Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • 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.

It's Not Enough to Be a Vegetarian

By Christina Waters, AlterNet. Posted May 23, 2006.


He got us to stop eating meat. Now ethicist Peter Singer is out to demolish environmentalist mantras like 'buy local' and 'eat organic.'
052306_story

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also in Top Stories

Sleeping Around Craigslist
Anna Reed, Lily Penza, East Bay Express

Bush's Secret Army of Snoops and Snitches
Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive

Michael Pollan on What's Wrong with Environmentalism
Kate Cheney Davidson, Yale Environment 360

A Peak Oil Prophet Imagines Life in America After Wal-Mart
Michelle Nijhuis, Grist.org

Sci-Fi Heroes Take on the System
Roya Rastegar, ColorLines

Billionaires Are Gouging Your Grandparents
Brave New Films, Brave New Films

Online Activists Keep the Pressure on Obama
Ari Melber, TheNation.com

More stories by Christina Waters

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

There wasn't much wiggle room left for the casual carnivore when über-ethicist Peter Singer got finished with us in 1973. That's when his uncompromising assault on trans-species suffering, Animal Liberation, had millions of readers trading in their T-bones for tofu.

But now even the moral high ground of a vegetarian lifestyle isn't good enough. Singer's new book, The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter argues that, all things considered, only a vegan lifestyle will do. The reasons go far beyond Singer's past exposés of animal abuse and factory farming. Tracking the source of food served at three very different American tables, Singer and his co-author Jim Mason uncover more than they could swallow.

How we eat can influence the very health of the planet even more than switching to hybrid cars or solar heating. The hidden costs of even the most prudent food choices -- costs in terms of social injustice, poverty, waste and pollution, as well as animal cruelty make us all collaborators in environmental destruction. Especially Americans, who consume one quarter of the world's fossil fuels, and whose food industry "seeks to keep Americans in the dark."

Looking for transparency in how our food is produced, Singer visited fields, farms, organic facilities and fisheries guided by the food-buying habits of three families -- one embedded in the "standard American diet" of Wal-Mart and fast food, another of "conscientious omnivores" and finally a family of vegans who consume no animal products at all. It wasn't hard to predict that the family shopping for bargains would be chastized for their convenience-based gastronomy. But when Singer sourced the politically correct fare bought by the conscientious consumers, the results were sobering. Looking at farms behind the "organic" and "certified humane" label, Singer did not like what he saw. Even farm-raised seafood smelled fishy.

Much of what Singer points out in the book flies in the face of the reigning environmental folklore. The "buy locally" mantra, for example. It is not necessarily the case that local products are less costly -- if by cost you include the environmental costs of carbon dioxide emissions, or social justice issues such as how much more your dollar could buy in a village in Sri Lanka versus what it might mean to an upscale Palo Alto community. Just as "cheaper" isn't always cheap, so "organic" isn't always good enough. At least if you're willing to do the homework Singer did for his book, uncovering the high fuel costs involved in growing organic tomatoes out of season. The "buy local" choice makes ethical sense, it seems, only when paired with "seasonal" consciousness. Out-of-season goods, even organic ones, always bear a high environmental price tag.

Singer's maddeningly strict utilitarianism has made him famous. It can also make him tedious. Sidestepping the tricky issue of intrinsic rights, Singer bases his ethical considerations on the issue of calculating interests. Since animals (including us) have interests, such as avoidance of suffering, then those interests must be respected, as long as doing so does not entail greater suffering on our part. Poverty, hunger, abuse -- these all cause suffering which those in affluent cultures might easily prevent. That is, if we're willing to make some sacrifices. And under Singer's moral microscope, we are obligated to make those sacrifices. He even makes the bold and sure-to-be-mocked suggestion of reviving the religious prohibition against gluttony. This idea, at once silly and sensible, is pure Singer.

In "The Way We Eat," Singer carefully addresses the issue of making enlightened food choices, of buying and consuming only those animal products whose provenance is well-known and well-documented, for example Niman Ranch products. Even in these cases, Singer warns that we cannot know exactly how far the concepts of "free range" or "humanely slaughtered" might be stretched. Time constraints on production line workers have a way of trumping careful handling. So to be safe, Singer says (over and over), we should simply not consume any animal products, except -- he admits with a certain sangfroid -- delicacies without central nervous systems, like mussels, clams and scallops.


