Gawd. Always nice to be patronized: "This isn't hypocritical."

Why not let the reader come to her own conclusions on that one?

Key point that's missed here - it's not necessary to eat meat. You're killing these animals solely because you like the way they taste.

How "mindful" of you.

"I call this being a mindful meat eater." Aw, you've come up with a name for it. Well, how special. Let's go shoot a puppy.

I call it butchering creatures when you don't have to. How 'bout that?

Is there a way for me to mindfully eat some people? I mean, hey, what's Thanksgiving without a baby, crunchy little toes and all? It's tradition! Nothing like killing grandpa and feeding him to the kids to better connect us to the cycle of life and death.

As long as you like the way something tastes, what more justification do you need (especially if you hunt down grandpa yourself)? Oh, right, it has to done "mindfully" as well. (Thank you cow, for generously donating your life to my Happy Meal.)

And nice try on the environmentally-friendly bit. Maybe with buffalo or kangaroos on the open range, but not sheep and cattle. (Read Alice Outwater's short, excellent book WATER for a primer on that.) Then there's the fossil fuel consumption, anti-biotic use, etc.

Mindfully. Well, as long as that's the most important criterion, I guess we can do just about anything, can't we?

Wait! Wait! That's what's been missing! If we're upset by a murder or massacre, we shouldn't be - we should only be interested in whether the perpetrator(s) did it mindfully. ("I call this mindful murdering. This is not hypocritical.")

Somebody may be able to make a case for being carnivorous when we don't have to be, but this sure ain't it.

Still trying to figure out whether this is egoism, narcissism, elaborate rationalization, just plain self-indulgence...

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

I can honestly say I have never read an article on Alternet that has made me as furious as I am now.

I have always sung the praises of this website to all and sundry, no matter what their political persuasion as I felt that it was a source of intelligent and articulate analysis.

This is the first time I have been disgusted by a writer on Alternet. What an enormous pile of greedy, self centred, disgusting, corrupt and idiotic nonsense.

It goes to show how naiive I am.

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

Somehow I had a feeling that the first comment would be from a sneering vegetarian :(

For the record, I eat meat, but do it in a similiar way as the author...except for the hunting part; it is simply not feasible for me to do that, nor is there much game at all here in the ciry.

What I do is only buy free-range beef, grain-fed hens, eggs from free ranging chickens, etc. Sure, this stuff is more expensive, but it's worth it to know that the animals aren't crammed onto a disgusting feedlot--having grown up on and around a nice family farm, I know how foul the feedlots down the road were.

Ideally, I'd like to move back out to the country where I could raise most of my own food.

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

Come on people. So the author likes meat. Big deal. At least he's supporting local farmers. That's a helluva lot more humane than those factory farms.
Plus, what about the Natives? They hunt and eat meat, but they respect the earth & its environment. They understand the circle of life (to use a cliched term) and respect earth. They don't take more than they need.
So, let's be open-minded here, okay? Just because you disagree is no reason to get hysterical.

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

With small farmers going down the tubes at an ever increasing rate and urban sprawl plus and an ever increasing population to feed, where do you think all this food is going to be produced for the next century or so?

Sure feed lots are ugly and smelly, but unless you have a better idea of how to get your food on a daily basis while paving the world over, get used to it.

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

Human beings are not carnivores. It is not necessary to eat any kind of animal flesh to be healthy. People eat it because they like it and because it's always been done, with little or no thought to the suffering of the animals. There is no justification for it unless there is no other source of food available, and people will starve without it.

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

Yum.

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

I support the meat-eater's appraisal of factory farming, of its so-called 'products' that are 'grown' for humans to eat as being nothing less than condoning and being complicit with institutionalized violence of the most horrific nature. I feel that he is elevated to a slightly higher level of compassion by choosing 'humanely grown' flesh, but if he would only put himself in the same position of the animal he kills, he would realize that that animal did not want to die or be eaten. There is absolutely no justfiable reason to eat animals in this culture, unless maybe it was a matter of one's own extreme survival, and I hope I'm never faced with such a choice. If this man has companion animals, would he consider killing one of them to eat? All the other animals he consumes are no different, and certainly not that different from human animals.

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

I think we should be mindful consumers. The pressure to produce more and more meat for consumption (not just here but in the developing world) is enormous and leads to use of chemicals, hormones, and genetic manipulation. What are we doing to our bodies and our planet? If it is ok to kill a cow, how about an elephant? Or a baby monkey to eat its brains? Or a whale? Are there no moral absolutes? Try reading Matthew Scully's book "Dominion".

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

while i support farm raised meat the bigger problem lies in the future when other cultures decide meat is the way to eat, compromise their local diets, and start raising beef themselves, just like us cushy americans. imagine what the water table will be like if this happens. forget about the moral issues. americans eat too much red meat and it shows up in their terrible health. we are over harvesting the land and waters because of our habits.

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

snip

so a cow is sapient? ever meet a cow? did you chat? while the conditions these animals are raised under can be abominable and i do not approve of feedlots and factory style farming practices, i gotta draw the line at granting these critters the ability to think 'gee, i sure am glad to be alive'.

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

I'm all for dialogue. I didn't feel I was being pious or self-righteous or sneering (certainly not sneering). Here, I thought I was being droll. And I certainly appreciate that Dave05 could be so honest with me in his brilliant rebuttal (that's me being sneering). Glad you could say it honestly.

I just feel that this article adds nothing to the discussion. And, sadly, same with most of the comments.

What I was attacking is the point of the article: somehow, the idea of eating animals "mindfully" brings a marvelous new perspective to table and offers some sort of an answer. It doesn't. It doesn't contribute anything to the discussion except to offer a salve for someone's conscience. And it's nothing new, either.

So what's the point of the article? (Somebody feeling guilty about Thanksgiving?)

Against the multitude of solid, well-reasoned arguments for not eating animals there seems to be only, "I like to eat meat," or the popular variation, "Well, I eat meat. So there!"

Cows and sheep are environmentally destructive even on the open range, from the way the graze to the way the visit streams. Sorry. Fact. Doesn't matter how mindfully you eat 'em afterwards. Applies even if they're raised by a hippie playing a mandolin to them as they range over ten-thousand square miles before you cut 'em up.




Is there some argument besides "I like the taste" that someone could present (besides a few noises about B-12)?

I was trying to be funny while making a point in my comment: Are there arguments for meat-eating that couldn't just as easily apply to cannibalism?

I'm well aware that there can be circumstances and environments where we'd have to eat meat. No problem with that. I definitely favor my species. If you're being attacked and it's you or the bear, bye-bye bear.

But we have the choice. We don't have to constantly be killing all these animals for a reason as flimsy as just that we like the way they taste. What a blessing (not from a deity, necessarily, but a blessing just the same). And given that we have that option, I'm puzzled as to why more people don't take it.

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

The fact is eating meat is a waste. Producing fruits and vegetables is 10 times more energy efficient than raising any vegetarian animal and potentially 100 times more than some of our animals lucky enough to be raised cannibalistically. We can thank mass production agrarian capitalism for that, and resulting mad cow etc. The argument that it is healthy is pure rationalization. What a healthy meat addicted society we live in.

