I've spent quite a lot of time ruminating over the notion of eating meat. Like a cow chewing its cud, I have tried to carefully digest what I've gleaned from reading Fast Food Nation, Omnivore's Dilemma, In Defense of Food, Eating Animals and Food Matters, and watching Supersize Me and the incredibly eye-widening Food Inc. At the very least, I think I can say I'm a conscious eater. I'm not going to delve into the horrifying truth of how government and industry conspired to convince us that we all need to have a big slab of (corn-fed) meat at the center of most of our meals on a daily basis, I'm just going to say that we should all be eating a great deal less of the stuff -- for our own sake and that of the planet. But a recent article in Vanity Fair, where fluffy blonde wellness "guru" Kathy Freston (Tom Freston's wife, so she can't be far from her own show on Oprah's new network) convinces a die-hard British carnivore to turn vegan really raised my hackles because of its facile presentation of this very complex issue.
After seeing images of cows being dragged to slaughter, and then watching her father die from a "tennis-ball-sized" brain tumor she assumes is the result of a meat-based diet, Freston is now eating at Candle 79 and wearing Stella McCartney pleather shoes. I suppose this vegangelism is the inevitable backlash to the recent mania for meat (especially pork), but it seems like further evidence of the yo-yo dieting that is among the many unhealthy habits bringing this country to its dimpled and diabetic knees.
I admit, it's tough to know where to turn for "the truth." And if local, humanely-raised meat and poultry are not available to you -- either logistically or financially -- I can see how eating no meat at all might be a reasonable solution. I eat meat once or twice a week at most, often preferring to use it as a supporting player to vegetable stars, and what I buy comes only from small local farms. But it was discovering Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's seminal must-read, The River Cottage Meat Book, that gave me a fascinating new perspective on this whole question of To Meat Or Not To Meat.
Hugh is a food writer and TV personality in the UK, and the author of the River Cottage series (great books, all of them). His habit of picking up roadkill and "eating the hedgerows" (grazing from the bounty of the wild English countryside) earned him the nickname of Hugh Fearlessly-Eatsitall. On his next series, TV Dinners, he famously used a human placenta to whip up a pâté that he served to the baby's family and friends. Admittedly a bit hardcore, and yet you can see that this is a man who fully respects the cycle of life.
It's important to bear in the mind that this discussion stems from the assumption that the current state of industrial farming is intolerable, and that a return to more traditional pasturing is essential. This means that the animals we raise for meat must be allowed their dignity -- to eat what is natural to them, to grow at a normal pace and to roam as they like. And it means that we, as their caretakers, are responsible for helping them to live and die as free from stress and pain as possible.
I'm not going to be able to impart here all the wisdom of Hugh's polemic against the notion of vegetarianism, but I will paraphrase some of the meatiest bits. Borrowing from Stephen Budiansky's 1992 book, The Covenant of the Wild, he talks about the symbiosis of domestication: how, literally thousands upon thousands of years ago, wild animals that began as camp followers became increasingly dependent upon human handouts of waste food and leftovers, until they entered into full domestication. In exchange (ultimately for their lives), they received protection from predators, assistance in bearing young and even rudimentary health care. What, he asks, would become of our domesticated animals if we were to stop eating them?
I realized that I had never pondered this, nor heard it mentioned in any vegangelical proselytizing, which generally stakes out an intractable moral high ground that is certainly understandable and possibly superior but not especially practical. Would we place our animals in some sort of retirement parks to die of old age? Would we then feed their carcasses to our dogs and cats -- or must they become vegetarian, too? Or would we let our cows and goats and chickens loose to fend for themselves? Where would that be, when there is scarcely any "wilderness" left? How would we fertilize our crops? And if by some miracle, the animals then "reverted" to a wild state, would their deaths at the hands (claws, teeth) of predators -- mountain lions, foxes, coyotes -- really be any more pleasant?
I leave you with these questions and with the strong exhortation to invest in Hugh's mighty tome, which is as chock-full of sensible information and relevant philosophy as it is mouth-watering recipes.
STEAK TARTARE
A dish that, for obvious reasons, one should only make with beef raised and slaughtered with love and care.
About 5 ounces humanely-raised rump or sirloin steak per person
The Trimmings:
1 raw farm egg yolk per person
Finely chopped shallots
Salted capers, rinsed and chopped
Cornichons
Minced flat-leaf parsley
English mustard (or prepared horseradish)
Worcestershire sauce
Tabasco sauce
Tomato ketchup (preferably homemade)
Sea salt (not too much)
Freshly ground black pepper
Melba toast and/or French fries
Trim the meat of all sinew and fat (except marbling), then process or mince it finely. A traditional way to do this is to scrape the meat with the blade of a knife, but I find that the resulting texture is too fine and almost like pâté.