Digg!

Christina Waters, Ph.D., writes about food and wine, and teaches environmental ethics at UC Santa Cruz.

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


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
The hidden price of the vegan lifestyle is, for me, too high in time and anxiety
Posted by: epski on May 23, 2006 12:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That's a pretty sad quote, really. You're putting all that anxiety on yourself, and it may well stem from a reticence to change your meat-eating ways.

For a small, upfront investment of time to learn how to prepare foods without animal products, you get a lifetime return of anxiety-free eating, because you're not contributing to the subjugation of other species for the sake of your tastebuds.

I've been vegan for four years, and I have to say that I don't experience any great anxiety living my lifestyle, and any time I do spend reading a label now and again is well spent, because that little bit I'm doing to minimize suffering is nothing in the overall scheme of things, and it sure is cheaper than sending a portion of my paycheck to some non-profit to assuage unnecessary guilt.

» elitist bullcrap! Posted by: thistleblower
» RE: elitist bullcrap! Posted by: ann83
» RE: elitist bullcrap! Posted by: Xynyx
oh man...
Posted by: Byrodude on May 23, 2006 12:18 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok. I'm a vegetarian. And a pretty strict vegetarian at that. I don't eat eggs, gelatin or anything with lard. I do eat cheese and occasionally I'll drink cow's milk. But wow. How are we supposed keep track of these companies and exactly what eco friendly practices they are taking, when this guy wrote an ENTIRE BOOK. I mean, if i have to I will go vegan, it's been in the works for years now, and I'll definetly be willing to "eat green" but how am I supposed to keep up with the day by day workings of a gigantic food industry... there are only so many hours in the day! I feel it is my ethical duty, such is that of compassion, that I will convert. But damn, this ethics buisness is Hard!

» RE: oh man... Posted by: Kanefire
» RE: oh man... Posted by: blingnet88
It's ok
Posted by: Aussie Kim on May 23, 2006 12:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It doesn't matter that we can't all be perfect and can't do everything right all the time and it's doesn't matter that Peter Singer seems to be an extremist that we can never, apparently, live up to.

The important thing is that someone (him) is doing the research and bringing it to our attention and we can now do _something_ about it. We know now so we can try to change our behaviours. Sure, we will probably never all be able to live the way he wants us to, but we can give it a go, to a greater or lesser extent, and make changes bit by bit as we are able.

If we take notice of what people like him say and try to do our bit, whether individually, or in communities or as whole societies, then we can bring about change - hopefully good changes that big business and politicians cannot ignore.

Viva la revolution!

» RE: It's ok Posted by: mom'z the word
Local+seasonal
Posted by: mazur on May 23, 2006 1:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The "buy local" choice makes ethical sense, it seems, only when paired with "seasonal" consciousness. Out-of-season goods, even organic ones, always bear a high environmental price tag.

That's it, exactly. Preserve your tomatoes in season, or buy preserved.

» RE: Local+seasonal Posted by: marcinde
» RE: Local+seasonal Posted by: Kanefire
Production, not just consumption
Posted by: jackie on May 23, 2006 2:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The real problem lies in the production of food for profit. If we produced food on the basis of the needs of humans and other living things we wouldn't have to do extensive research and extra labor to eat humanely and healthfully. Asking people who work hard for a living and/or living in poverty to adopt this sort of "lifestyle" is also unreasonable. Food is a basic necessity and it should be produced for its use value, not its exchange value.

» It is. Posted by: peritonlogon
Its About Why and Not What People Eat
Posted by: ChristopherLL on May 23, 2006 3:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article reviews the author's focus on food consumption as an economic and/or political choice. What is not mentioned is why people eat, especially those who over eat (the majority), and it is not because they are hungry. Eating has become a method to assuage stress, emotional discomfort (depressive moods), boredom and (ironically) feelings of body shame to name the most common. If those more relevant aspects of eating are combined with socioeconomic realities (giant food corporations and marketing) then maybe this book can be used to make better choices.