“Where will the land for a small family farm come from?”
We’ll if they all grew plants we would need much less of the land that we are already using. Efforts could be put into increasing the variety and specialization of our ridiculously homogenizing plant genetics, which could/will likely lead to a serious biological crisis, think potato blight, locusts, etc. Recent trends should show you that Americans, who can afford to eat on a smaller more organic scale, prefer to. Big business could find themselves helplessly stuck in the low end of produce quality and consumer demand. Why would you buy nitrogen-junkie green giant when there is so much greater variety and quality easily and now relatively cheaply available. The vastly increased food surplus could be put towards feeding the world (how naively optimistic) and maybe, if we’re willing to not have ripe grapes in February, ending our dependence on (addicting desire for) South American cheap labor produce.

All of our problems arise from our desires. Never try to justify them, especially to yourself and oh, I eat meat, cuz I wanna.

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

We do have choices about how and what we eat, as well as how we focus our food dollars. For those of us who include meat in our diet, giving our dollars to organically raised animals sends a clear signal of what is wanted.
When I buy a chicken - whether cooked or uncooked - none of it goes to waste, and that is a small way of respecting the life of the creature. We eat the meat, then the rest is simmered to make nourishing soup broth. I separate what remains for (1) the soup, (2) the dogs, or (3) bones to the fire.
All life forms on our planet eat other life forms, from the smallest microbe to the largest mammal. Among humans, some of us are strongly guided to avoid meat; others are not. Respecting each other and respecting life is the key.

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

I have never understood why some people get so up in arms about eating animals.

Animals have been eating other animals on this planet for hundreds of millions of years.

While yes it is more resource efficient to grow and eat fruits, vegetables, and grain, how many animal rights people are calculating out how much they save and donating that money to feed hungry people?

Our current economic system makes this resource savings irrelevant. As long as foreign land and labor is far cheaper than American land and labor, we will have cheap meat imports just like all the other cheap imports.

I do think that humankind should seek to leave as small a footprint on this planet as possible. We produce our own livestock, which is a far cry better than removing fish from the ocean and depleting the planet's supplies.

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

Why doesn't this debate ever move beyond the 'don't eat meat because it's wrong to kill members of the animal kingdom, eat vegetables instead because it's OK to kill members of the vegetable kingdon' and get to a realistic dialogue about _why_ humans eat anything - to get calories (from carbohydrate and fat sources), protein, minerals and vitamins necessary to sustain life - and what sources of those nutrients can be raised where in a manner that is sustainable and responsible? If the most responsible way to grow protein on a particular piece of land or area of the country is cattle or sheep graising free range followed by ckicken tractors rather than trying to plow up the soil and grow soybeans, then so be it. If it is more responsible to produce calories by intensive crop rotation of vegetables and grains rather than humanely farming animal production on a particular plot of land, then so be it.

The issue goes beyond the morality of what to eat - agricultural production of any kind is a system that few of us want to spend the time thinking about - for example, if we want to shift to a standard non-meat diet in the USA, where will the nitrogen fertilizer necessary to grow a wide variety of crops come from - today, it's either from petroleum based or animal manure based products.

I wish the answer to preventing the suffering of animals raised in factory farm conditions was as simple as 'just don't eat meat' - but it's not. Here in the USA we do have more alternative protien sources (hopefully raised in a sustainable manner) that could be utilized more widely for food - but, frankly, elimination of protein malnutrition worldwide will require animal flesh protein to achieve, and in this country availability and cost of non-meat protein will prevent low income households from meeting thier protien needs.

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

An important reason to boycott the meatpacking industry-more important than how it treats it's animals-is how the meatpacking industry treats it's workers. With the decaying of labor laws in US and especially in the High Plains, workers in the meatpacking industry are subjected to hazards that can not only lead to life altering harm, but even death. Not to mention almost all of them tend to be undocumented immigrants who are too scared to seek medical help. As illustrated in Eric Scholsser's Fast Food Nation, workers not only face a grueling work schedule, where they are exposed to dosens of sharp objects, and carry out repetative actions that strains joints. many of them are subject to abuse by their supervisors and women are are subjected to sexual harassment by both supervisors and co workers. The meatpacking industry has one of the worst records for workplace saftey.

It frustrates me, to see how much sympathy people have for a stupid cow, then they do for human beings who in some cases are being treated worse. For too many Americans, if you're Mexican and are not in this country legally then you don't qualify to be treated as a human being.

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

A crucial point you missed is that regardless of how humanely the animals are raised, they all end up in the same slaughterhouses. There is no such thing as "humane slaughter" despite what the industry wants you to believe. It's an oxymoron. It's a gruesome thing to watch -- I dare you to witness the whole process and see how that affects your appetite for animal flesh. There is serious denial involved when we eat meat -- of course it tastes good. A fried piece of your left butt cheek would probably also be quite tasty if you didn't know what you were eating. Our culture has numbed us to the cruelty we inflict on animals. A pig, cow, chicken, elk, suffers the same and feels pain just as your dog or cat would. If you saw the terror in the eyes of an animal as they are being led in to slaughter, you'd never be the same. They know what is happening - I've seen it and it's unmistakable that they are fully aware and terrified. The few laws that do exist to protect farm animals are severely inadequate, rarely enforced, and anything the industry considers to be "standard practice" is allowed. Farm animals are routinely mutilated and disfigured, often for convenience or some perceived benefit to productivity. Do you realize that your "humanely" raised cattle have their testicles cut off without any anesthetic? Imagine what that might feel like. The list of mutilations is endless. Check out www.factoryfarming.com if you want to truly be "mindful" of what you're doing. Everything we do impacts the environment but meat eating is the most damaging thing anyone can do on a daily basis to the earth. The statistics speak for themselves when you learn how much water, grain, land is used to produce each pound of beef and all the waste generated. Our addiction to meat is killing the planet and killing ourselves in the process. Not to mention the issue of how selfish we are to consume so many resources when a billion people on the planet don't have enough to eat every day. World hunger could be eliminated if everyone chose to eat lower on the food chain. Instead developing countries are catching up to our unsustainable eating habits and the problem is only getting worse.

"As long as people will shed the blood of innocent creatures there can be no peace, no liberty, no harmony between people. Slaughter and justice cannot dwell together."
--Isaac Bashevis Singer

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

Evangelical veggies see not eating meat as a moral imperative. Hence they scold and belittle and accuse the the flesh-chewers of being disgusting and too unevolved have compassion for animals....

Much like evangelical christians see not screwing someone of the same sex as a moral imperative. Hence they guilt and oppress and accuse the same-sex-screwers of being disgusting and unnatural.

A similar analogy could be drawn to anti-choicers.

Meat eaters do not see eating meat as a moral imperative. The morality they find in it is to respect their place in the ecosystem by supporting farming methods that cause the least amount of harm and consuming in moderation.

The debate will never be equally conducted because for one side it is a matter of morality and for the other it isn't on the morality radar. Meat to veggie conversions and back will only happen analogous to religious conversions, and we all know how *splendidly* civil the debates between religious/non-religious folk are.

