Food You Can Believe In
Jonathan Safran Foer and I hold nearly the same beliefs about eating meat. That said, I have a freezer full of goat necks, marrow bones, and pork belly, and he decidedly does not. You see, I eat meat and Jonathan doesn't.
There is a simple and true notion underlying Safran Foer's book Eating Animals: people should eat according to their values. Foer's argument basically goes like this: Everyone has values. Apply your values to the choices you make about food. Sure, everyone's values are different, but the truth is anyone's values will do. The problems with food and farming -- in particular farming and eating meat -- aren't caused by people holding the wrong values; they are caused by people not applying the values they hold. I agree with him.
The way I see it, people should know the story behind their food, and that story should be one they can be proud of. Foer sees it the same way. No one would be proud of the story behind fast food, or the story behind factory farms. The environmental degradation, the cruelty to animals, the labor abuses, even the smells would tip off anyone and everyone that this is a nasty story, a story that could not be accommodated by anyone's values.
That is why, incidentally, if you want to see that story, you have to sneak in. The authors of the fast food story want to sell food to us, and they know that that the average citizen won't buy it once their story is known. As Foer recently said on the Brian Lehrer show, "Any good farmer will let you see their farm." But if you want to see how the average calorie of meat is grown in the US, you have to sneak in to see it. The few factory farmers who do let people see the story behind industrial meat production are punished for their indiscretion. Not long after Carole Morrison, a chicken farmer for Purdue, showed her industrial chicken farm to the makers of the movie Food Inc., Purdue let her go. They did so for good reason: They want you to buy Purdue chicken, and once you see the footage, you don't want to any more.
If people ate their values, Foer argues, then the crises caused by our current food and farming would go away. I'm with him. The thing is, I have different values than he does, and when he starts to push for his values, I start to disagree.
I eat meat, though not excessively, and only from farms that are raising it humanely and sustainably. I go fishing, and I sometimes kill the fish I catch and eat them. I don't get into arguments about whether animals feel pain the same way we do -- not because I don't care -- but because I cannot imagine it is knowable. I like to think they don't, but I might be wrong. (As the journalist Heywood Broun once said: "They told me that the fish were cold-blooded and felt no pain. But they were not fish who told me.") I'm agnostic on the nature of animal pain. I feel there is a possibility that they feel pain like we do, and my own values still leave room for me to catch them, to kill them, and to eat them.
I believe it is okay to eat animals. It isn't something to be done with indifference and it should be done well. I have held lambs -- lambs I knew and raised -- apart from their moms' so they could be taken slaughter; I have also slaughtered. Even with intimate knowledge of the story behind meat, and perhaps because of it, my values can accommodate eating animals. That said, my values cannot accommodate confinement feedlots, cruelty, environmental destruction, and human abuse and that that is the story behind most of our meat.
Foer rightly points out that 99% of animal agriculture in the U.S. is "the bad kind." So when we speak generally about whether or not to eat meat, "no" is an easy and right answer. It is an answer I respect, though it isn't mine. Again nobody's values accommodate for 99% of the meat here. But that last one or two percent of meat in America, the alternative, is extremely important. For me, it represents hope.
Foer writes about Frank Reese in a chapter titled "The Last Farmer." Frank is a fantastic farmer and is a hero of mine. He is part of that one or two percent, but he is, by no means, The Last Farmer. Frank is part of a fast growing movement of small farmers raising animals the right way. It is a movement driven by people's desire to stop supporting factory farms, and start supporting humane, sustainable production. And this trend represents thousands of small producers, and millions of aspiring consumers all over the country. They have the knowledge and the passion to make the average meat calorie in this country something we could be proud of. And that is going to be important because lots of people, when they learn about how bad animal production is in the US, don't want to stop eating meat; they want to start eating meat that is produced responsibly, in a way that is in accordance with their values.
I'm that way. That's why I've got goat necks in my freezer. That said, when Jonathan comes to dinner I will gladly leave them there.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Any person or author who advocates further regulation of nonhumans or murdering nonhumans "kindly" is speciesist. And just as racism, sexism, heterosexism is based on an irrelevant criterion, -- speciesism is discrimination against a group based on their species. Their species is irrelevant to whether they belong to the moral community. Humans need to understand that where there is one form of discrimination, there will be all forms of discrimination. The way to end discrimination against billions of nonhumans per year is to adopt a plant based [vegan] diet and vegan life. Animals should have at least one right--- the right not to be treated as property. Veganism is the recognition of the moral personhood of nonhuman animals
For more about the abolitionist approach http://www
Exactly!!!!!! humanemyth
Josh, you're a dangerous dreamer that needs a reality check.....
