Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Quitting Meat Is a Process -- Almost Impossible to Do All at Once

By Jonathan Safran Foer, AlterNet. Posted November 11, 2009.


When it comes to meat, change is almost always cast as an absolute. You are a vegetarian or you are not. It's a strange formulation, and it's distracting.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Mark Twain said that quitting smoking is among the easiest things one can do; he did it all the time. I would add vegetarianism to the list of easy things. In high school I became a vegetarian more times than I can now remember, most often as an effort to claim some identity in a world of people whose identities seemed to come effortlessly. I wanted a slogan to distinguish my mom's Volvo's bumper, a bake sale cause to fill the self-conscious half hour of school break, an occasion to get closer to the breasts of activist women. (And of course I did also think it was wrong to harm animals and destroy the environment.) Which isn't to say that I refrained from eating meat. Only that I refrained in public. Privately, the pendulum swung. Many dinners of those years began with my father asking, "Any dietary restrictions I need to know about tonight?"

I first became a vegetarian when I was nine, in response to an argument made by a radical babysitter. My great change -- which lasted a couple of weeks -- was based on the very simple instinct that it's wrong to kill animals for food. I imagine most children have some version of this instinct at some point, and while it says nothing at all about the rightness or wrongness of meat, the overcoming of it can, itself, leave a mark. Parental explanations almost always come in the form of half-truths, glossings over, or worse -- "Animals live long, happy lives in the sun, and when they one day die, they share their meat with us." Kids are even better at recognizing such bullshit than adults, even if, because they need a stable world, they don't pursue it. Whether or not something is learned about food, something is learned.

My most recent shift to vegetarianism was inspired by the birth of my first child. Facing the prospect of making food choices on his behalf -- and of having to come up with explanations that he would also digest -- I took the questions posed by meat seriously. Instinct no longer felt like enough. And neither did information. I wanted to have a full engagement with the subject. I wanted to see it for myself, not because there isn't ample access to relevant photographs and videos, but because I was not the photographer. (Observation is easy, implication is honest.) This full engagement -- which resulted in my book, Eating Animals -- required me to visit factory farms in the middle of the night, dissect the emotional ingredients of meals from my childhood, and probe those instincts of right and wrong that two decades earlier made me change. The answers to some questions became very clear very quickly. Some remain cloudy.

Will this vegetarianism be the last one? It's impossible to say, of course, but with my filled-out picture of not only contemporary animal agriculture, but my own understanding of fatherhood, it feels impossible to imagine a time when I would bring such food -- which is virtually always unhealthy, destructive and cruel -- into our home. Our home could not be our home in the same way, given what I now know.

But perhaps there's more to it. Perhaps it took all of that previous inconsistency, all of that pendulum swinging, to bring me to this place. Perhaps "failing" was not failing but approaching, one awkward step at a time, what I always wanted.

The question, I've come to think, is not what inspires one to change, but what inspires one to remain changed. It's easy and common to learn something -- through an argument or fact, image or experience -- and feel compelled to make different choices. But for how long? Change is inspiring, but only rarely durable. Part of this difficulty is found exactly where you'd expect to find it: most change isn't easy. Making different choices at restaurants and supermarkets is, for most people, harder than it might seem. What's the big deal? Order something else. The big deal is we've been eating these products since we were kids, and we digested them with stories. We got over our colds with chicken soup. We celebrated the Fourth of July with grilled burgers and hot dogs. We ate our grandmother's brisket. These things matter. As do our cravings. As does convenience.

But I wonder if more of the difficulty doesn't come from the ways that we talk and think about change. When it comes to meat, change is almost always cast as an absolute. You are a vegetarian or you are not. It's a strange formulation, and it's distracting. (Those who profit from animal suffering and environmental destruction want us to think in dichotomies, rather than practical realities.) Imagine someone asking you, "Are you an environmentalist or not?" For most of us, caring about the environment isn't an on-off switch, but a set of daily choices that we try to respond to as best we can. I buy energy-efficient products, and turn off lights when leaving a room, and recycle and so on. But I also fly on airplanes. Does my occasional flying completely undermine my identity as someone who cares and tries? Should I, faced with my inability to live consistently, make no efforts to live better?