Note that I am not morally equating veggie-ism with fundamental christianity. I'm just pointing out that the structure of the beliefs in this debate and how they are expressed by both sides follows a similar pattern.

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

I was recently reading an article about a foundation that provides poor farmers in Haiti with goats. The goats are perfect livestock for these desperately poor people: they don't require expensive grains to feed, they can live off virtually anything, they grow fast, they are hardy, they provide the Haitian peasant with both meat and milk. It has been very successful in helping improve the protien in the diet for these people.

I myself am a small dairy farmer. I care about my animals but they are also my livelihood. I am dismayed by some of the frothing-at-the-mouth responses by animal lovers to this article. I have a strong suspicion that many of them are actually quite well to do with secure existences, never having to face the prospect of real hunger. So they believe that these poor Haitians should'nt use the products of their goats? That they can just buzz down to their local supermarket and get some organic tofu?

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

We raise grassfed beef, pastured poultry and pastured pork on a small family farm, for ourselves and a small clientele.

I respect the opinions of those who choose not to eat meat for whatever reason, and expect the same respect from them.


But the scientific fact is, and look at our dental structure and ape ancestors to back it up, that we are omnivores and that is the healthiest way to eat. Naturally raised, grassfed animal products are the type of animal products our bodies are meant to eat. For more nutrition information, see the Weston Price Foundation website, too much information to go into this comment.

The natural world is composed of a food web of animals eating animals.

If you decide to opt out of that, that is your right, but it is not your healthiest option.

That said, there are several things to think about - if these animals are not used for food, will they be pets? Or will they die out as species alltogether?

The farming of vegetables is more labor/fuel intensive and harder on the soil than carefully managed rotational grazing. This type of grazing improves soils and pasturage.


The loss of family farms is nothing to sneer at. Who do you think cares more about the quality of your food, be it animal or vegetable - the small family farmer that you buy directly from, who's operation you can go see, or the giant corporation interested only in profit that uses lots of fossil fuels to grow your food and ship it all over?

There are A LOT more nuances to this discussion than most of you know, and I am not being snotty about this, but most of our population is urban and has no idea of how their food is raised. How many of you have ever talked to a farmer? How many of you have ever gone to a farm and spent the day looking around?

There is a whole renaissance of family farms occuring, farms that raise their animals in a humane and stress free environment. Farms that practice soil respecting restorative agriculture. Farms that are striving to be a balanced whole ecological self-sustaining system unto themselves. Farms that want to feed their local area with healthy food.

This is the future of farming. People will not stop eating meat. If you really care about farm animals and the environment, this is what you should support, whether you eat meat or not.

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

I, myself, have given up eating vegetables directly anymore. Instead, I eat beef. All day, every day. Almost non-stop, actually. Cows eat vegetables, especially grass. When I eat beef, I am getting all kinds of indirect vegetable input. It truly is a much better way than vegetarianism.

Next time you are tempted to sautee some swiss chard, reach for a healthy 10 to 12 ounce portion of NY strip. You will be happy you did.

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

I have seen mother cows and their calves in the fields. There is grooming and nurturing between them. I've seen the young calves join together in play and race each other around the field. They are living creatures experiencing life as they can. I choose not to eat meat because I don't want to contribute to their deaths, so that I can live. It's a choice for me.

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

I think this is a very complicated issue. Here is the conundrum I find. Is it arrogant to eat meat with an anthropocentric attitude of whatever benifits humans is right or acceptable? OR is it arrogant to think that we are the exception to evolutionary rules and think that we can decide whatever we want with no regard for ourselves as an evolved species?
In different ways both arguments seem anthropocentric.
Not sure I've worded this very well, but does anyone see the issue I'm trying to raise.

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

The original article is elaborate rationalization, nothing more.

To do this, it conflates eating meat with sustainable agriculture... sorta. Something about family farms, too, though it's a little hard to see the relevance to whether it's ethical to eat meat, a question it seemed the article was trying to address.

People seem to have gotten very upset because they don't like their comforting rationalizations challenged, hence all the absurdity and mental gymnastics.

A lot of people seem to be very uncomfortable with the fact that they eat animals. Their justifications for doing so are so flimsy they go berzerk if they're challenged (at least no one's started hollering about the bible yet, though how-is-a-pear-different-from-a-pig has made an appearance).

Take the red pill; take the blue pill. But you have to really have make a decision for yourself, not based on a bunch of comforting myths. At some point, we get to play grown-up for a while, to make our own decisions about what we're doing and why.


I don't see how one justifies slaughtering creatures just for their taste.


But that's the decision you have to make, and not bring in carnivorous creatures or goats in Haiti or human dental structure (this can be challenged both ways, too).


Why is it OK to kill an animal 'cause you like its taste, but not because you just, say, like to watch it die? Why is it wrong to torment an animal if it's for sadism, but not if it's for profit?

Behind pretty much all of the pro-meat arguments here I see a heck of lot of guilt, which people attempt to bat away with glibness, smears (the people making an ethical case not doing so because they have a good case to make, but because they are being unbearably self-righteous), myths... the usual stuff.

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

It's hard to escape that most of the arguments here are just rationalizations, as is the original article, which brings nothing new at all, just a little rephrasing of the rationalizations to keep some people comfortable.

No one, certainly not me, is telling someone else what to do or how to live. I'm not saying they're disgusting or un-evolved.

But I am saying that the justifications are beyond flimsy, and that we each have to be responsible for what we do. Unless you're acknowledging you're just doing it because you like the taste, I think you're avoiding something, you're not being honest with yourself. And that seems difficult to me to fit into a larger ethical framework - why is this action OK, but that not? Even if it's done "mindfully".

Why should I not mind slaughtering a pig (which anyone who's worked on a farm knows is just horrible) but feel it's wrong to do the same to a dog, or a gorilla, or...

The health arguments are nonsense. It is not a scientific fact. The evidence is absolutely overwhelming on that point. (Just some bizarre tobacco-industry type studies going the other way - like the one that took starving African children and fed them meat, then decided that meat was important because they improved.)


It is about taste. No one has advanced any sound argument for anything else. There is no other reason to eat animals. (If you live in the Arctic, you might have one - you don't. The question isn't whether any human or other animal could ever have some other reason for being carnivorous).

No one reading this (unless there's someone online while tending the goats in Haiti, or perhaps a lion logging on from the Serengeti) can claim to be eating meat for any reason but taste.

And it being about taste, it's awfully hard to justify.

So skip the "mindful" nonsense. Hard to have your Big Mac and your comfort zone too.

(Oh, no, wait, Big Mac is not ethical... free-range cow is. OK, right. Got it.)