Dr. Waters gets it right
Posted by: rbohan on May 23, 2006 3:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I haven't read Singers book so I'm trusting Dr. Waters to have related its premises reasonably accurately. If she has...Right On, Doc!

The problem with Singer's position is similar to the problem of all zealots...unless we buy into his views totally, completely, and with no compromise at all, we're no better than the riff-raff scarfing up Big Macs and Cheetos for their three squares a day. And the problem with this view, in turn is that, rather than persuading lots of folks to get a little bit better in their food consumption habits (eat a bit less meat, buy a bit more local and organic produce), he risks prompting folks to dismiss the whole approach. It's like saying I'm not really a good Catholic unless I'm willing to join the priesthood. Feh!

My fear is that, at rock bottom, Singer's agenda isn't to motivate real and positive change. It's to show the rest of us that we could never measure up to his ideals. We could never be among the holy ones. We'll never be good enough. Somewhere along the line we'll eat a tomatoe that gets trucked cross country or buy rice that wasn't grown by a Bandladeshi wading his rice paddies in his bare feet. We'll just never be as good as he is.

So my advice is...forget Singer and his "can't begin to measure up" metrics. Go to your local farmer's market and buy something. If it's organic, great, if not, buy some anyway. You'll eat better and you'll be helping some folks in your neighborhood.

» RE: Dr. Waters gets it right Posted by: amalgamatedspats
» RE: Dr. Waters gets it right Posted by: Democritus
» RE: Dr. Waters gets it right Posted by: amalgamatedspats
» RE: Singer and zealotry Posted by: S. Nair
» RE: Dr. Waters gets it right Posted by: Artaraxl
» RE: Dr. Waters gets it right Posted by: CasualRebel
Fanatacism is scary!
Posted by: owlbear1 on May 23, 2006 4:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Whoa!

» Fanatacism has its purposes Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Fanatacism is scary! Posted by: bettsoff
Singer's ideology
Posted by: patchen on May 23, 2006 4:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Singer is indeed a zealot, who admittedly deserves credit for his early works, which exposed the general reader to factory farming. And even though his thesis here is self-righteous, it does give one pause. Yet as had been said in this thread already, one is left with the impression that nothing less than total adoption of his views is moral. Another of his recent books is a treatise on the viablility of sex with animals as an alternative sexual orientation. It is ok to have sex with an animal, but not to kill it??

» RE: Singer's ideology Posted by: Aussie Kim
Hypocrite
Posted by: polyquat50 on May 23, 2006 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the same Peter Singer, of course, that said that he and his wife would abort a Down Syndrome foetus because he and his wife didn't think they could have the same meaningful relationship with an intellectually disabled child as they have with their other children.

It is enough to make my DS daughter and me choke on our T-bone.

» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: kiatoa
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: MsEithne
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: rbohan
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: fork
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: Doyle
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: elizacoop
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: mclare
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: fork
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: Democritus
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: melissa999
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: Artaraxl
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: polyquat50
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: susannunes
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: fork
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: Pseudo Morals
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: akjspain
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: mclare
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: AmyB
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: jgirl1307
» RE: Hypocrite Posted by: polyquat50
When is Chocolate in season?
Posted by: greentime on May 23, 2006 4:42 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do try to eat organic, local and in season. More and more people are more and more aware of their choices and how their choices act on the planet. That's great.

However, the dogma outlined in this article of eating only when hungry and only in season etc etc is just ridiculous!

There are methods of heating greenhouses and powering canning factories, like solar, that can provide extended growing seasons and provide for off-season "put-up" foods. Winter is a long season and nothing much is growing then so if we didn't "put food by" as we have since ancient times, we wouldn't make it through the winter. What would he have us do? Graze on the forest over winter? That would set the planet back some. Stewed tomatoes are much better in a winter dish than pale, hard hydroponic winter substitutes.

More than all that conscious self denial, let's remember that food is also for celebration, enjoyment, sharing, and just plain old deliciousness! It adds life to existence.

Lightenen up!