Shape the meat into mounds, one per person, and place on serving plates.
Make a dip in each mound and gently tip the egg yolk into it. Place all the other ingredients in individual bowls, take to the table and encourage everyone to mix his own. Serve with Melba toast and/or fries.
Suggested quantities per person: 1 teaspoon shallots, ½ teaspoon capers, 1 teaspoon parsley, ¼ teaspoon mustard, 3 shakes Worcestershire sauce, 4 drops Tabasco, ½ teaspoon ketchup, pinch of salt, and 3-4 grindings of pepper.
Follow Laura Silverman on Twitter: www.twitter.com/glutton4life
Meathead Goldwyn: Meat Or No Meat: Tell Us What You Think And Why
Killing animals for food is so unnecessary, why not just eat something cruelty free?
I stopped eating most meat because I realized that with rare exception I just don't like it. I like the things attached to it. The condiments, the sauces, the fixings. I like the texture of meat but there are a lot of substitutes that are not much different. I think a lot of people would feel the same way were they to pause and think about it.
I don't actively avoid meat. I basically just rarely buy it by preference. Away from home or eating in someone else's home i partake with no qualms. I definitely prefer my meat at least medium well, though.
BTW, it is over-eating, meaning how MUCH one eats, not WHAT one eats that causes these things.
"This is the post-Darwinian version of the ancient *myth of animal consent*. It is offered by ranchers in defense of the violence that is part of their profession, and makes appearances in agricultural school cirricula. Propping up the story is the idea that the interests of the species and those of individuals often conflict, but if there were no species there would be no individuals. If humankind went vegan, the logic goes, there would be no more farmed animals...The animals in effect, *want* us to farm them. They prefer it this way...
In ancient Greece the myth of consent was enacted at the oracle of Delphi by sprinkling water on the heads of animals before slaughter. When the animals shook off the water by nodding their heads, the oracle would interpret this as consent to be slaughetered and say, "That which willing nods...I say you may justly sacrifice."...In the ancient Israelite tradition, the red heifer sacrificed for Israel's atonement must walk to the altar willingly or the ritual is invalid. The myth of consent has many versions, but all imply a 'fair deal' and, at least metaphorically, animal complicity in their own domestication and slaughter."
I don't think we're really arguing, though the possibility exists!
For myself, I love it when two people who I have enjoyed speaking with disagree civilly. It frequently provides me a fantastic learning opportunity.
I think in this case, if we keep going, our argument is going to hinge on narrow vs loose definitions of a certain term.
Eating meat is part of a chain - tinkering with it without much thought will put the system out of balance and create bigger problems down the line
In any case, overpopulation is the primary problem for deforestation, not necessarily the diet (certainly not the veg*n diet, but possibly the meat-based diet).
When land is used for grazing, the livestock adds nutrients to the soil. Annual crops only take from the soil. Add irrigation into the mix and you have a disaster in the making.
The moral argument should not be made by either side. The argument should be about health, and on that score the plant based diet wins hands down. I have lost thirty-five pounds and I'm still losing on a vegan diet."
Spoken like a true born-again vegan. Considering you're still losing weight (congrats btw) I'm assuming you made this change within the last 5 years. Considering you've spent the majority of your life as one of us, inferior, meat-heads, it would seem you have no right to unjustifiably generalize our lot as being dumb. I suppose repenting for your meat eating ways has redeemed you of your years of idiocy, but I wouldn't know from experience I suppose.
You're right that the argument should center on the health aspects of diet rather than an ethical basis. Having had that insight, it's even more of a shame that name-calling is what you resort to.
And really, do you seek to change people's minds by name calling, because, as a tactic, it is somewhat lacking.
Slaughtering is the opposite of love and care!
"an intractable moral high ground that is certainly understandable and possibly superior but not especially practical".
There is no superiority in it, and the only reason why it could be considered even slightly practical is because of our modern food distribution system, which is powered by petro fuels. It's a diet based on emotion, not fact.
I do think that a vegetarian diet, with animal byproducts bought only from humane sources, could be considered superior though. I have a few friends that are like that, and I respect them greatly.
Also, without the use of animal based fertility inputs, there is no sustainable agriculture. Of course it's really hard to discuss that truth when those on both sides of this issue refuse to accept reality: we don't need CAFO's, but growers can't grow vegi's & grains sustainably without animal inputs.
Not sure what you mean by local meat 'consumption'?