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

First of all I’m a farmer. I’m part timer farmer.(10 years) The number of farmers is growing. Almost all of this growth is people like me who would like to be full time farmer but can’t due to a great variety of reasons. Along with a gowning number of part time farmers we raise both meat and vegetables. As Wendle Berry has said nature does not farm without animals.
Just a few points:

Fertility of the soil comes from animals, period. You can’t grow all that grain you want without an input of fertility in the form of animal waste products. You can get it from manure/compost or you get it from fossil fuels, which are really dead plants and animals. This has to be drilled for, mined etc with all the associated environmental costs. Then it has to be shipped to the farm using more fuel etc. We primary use compost from the animals we raise on our farm. We could not grow our vegetables without this or another off farm inputs. Very few non farmers have any real appreciation for the work, resources and thinking that is required to do any farming. When people buy food from me it did not have to travel the average 1300 miles that most food travels getting to a consumer. And
To the vegetarians who have written.
I have friends and customers who are vegetarian my wife was mostly vegetarian for quite a number of years. I have a great respect for people for moral of health reasons choose to become a vegetarian. However getting upset because you do not like what is in an article is just silly. While I’m what I would describe as a liberal libertarian I make sure I check out the various right wing sites to see what others are saying. It’s very easy to get yourself into a bubble where you only read, hangout with, people who believe just as you do. Our current (USA) fearless leader is a excellent example. You, and all your friends, may believe you know how everybody else should live. But then so do the Talaban, Jerry Fallwell and Pat Roberson. I don’t want you or them to be making any decisions for me. You are certainly entitled to your belief but snide, rude self righteous rants are really impolite and rude. As the Dalai Lama has said you should be thankful for your enemies for they help you learn patience. Also remember that as Jesus said all of us are sinners., and as some Buddhist teacher said no one is pure. And yes this applies to you and me as well.

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

I was a vegetarian for 20 years. I was a true believer of all the vegetarian propaganda "you don't need animal protein" and all that. I was ill and had very low energy.

My chinese traditional medicine practioner recommended eating meat. I resisted this advice, but finally did and my health re-bounded dramatically.

It was very hard for me to give up my vegetarian beliefs, but finally I realized that I can't eat a philosophy. My body was designed many thousands of years ago and does best with the kind of fuel that my ancestors ate.

I found resources such as beyondveg.com and books by Weston Price and Sally Fallon to be extremely informative.

I am tired of self rightious vegetarians. There are some people who's bodies might do OK without animal protein, but many do not.

I will not sacrifice my health. Animals eat animals, that is the way of nature and we are part of it.

From beyondveg.com
Why "Failure to Thrive" on Vegetarian Diets is Rarely Talked About. More than just a case of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, the reasons include the self-selection effect in long-term successful vegetarians, large numbers of "social dropouts" who divert attention, and moral ostracism that makes it difficult for former vegetarians to be heard or believed.

What Happens if Vegetarian Diets Are Not Best for Everyone? The vegetarian movement in the U.S. is now maturing after the three decades since it began mushrooming in the 1960s/1970s. After years of experience, some are finding things haven't worked out for them in the long term as well as hoped. Evolutionary science is also confirming our ancestors were serious omnivores. Where does this leave those in the movement who offer the vegetarian prescription as the optimum nostrum for the ecological and health ills that beset society, and more importantly, where does it leave you? At the Beyond Veg site, of course. Here, we give you our take on the situation, and what the website is all about.

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

First off, let me say that I am a ovo-vegetarian and have been for about 14 years. I made the decision based on health and ethical reasons. (Don't judge or attack me, b/c I don't judge people for their personal beliefs or decisions. I merely mention the veg. thing b/c I want people to understand where I'm coming from). That said...

Isn't saying that you support animal rights but eat meat hypocritical? I can't see how it's not a hypocritical statement. It's akin to saying that one is a peace activist who owns a gun.

I totally support organic, local, non-factory/non-feed lot farming. It's definitely a better alternative. My boyfriend is a meat eater and I do all the grocery shopping, and the only way I'll buy him meat is if it's organic and free from hormones. Sure, it costs a little more, but it's worth it to know what one is putting into their bodies.

Good books to read: "Fast Food Nation", by Eric Schlosser
and, "Food Politics--How the Food Industry Influences Nutirition and Health", by Marion Nestle.
Another good one is, "Mad Cowboy-Plain Truth From the Cattle Rancher Who Won't Eat Meat", by Howard Lyman

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

I've been a vegetarian for nearly 7 years, was a vegan for 1.5 of that. I applaud this article.

I've never bought into the morality argument of vegetarianism. Environmental/resource efficiency, yes. Health, yes(heart attack victims are often put on a vegan diet...getting enough protein is not a problem(I was anemic while I ate meat, but never when I didn't), avoiding things like mercury in seafood and hormones in beef, avoiding a lot of food-borne bacterial illness altogether), eating lower on the food chain, yes(and hence consuming less "life" overall, by not eating animals who've been eating vegetation).

Vegetation IS life. It reacts to stimuli, grows, reproduces. Just because it doesn't look like me does not make it any less alive. The bottom line is that we all have to kill to survive. We are just fortunate enough to be able to choose what we kill.

I think the steps the author is taking are positive ones. The rabid vegetarians aren't helping their case at all by expecting every meat-eater to immediately stop eating meat. It isn't gonna happen. I don't gape open-mouthed at a friend eating a steak, and tsk tsk her for being a murderer. Do you honestly think that's going to bring people around to your way of thinking? And you know what? Some of my friends have tried/have become vegetarians because they saw me doing it successfully, became curious, and I honestly answered their questions without some annoying "I'm morally superior to you because I'm vegetarian" attitude. Because I don't believe that.

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

I'll say up front: I eat meat. If that's enough for some of you to no longer take my comments seriously, feel free to skip to the next one.

I love animals, have a keen love for biology and a wonder of nature. I am not upset by the killing of a giraffe by a lion, the killing of a fly by a spider, or the killing of a pig by a human. These killings connect us all, as the lion is then dependent on the giraffe, the spider on the fly, the human on the pig.

Granted, humans can survive on vegetables (and let's leave aside the economics and health implications, because they can change). There's no need for me, if I go that route, to depend on animals at all for food.

But here's the kicker: removing that connection would be a shame. The dependence on meat to survive, even if it's due to conscious choice (i.e., "I choose to eat meat, and I therefore depend on it to survive"), forces us to respect animals and the role they play in our lives in a very fundamental way. With each bite (and I'm not beinf facetious, here), I am honouring the animal that I depend on for survival.

I would be surprised if there weren't some way, eventually, for us to figure out a way to live, as a species, without needing animals for anything (i.e., wiping them off the face of the Earth would not result in our own extinction, thanks to bioengineered plants, etc.).

And that, I propose, would be a bad thing. A bad thing, because this fundamental connection with animals would be severed; and despite the fact that I could still choose to respect them for compassion's sake, this connection is weaker than our dependence on them for survival. In this sense, extreme vegans ("I don't use animals for anything!") hurt our connection with animals and, I feel, respect them less -- or, at least, would ideally cut them out of their lives.

Now this isn't meant to enrage the anti-meat crowd. Rather, I'm trying to explain the pro-meat mind; though, of course, I don't pretend that all pro-meaters feel exactly this way, just as vegans are individuals, too. The anti-meat mindset is easy enough to understand ("killing is bad, so don't eat meat"), but too often the pro-meat point of view is dismissed as mere rationalization with no real merit.

And really, it's that unwillingness to consider the seriousness of the kind of sentiment expressed in this article that gets my goat.