How come we give whackos like Singer a pulpit?
Posted by: rbohan on May 23, 2006 4:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm reading the posts by Patchen and Polyquat and, assuming they are correct in what they say about Singer's past writings, I start to wonder why we progressives give whackos like Singer the time of day. We wouldn't give, say, Tim LaHaye an inch of space on Alternet (and that's a good thing) but Singer's ramblings are treated with some degree of respect...respect that it appears he doesn't deserve. And that's not to say I'm not glad that the original article debunks at least part of Singer's thesis. But, geez, it's not as if there aren't enough serious progressives out there with good ideas that need to be spread around that we have to give the whacko right more ammunition by giving an apparent nutbag like Singer airtime.

» Well why wouldn't you? Posted by: Aussie Kim
Straw Man
Posted by: Louisa on May 23, 2006 5:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The big joke here is that people should make food choices based on ethics. Good lord, everything you eat dies so that you may live - plant matter, animals, etc. I can't be too bothered about choices like apple or salmon. I guess I have to apologize for seeing myself as having the right to live and eat any way I want (tongue firmly in cheek here, folks!).

If you want to live ethically you would limit your own reproduction to one child and frown upon anyone that has more children than that. It is not single humans that are destroying the world as we know it ("W" being an exception to the rule) - it is the reckless overpopulation of our entire species that is pushing every other living thing to the edge. There really is a difference in these ideas because one person does no actual harm, but cumulatively the effect of our species is devastating to the planet. There's just too many of us - and our effects upon the environment are significantly ameliorated by simply reducing our numbers.

So, as you and I are already here and have rights over which I personally refuse to feel guilty let's just do the next best thing: limit the number of us we leave behind.

» RE: Straw Man Posted by: lucizoe
» RE: Straw Man Posted by: magnolia
» RE: Straw Man Posted by: DRosen
» RE: Straw Man Posted by: magnolia
» RE: Straw Man (for Louisa) Posted by: jbohland
who cares about universal healthcare and progressive taxation?
Posted by: cry0fan on May 23, 2006 5:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
vegetarianism is what the American PseudoLeft cares about. And you say the left in America is dead? Gee, I wonder why.....

By a crackpot, about a crackpot.
Posted by: Kneel on May 23, 2006 5:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Singer goes a long way beyond even what polyquat50 says, even advocating that babies should be killed if they don't measure up to his standards. Take a look at his discussion with disabled rights lawyer Harriet McBryde Johnson, who because of a spinal deformation, Singer feels should have been exterminated as a baby, as should pretty much anyone not worthy of continued existence by Singer's standards.

(One of his arguments being that if you took two children to the beach, the one with the straighter spine who could run around would be having a lot more fun. Hmmm... perhaps we could find a use for those old machine-gun nests on some beaches by having people watch to see what children weren't having enough fun and disposing of them. What if, say, a depressed child is having less fun than the paraplegic?)

What he's saying, as related here, isn't new. If you don't know that a local hothouse tomato in Alaska takes a lot of energy to grow, well...

What he ought to be proposing is that people plant their lawns, that we set up a lot of community gardens and plant the rooftops. That'd be a movement. Most people would be amazed at how much food you can get out of even that little space, and how easy it is to grow. That would be powerful, and would ease the resource consumption a lot more. (The food's also delicious.)

Singer has some good ideas, but I'd scarf a Big Mac just to keep from being associated with the guy.

Of course, its not just Singer who's loopy: "The hidden price of the vegan lifestyle is, for me, too high in time and anxiety."

What?? Hello? You just don't meat. Where's the anxiety in that? In fact, you get to skip the anxiety about the diseases from meat (like how hamburgers in the US have an acceptable fecal count - that is, an acceptable amount of sh*t in your dinner, and you'd better be sure to cook it thoroughly to kill all the e. coli off?), keeping it refrigerated, making sure it's cooked all the way through, etc. You just eat, and... you're a lot healthier for it.

She seems to think it's so incredible and "arduous" for someone to avoid animal products. With as rich a cornucopia of produce as greets us at most supermarkets, it's incredibly easy, and it makes shopping and storage a lot easier as well.