Best diet is "nothing with a bar code on it" !
John Robbins set out the key principles in "Healthy at 100"; .
David Kessler exposed "food engineering" in "The End of Overeating"
I HATE Jonathan Safran Foer. Thanks to him, I can no longer look at a package of chicken parts without gagging.
I stopped eating mammals years ago. I am a mammal, after all, and it just sort of seemed too cannibalistic. But I thought eating birds and fish was safe. WRONG.
I now have a refrigerator full of baked tofu. Thanks a lot, Jonathan.
Oh -and as far as the pain thing, goes - anyone who lives with a dog knows that other mammals feel emotional and physical pain at least as deeply as humans do. Every time I accidentally step on my little dog's paw, he yelps as if he'd just been stabbed. I can't even conceive of him being lined up at a slaughter house waiting to be chopped into pieces.
Eat animals if you want to, but at least acknowledge that they're sentient beings.
Wasn't it in "the Princess Bride" that a character said, "Life is pain"? We know absolutely that humans feel pain and we cause pain to humans every hour. Sometimes for a good reason, sometimes for a bad one. I get so $%#@% tired of hearing the tired old 'animals feel pain' argument. It just doesn't fly. These animals will feel pain when they are eaten by other animals or they will feel pain when they die of disease--what exactly is the point?
On the other hand, factory farming is wrong on so many levels, that the animal cruelty argument can be disregarded and you will still oppose factory farming. One of the many reason that I am against factory farms is that they are driving our small farmer--the backbone of our country--out of business.
And it's the first noble truth in Buddhism: There is suffering. The point isn't to rid the world of pain, because you're right, that's not possible. The point is to recognize there is suffering and then act with compassion and empathy. The mere fact of pain doesn't excuse its deliberate application or our indifference to it. That pain is widespread doesn't imply it's moral to permit it where it can be stopped or to actively perpetrate it with indifference; the argument is clearly fallacious.
I do agree that regardless of the suffering issue, factory farming is clearly wrong for many reasons, but I think it's also worth noting that the suffering of animals in factory farms is not comparable to the pain encountered living a normal life. It is many degrees worse. If someone dies painfully after a car crash or suffers through terminal cancer, do we use this to morally justify sweatshops, slavery, and torture? We don't, because most humans have a moral intuition that there's a vast difference between the incidental pain of existence and the deliberate affliction of pain upon the powerless by the powerful.
"I don't get into arguments about whether animals feel pain the same way we do -- not because I don't care -- but because I cannot imagine it is knowable. I like to think they don't, but I might be wrong."
While I agree with much of what you write, I think the possibility of being wrong on this count is sufficient reason to give non-human animals the benefit of our doubt and not to deliberately cause them pain or suffering. To be agnostic about whether animals feel pain or suffer is an example of the worst self-serving human arrogance and ignorance: Meat is tasty therefore I will believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that animals don't hurt.
And there is ample evidence in science; whether you approach the issue through cognitive ethology, behaviorism, physiology, or evolution, we know animals experience physical and emotional pain and suffering. To be indifferent -- and to willfully deny this -- fosters the cruelty found in factory farming.
By all means, support farmers who do it right, like Frank Reese, but don't pretend to justify your meat eating with a position that animals don't feel pain because that thought comforts you. Willful ignorance doesn't change the fact of their experience.
There was a great piece in Scientific American in th 1980s(?) that took this approach..
You're completely right, there's a sort of empathy disconnect -- possibly a speciesist in-group/out-group dynamic. Truly, I have no more absolute knowledge of the pain my father experienced after knee replacement surgery than I do of the pain my cat was in while fighting breast cancer. But I believed my father when he told me he hurt, and I believed my cat when she cried and winced.
I've encountered similar thoughts regarding animal consciousness. In the sense of absolute knowledge, it's true -- without technological breakthroughs I can only imagine -- we'll never perfectly know or experience another person's or animal's consciousness. Without that absolute knowledge though, there is the weight of probability that science gives us. We know we share evolutionary heritage with other animals (and that our basic emotions and experience of pain and pleasure are evolutionarily functional); we know we share brain structures and physiology; we know we share common behavioral responses and brain activity to common stimuli, and when we have been able to communicate with animals, e.g., Koko the gorilla or Alex the parrot, we gain insight into the minds of non-humans and discover, through their own words, that they experience likes and dislikes, desires and fears, not dissimilar from our own.
What tripped me up with the OP is the notion of belief and agnosticism. We're not talking about the existence of God, but the sentience of other animals. Agnosticism and belief are not the appropriate intellectual approach.