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

That's the way to get people to become friendly to your cause! Piss at them! They'll like you and listen to you if you only tell them how disgusting and immoral they are! Your bitching about how omnivores are immoral is totally different from the way right-wingers bitch about how we lefties are all immoral, and certainly more effective at getting people to join your cause! Remember, haughtiness, arrogance, and priggishness are the most endearing traits known to man--and the most effective at persuasion, no less!

*Seldom eats meat
**Only because he doesn't like the taste

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

I don't think we will stop treating animals the way we do until we start treating other human beings as human beings.
Animals have at least a right to survive/live, but how will people recognize any other rights when most do not recognize a human right to survive/live...never mind actual human rights.

If I get someone to eat free-range/organic meat or chicken then I think I made some progress. For those who want total victory (no animal consumption) this may seem to be a cop-out. Yet, I see this as a 1000-year war for the human soul. There will be casualties but I think we have a good chance to bring the human soul to a new enlightenment and if it doesn't then I am confident that nature will go on happily without us.

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

For anyone interested in going veg, just do it. All the stuff about how you have to carefully combine this and that, that's been disproven. (Try DIET FOR A NEW AMERICA if you want a handbook.) Just stop eating meat and, as long as you have any sort of a healthy diet, you'll be fine. Try it for a few weeks and see.

If you think it's gonna be hard, quit before you're ready. If you want to quit but figure you won't be ready for another month, quit now, then allow yourself another thirty days of meat eating whenever you want. Over time you're likely to find the meat less and less appealing.



As for all the accusations hurled at vegetarians, about moral superiority and haughtiness and so on, well, these could be, and have been, hurled at human rights activists, civil rights workers, and so on as well. It doesn't really matter what one says, whether one is actually being haughty or "sneering" or any such thing - it's just very hard to make even the mildest case for vegetarianism without whole bunch of people going apoplectic.

(I have a friend who nearly got stomped in a bar one night trying when he casually mentioned that he'd been getting good yields using organic farming. That's all he'd said, but chemical-company-serf farmers started screaming at him.)

There's also lot of propaganda, but paid and unpaid, being shoveled endlessly by the meat industry. Case in point, many of the arguments above.

My ancestors surely fought senseless wars and hunted with spears and lugged water for miles and died exposure and succumbed to diseases like smallpox. I'm glad I have more of a choice about whether to do those things now. I think progression towards a vegetarian diet is a basic advance in human civilization.

No matter how good it tastes, there's no need to eat meat, and, for heaven's sake, no need to dress it up with nonsense about doing it "mindfully".

My original reaction was to an article that I found unbearably smug and self-congratulatory. I still do.

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

Wow - food can sure raise blood pressure in more ways than one!

Folks, I have to say that as an ex-7 year live food vegan, one thing I have learned is that it is important to be more interested in the truth than in our beliefs. I thought I had taken the red pill and realized that meat and dairy were unsustainable, unethical, unspiritual, and unhealthy. As long as I stayed within the "matrix" of self-referencing books and diet gurus, I was a haughty, indignant, and enthusiastic spokesperson for the cause of eating fresh, live, vegan foods - for spiritual nutrition. It's shocking to many to imagine that John Robbins, Dean Ornish, Gabriel Cousens, Ann Wigmore, Molly Katzen, Gary Null, and Brian Clement represent their own limiting "matrix." But that is what I have found to be the truth. If you really want to take the red pill, you have to understand the research of Weston Price.

It's not that I feel vegans and vegetarians are so wrong about things - I share the desire to abolish giant agribusiness, the imperative to treat animals humanely and with love, the goal of using foods and medicine for optimal health (and still love fresh raw foods), and I am adamant about food's role in spiritual awareness. It's just that vegans and vegetarians generally don't understand the vast implications of Dr. Price's research. Grasp that, make a few changes to the diet, (add high quality animal foods of your choice like grassfed raw milk, free range eggs, raw cheese, and/or grass fed meats - and drop most soy products) and we are on the same page.

When you understand Price's research, you get that veganism and even vegetarianism is a radical experiment that will have enormous detrimental effects to our health in the long run (for most people, as it did for me). But most importantly it will devastate the next generation. Why? I don't have space to get into that so read the article.

There you have it - I have offered the huge gift that was given to me years ago, and which has transformed my health and life. Some of you will not be able to overcome the conditioning that keeps you locked into the arguments for veganism and vegetarianism. Some of you will see Dr. Price's research for the mind opening red pill that it is. I hope that for the sake of the next generation if nothing else, you look into this very carefully.

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

and you might convince some people that you are enlightened. Good for you. You eat meat mindfully. I don't eat meat. I like animals. They are my friends.

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

which is worse for the planet- my grandfather eating a deer he just shot w/ an arrow or my wife eating GM corn from a giant "factory farm"?

how about me eating a free-range turkey for thanksgiving, or me eating a heavily processed (but animal free) "Tofurkey"?

i eat a mostly vegetarian diet, but i'm starting to wonder if that's shortsighted. being a vegetable doesn't necessarily make a food "better" for you or the planet, as far as i know.

(this is from a standpoint where i have no problem w/ humans hunting/killing animals for food. other animals eat meat too, we're all just one giant food web)

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

There seems to be some misconceptions out there regarding so-called "free range," free roaming," etc. products. First, for those interested I suggest the new book "Meat Market" by Erik Marcus. He outlines reasoning behind a vegan diet from new perspectives and challenges the traditional "three-pronged" (compassion / environment / health) approach to animal welfare activism. Moving on to my point, there are currently NO regulated or enforced standards for "free range" foods from any kind of animal. If you are interested in animal welfare you should aviod products with these labels just as much anything from modern animal agriculture. Unless you actually know and have seen the conditions under which the animals you choose to consume are raised, that label offers no assurance of a better life for the creature. (This is ignoring the obvious fact that the animals are still being exploited, killed, and treated as commodities even if conditions are ideal.) Also note that in the case of chickens, for instance, male chicks have no more value to "free range" producers than big animal ag. corporations. Their chicks also often come from the same hatcheries that that animal ag. corps. use. Hatched male chicks are still tossed into trashcans or grinders to die whether "free range" or not. Unfortunatly, "free range" isn't quite the ethical alternitive many claim for it to be and, in fact, is economically infeasable even if practiced in a completely cruelty free way (the book I mentioned outlines this).

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

Weston Price – yeah… a bit of Lamarkianism, superstition, a bit of fact, some mythology about noble savages.

Take, for example, those so healthy Inuit that doesn’t bother to point out the osteoporosis rates.

Or, better, if we don’t eat meat, or faces will narrow generation by generation until all our teeth are crowded out of our faces and the entire species dies out.

There are bits of fact there, about lipids and such, but you’re better off with slightly more solid sources.

If we’re gonna divorce ourselves from the facts, we might as well argue bible verses.



Sarcasm and satire become “haughty sneering”. (Yes, I was sarcastic and satirical - reacting to a bunch of sacchrine rationalizing.)

But it doesn’t matter how gentle and polite and even deferential you are, the reaction tends to be the same. Vegetarians and vegans are accused of being dogmatic, histrionic and so on. In practice, it’s usually the other way around.

Seems like some people have a lot of guilt to work out. Glad they're able to find solace in this nonsense.