Obviously not. We don't live our lives on the inside flaps of philosophy textbooks. We live in the world. And in the world, everyone is a hypocrite. In the world, change is not a switch but a process. Being serious about changing requires a certain amount of forgiveness. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't draw lines in the sand, or that we should be quick to accept all of our own apologies. But if animal welfare matters to us, if the air and water matter, if swine flu and E. Coli matter, if global warming matters, if biodiversity matters, if rural communities matter, if our ability to tell honest stories to ourselves and our children matters... then we shouldn't be distracted, intimidated or misled by someone else's idea of purity. We should begin at the beginning, and begin now.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: vegetarianism, animals, meat

Jonathan Safran Foer is one of the most acclaimed young writers of his generation, a "certified wunderkind" (Time) whose work has appeared in The Paris Review, The New York Times and The New Yorker.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Food! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Tools: [Post a new comment] [Login] [Signup] View:
Broader implications
Posted by: jlowelld on Nov 11, 2009 3:19 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Without commenting on the ethical considerations of vegetarianism, if 'western cultures' suddenly became entirely vegetarian it would be paramount to abandoning the agricultural system as it currently exists. From a personal political-economic-ecological perspective, I would welcome the change. However, I don't think this will happen until the overall system completely collapses--food will be the last link in the chain to break. Nevertheless, as a commentary of the need for change...moreover the need to change radically, vegetarianism is more of less a declaration of a revolutionary stance. If any one doubts this, remember the court case against Oprah by the beef industry--they mean business, and they know the danger of undermining the current status quo. Viva la Revolution--Vegetarians!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Broader implications Posted by: ML561
» RE: Broader implications Posted by: red porch
Seared Animal Flesh
Posted by: Nebris on Nov 12, 2009 1:26 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love it. =)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» "Long Pig" anyone? Posted by: moloko velocet
Humans were meant to hunt and eat meat
Posted by: bikerheart on Nov 12, 2009 2:46 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Our teeth are made to eat not only vegetables but meat. That is a scientific fact. Children are not appalled at the thought of killing and eating meat. They react as they are taught by those around them until their minds gather enough information to make a descission on their own.

My son would catch and hold the chickens we raised to eat, as my husband cut off their heads. He was NOT trumatized in the least. He is not a violent person nor does he find violence against people an exceptable thing.

We would make a family day of taking him out on the boat for the day as we caught fish for the purpose of eating them. We all found it a wonderful family day.

Vegetarianism is a personal choice, not a biological one. A balanced diet including the right proteins are essential to our health. To make eating meat sound like those who have chosen to succumb to the instinct that God gave each of us, means we have all become Jeffrey Dahlmers is a bit of a gruesome fairy tale to appease those who have chosen vegetarianism.
We all have the right to make the choice to eat or not to eat meat without harrassment by those who choose the opposite viewpoint. I personally found the article to be insulting and to lack in truth. I found the way the opinion put childlike and without reality.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» And here's some more... Posted by: mjabele
» Vegetarianism & Choices Posted by: Bunny hugger
» naturalistic fallacy Posted by: inverse_agonist
» RE: naturalistic fallacy Posted by: red porch
Laura, R.N.
Posted by: la nurse on Nov 12, 2009 2:53 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, I gave up beef. I didn't trust the government to protect us from mad cow. Then, I gave up pork. This was a result of appreciating pigs as sentient beings. Chicken consumption ended with an exposure to factory farming. I still eat occasional small fish. Too much mercury in the larger ones. It maybe that fish farming is cruel. I haven't researched it. Truth is, I don't want to.
These dietary changes took about 12 years. Over time, I became proficient at vegetarian/vegan cooking. I appreciate the health benefits of my dietary changes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Laura, R.N. Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» Pigs as "sentient beings"?... Posted by: moloko velocet
Very well said
Posted by: TomOfMaine on Nov 12, 2009 3:09 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you Jonathan, for all you are doing to help raise awareness on behalf of the voiceless and our planet. Those are some of the most meaningful and selfless actions a human being can take in their short lifetime here on earth, and the incredibly positive impact will be permanent. Thank you very much.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I've been writing this all along, and catching constant shit for it
Posted by: Beck on Nov 12, 2009 5:23 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That many, almost certainly MOST, vegetarians are closet meat-eaters. The writer describes what I am certain is reality: people hear something that sounds good: "It's cruel to kill and eat anything dead" but that leaves out the fact that every bite of food is killed, and fills our stomachs with death. We all know many former vegetarians, far more than current vegetarians, and probably most of us have tried "giving up meat" repeatedly, out of self-imposed guilt from the advertising and propaganda we've constantly heard. Why? Why would anyone try "giving up meat" and ever go back? Supposedly we instantly feel better, have lots more energy, start losing weight. Yet, just like this writer, we don't stay. Here's why: no one's brain can force their body to stick with self-imposed, well-meaning, non-biological game plans.

Use up your B12 and iron and you'll eat some meat. Interestingly, the time this usually takes is between 1 and 3 years. That seems to be the common limit of vegetarianism. No one should ever take a first bite of meat if everything we read, all the preaching, is correct. It makes no sense whatsoever. Yet the rarest thing of all is anyone sticking out a meat-free diet.