I go to the market or store, see a lot of attractive fruits and vegetables, eat them. If I'm hungry, I don't even have to cook them, but sometimes I make coconut-curries, stir-frys, pasta primavera, soups, 3 bean salads... not sure where that huge hidden price in time in anxiety comes in. Sounds like yet another goofy rationalization (or maybe someone has anxiety problems completely separate from the issue).

Amazing, the endless mental gymnastics those trying to expiate their guilt about eating dead animals just 'cause they like the taste subject the rest of us to, from attacking vegans ("veganazis!") to myths about nutrition to babbling about the high price in time and anxiety.

Sorry to hear Ms. Waters finds living a moral life so arduous.

» On the other hand... Posted by: Kneel
getting comfortable with the alternatives
Posted by: azima on May 23, 2006 5:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Singer has been living with this issue for years. Most of us have not. Only recently have I learned easy ways to live as a vegan. It took years of trying recipes that didn't agree with my taste buds or my digestive system. Fortunately, I have a blood type that agrees with a vegan diet, so for me, it made sense to pursue this option. I wonder how much of the moralizing about this article has to do with peoples' ignorance about how cook vegan food that they might actually enjoy or where to find good vegan prepared food.

If you're a dedicated carnivore, and it agrees best with your system, then all you can do is be a conscious consumer, and not hold to a standard that doesn't work for your body.

I think Singer's message is useful if we don't give ourselves a guilt trip about not being able to follow it to the letter. I suspect that the resistance to his work stems from our perception of how difficult it would be for us to do what he says.

Finally I found a cook book with a lot of vegan food that tasted delicious (it was south Indian). But tastes are personal.

If our hearts are in the right place, let's take our time putting our ideals to the test.

Bon appetit, whatever you eat.

» blood type not linked to diet Posted by: aaronfetty
So This Is Why They Hate Us....
Posted by: Stonecutter on May 23, 2006 5:54 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Gimme a break. It's one thing to be "conscientious" about your food choices, including ingredients, where the stuff comes from, how it's produced or grown, etc. There's no doubt that being more aware of these aspects of food buying and eating makes you not only healthier in the long run, but less likely to contribute to the obvious evils of the processed food industry and it's vise grip on the so-called "American" diet of Velvetta, Spam, Cool Whip and other chemically manufactured delights.

It's a whole other unctious obsession to subscribe to Peter Singer's fanatical, almost cult-like protestations. Frankly, after six years of exposure to the new "national socialism" of the Bush administration in all it's ugly manifestations, I'm disgusted to my core with any and all forms of extremism, no matter how (self) righteous they may present themselves to the world.

After watching the documentary "McLibel" about the years-long struggle of two political activists against McDonald's in Great Britain, and Morgan Spurlock's recent film "Supersize Me", I'm convinced that Mickey D and the rest of the fast food industry are contributing to the long-term illness, rampant obesity and decreased mortality of millions around the world who consume their products regularly. However, the response to this awareness is not to become a dairy cow eating grass, anymore than it would make sense or be a marker of one's "life well lived" to give up all wine because it contains alcohol, or turkey because of how they're raised and slaughtered, or ice cream because it contains milk products. This is the gustatory equivalent of becoming a Benedictine monk because you broke up with your girlfriend.

The pleasures of well-prepared cuisine, be it Italian, French, Chinese, Greek, Thai, Indian, or the occasional finely aged porterhouse steak, are too great, too much an integral part of the joy of living, to be rejected in favor of some rigid adherence to veganism (any "ism" applied to the simple satisfactions of life gives me the heebie jeebies). I've cut out most red meat because it's unhealthy, but you can still buy organic meat for a price, and there's nothing wrong with the occasional organic steak or burger. Moderation in all things is the key, not zealous politicization, the commercialization of guilt, self-righteousness and impossible utopianism, coming from a guy who sounds as much like a "Food Nazi" as the famous "Soup Nazi" on "Seinfeld".

There are always going to be those who politicize every behavior and every aspect of life, from eating to brushing your teeth. It's still a free country, unless you're using your phone. However, those who speak reverently about the suffering of chickens, the pleasures of bean curd and tofu and the evils of a perfectly cooked prime New York strip are, frankly, as boring and dull as the food they covet. To each his own battle for the salvation of the planet. I'll take the federal budget.

