 Sep. 2017, doi:10.3390/nu9091023
- Bedford J.L., Barr S.I. Diets and selected lifestyle practices of self-defined adult vegetarians from a population-based sample suggest they are more “health conscious” Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2005;2:4. doi: 10.1186/1479–5868–2–4.
- Davey G.K., Spencer E.A., Appleby P.N., Allen N.E., Knox K.H., Key T.J. EPIC-Oxford: Lifestyle characteristics and nutrient intakes in a cohort of 33,883 meat-eaters and 31,546 non meat-eaters in the UK. Public Health Nutr. 2003;6:259–269. doi: 10.1079/PHN2002430.
- Clarys, Peter et al. “Comparison of nutritional quality of the vegan, vegetarian, semi-vegetarian, pesco-vegetarian and omnivorous diet.” Nutrients vol. 6,3 1318–32. 24 Mar. 2014, doi:10.3390/nu6031318
- Mihrshahi, Seema, et al. “Vegetarian Diet and All-Cause Mortality: Evidence from a Large Population-Based Australian Cohort — the 45 and Up Study.” Preventive Medicine, vol. 97, 2017, pp. 1–7., doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.12.044.
- Appleby, Paul N, et al. “Mortality in Vegetarians and Comparable Nonvegetarians in the United Kingdom.” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 103, no. 1, Sept. 2015, pp. 218–230., doi:10.3945/ajcn.115.119461.
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (2019) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990–2017.
- Kemmerer, Lisa. Eating Earth: Environmental Ethics and Dietary Choice. Oxford University Press, 2015.
- Abend, L. (2010, January 25). How Cows (Grass-Fed Only) Could Save the Planet. Retrieved July 11, 2011, from Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1953692,00.html
- Marshall, J. (2010, January 27). Grass-Fed Beef Has Bigger Carbon Footprint. Retrieved July 11, 2011, from Discovery News: http://news.discovery.com/earth/grass-fed-beef-grain.html
- Pollan, Michael. “Sustaining Vision.” Michael Pollan, michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/sustaining-vision/.
- Pollan, Michael. The Omnivore’s Dilemma: A Natural History Of Four Meals. New York : Penguin Press, 2006. Print.
- johnson, Robert and Cureton, Adam, “Kant’s Moral Philosophy”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/kant-moral/>.
- Rothgerber, H. (2020). Meat-related cognitive dissonance: A conceptual framework for understanding how meat eaters reduce negative arousal from eating animals. Appetite, 146, 104511. doi: 10.1016/j.appet.2019.104511
- https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/science/15food.html?pagewanted=all