The reason we're repelled by hunting, raising, butchering meat is that our modern lives protect us from just about all reality. We're repelled by the bathroom and bodily functions, having set up a society that uses clean drinking water to instantly get rid of pee. We need our garbage taken away from us because we can't cope with it. Health food stores look no less sanitized or full of processed, advertised, shrink-wrapped food than any grocery. We're grossed out by poop, pee, our autumn leaves, 80% of wildlife, although if it looks like Bambi, Babe, or Elsie our hearts go out. We assume that our repulsion is normal for humans, having never spent time with tribes or the Amish, rural Greeks, rural people anywhere. We read constantly that if we had to kill our own meat, by god, we would not do it! Let me clue you in: in cultures that raise, hunt, kill, butcher their own meat, vegetarians are probably seen as absurd. The kill is a time of celebration and thanks, and it isn't because they're evil or clueless or addicted or defensive. It's because they never had any idea that humans have the right or ability to decide their own biology. They do not put themselves above nature. They're a part of it, sustainably, joyfully, naturally. They also are not bombarded with advertising telling them that they can be anything they decide; that their brains and wishes can override anything, even biology. Their bodies know better.

But thanks, article writer. I've said all along that most "vegetarians" I know eat meat probably as much as I do, and I've been nailed for it and told it's wishful thinking on my part. Wonder how long this guy will stay a vegetarian (his track record, by his own admission, is bad) and I wonder why he didn't research the risks to pregnant women, nursing women, and kids. 3% of men in America are low in iron. 20% of women are. FIFTY PERCENT OF PREGNANT WOMEN ARE. Low iron in pregnancy can cause low birth weight and early labor. Plants, according to some sources, contain no useable iron. Even Bruce Friedrich says that if you want to absorb the iron in plants, you need to avoid coffee, tea, and fiber. FIBER. If you're a nursing mother low in B12, your baby will get none of your body's stores. When your baby shows symptoms, the damage is done. Harvard's public health website taught me that. Low iron in the population at large can cause persistent mild diarrhea, which depletes the body of other nutrients. Anything as important as diet is worth checking out thoroughly before listening to intense, impassioned people who want to correct you. Although there's no worry of that. No one shifts because of this type of writing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» We'll agree to disagree... Posted by: mjabele
» Do not expect her to Bruce Posted by: felipe
Stop counting
Posted by: rac on Nov 12, 2009 5:52 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I’m a vegetarian, but I can’t tell you how many times I’ve eaten meat either by accident or because of the social situation or the lack of any other good options. I’ve been a veggie for about 40 years now and have never thought purity was the goal. Just stop eating meat and don’t be concerned about how many times you’ve sinned. The last Puritan died long, long ago. Most people will never be strict vegetarians and that’s okay. I’ve never advocated vegetarianism because I don’t think I should impose my lifestyle choice on others. Foer shouldn’t either. All it’s going to do is produce a lot of frustrated dieters like Foer.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» My God, a pragmatist... Posted by: mjabele
Eat My Fear !
Posted by: Ontic on Nov 12, 2009 6:25 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clearly you have given thought to what you put into your body - and more importantly, what is put into your child's body. I admire your research efforts to better understand the practices of meat industry.
We live in a time when information is readily available to anyone who takes the time to inquire, so I find it perplexing that more people don't take the time to learn more about the items they consume. I'm inclined to think that fear of change is keeping people from seeking out the truth - because once we are presented with the truth, we become responsible for our actions and the choices we make.
Conscious consuming, and living in a respectful, caring way can somethings be difficult. Corporate America spends millions to keep it that way.
Whenever I read about the meat issues - I often recall the image of the David Lynch's cow sculpture that was rejected from the New York Cowparade 2000. A headless cow, with the words "eat my fear" across it's body.
We hold our emotions in our muscles, and a visit to any slaughterhouse will show that cattle are filled with fear as they hear and smell the others ahead of them be killed. Eating meat from any slaughterhouse is eating fear. Eating meat from an adrenaline filled animal as it is fleeing from a hunter is eating fear.
We eat a great deal of fear in this country, it's little wonder that Foxs 'News' Channel has the greatest amount of viewers. When a mammal is afraid, they lose their ability to think and reason properly. Their brains become focused on doing whatever it takes to survive. Look around you - as the tea bagger movement has shown us, we live in a red meat eating society. It is much easier to control people who are filled with fear. There is hope - it is much easier to be a vegetarian today then it was 30+ years ago.
Thank you for sharing your research on this particular subject.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Eat My Fear ! Posted by: vasumurti
REVENGE OF THE PLANTS
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Nov 12, 2009 6:57 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A couple of weeks ago, I watched this show on the science channel.