Voter333
Posted by: Voter333 on May 23, 2006 6:01 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think Christina's reaction to being 'pushed' to change her diet preferences is a natural reaction but, Christina, like all humans, would improve not just the environment but her own personal health, by eliminating the consumption dairy products, as she has meat and eggs. Natural growth hormones and opiate-like substances in milk as there for the benefit of the young livestock for whom this substance was intended...not for people. Combined with the addition of hormones and antibiotics, milk and its concentrated form - cheese- are unhealthly to humans. And the claim that the calcium in milk is vital to bone strength is actually the opposite of the truth; countries with the highest dairy consumption are the ones with the highest percentage of osteoporosis.
Pete has lots of good reasons to take the stand he has in favor of a vegan diet...but there are even more good reasons involving human health. And the good news is that when one becomes vegan, as I did fifteen years ago, life is easier and feels so much better!

» RE: Voter333 Posted by: bettsoff
» RE: Voter333 Posted by: Xynyx
» RE: Voter333 Posted by: bettsoff
Vegan Zealots are the Religious Right of the Food World
Posted by: NoPCZone on May 23, 2006 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
My way or the highway.
I'm the only one that's right.
Everybody else is wrong.
Our morality is the only legitimate one.

Veganism may be bad food.
Posted by: douglashoyt on May 23, 2006 6:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hitler was a vegan, believe it or not, you can look it up.

Maybe if Hitler had sat down to a juicy steak, pork chop, or rack of lamb now and then he would have been too bloated to worry much about the "German People," or the jews.

» RE: Veganism may be bad food. Posted by: cyberfactotum
» RE: Veganism may be bad food. Posted by: veganshawn
» RE: Veganism may be bad food. Posted by: magnolia
» RE: Veganism may be bad food. Posted by: veganshawn
You people can't harsh my mellow
Posted by: Uccellla on May 23, 2006 6:09 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'Tis the glorious season of morels and asparagus in Central New York!

one man...
Posted by: montims on May 23, 2006 6:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are how many people in the United State? One man writes a book, and everybody gets all worked up. What if a dozen different people wrote books refuting his claims? Would you still believe him? If Jerry Falwell wrote a book, would you take what he says as gospel? (so to speak...) It's a book. Written by one man. Hyped by publishers who expect to become rich on it, otherwise they wouldn't have published it. If you don't like it, or are not interested, just ignore it... For once, I kind of agree with cryofan - there are more important things to worry about...

Ah, and here we go with the anti-vegan attacks.
Posted by: Kneel on May 23, 2006 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Come on, people, get over your guilt.

Vegans can't even present their case without all these people going berserk on them about their snideness or sneering or superiority or whatever. And then someone has to start hollering about Hitler?

Was a Hitler a vegatarian? He was, supposedly, advised by his doctor to be so, but a cook who prepared dishes for him describe the dishes he preferred, and they weren't veggie.

Know what else? It's irrelevant. Maybe Hitler drank orange juice. What would that mean?

If I don't kick old people or if I enjoy hiking, are you gonna run up and say, Yeah, well Pol-Pot enjoyed hiking, too, you hikanazi!

always an indivual thing?
Posted by: porgygirl on May 23, 2006 6:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If 20 or 500 or 3000 people become vegans because they read this book (or a review of it), there's no doubt that'd be good for the environment, but shouldn't a big chunk of the issue be the fact that so much of American food comes from unethical, industrialized, polluting, cruel sources? In a perfect world (sigh), shouldn't the government be paying some attention to the treatment of animals and the stewardship of the land and water? I don't think the government should force us all to be vegan, but it could certainly improve the quality of our choices.

I heard a radio ad recently. It started by complaining about how dirty, polluted, unsafe the air is. I was thinking, yeah, there should be better regulation of factory emissions, car emissions, etc. Then the ad tried to sell me an air purifier so that my personal home could, supposedly, be safe from the evil air. Classic! We're trained to approach problems by buying something individually, instead of taking collective action to make the world better.