If you know the facts, there’s not much to argue.

And there are heaps of facts, a lot of good studies, all accessible. To someone uninterested in the facts, even the mildest assertion of them is hysterical and haughty and self-righteous and everything else (like my organic farmer friend mentioning his yields).


Simple fact: The only reason for us to eat animals is for the taste.

That one's hard to get around. So, do the research, make your choices... and spare us all the histrionics. Enjoy. (Mindfully, of course.)

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

Life feeds on life; we've heard that here already, but it's absolutely true. I try to eat as locally as possible, because I see the overconsumption of fossil fuels as one of our biggest problems, and the best way around that is to find organic sources close to home.

It's easy to eat locally and also be a vegetarian in certain places. If you live in, say, Southern California, there are plenty of vegan protein and fat sources growing in your backyard. But if you live in a Northern climate, as I do, your choices become more limited, and animal protein and fat becomes more important. The Inuit people, for example, traditionally eat a carnivorous diet...the only vegetables they consume are those pre-digested by the animals they hunt.

If you want to think that eating animals is morally "wrong", go right ahead. But please do not equate being omnivorous with being anti-animal rights. I have respect for all of my animal and plant sisters and brothers, as well as respect for their places in the food chain. A deer is going to end up in somebody's belly eventually, and if deer are sentient beings, they accept that part of life. Plants have life-force as well, read "The Secret Life of Plants" for some interesting studies on how your houseplants cry when you're not home.

Animals provide us with food, clothing, shelter, cordage, tools, and yes, companionship and love. I absolutely agree with the point that factory farming is a terrible practice, and that Americans eat way too much meat. But I could not be a vegan and forgo animal products while walking around wearing polyester and other plastics on my body. I feel better about myself honoring the place that animals have in my own survival.

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

Read: Ishmael: An Adventure Of The Mind And Spirit by Daniel Quinn. It doesn't go into the meat eating thing (I eat meat a couple of times a week, SFW?), but it does give an insight as to why we look the other way when it comes to these giant cattle farms. The problem requires a solution difficult than going vegan (and snubbing your nose when you really aren't helping anything) and more trying than buying a $15 free range hamburger. We simply need less people on this earth.

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

Gorillas--or even dogs--are a far cry from chickens. Other posters are right in that human beings are not carnivores, but what they've failed to mention is that we're not herbivores either. Humans are omnivorous--we are "designed" to eat both meat and vegetables. Yes, you can subsist on veggies alone, but that in and of itself does not constitute an argument for doing so--just because we can, doesn't mean we have to, or even should. Yes, I enjoy the taste of meat, and I eat it because I like it, not because I have to. Does that make me a bad person? I certainly don't think so. I make sure that the animals I eat are raised free of cruelty, and, to be perfectly honest, I can't think of a better way to be used after death than by providing life for another being.

It seems to me that being a vegetarian is what moral theorists would call supererogatory--something akin to donating large amounts of money to charity. You may be a better person for doing it, but not doing it doesn't necessarily make you a bad person. That said, though, a lot of what turns me off to vegetarianism is the militancy and holier-than-thou attitudes of many of its strongest adherants, like some of the posters here.

It's important to realize--this is especially directed at those who said they were "disgusted" with Alternet for running this article--that your version of progressivism is not the only possible one. It's entirely possible to be progressive without being a vegetarian, just as it's possible to be progressive without supporting the legalization of drugs. As soon as you start asking everyone in the movement to "toe the party line" on all issues, you risk alienating many of your allies, and become no better than the dogmatism you're trying to combat.

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

Growing up working in a small "locker plant" has not destroyed my compassion for animals or my ability to eat them. His butcher had respect for the animals and their place in our circle of life and always made sure to quickly kill them with a well-placed bullet. Conditions were clean, the animals were from small family farms, etc. In northern Minnesota, it is easy to raise animals and more economical. In the land of lakes, there isn't a long growing season in which to grow crops to eat, but there is plenty of pasture. We had a small garden, yes. But meat, eggs and dairy were an essential part of my diet. I believe in compassionate eating, to a point. After a certain point, even a rabid tree-hugger such as myself gets really annoyed with the arrogance of vegans. We hunt, we subsist, that's life. True environmentalists believe in living within local means. We have wood stoves, geothermal heating systems, etc. And yes, we eat meat if the area we live in dictates that. And before you say we shouldn't live in an area like that, I'd like to remind you that our cold winters don't destroy communities or wreck homes!

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

being "mindful" and "sane" and having a connection to your meat - esp that which you yourself have slaughtered..... are you joking ? I thought I was seeing a fake editorial from the old saturday night live from the 70's. Are you truly that blind and self- congratulatory, or is it a case of repressed guilt and methinks the gentleman doth protest too much ??? get OVER yourself and admit you really don't give a hoot that the animals have a right to live so you can enjoy your meat no matter which abhorrent journey it had to take in order to arrive on your plate

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

I was both vegetarian and vegan over a period of about 12 years, though I've "merely" been a "more aware omnivore" for a couple of years now, similar to what Miller describes. My veg*nism didn't happen suddenly--I had to ease into it. Miller offers an excellent way to introduce the untutored to mindful eating--but the Veg*n fundamentalists among us hardly take a breath before they start ripping him to shreds. (Unfortunately, I've never participated in a veg*n community on the 'Net that wasn't that way, to some degree--there are always those who feel they MUST prove they are "more veg*n than thou".) Fundamentalism and authoritarianism SUCK in any form--how are you rabid veg*ns any better than Falwell, Robertson, etc.??? You are the biggest hypocrites the Left has to offer--you hate the "black and white" mentality when applied to abortion and gay marriage (I'm pro-choice and pagan-friendly, btw), but you rationalize and justify it in yourselves. I'm ashamed of the lot of you. I say to you the same thing I say to the hypocrites on the Right: start practicing a little of what you preach (in this case, the tolerance, diversity, etc. that progressives are supposed to value). While I would certainly like to see factory farming utterly abolished and also see far less meat consumed by everyone, your self-righteous complaining only "cuts off your nose to spite your face." Get over yourselves, already.

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

Just another carnivore "environmentalist" that swears he is not a hypocrite. You should work for the pr campaign that named the "clear skies" , the " no child left behind", & " healty forrest" program. Where's orwell when you need him?

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

I was thinking just the other day that if people saw how animals are killed in slaughter house, they might stop buying supermarket meat. They would choose organic raised meats that were killed in a humane way.

Did you know baby veal is locked up in a little box with its head allowed to only go up when it stands and down when it lays down. The are raised on a milk compound that is filled with hormones and antibiotics. At 45 or 50 days it in the head with a club and its neck is cut in a slaughter house. It never knows any what life is supposed to be about.

I have raised sheep, calves, pigs, chickens and goats. Every time I ate meat one of them gave to me, I had a really hard time doing it. These were wonderful, comical and smart animals and somehow that spoiled my taste for flesh. Eating your friends is a very hard thing to do.

The author of this article is probably a homesteader that raises crops. Many times people who live close to the land are very grateful to the animal spirits they kill. Native Americans thank the spirit of the animal that gave its life so that his family can survive. Buddhist give thanks for the vegetables that give their life essence so he or she can live.