I wonder whether the weed eaters also watched it and how they feel about murdering/killing/EATING these THINKING, REASONING PLANTS??

I would bet that most of the weed eaters who are yanked by others' fingers in their nostrils didn't watch it and, if they did, couldn't understand it.

"Revenge" was a terrific show.
The weed eaters will either not reply to my post or get out their typical neurotic flame throwers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: REVENGE OF THE PLANTS Posted by: vasumurti
» RE: VENGE OF THE PLANTS Posted by: Richardsievert
environmental reasons to shift to vegetarianism
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 12, 2009 7:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following quotes, facts, figures and statistics are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

"A reduction in beef and other meat consumption is the most potent single act you can take to halt the destruction of our environment and preserve our natural resources. Our choices do matter: What's healthiest for each of us personally is also healthiest for the life support system of our precious, but wounded planet."

---John Robbins, author, Diet for a New America, and President, EarthSave Foundation


One study puts animal waste in the United States to between 2.4 trillion to 3.9 trillion pounds per year. The United states produces 15,000 pounds of manure per person. This is 130 times the amount of waste produced by the entire human population of the United States.

A 1,000-cow dairy can produce approximately 120,000 pounds of waste per day. This is the functional equivalent of the amount of sanitary waste produced by a city of 20,000 people.

A 20,000-chicken factory produces about 2.4 million pounds of manure a year. Poultry factories are one of the fastest growing industries throughout Asia.

One pig excretes nearly three gallons of waste per day, or 2.5 times the average human's daily total. One hog farm with 50,000 pigs in France produces more waste than the entire city of Los Angeles, and some pig farms are much larger.

Factory farm pollution is the primary source of damage to coastal waters in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. Scientists report that over sixty percent of the coastal waters in the United States are moderately to severely degraded from factory farm nutrient pollution. This pollution creates oxygen-depleted dead zones, which are huge areas of ocean devoid of aquatic life.

Meat production causes deforestation, which then contributes to global warming. Trees convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, and the destruction of forests around the globe to make room for grazing cattle furthers the greenhouse effect. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations reports that the annual rate of tropical deforestation has increased from 9 million hectares in 1980 to 16.8 million hectares in 1990, and unfortunately, this destruction has accelerated since then. By 1994, a staggering 200 million hectares of rainforest had been destroyed in South America just for cattle.

"The impact of countless hooves and mouths over the years has done more to alter the type of vegetation and land forms of the West than all the water projects, strip mines, power plants, freeways, and sub-division developments combined."

---Philip Fradkin, in Audubon, National Audubon Society, New York

Agricultural meat production generates air pollution. As manure decomposes, it releases over 400 volatile organic compounds, many of which are extremely harmful to human health. Nitrogen, a major by-product of animal wastes, changes to ammonia as it escapes into the air, and this is a major source of acid rain. Worldwide, livestock produce over 30 million tons of ammonia. Hydrogen sulfide, another chemical released from animal waste, can cause irreversible neurological damage, even at low levels.

The World Conservation Union lists over 1,000 different fish species that are threatened or endangered. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 60 percent of the world's fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. Commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock, and flounder have fallen by as much as 95 percent in the north Atlantic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

environmental reasons to shift to vegetarianism (cont'd)
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 12, 2009 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The United States and Europe lose several billion tons of topsoil each year from cropland and grazing land, and 84 percent of this erosion is caused by livestock agriculture. While this soil is theoretically a renewable resource, we are losing soil at a much faster rate than we are able to replace it. It takes 100 to 500 years to produce one inch of topsoil, but due to livestock grazing and feeding, farming areas can lose up to six inches of topsoil a year.

Livestock production affects a startling 70 to 85 percent of the land area of the United States, United Kingdom, and the European Union. That includes the public and private rangeland used for grazing, as well as the land used to produce the crops that feed the animals. By comparison, urbanization only affects 3 percent of the United States land area, slightly larger for the European Union and the United Kingdom. Meat production consumes the world's land resources.

Half of all fresh water worldwide is used for thirsty livestock. Producing eight ounces of beef requires an unimaginable 25,000 liters of water, or the water necessary for one pound of steak equals the water consumption of the average household for a year.

The United States government spends $10 million each year to kill an estimated 100,000 wild animals, including coyotes, foxes, bobcats, badgers, bears, and mountain lions just to placate ranchers who don't want these animals killing their livestock. The cost far outweighs the damage to livestock that these predators cause.

The Worldwatch Institute estimates one pound of steak from a steer raised in a feedlot costs: five pounds of grain, a whopping 2,500 gallons of water, the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, and about 34 pounds of topsoil.

