The "new meat movement" is against industrial meat production, but not against eating meat. Their thinking is problematic.You may have noticed an onslaught of articles recently on what is being coined as the "new meat movement." The most recent is an article in Newsweek, "Head To Hoof: A butcher helps lead a new carnivore movement."
These articles almost all support the idea that cruelty to animals is wrong and that factory-produced meat is unjustifiably bad for the environment. However, they are not opposed to meat in and of itself, they are simply opposed to industrial meat.
These "conscientious omnivores," believe it is possible, and preferable, to eat meat the old-fashioned way -- on small, sustainable and local farms, with farmers who love their animals and perhaps even have pet names for them.
The backlash against industrial meat has been brewing for many reasons. Ever-increasing knowledge of the industry's effect on the environment, human starvation and animal welfare, is making it harder for even the most ardent omnivore to consume meat without guilt.
The much-quoted report by the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization, "Livestock’s Long Shadow -- Environmental Issues and Options" (Nov. 29, 2006), did a lot to raise awareness about the animal industry's devastating effects on the planet and global warming.
More and more, people are also realizing the troubling connections between human starvation and eating animal products. It takes approximately 16 pounds of grain and 2,500 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of meat (thus feeding one or two people on meat versus approximately 16 people on grain). Much of this grain is grown in developing countries, where a large percentage of their land is used for cattle-raising for export to the United States, instead of being used to grow staple crops, which could feed local people directly. In a world where a child starves to death every 2 seconds, it seems impossible to justify such waste.
The animal industry is partly responsible for the destruction of the Amazon and other forests, for our world's diminishing water supply, for the release of huge amounts of greenhouse gases, and basically every other environmental problem. People are also more readily accepting that the animals themselves deserve a life free from cruelty and that factory farms give them anything but.
Vegans and vegetarians have been saying many of these things for years, but it seems that people have only started listening now that there is simultaneously a proposed solution to this problem: "happy meat."
"Local," "grass-fed," "sustainably produced," "humanely raised" and "free-range" are just a few of the benevolent-sounding phrases that greet conscientious shoppers in the meat department. Animal-rights activists jokingly call these products "happy meat."
Many of these products tout pictures of smiling pigs, happy farmers in green pastures and stickers that say "humane." For many people who care about the environment and animal welfare, choosing to eat "humanely raised" meat seems like an option that honors traditional farmers and diets while also solving the ethical problems of environmental degradation and animal suffering.
But it solves neither of these problems. This meat is high-priced, and its production is an even less-efficient use of land and resources. It is often marketed as luxurious, an indulgence to be lingered over. It is inherently not adaptable to a national or international solution. Local organic meat is for an elite few, and not a practicable alternative to the massive crisis of industrial meat production.
For the first time in history, an entire civilization consumes meat as a staple. How can America truly produce enough of this "happy meat" (not too mention happy milk and happy eggs), to feed this country even a fraction of the animal products we currently consume?
Truth be told, this meat is a marketing gimmick, an ideological pose, which assuages the ethical compulsions of those who consume it even though it does nothing to kick America's cheap meat habit, and perhaps contributes to the growing international fetishization of meat as a class signifier.
Articles on the "new meat movement" never pose questions like, "could all of America's animal products be grown locally?" And they never mention what the vast majority of Americans who can't afford the prized local animal products will be consuming if all factory farms shut down -- they'd be vegan.
These farms are described as ethical because of the fact that they are small, sustainable and have kinder animal-husbandry practices. As many people have pointed out, these farms can individually produce meat in a way that is arguably just as "green" as eating vegan.
8 comments:
Why do so few people understand the massive environmental impact of the fishing industry.
Please watch TEDPrize 2009 winner Sylvia Earle in this video from the TED conference earlier this month.
Sylvia Earle's Ted Prize Wish.
The problem is that we all eat too much meat, but the solution isn't eating no meat.
I mean, let's assume that we were to all of a sudden all become vegans. What would happen to all the livestock? It'd still be around presumably. Where would it all go? How would the livestock population be managed and kept under control?
The problem with industrial meat production is that it enables us to eat so much meat. The article then assumes that we would keep eating the same amount of meat if we were to switch to local meat production and consumption. So they're looking at the problem from the wrong end.
What I think needs to happen is that we BOTH switch over to local meat production AND reduce the amount of meat we consume. But that's not going to happen overnight. On an individual basis, I think we just need to set a good example, promote responsible eating as much as we can, and hope people start following our lead.
So in short, yeah, just eat responsibly and only go vegan (or vegetarian) if that feels right to you and doesn't feel like an enormous sacrifice.
Personally, I was near-vegan for a few years, but I've since switched to being a "social carnivore", just eating meat now and then in restaurants or at friends' houses, but never at home. At home, it's not a problem being vegetarian, but outside the home it was, so for me this works. It's not ideal, because I'm sure I eat a fair amount of industrial meat when I eat it, but it's only 2 or 3 times a month at most, so....
Ciao!
~G
The issue is that we've made meat a staple of our diet, and it's neither healthy for us or healthy for the planet. It's the paradigm of meat as a staple that's the problem. Until we can stop talking about "cutting back" and "meat substitutes" and begin simply ENJOYING meat WITH our food instead of AS our food, we'll be trapped looking for ways to keep up with what's essentially an untenable pace.