Okay, so I'm a big government liberal wacko. :)

Stop whining, veganism is easy and it's right
Posted by: A.T. on May 23, 2006 6:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I went vegan when I was in college 10 years ago. It was challenging to forgo cheeze subs for the first week, then it was easy. My health improved and I could live with myself more easily. It was one of the best things I've ever done. It was embarassing to read the last paragraph of this column by Christina Waters. Show some self respect, Christina, and don't be such a spoiled b*tch.

» Bettsoff, you're wrong, dammit! Posted by: mmeetoilenoir
Make food better for non-vegans
Posted by: julamo on May 23, 2006 6:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Instead of everyone becoming vegan, I think the impact on the world would be greater if people spent their time making meat farms treat their animals humanely. There are a lot of people who will never become vegan or even vegetarian, but everyone still has to eat something. If the only food available was grown ecologically and humanely, then even people who didn't care what they ate still wouldn't be hurting the environment.

Becoming vegan is sort of pointless, unless you are also working to make the quality of meat and animal products better for other people while you are vegan.

(I should also mention that I was vegan for about 4 years.)

This sounds familiar
Posted by: chev on May 23, 2006 6:59 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It seems as though Mr. Singer has taken many of his ideas from a recent publication: "The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals" by Michael Pollan. In fact, the author contacted Singer in order to discuss some of Singer's previous works. "The Omnivore's Dilemma" is a fine look at our modern industial food chain, looking at all sides to understand what is right and what is wrong, rather than a diatribe on what we should consume.

Singer is not a fanatic!
Posted by: bethybethybethy on May 23, 2006 7:05 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why is someone who advocates a certain way of eating that happens to go against the easy, indulgent, corporate standard american diet considered a fanatic? Our american diet is deadly and more than harmful for us and for the planet. Our way of eating is without any regard for anyone but our own taste buds. The other day a friend of mine accused my use of organic shampoo and conditioner as "self-indulgence." She is well know for eating very expensive gourmet cheeses. I asked her about her cheese consumption-was it necessary for life? She thought very hard about it and agreed with me. Anyway, humans don't need meat, dairy or eggs to thrive. Eating those products is simply indulgent and greedy. Stop whining, as the other poster said, and realize that what you eat is more than just a choice about "taste." I've been vegetarian for 24 years, and vegan for 3 months. Its really very easy--and I feel amazing. People keep asking me how I do it--do I miss cheese? Do I miss eggs? The answer is no. By the way, Hitler was not a vegetarian--and even if he was, what difference does it make?

Shame on you
Posted by: hockeysk8 on May 23, 2006 7:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Shame on all those in this thread that are attacking Singer (including the author.) I was starting to think that I was reading a right wing blog. 'Progressive' means that ideas that are backed by facts and well placed morality deserve respect. However, most in this thread, presumably fed by their own feelings of guilt, have decided to lash out.

» RE: Shame on you Posted by: jeddrules
» Backatcha Posted by: YogiBear
Vegans lead the way
Posted by: dorlir on May 23, 2006 7:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We all suffer different kinds of pain. I shudder when I look at people buying tomatoes in December. In the "olden" days, people ate root vegetables and legumes in the winter. Must have worked then. We take out rain forrests to plant mango trees. We develop monster seeds which only reproduce when you pay ransom to the pharmaceuticals. People don't think about the connection we all should have with the environment. I applaud Singer's work.

» RE: Vegans lead the way Posted by: YogiBear
Singer did not get us to stop eating meat.
Posted by: lamar on May 23, 2006 7:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Though I know who Peter Singer is, I have to ask, who the hell is he? He didn't get us to stop eating meat, given that meat production has increased fivefold since the 1950's. Further, his arguments leave me with an SFW feeling. Is it OK to eat meat if I hunt my own dinner? Can I chow down on swine if I raised it myself? If animals suffer when slaughtered, why not drug them? Hey, I'm all for eating less meat, and reducing our gluttonous intake across the board. Folks like Peter Singer are extremists and, like the President, extremists make common sensical arguments that don't hold water. And no, Mr. Singer did not get us to stop eating meat. That's just how he advertises himself.