33 percent of our nation's raw materials and fossil fuels go into livestock destined for slaughter. In a vegan economy, only 2 percent of our resources will go to the production of food.

"It seems disingenuous for the intellectual elite of the first world to dwell on the subject of too many babies being born in the second- and third-world nations while virtually ignoring the overpopulation of cattle and the realities of a food chain that robs the poor of sustenance to feed the rich a steady diet of grain-fed meat."

---Jeremy Rifkin, author, Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture, and president of the Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

Lester Brown of the Overseas Development Council calculates that if Americans reduced their meat consumption by only 10 percent per year, it would free at least 12 million tons of grain for human consumption--or enough to feed 60 million people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"Curses are the consequence'
Posted by: Richardsievert on Nov 12, 2009 7:54 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a reply to the Author of this great article' Not the illusions of grander by every other comment or reply'
Wisdom is something given it cannot be'
Taken -
B aught or sold. So please listen Bright eyed babies at birth begin to suck' On her-his mothers life' milk witch is a form of her' We are not animals we are human. loosing our humanity as simple as this is "From wanting to be a female' With every given bite' Takes us further away from what we are' What we where born to be ether male or female not what we want to be. Let me explain please' Transgenders people where not born that way it was the unessential feeling they got from there own chosen mate' A woman from who bore them and the things in food - Meat that drugged them away from the suck to the duck' Not seeing the female breast as a comfort that there own DNA now hates' See it was never the abuse from the mother or the father but from the cold reality that they do not desire breasts' Because they have there own to eat' It's no long a new fascinating thing and experience each baby feels as her mother feeds her' weather by bottle or breast We caused this division of women and men wanting to be like them.
I tried to explain this the best way I could I no it's hard to believe that it all started by "Separating lies' In the bible.
Once the flood was over and a season passed they all where supposed to refrain from meat something the Vatican hid from everyone in a vault protected by lies.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's hard to find tasty easy vegetarian recipes!
Posted by: Alan8 on Nov 12, 2009 10:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm vegetarian for days at a time. I'd like to be more vegetarian but it's so hard!

It's difficult to find vegetarian recipes that are tasty and easy to make. I just don't have the time to prepare everything from scratch.

After spending a ridiculous amount of time recreating a vegan recipe I found on the web, it tasted terrible and was a total waste.

Plus many vegetarian recipes are high in fat (e.g. cheese) so are about as unhealthy as meat.

If it was easier to eat vegetarian I think more people would do it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

we can begin the shift to vegetarianism by abolishing factory farming
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 12, 2009 10:40 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some discussion of the cruelty of modern factory farming is is necessary here. Most Americans are still under the mistaken impression that animals are raised on idyllic farms with sunshine, fresh air, and open spaces, and are killed humanely, after a pleasant life. The reality, however, is quite different.

A contermporary Benedictine monk, Brother David Steindl-Rast, wrote in Harmony: Voices for a Just Future, a peace and justice periodical, in 1995, that "...the survival of our planet depends on our sense of belonging--to all other humans, to dolphins caught in dragnets, to pigs and chickens and calves raised in animal concentration camps, to redwoods and rainforests, to kelp beds in our oceans, and to the ozone layer."

In a sermon preached in York Minster, September 28, 1986, John Austin Baker, the Bishop of Salisbury, England, attacked factory farming; choosing as his example, the treatment of chickens.

"Is there any credit balance for the battery hen, denied almost all natural functioning, all normal environment, lapsing steadily into deformity and disease, for the whole of her existence? he asked. "It is in the battery shed and the broiler house, not in the wild, that we find the true parallel to Auschwitz. Auschwitz is a purely human invention."

On another occasion, Bishop Baker taught: "By far the most important duty of all Christians in the cause of animal welfare is to cultivate this capacity to see; to see things with the heart of God, and so to suffer with other creatures."

On World Prayer Day for Animals, October 4, 1986, Bishop Baker preached against indifference to animal pain and lauded the animal welfare movement:

"To shut your mind, heart, imagination to the sufferings of others is to begin to slowly but inexorably to die. It is to cease by inches from being human, to become in the end capable of nothing generous or unselfish--or sometimes capable of anything, however terrible. You in the animal welfare movement are among those who may yet save our society from becoming spiritually deaf, blind and dead, and so from the doom that will justly follow."

According to Bishop Baker: "...Rights, whether animal or human, have only one sure foundation: that God loves us all and rejoices in us all. We humans are called to share with God in fulfilling the work of love towards all creatures...the true glory of the strong is to give themselves for the cherishing of the weak."

The realization that meat is an unnecessary luxury, resulting in inequities in the world's food
supply, has prompted religious leaders in different denominations to call on their members to abstain from meat.