~eMused
My wish is for people to separate out the "cruelty to animals" argument from the efficiency argument.
While I do not endorse factory farming and avoid foods that come from them, the ethical argument doesn't quite hold up. The state of nature is cruel and painful suffering. Do predatory animals have ethical concerns when they disembowel their prey? Are humans not part of this cycle of life?
Many vegans would have us believe that man was not meant to eat meat. Perhaps for some, but I have hunted big game and can attest that there is something deeply primal within me that is suited to the hunting and killing of animals for food. My genetic roots are from the European north, where meat meant simply this, surviving winter. Am I to believe there will be a universal moral imperative that would have my ancestors choose death over animal sacrifice?
The sustainability argument however, can hold my attention. The human population seems grossly out of balance for the planet, especially given the eating habits we have used for thousands of years. Grains appear far more efficient method of meeting nutritional needs if we hold population number and growth rate as constants.
The case feels strained when these two arguments are combined or conflated.
If we want to introduce an ethical maxim that will encourage human sustainability on this planet how about this, no more than one child for every individual. "There are too many people on this planet and it is morally wrong to continue overpopulating." You won't read about that in Yoga Journal ;)
I agree with much of what Casey said. And here's another perspective to consider:
All or nothing. I was a vegetarian for five years based on the ethical and environmental concerns. But the problem, I realized, is that so many of us think that everyone will just switch their lifestyles if they just had the right info and could be convinced, so let's go for the elimination of meat. It ain't fucking happening. Pick your favorite development theorist and see what conclusions you arrive at. Mine is Kegan. So, I could go on about that, but I won't. It's obvious to me that a no-meat proposition won't work in reality, even if we thought it was the only choice.
My option has been to simply take the steps that will make change towards something better, with the future being unknown. So, I support organic and natural farming, even though much of it is not well regulated or even that substantial. But take a look: do you find a shitload more organic meat nowadays then you did 10 years ago? Yes. I'm claiming that I make any sort of significant impact, but I think it's more helpful than going vegetarian with the hopes that other people will follow you.
Everyone,
Thanks for the comments. I really appreciate the input.
You know, my argument has always been that humans are a part of the food chain, and we are omnivores by design.
And I rationalize further by eating only fish, chicken, turkey, and cow - not the brightest animals on Earth.
But that isn't working for me anymore - I can get the protein I need from eggs and dairy (and yes, I know how horrible that is for the animals and the environment). So I am struggling to align the objective reality of my diet with subjective reality of my beliefs.
BTW, I have no intention of converting others to my views. I know it's a losing battle. I can only do what feels right for me, and try to stay within my Buddhist beliefs as much as possible (failed at the no meat thing so far).
I do support free-range, and I want to try harder to buy locally raised grass-fed beef IF I continue eating beef.
The reality is that I am lazy - it's so easy to bake a few chicken breasts and have quick food for days. It's even easier to eat dairy and eggs. Plus, I LOVE good beef, good salmon, and so on.
I'm still mulling all of this, so I appreciate the various viewpoints.
Peace,
Bill
This is an issue I also wrestle with frequently.
Here are a couple articles that may interest you:
http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma3/vegi.html - Buddhist perspectives. One raises the point that all forms of food production involve killing:
"Books of Buddhist scriptures are printed on paper produced by an industry that destroys wildlife habitat. Worms, insects, rodents and other animals are routinely killed en masse in the course of producing the staples of a vegetarian diet. Welcome to samsara. It is impossible for most of us to free ourselves from this web; we can only strive to be mindful of entanglement in it."
I find many of the Weston A. Price Foundation's arguments quite convincing (on nutrition generally). Here is an article on vegetarianism posted on their website:
http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html
There is a counter-argument here:
http://www.energygrid.com/health/2002/06ap-stephenbyrnes.html
I find the counter-argument less than convincing though. I think he dances around the points without really engaging with them. It seems to be written in a less rigorous style than the first article.
So glad you started this discussion, and since I'm also struggling with this issue, it's nice to know there are others out there. I'm in agreement that there is no truly ethical way to eat so, if you want to be honest about it, it's all a matter of compromises. We subsist on the lives of others, even if you pare it down to what you consider the least consequential of lives, such as plants.
And there is no way to escape other deaths in industrial food production, either. Indeed, I have been led to believe that the way fruits and vegetables are harvested that many more individual beings (rodent, insects, birds, etc) are killed in agricultural farming than in meat or fish production.
Another good point raised above, is that domestication of animals is not something you can just suddenly reverse either. Domestication conferred certain advantages on animals like cows (assurance of food, care and reproduction) that will devestate their populations without it.
It seems that growing and raising all one's own food is probably the most ethical solution but also clearly the least practical and entirely unsustainable in the modern world. (Not to mention unlikely in my urban apartment!) Which is what leads a lot of people to support local farmers who at least use humane husbandry and integrated pest management programs.
Although unsustainable on a large scale, I don't buy the "elitist" argument. If you can afford it, it probably does do some good to encourage sane farming practices, and is better than just buying products in ignorant bliss. (Plus, I'm a big believer in the idea that reducing suffering anywhere in any amount is a good thing, even against an eternal tide of it.)
I have been a vegetarian and I've been a pescatarian and I've thought about "conscious canivorism" but as for the ultimate answer . . . I don't have one yet for me personally. Which is why I thank you for making your soul-searching on this public.
Post a Comment