Being a herbivore isn't any more right than being a Carnivore
Posted by: rfrancis@godisdead.com on May 23, 2006 7:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I get annoyed with the often preachy tone to messages about vegitarianism and veganism being the "Right" thing to do.

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

No, I don't feel any guilt about ordering a bacon cheeseburger for dinner and neither should anyone else.

I do think the factory farm method of raising animals needs to go and it is marginally helpful to buy animal products from farms that let their animals range free.

But lets face it, the amount of money we cost the food industry by shopping elsewhere is a drop in the bucket and significant change for humane treatment of animals won't occur without improved government regulations of the industry.

Enjoy life, enjoy food
Posted by: Bobsays on May 23, 2006 7:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I eat well, travel loads, am very fit and don't waste my life stressing over these issues.

It is time people chased what tastes nice and enjoyed the ritual of the meal and friends. The other stuff will sort itself out from that. It is far too neurotic to obsess over these food fads.

How can it be...?
Posted by: MonkeyBoy on May 23, 2006 7:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How is it better to buy produce from Southeast Asia than produced locally? Surely, it has to be trucked from the farm there to the port, then shipped 7,000 miles across the ocean. It is then unloaded, and trucked to its final destination. How is that more energy efficient than trucking 200 miles locally?

» RE: How can it be...? Posted by: Artaraxl
MAD SPROUT DISEASE?
Posted by: Roverton on May 23, 2006 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've given vegetarianism a look because of all the pandemics-in-the-gate at the GLOBAL OVERPOPULATION RODEO.

We feed our animal stock to themselves and then eat the result. Dangerous stuff to play around with, eating an unwitting cannibal. As actions go, that's as mad as the cow itself. Bird flu and who knows what else... Every animal sold by large food manufacturers has NOT been thoroughly tested.

I prefer to gamble on safer bets than that.

We're in big trouble with pending food supplies.

How might the story go one day? Would vegetarianism have been one of the ways we made it though all this?

Here we go
Posted by: RudiTuzla on May 23, 2006 7:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If you don't like being preached at by the Religious Right, it's because you feel guilty that you are not a true Christian.

If you don't like being preached at by Vegans, it's because you feel guilty that you are not a true ehtical eater.

That cloak of smug, self righteousness must feel great, because it gets in the way of your mission. If, in fact, your mission is to convince people to adopt a vegan lifestyle, which would probably be more effective if done in incremental steps rather than insisting on a total conversion exerience, Saul of Tarsus style.

This attitude of total self-righteousness that many have exhibited in these comments sounds a lot like the sentiments of Fundamentalist anythings. Adopt a dogma, believe in it without question, and denounce anyone who dares ask questions or express doubts about any aspect of your belief system.

Note that I wrote "many", and not "all," but I think that most people who aren't already convinced vegans will percieve the most fanatic comments as defining the movement, which will push them away from it. So, if your main goal is to have an air of smug, superiority about you you'll be quite pleased, but if you really want to expand the lifestyle among the Lumpen Proletariat you are not helping at all.

» RE: Here we go Posted by: YogiBear
» RE: Here we go Posted by: lamar
» RE: Here we go Posted by: rbohan
Oh and Hitler was a vegetarian.
Posted by: melissa999 on May 23, 2006 8:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks for bringing that up. Hee hee.

» So were/are these guys... Posted by: pckurp
It's about the challenge
Posted by: jeddrules on May 23, 2006 8:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It drives me crazy when people act so put out when people invite them to criticize their own beliefs/behaviors. So what if Singer seems "holier than though"? He's right! Whether or not he (or us) can actually behave ethically and follow ideas to their sometimes uncomfortable conclusions is kind of beside the point. He at least provides a thoughtful, unflinching ethical goal. I applaud his insight and courage.

I would venture to say that those who are so offended (or exhausted) by Singer's ethical challenges are so out of plain old cognitive dissonance. Suddenly, their (our) own ignorance, conventionality, and sometimes laziness is highlighted. Some people welcome this revelation while others are too ashamed to entertain the self-criticism.

Computers
Posted by: Llama11 on May 23, 2006 8:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]