Paul Moore, Jr., the Episcopal bishop of the Diocese of New York, made such an appeal in a November 1974 pastoral letter, calling for the observance of "meatless Wednedays." A similar appeal had been issued earlier by Roman Catholic Cardinal Cooke of New York. The Reverend Eugene Carson Blake, former head of the World Council of Churches, and founder of Bread for the World, has encouraged everyone in his anti-hunger organization to abstain from eating meat on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.

Ronald J. Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action pointed out in his 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, that 220 million Americans were consuming enough grain (largely because of the high consumption of grain fed to livestock) to feed over one billion people in the poorer countries.

Father Thomas Berry, a Catholic priest, author, and founder of the Riverdale Center for Religious Research in New York, wrote in 1987 that "Vegetarianism is a way of life that we should all move toward for economic survival, physical well-being, and spiritual integrity."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ton livre est formidable!
Posted by: ClaudineMe on Nov 12, 2009 11:09 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bravo Jonathan! Your new book is great and I am hoping it will revolutionize the world. Your article for AlterNet is equally excellent. I had said before that I'd like to adopt you...and now I'd like to say that I'd like to be your grand-mère! I loved your first novel and the film! Now I want to give "Eating Animals" to many friends and relatives who don't realize that going vegan is the best thing for them, their children, the planet etc...Your little boy is very lucky. Best wishes.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kids in the sandbox like me...
Posted by: red porch on Nov 12, 2009 11:10 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Negative response to my veggie-headedness has always been guilt-driven rationalization – the omnivore’s most common response. (Same as in these threads. Count ‘em.)

I do not give a f-uck about your rationalizations because you do not give a f-uck about mine. I exist only as a momentary illusion in your mind. When I remove myself from your perception, you go on to other things, just as I do.

So stop with the rationalizing. If these types of articles give you problems, do something about it. The problem is within you. If these types of articles don’t faze you, file the info for another time.

(Maybe the 2nd para was a bit too tough, if so: sorry.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PETA...not Pick
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 12, 2009 12:34 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
peta2 is now the largest youth movement of any social change organization in the world.

peta2 has 267,000 friends on MySpace and 91,000 Facebook fans.

A few years ago, PETA was the top-ranked charity when a poll asked teenagers what nonprofit group they would most want to work for. PETA won by more than a 2 to 1 margin over the second place finisher, The American Red Cross, with more votes than the Red Cross and Habitat for Humanity combined.

I understand there are conservative Christians who fear vegetarianism...which is kind of like being afraid of nonsmoking, nondrinking, or recycling. Ronald J. Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, in his 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, pointed out that 220 million Americans were eating enough food (largely because of the high consumption of grain fed to livestock) to feed over one billion people in the poorer countries.

A pamphlet put out by Compassion Over Killing says raising animals for food is one of the leading causes of both pollution and resource depletion today. According to a recent United Nations report, Livestock's Long Shadow, raising chickens, turkeys, pigs, and other animals for food causes more greenhouse gas emissions than all the cars, trucks and other forms of transportation combined. Researchers from the University of Chicago similarly concluded that a vegetarian diet is the most energy efficient, and the average American does more to reduce global warming emissions by not eating animal products than by switching to a hybrid car.

A 2007 journal published by the American Dietetic Association found "meat protein production required 26 times more water than vegetable protein on rain-fed lands." The journal further states that dieticians "can encourage eating that is both healthful and conserving of soil, water, and energy by emphasizing plant sources of protein and foods that have been produced with fewer agricultural inputs."

"Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation."

---Union Nations' Food and Agriculture Association

70% of the grain grown and 50% of the water consumed in the U.S. are used by the meat industry. (Audubon Society)

Over 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to grow grain for livestock. (Greenpeace)

It takes nearly one gallon of fossil fuel and 5,200 gallons of water to produce just one pound of conventionally fed beef. (Mother Jones)

Farmed animals produce an estimated 1.4 billion tons of fecal waste each year in the U.S. Much of this untreated waste pollutes the land and water.

The number of animals killed for food in the United States is 70 times larger than the number of animals killed in laboratories, 30 times larger than the number killed by hunters and trappers, and 500 times larger than the number of animals killed in animal pounds.

“If anyone wants to save the planet,” says Paul McCartney in a PETA interview from 2001, “all they have to do is stop eating meat. That’s the single most important thing you could do. It’s staggering when you think about it. Vegetarianism takes care of so many things in one shot: ecology, famine, cruelty. Let’s do it! Linda was right. Going veggie is the single best idea for the new century.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

From Bruce Friedrich: Please stop lying about me, sir.
Posted by: brucegfriedrich on Nov 12, 2009 1:43 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the third time I've asked you to stop claiming that I said things I did not say.