On small farms, where many people go that are looking for a simpler way of life, they are respect living things. I bullet is kinder than a sledge hammer or electric shock that stuns the animal, so that hooks can be jammed through the live flesh of the hind legs, just above the hooves and then the throat is cut and the blood is drained. All this takes place on an assembly line.

Perhaps the author is trying to get you to understand what you are eating and the chemicals it contents. Our bodies all ready contain so many unhealthy chemicals, so eating with more awareness of where your meat comes from is not so bad.

When I taught junior high science, I would ask my kids what they would eat when plants can no longer be raised in the great quantities that we now have due to pollution and global warming? Their answer was they would go to the supermarket, just like we do now. They always have plenty of food. There is a disconnect between how are food is raise, possessed and when we buy it at the market?

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

Mathew, you are very fortunate to live in an area where you are able to meet with the farmers, 'down the road'. I have currently re-located to Houston from Europe, and find it incredibly difficult to track down WHERE the meat I buy here comes from, so what do you suggest to people living in the city? Actually, this problem is not just limited to meat products. I have noticed in the US that packaging just informs you of the distributors, not the production location. The government's new definition of 'ORGANIC' certainly doesn't help matters either.

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

I thought I'd respond to the "moral trump" card advanced herein: namely that the only justification for eating meat is because "it tastes good."

Well, let me throw in a wrinkle. My own moralizing about food production, ecological sustainability, and personal health led me to veganism several years ago. It was always a struggle, however. I would cheat, often with chicken or yogurt, a few times a week. I was always guilty over it, hid it from the vegans I knew, and just chalked it up to my own character failure. I now believe that my body was craving those items because of imbalance.

Over the past year, I have been suffering from a number of odd symptoms: I was having asthma attacks almost daily, and without a readily identifiable trigger, after having almost none since adolescence. I was having bouts of nausea and gut pain, several days a week. And, worst of all, my skin went nutz--acne everywhere, even in my ears!--to a degree I'd never experienced, even as a teenager.

Visits to dermatologists and very expensive attempts to accomodate their suggestions added only irritation to the mix. My skin felt like it was aflame. Icy Hot is nothing compared to Retin-A.

And, then...one day...a concerned family member wondered allowed whether or not I might be allergic to something I was eating.

A good guess, it turned out. It WAS an allergic reaction.

To soy.

It had worsened over time from excess consumption.

So, no more soy milk or tofu, not to mention the myriad items containing soybean oil or lecithin. I'm learning to eat all over again.

I've been off soy for 3 weeks, and the changes have been remarkable. My body is starting to feel like my own again, and there are finally clear patches of pain-free skin on my face. The guilt is also rapidly dissipating.

This struggle has taught me to be a little less arrogant in my assertions that everyone's body functions like mine does. And, I have also been reminded that a balanced diet is not just a trite expression.

I think that there are valid reasons to demand more heathful and humane alternatives to food corporatism and the imbalance of the American diet, but I have learned the hard way that we have to look for reasonable, not absolute, solutions.

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

I dread to think that any of the more self-righteous, judgmental, downright hateful veg/vegans who've posted here might actually be trying to be practicing Buddhists. If so please be "mindful" & rueful about maybe being reincarnated as a chicken on a factory farm, or as an insect in a soybean field for that matter, rather in a "higher rebirth as a human being" as they say at my sangha (no shit). Let's get a grip & have some perspective. Factory farming is the major problem, & providing environmentally healthier alternatives can be a progressive goal. I thought that was all the author was addressing -- naive me.

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

I own a farm. I have chickens, pigs, cattle and sheep. They all 'free-range" and I certainly eat them. I kill them, too, but for the cattle who are too big for me to handle alone. I get help for that job, but it is done right here.

If my animals weren't going to be eaten, they wouldn't exist at all on my land. I couldn't afford it.

Vegetarians who don't eat meat because they don't like killing animals would have more credibility with me if they contributed the former meat-money every month to a fund that bought land to provide for the animals they refuse to eat to live in the wild and be free as they once were. Otheriwse, I see only prohibition and no solution that addresses the needs of the animals.

As above, I kill most of the animals I eat. It's not a job I enjoy. The animals are so much nicer when alive, so I usually wait until the freezer is pretty empty.

What I have trouble with is the folk who like to eat meat - but could never kill their own and thus acknowledge the reality of what they are doing. It's a soberling thing, taking any life.
But that is how we have lived for millions of years and I see no reason to refuse to acknowledge and honour that heritage and its role in modern life. We like meat. It is good for us in moderation.

Provided we humans are also prepared to moderate our own population growth, there is no reason that land use issues shold matter, either.

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

Raising animals to be slaughtered for food is NOT humane.

"This isn't hypocritical. I buy my meat from farmers and ranchers committed to raising animals in humane and healthful ways"

Just because the animals are treated better, does not excuse the fact that the purpose of their life is to become food. Slaughtering animals for food cannot be humane. If we slaughtered humans that were too old or incompetent in the name of promising a "humane" death, that would be hypocritical because you are still ending life prematurely. Raising animals for food means ending life prematurely for the selfish desires of those who enjoy the taste of their flesh.

How can there be "mindful" eating of animal products that contribute to the majority of chronic diseases (heart disease, impotence, obesity, diabetes, cancer), while devastating farmlands that must produce 17-22 pounds of grain to produce 1 pound of meat? Being a "mindful" meat eater means NOT EATING MEAT and choosing to eat the grains that would have been used for animal feed.

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

For anyone interested in this whole debate and the issues of eating meat, I'd suggest reading My Year of Meats, by Ruth Ozeki. it's a fiction novel, but Ozeki really does her research and raises a lot of interesting points. I'm a vegetarian, but this book really made me think about the choices i've made.

and by the way, i can't stand self-righteous vegetarians. don't they realize they're just hurting their cause? they're no better than the anti-choice crazies in their tactics and sanctimonious attitudes.

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

Thank you for your very sane article. We are also mindful meat eaters. We believe that food produced locally makes much more environmental sense than using fossil fuels to transport food to us from far away. We raise a third of what we eat, but living in the far north means we have too short a growing season to raise vegetable protein. Instead we hunt and fish on our own land,and we buy clean grass fed beef and organically raised pork from our neighbors. We raise our own chickens, for meat and eggs. We raise an acre of vegetables and can and freeze all the surplus. We are American Indians whose ancestors, like most of the human world, were ominivores, eating both meat and vegetables. We believe that all of creation has a spirit and honor all the food gifts the earth shares with us - both meat and vegetables.

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

People really do get wound up about food, not really because of ideology but because of the massive connections we make between certain foods, our cultures, our families, and our emotions. It's a minefield of primal urges and training, and it has a tendency to blow up instead of turning into a useful discussion.