Hmm, if the author is an agnostic on the nature of animal pain (e.g. for fish) wouldn't (in such grave matters with possbly grave consequences if he's wrong) giving fish the benefit of the doubt not be the more prudent strategy? I guess prudency (certainly in terms of making one suffer) would line up well with the authors values, no?
OK, I'm Vegan and I won't judge people's decision about their dietary beliefs and habits or preferences. But one thing is for sure: animals suffer when hurt or in pain, they know when they are going to die waiting in line on a factory farm.
Really? Have you ever visited a slaughter house? I don't mean watched the faked PETA videos but really gone there and watched the animals being slaughtered? It is not a pretty sight but the animals do not necessarily know they are going to die. In fact, I wonder if animals have any understanding of mortality. Dr. Temple Grandin has dedicated her career to designing and implementing humane slaughter practices. Maybe you should check out her ideas.
"...the animals do not necessarily know they are going to die." Really? It'd be just as fair to say that they might know they're going to die. We don't know what they know, we can only guess at it (based on behaviors, etc.) Also, you wonder if animals have any understanding of mortality? I'd be willing to bet they "understand" they don't want to die (and that they understand fear). Self-preservation is pretty hard-wired in all of us. Regardless of how "humanely" you're killing another animal, you're still killing it.
Re: animal understanding of death, there is some evidence to support this. See this article on grief in animals - http://www
The author forgets that in the book, Jonathan Safran points out that most of our meat is genetically modified, therefore very far away from farm animals we all grew up around. For examples, Pigs are genetically bred to not be able to reproduce naturally since they are more efficiently produced by artificially inseminating them. Turkeys can't move so well or fly at all (wild turkeys do) due to genetic modifications. 99% of the broiler chicken we eat is bred to have huge breasts. These chickens would not survive outside a factory farm due to the fact they mostly can't stand up and move around due to their grotesque bodies. The other thing is even if you buy organic, it doesn't guarantee they are humanely slaughtered. In fact most of our meat isn't. Footage has shown pigs being hung alive and put in vats of boiling water while still alive. Panicked pigs don't taste very good either the adrenaline causes a build up of acid which breaks down the muscle tissue.
Alas, There are alot of points the author leaves out. I certainly did not feel Safran is imposing his way of thinking on anyone. He simply goes in and tells about it and talks to farmers from all sides, including factory farmers. If you still want to eat meat, it's your choice, but please note, after you read what really goes on, you may not want to.
First, pigs are still quite capable of reproducing naturally. The reason why artificial insemination is preferred is because boars (like bulls) are big, dangerous animals, therefore most pig farmers don't keep them.
Second, most foods have been "genetically modified". The wild tomato is nothing like all the varieties (Big Boys, Early Girls, Romas, etc.) we have today. Wild apples are small and sour. Wild carrots are white, not orange. And the list goes on. It's called "selective breeding". Of course "selective breeding" doesn't sound as scary as "genetically modified". (Boo!)
Third, just because those pigs were moving doesn't mean they were alive. Chickens really do run around after their heads are cut off. Goats and sheep will run in place. Poets of bygone days referred to this phenomenon as "the death throes". The pupils are fixed and dilated but the body continues to respond to the brain's final synapses. (Veterinarians sedate dogs and cats before euthanization to prevent such movement after death.)
although I feel this article is an honest expose of this writers beliefs, it is also a reflection of the devolution of human consciousness that this writer who has still not evolved enough yet to see the harm, suffering and needless pain he is inflicting on living, breathing souls who want to live, enjoy life and experience this earth just like he does. He has not yet moved beyond the neanderthal way of thinking, me hungry, me likes animals, me eats animal.
Bravo for you that you dislike factory farms, but when you able to feel love, true existential love, your heart will open, your mind will expand beyond your wildest imagination, you will discover who you really are and what this planet was created from and never again will you ever desire to harm another living, breathing soul. .
I hope you've given this speech to those billions of immoral animals in the wild who kill and eat poor defenseless prey animals every day. Being against animal cruelty is one thing, but being against nature itself is a bit out there.
Factory farming is against nature.
Wow. The jump from to "do fish feel pain?" to "do fish have a souls?" is extraordinary.
Excellent article.
Regarding food choices: for health purposes, I would place ancestral heritage as a first step prior to applying personal values. Examples:
If you are gluten intolerant, it really does not matter the source of the wheat, barley or rye.
If you are egg albumin intolerant, it similarly does not matter as to the origin of those egg whites.
If you are casein and/or whey intolerant, dairy foods are not for you, regardless of source.
Then there are the lists of the most allergenic foods worldwide, which usually contain the following: wheat, dairy, eggs, fish, peanuts, tree nuts (almonds, cashews, walnuts, etc.), soy, and shellfish.
My point is that you first may want to ensure you are eating foods that are in alignment with your ancestral heritage, to minimize the chance of an immune system reaction to foods not meant for your body. Once you have that list, I certainly agree that personal values, including the source of these foods, how they were raised, and their impact on the environment, should all be considered before making a choice.
I do not eat confined animal foods or annual monocrops for a variety of reasons, including health, sustainability, and ethics.
One example of how nature can help you can choose foods that are in alignment with your ancestral heritage can be found in "The Original Diet."
Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www
"I do not eat confined animal foods or annual monocrops for a variety of reasons, including health, sustainability, and ethics."
clap clap clap paleolithic diet.
Great, now where do the majority of this nations poor buy all of this "moral" food? Fast food is cheap so they can afford it. The fast food outlets do their best to hide the food origins that is true. But I bet even if they were upfront about it people would still eat it. If you are poor and your kids are hungry you dont get all high and mighty about where the burger came from. Dont tell the nations poor to cook more to save money. Those days are gone. Poor women have to go to work and dont have time or energy to slave in the kitchen for hours making a home cooked meal. If they did then who helps the kids with their homework in the meantime or goes grocery shopping or cleans house or does laundry? People eat what they can afford and hope for the best.
The fact that we're arguing about what we should eat and where it should come from is proof that we're an affluent crowd, huh?
not necessarily, poor folks care too!
No one need "slave" in the kitchen to prepare a Vegan meal... In fact as I recall my days of cooking meat were horrifically difficult and labor intensive: Being careful not to "contaminate" any other "food"... Two cutting boards to be "safe"... A meat thermometer - to be "sure"... Wiping, scrubbing and disinfecting everything, each time after cooking "meat" - Now that's a lot of work! Veggies are clean, quick, delicious and healthy!
I've had a few vegan meals. Boring stuff, usually. And it never ceases to amaze me how vegans try to imitate meat flavors and textures.
The comments aobut how hard it is to cook with meat are rather ridiculous.
That is a great question Alice. If enough Americans spoke out and refused to eat factory farmed foods, there would be significant changes. But due to the fact that most aren't aware of where or how their food is produced, it won't change anything. I urge anyone who's interested to make their own decision and research the issue yourselves because in the end, it's you who has to eat what you decide to eat.
Fast food has a low sale price (it is not cheap) in large part because of federal subsidies for corn and soy.
Josh,
I totally agree with you. That 1-2% of meat producers who are not on Foer's "bad kind" list are the ones that deserve praise and, most importantly, customers! As you said, they represent hope that the percentage of responsible farmers grows exponentially in the future. Only time will tell.
Like you, I eat meat. I LOVE meat. Did Foer's book impact my meat eating? No. But it did make me decide not to buy the cheap, factory-farmed turkey and find a local, pasture-raised, humanely-cultivated turkey for Thanksgiving. I plan to do that for all my future carnivore treats. That's my choice for my family, and that's what I think Foer does so brilliantly. He simply asks us to examine our personal food choices.
I had to blog further: http://sar
Yours truly, Sarah
Well said Sarah! I too enjoy meat but not enough to continue to support factory farming. They pollute the air, soil and water around them and count the illness and environmental waste fines into the cost of their production, while still reeping profits. You see, if they had to really clean up their waste ponds ofshit, instead of leeching it out on surrounding counties and poor folks (most factory farms are in rural areas) environments; then they would close down real quick. But since our government's agencies have no teeth, our politicians are bought off, it will get worse. People and children are already suffering unique type illnesses only seen where factory farms are nearby. it's a huge problem and it's gonna take the population courage and education to figure out, we and our children are getting hurt in the end all for cheap meat.
Here is something that I have never heard anyone who makes the case for sustainable animal farming consider: If all of the animals that were eaten in the U.S. were raised humanely and sustainably, would that still not use an enormous amount of resources and acreage to bring these animals to market? Where would the almost nine billion chickens eaten every year be raised. What about the hens who produce the seven billion eggs eaten yearly? The thirty five million cows and the more than one hundred million pigs slaughtered year after year? It's a nice idea, Josh but when you apply your model of sustainable animal farming to the real demand for meat, it can't sustain itself any better than factory farming can.