Obviously it was an easy mistake to make: Someone hijacked my name and put up a site at BruceFriedrich.org. But you keep making it, even after I've told you repeatedly to stop.

As the site says in a disclaimer at the bottom, it is in no way affiliated with me. There is NO Bruce Friedrich affiliated with the site in any way.

Thank you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

um, sorry--this comment belongs above, in response to a previous post (i've just put it up there)
Posted by: brucegfriedrich on Nov 12, 2009 1:45 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If someone is moderating, please remove this comment from here.

Very sorry, everyone!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

easy to become and stay a vegetarian
Posted by: Genie on Nov 12, 2009 2:03 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been a vegetarian since September of 1970. No I have never been "tempted" to eat meat on the sly. It has been good for the planet, good for me, and good for the animals.
Many of the article's readers, and the article's author would benefit from reading Eternal Treblinka; that is what animals raised for food endure every day of their lives--an eternal Treblinka.
I for one am happy that my lifestyle does not feed on violence and slaughter.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Global Hunger
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 12, 2009 3:33 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Global hunger could be directly attributed to meat-eating." ---Chrissie Hynde

Half the world's population does not receive an adequate amount of food to eat. Ten to twenty million die annually of hunger and its effects. The Institute for Food and Development Policy reports that, "Forty thousand children starve to death on this planet every day," or one child every two seconds.

The livestock population of the United States today consumes enough grain and soybeans to feed over five times the entire human population of the country. We feed these animals over 80% of the corn we grow, and over 95% of the oats. Less than half the harvested agricultural acreage in the United States is used to grow food for people. Most of it is used to grow livestock feed.

Ronald J. Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, in his 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, pointed out that 220 million Americans were eating enough food (because of the high consumption of grain-fed livestock) to feed over one billion people in the poorer countries.

The world's cattle alone, not to mention pigs and chickens, consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people. It takes 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef. According to Department of Agriculture statistics, one acre of land can grow 20,000 pounds of potatoes. That same acre of land, if used to grow cattlefeed, can produce less than 165 pounds of beef.

In his book, The Hungry Planet, Georg Bergstrom points out that protein-starved underdeveloped nations export more protein to wealthy nations than they receive. He calls this "the protein swindle." Ninety percent of the world's fish meal catch, for example, is exported to rich countries. One-third of Africa's peanut crop winds up in the stomachs of European livestock. Half the world's cereal crop is fed to livestock and the United States annually imports one million tons of vegetable protein from Third World nations--just to feed its farm animals.

Bergstrom writes: "Sometimes one wonders how many Americans and Western Europeans have grasped the fact that quite a few of their beef steaks, quarts of milk, dozens of eggs, and hundreds of broilers are the result, not of their agriculture, but of the approximately two million metric tons of protein, mostly of high quality, which astute Western businessmen channel away from the needy and hungry."

Jeremy Rifkin, author of a dozen influential books and President of the Foundation on Economic Trends, writes in his 1992 bestseller Beyond Beef:

"Cattle and other livestock are devouring much of the grain produced on the planet. It need be emphasized that this is a new phenomenon, unlike anything ever experienced before.

"Contrary to popular belief, the poor are getting poorer each year...Increased poverty has meant increased malnutrition. On the African continent, nearly one in every four human beings is malnourished. In Latin America, nearly one out of every seven people goes to bed hungry each night. In Asia and the Pacific, 28 percent of the people border on starvation, experiencing the gnawing pain of a perpetual hunger."

"In the Near East, one in ten people is underfed. Chronic hunger now affects upwards of 1.3 billion people, according to the world Health Organization--a statistic all the more striking in a world where one third of all the grain produced is being fed to cattle and other livestock. Never before in human history has such a large percentage of our species--nearly 25 percent--been malnourished.

"The transition of world agriculture from food grain to feed grains represents an evil whose consequences may be far greater and longer lasting than any past examples of violence inflicted by men against their fellow human beings."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Animal agriculture accounts for 51 percent of annual GHG emissions
Posted by: ronniejw on Nov 12, 2009 7:58 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The environmental impact of the lifecycle and supply chain of animals raised for food has been vastly underestimated, and in fact accounts for at least half of all human-caused greenhouse gases (GHGs), according to Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, co-authors of "Livestock and Climate Change".

A widely cited 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Livestock's Long Shadow, estimates that 18 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions are attributable to cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, camels, pigs, and poultry. But recent analysis by Goodland and Anhang finds that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions.

There is nothing an individual can do to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as much as going vegetarian can.