I've been vegetarian since 1989, and vegan since 1998, and I'd prefer it if everyone just agreed with me and did as I tell them, but the world doesn't work that way. I do agree wholeheartedly that if a person is to eat animal products, then cutting way, way back on consumption and ensuring that what they're eating comes only from farms they know to treat their animals well or from hunting trips is the way to go. Many Americans don't live in areas where they can hunt, or in areas where they can be certain that their meat and dairy comes from ethical farms - the terms "organic" and "free range" as applied to livestock and dairy mean very little indeed, and cover everything from the farmer who names all her chickens and treats them like beloved family members to the farmer who just keeps them uncaged in a concrete barn and opens the door a bit for 20 minutes a day. You're in difficult territory in the US when it comes to tracking your food.

As someone notes above, soy is a common allergen, and as it's found in many, many mainstream processed foods, that's a problem. It's not a problem for a vegan who's well-versed in nutrition, as there are many other sources of high-protein nutrition in a wholefood diet. Sadly, most of us have to learn about nutrition for ourselves, as our schools and government are failing us in teaching about health and nutrition in any meaningful way (see nutritionists Dr Stamford Meir and Dr Marian Nestle's experiences in having their research and input being dismissed by the USDA when they sat on the panel to change the food pyramid - the USDA's remit is to promote US agri-business, and that's what they did). Whether we're vegetarian or not, we ought to all be prepared to slog our way through summaries of up-to-date research on diet and nutrition to make informed choices.
(Part deux to follow)

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

Most people in the country eat meat but fail to make the right choices. Humane farming supports those efforts and eventually will leverage changes.

Despite all the ranting and raving--that doesn't talk as loud as hitting the pocketbooks of the industry does.

Glad to see you stir the pot.

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

There's a lot of self-deception involved in eating meat. This is one of many.

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

I am an animal lover--I love my carnivorous cats as well as the many spiders, birds, mice, squirrels, etc. that inhabit my house and property. I feel no urge to eat them, neither.
I also used to be a vegetarian (for many years), During that time, my health slowly went to shit. It works for some--not me. I believe blood type is one key factor. All you absolutists out there--both pro-meat and anti-meat alike--are little more than argument for cannibalism. Blow me.

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

I'm a vegan. Mindfulness means different things to different people. I don't question the author's mindfulness.

My mother stopped eating meat precisely because of factory farming. Early on she said that she would eat meat if the animal was raised organically in a natural setting. That changed after about 8 months of eating mostly all vegan food, she said last week, what's the point? It's completely unnecessary and wasteful. Vegan food is excellent.

Consider that with some spices, some chick pea flour, and some vital wheat gluten you can make your own meaty tasting protein for thousands upon thousands of recipes. You make that from a little bit of water and cheap, dry ingredients right in your kitchen. Compare that to the way even the most organically and naturally raised animal and it's a waste of thousands of gallons of water, grain, and space. Neither factory farming nor organic animal agriculture are viable for feeding a planet.

However, old habits are hard to break, so my mother still has an occasional fish and some dairy once in a while, and even that is very rare these days. It's not out of compassion to the fish she's eating less and less fish, it's mercury and the fact that over fishing wreaking havoc on the planet. And as for dairy, it's because of the book The China Study (scientific proof [not anecdotal] that a plant based diet is the solution for a whole host of health and ecological problems the world faces on the fiber-less, saturated fat, cholesterol laden stuff called dead animal).

Discover all the versatile, tasty, healthy, mock meat (Turtle Island makes the best) available if you need a fix in a pinch. And if you compare prices, ready made mock meat is less or equal to organic animal flesh. Get the mock meat at the health food store and look for non GMO. Choose to eat compassionATE, if not for the animals, do it for your colon and your arteries. Don't forget the legumes and a variety of colorful organic veggies.

Since people are going to eat meat, what the author does is much better than most meat eaters. It is more mindful. The slaughter part though...

"As long as there slaughterhouses, there will be battlefields."
Leo Tolstoy, The Vegetarian (London), 1893

While we ourselves are the living graves of murdered beasts, how can we expect any ideal conditions on this earth? - George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)

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

http://www.alternet.org/story/14500/

The enormous demand for meat has led to brutal conditions for animals in factory farms. So is it better to give up meat entirely, or give your food dollars to producers that raise animals humanely?

http://www.alternet.org/story/14500/

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

The EPA has identified animal agricultural runoff as a primary pollution source for the 60 percent of rivers and streams considered "impaired." A 1997 Senate report said that every year, U.S. livestock produce 10,000 pounds of solid manure for every U.S. citizen.

Waste from livestock in the U.S. amounts to 130x that produced by people. Every time it rains, excess phosphorous and nitrogen from the urine and feces seep into our waterways, causing algal blooms, or red tides. Another result of agricultural runoff has been the proliferation of dinoflagellates, named for their characteristic dual flagella, the appendages they use to propel themselves. In 1991, Pfiesteria piscicida was discovered to be a particularly nasty variety, with the ability to ambush its prey by stunning it with a disorienting toxin before sucking its skin off. This nearly indestructible one-celled creature, or "cell from hell," as it soon became known, killed a billion fish during just one flare-up off North Carolina during the early 1990s. People who come in contact with the tiny predator often experience memory loss as well as grotesque sores on their skins. In 1982 there were 22 known species of harmful dinoflagellates. In 1997 there were over 60.

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2/3 of the world's major fishing grounds and stocks are now exhausted or seriously depleted. Fishers are rapidly destroying ocean ecosystems. In 1998, 1,600 scientists from around the world declared that the oceans were in peril & warned that swift action is imperative to prevent irreversible environmental degradation.

In 1997 a bird virus jumped to a human for the first time in history. By 1998, the avian influenza strain H5N1 had killed 6 people as well as entire flocks of chickens in Hong Kong. Fearing that the strain might be signaling the beginning of a pandemic of human influenza, authorities slaughtered and buried 1.3 million poultry-market chickens in the city over a chaotic 3 day period.

Because of animal agriculture, the world sees a global pandemic of influenza 3 - 4 times per century. Ducks are often the incubators for a new subtype. In turn, pigs are periodically able to act as hosts for both the avian viruses and human ones. Within the pigs' lungs, the transspecies viruses swap genetic material, creating a new strain that may be passed back to humans. The most fertile place for this to has been south China, where billions of pigs, domesticated ducks, and people all live in close proximity to one another.

The late parent advisor Dr. Benjamin Spock maintained that cows' milk "causes internal blood loss, allergies, and indigestion and contributes to some cases of childhood diabetes." He recommended that children after the age of 2 adhere to a vegan diet. He also believed that dairy milk was not good for infants. According to renowned nutrition researcher T. Colin Campbell, "Cows' milk protein may be the single most significant chemical carcinogen to which humans are exposed."

Animal feces and urine, in today's quantities, need to be categorized as hazardous industrial waste because of the bacteria, wormy parasites, and viruses they carry. Fumes can be so potent and even explosive that a plume can kill a man on the spot. Still, the most common method of storage for animal waste is an open-air cesspool.

Eating fish from coral reefs is like burning the Mona Lisa for kindling. Reefs are the home to 25 percent of all known marine fish species. Yet divers capture coral reef fish w/ cyanide. They dissolve concentrated tablets of the poison into plastic squirt bottles. The prey is stunned, but full immobilization tends not to take place until after the fish burrow back into the reef. Divers extract them with destructive tools. Reefs are over a million years old. Yet 20% have been destroyed in 20 years.

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