Perhaps the effect of more sustainable animal farming would be a decrease in demand for meat, which in itself, for health reasons, would not be such a bad thing. Compared to the rest of the world we eat way too much meat protein in the US, and the concomitant health problems such heavy meat consumption causes would be worth avoiding. Besides, health care costs would be reduced by a more moderate consumption of meat in the US diet.
I'm an omnivore and I love meat as much as anyone, but for my health's sake I've moderated my intake and choose humanely raised, organically fed alternatives over the feed lot-fed, antibiotic-primed product available in most stores. If more of us were more selective as to the meat in our diet, we could eventually engender some changes in agribusiness as usual.
We go back to the way it was. Thirty years ago, most of the beef consumed in, say, The Great Lakes region was still raised and processed in The Great Lakes region. The same was true for dairy foods.
Thirty years ago, there were two hundred and twenty five million Americans. Today, there are three hundred and fifteen million and thirty years from now, it's estimated that there'll be four hundred and sixty million. Like Rob said, reducing meat consumption is key. I'd like to add that people really should start growing some of their own food on their manicured lawns.
Well, we need to really look at our demand for meat. What is it really based on? The science is out. Eating alot of red meat is linked to several different cancers. Never mind the antibiotics, hormones, that's another story altogether. But do we really need to have meat at every meal? NO. We are healthier without it. The studies are in. Vegetarians really do have lower cholesterol levels, healthier hearts, lower risks of cancer. I'm not saying all veggies are healthy, on the contrary, I know many who are "STARCHATARIANS" and are obese as well. But the population studies over the years have the data and it shows that a vegetarian diet is healthier. No need for so much protein. Long ago, when meat was farmed the old way and pastured; it was a luxury, priced higher than other staples so people had maybe a roast a week and a chicken once a week and it was enough. We basically told factory farms, yeah go ahead and do what you need to do as long as I get my meat everyday! If we change our demand, we can help change how our food is produced. We all want better food anyway.
If the "studies were in" there would be no need to do more studies. Contrary to popular belief, there is no proof that we're healthier without some meat in our diet. There is also a movement among epidemiologists who aren't convinced that high cholesterol levels contribute to heart disease. (Of course, the pharmaceutical industry doesn't want to have that discussion
You're saying that Americans eat more chickens than eggs? Sounds kind of fishy to me, maybe you better check your sources again.
70,000,000,000 eggs. Thanks for catching that. It makes the scenario even more impossible.
'It is not knowable'. Open wide and let me hook you.
He is not a fish so it is not a corollary. That my cat eats mice and causes them pain makes him no more immoral than myself for catching and eating fish, and vice versa.
Your cat was not given compassion as its nature. It cannot empathize with the mouse. We can. We can pretend we can't, or not allow it to happen, but we can and the cat cannot. I can't say if it makes us or the cat immoral but eating meat does make us go against our own nature and that is the point. If we are in touch and not telling ourselves stories, when we see an animal, we see a part of ourselves in their eyes. When not trying to deny our compassion we want to respect animals, not kill and eat them. Its so easy to deny this compassion that is who we are. So easy to just say, "bah sure killing animals in a factory is bad, but not if we do it this way...Or yeah its not pretty but its what we were meant to do... Or yeah I know they're suffering, but I can't go without cheese! Or, yeah it sucks but where else would I get protein?" and on and on. So we make excuses and do whatever it takes to shun and cover up this compassion in ourselves. Whatever it takes to quell our fears of what would happen if god forbid we couldn't satisfy our supposed needs. But when we stop and take the time to look we see these are not needs at all. We have the choice to honor ourselves and others & we BECOME ourselves simply by doing so.
fabulous article.. long overdue (unless i have missed the others presenting this view.)..
i wonder if the author of this blog has heard of lierre keith and/or read her book "the vegetarian myth" (and there is a key reason she doesn't call the book 'the vegetarian lie', like me, she thinks vegetarians and vegans are 'coming from' the right place.. much as you suggest regarding values.).. anyhow.. i think many would find it at least interesting.
keith is a former vegan of 20 years who now recommends a paleolithic diet, approximating a hunter gatherer's diet and makes brilliant arguments for this.
i am also reminded of derrick jensen, who writes about the relationship we have with food (or other things we consume)
as in; if we look at fish, and see $$$, we will treat them one way.. if we see a fish and recognize it as 'fish'.. we will treat it another way..and finally that if we look at a particular fish and recognize 'this specific fish, specific being' we will treat it yet another way.
the third way is key to a sustainable world AND it does not mean we don't eat the fish.. even if that means the fish may experience pain.
it just means we enter into a relationship where we assume a responsibility for that particular species, to sustain that which sustains us.
anyhow, thanks for the interesting article...
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