To read the article online go here


Ronnie Wright
World Change Cafe

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Carnism ---> Veganism: It's a Continuum
Posted by: MelanieJoy on Nov 12, 2009 9:02 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am aware that most people who transition to a plant-based diet do so gradually, though there are those who abruptly become vegetarian or even vegan.

In my opinion, there is a continuum ranging from carnism (meat eating) to veganism and most of us fall somewhere in between those two ends. Perhaps more important than where we're at on the continuum are how conscious we are of our position, and which direction we're heading in.

--Melanie Joy, author, "Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs, and Wear Cows: An Introduction to Carnism"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Quitting Meat Is a Process -- Almost Impossible to Do All at Once
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Nov 12, 2009 9:50 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The title of this article is "Quitting Meat Is a Process -- Almost Impossible to Do All at Once."
This may be true for folks who try vegetarianism for health reasons or because they want to "green" their diet, but for folks who go vegetarian and vegan for animal compassion issues, it's quite easy to give up meat immediately and never go back to eating animals. When you are giving up eating violence and suffering, for the animals, it's simple. It's all about perspective.
If I go veg for my health, I can easily slip back into eating animals for taste or because my doctor said I need more protein, B12, etc... But when I choose to eat a plant based diet because it's less violent than an animal based diet, it's easy. When we give up our "taste" to reduce suffering for others, we can stay committed.
Foer, go vegan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dick Gregory
Posted by: vasumurti on Nov 12, 2009 10:04 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
“I think how we treat our animals reflects how we treat each other, and it’s very important that we have a President who is mindful of the cruelty that is perpetrated on animals.”

- President-Elect Barack Obama, 2008


In 1968, civil rights leader Dick Gregory compared humanity’s treatment of animals to the conditions of America’s inner cities:

“Animals and humans suffer and die alike. If you had to kill your own hog before you ate it, most likely you would not be able to do it. To hear the hog scream, to see the blood spill, to see the baby being taken away from its momma, and to see the look of death in the animal’s eye would turn your stomach. So you get the man at the packing house to do the killing for you.

“In like manner, if the wealthy aristocrats who are perpetuating conditions in the ghetto actually heard the screams of ghetto suffering, or saw the slow death of hungry little kids, or witnessed the strangulation of manhood and dignity, they could not continue the killing. But the wealthy are protected from such horror...If you can justify killing to eat meat, you can justify the conditions of the ghetto. I cannot justify either one.”

Gregory credits the Judeo-Christian ethic and the teachings of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. with having caused him to become a vegetarian. In 1973, he drew a connection between vegetarianism and nonviolent civil disobedience:

"...the philosophy of nonviolence, which I learned from Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. during my involvement in the civil rights movement was first responsible for my change in diet. I became a vegetarian in 1965. I had been a participant in all of the ‘major’ and most of the ‘minor’ civil rights demonstrations of the early sixties, including the March on Washington and the Selma to Montgomery March.

“Under the leadership of Dr. King, I became totally committed to nonviolence, and I was convinced that nonviolence meant opposition to killing in any form. I felt the commandment ‘Thou shalt not kill’ applied to human beings not only in their dealings with each other—war, lynching, assassination, murder and the like—but in their practice of killing animals for food or sport. Animals and humans suffer and die alike...Violence causes the same pain, the same spilling of blood, the same stench of death, the same arrogant, cruel and brutal taking of life.”

In a 1979 interview, Gregory explained: "Because of the civil rights movement, I decided I couldn’t be thoroughly nonviolent and participate in the destruction of animals for my dinner...I didn’t become a vegetarian for health reasons; I became a vegetarian strictly for moral reasons...Vegetarianism will definitely become a people’s movement.”

When asked if humans will ultimately have to answer to a Supreme Being for their exploitation of animals, Gregory replied, “I think we answer for that every time we go to the hospital with cancer and other diseases.”

Gregory has also expressed the opinion that the plight of the poor will improve as humans cease to slaughter animals: “I would say that the treatment of animals has something to do with the treatment of people. The Europeans have always regarded their slaves and the people they have colonized as animals.”

Since the 1980s, Dick Gregory has been involved in the anti-drug campaign. Bruce Friedrich of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) reported back in the '90s that under Gregory’s influence, Dexter Scott King—head of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolence in Atlanta, and son of the slain civil rights leader—and King’s widow, Coretta Scott King, had both become vegans.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dick Gregory Posted by: red porch
» RE: Dick Gregory Posted by: Richardsievert
http://www.ebuyings.com
Posted by: jacklang0001 on Nov 17, 2009 5:55 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
http://www.ebuyings.com
have some cheap things ...
nike shoes, fashion clothes ;brand handbags ,wallet ...
free shipping
competitive price
any size available
accept the paypal

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement