Jonathan Safran Foer's Eating Animals Turned Me Vegan

Jonathan Safran Foer's book Eating Animals changed me from a twenty-year vegetarian to a vegan activist. I've always been shy about being critical of others' choices because I hate when people do that to me. I'm often interrogated about being vegetarian (e.g., "What if you find out that carrots feel pain, too? Then what'll you eat?").

I've also been afraid to feel as if I know better than someone else -- a historically dangerous stance (I'm often reminded that "Hitler was a vegetarian, too, you know"). But this book reminded me that some things are just wrong. Perhaps others disagree with me that animals have personalities, but the highly documented torture of animals is unacceptable, and the human cost Foer describes in his book, of which I was previously unaware, is universally compelling.

The human cost of factory farming -- both the compromised welfare of slaughterhouse workers and, even more, the environmental effects of the mass production of animals -- is staggering. Foer details the copious amounts of pig shit sprayed into the air that result in great spikes in human respiratory ailments, the development of new bacterial strains due to overuse of antibiotics on farmed animals, and the origins of the swine flu epidemic, whose story has gripped the nation, in factory farms.

I read the chapter on animal shit aloud to two friends -- one is from Iowa and has asthma and the other is a North Carolinian who couldn't eat fish from her local river because animal waste had been dumped in it as described in the book. They had never truly thought about the connection between their environmental conditions and their food. The story of the mass farming of animals had more impact on them when they realized it had ruined their own backyards.

But what Foer most bravely details is how eating animal pollutes not only our backyards, but also our beliefs. He reminds us that our food is symbolic of what we believe in, and that eating is how we demonstrate to ourselves and to others our beliefs: Catholics take communion -- in which food and drink represent body and blood. Jews use salty water on Passover to remind them of the slaves' bitter tears. And on Thanksgiving, Americans use succotash and slaughter to tell our own creation myth -- how the Pilgrims learned from Native Americans to harvest this land and make it their own.

And as we use food to impart our beliefs to our children, the point from which Foer lifts off, what stories do we want to tell our children through their food?

I remember in college, a professor asked our class to consider what our grandchildren would look back on as being backward behavior or thinking in our generation, the way we are shocked by the kind of misogyny, racism, and sexism we know was commonplace in our grandparents' world. He urged us to use this principle to examine the behaviors in our lives and our societies that we should be a part of changing. Factory farming of animals will be one of the things we look back on as a relic of a less-evolved age.

I say that Foer's ethical charge against animal eating is brave because not only is it unpopular, it has also been characterized as unmanly, inconsiderate, and juvenile. But he reminds us that being a man, and a human, takes more thought than just "This is tasty, and that's why I do it." He posits that consideration, as promoted by Michael Pollan in The Omnivore's Dilemma, which has more to do with being polite to your tablemates than sticking to your own ideals, would be absurd if applied to any other belief (e.g., I don't believe in rape, but if it's what it takes to please my dinner hosts, then so be it).

But Foer makes his most impactful gesture as a peacemaker, when he unites the two sides of the animal eating debate in their reasoning. Both sides argue: We are not them. Those who refrain from eating animals argue: We don't have to go through what they go through -- we are not them. We are capable of making distinctions between what to eat and what not to eat (Americans eat cow but not dog, Hindus eat chicken but not cow, etc.). We are capable of considering others' minds and others' pain. We are not them. Whereas those who justify eating animals say the same thing: We are not them. They do not merit the same value of being as us. They are not us.

And so Foer shows us, through Eating Animals, that we are all thinking along the same lines: We are not them. But, he urges, how will we define who we are?

 

Comments

[Will in DC]

(I'm often reminded that "Hitler was a vegetarian, too, you know").
This is a myth. While Hitler did in fact extol the virtues of a vegetarian diet as a form of asceticism, there is substantial evidence that he did not practice what would be considered a vegetarian diet by any objective standard.
People want to believe this to justify a dismissive attitude towards vegetarianism. I usually counter this statement saying "That's a myth, but if you're interested in real vegetarians of historical note you could start with Albert Einstein."

[JoMShari]

actually, whether hitler was vegetarian or not doesn't matter at all. he stole from many philosophies and transformed different concepts into his own twisted propaganda (like swastika or some passages from the Vedas). can he really be an example of anything else than a pathology? besides, name-dropping argumentation is worthless. even rabbits are vegetarian. it's the ethical, ecological and economic reasons to become a vegetarian that matter the most.

[lulielulie]

I agree with JoMShari. Who cares if Hitler was a vegetarian. If someone tried to counter my vegetarian with that statement, I'd respond by reminding them that he was also an artist and partial Jew. Just because history's most demonic villain shares one of your virtues, it does not make it less virtuous.

[emphryio]

...As to the ethical arguments. The problem with trying to argue with a meat eater about ethics is that their rebuttals can usually apply to anything. You could go back and replace 'veganism' with 'against rape' and most of their rebuttals would quite successfully "win" just as well. This because mankind's idea of what is ethical needs serious work.

IMO the word simply means being something other than selfish. Yet we all are primarily selfish. As such being ethical, being moral, is not some black and white thing. It is always a question of degree. We are all degrees of ethical/unethical.

Clearly eating any meat is causing suffering. People who don't eat meat are (at least in that respect) more ethical than people who do.

Of course eating different types of vegetables does contribute to some suffering, etc. Ethicality is always a question of degree.

But to me, it seems incredibly clear that being an at least near vegan is an easy enough thing to do, to manage to be at least that ethical.

This of course usually means absolutely nothing to meat eaters. They'll simply define "ethical" differently. Where instead of this word meaning doing something other than selfish action, it has instead come to mean following whatever tradition the majority of that particular society generally follow.

[iquiteatingmeat]

sorry, the blog is http://www.iquiteatingmeat.blogspot.com

[iquiteatingmeat]

I was also inspired by Joanthan Foer to become a vegan. I have ordered the book, but not even read it yet. Just hearing him interviewed on NPR was enough for me. I used to eat a lot of meat. So, I've created a blog to document my new exepeiences in veganism. http://www.iquiteatingmeat.com

[Jeremy Warner]

Will eating meat become the next battle of the Culture Wars in the United States? Jonathan Safran Foer seems to think so, at least based on his reading this week in Brookline, Massachusetts. He advocates collective action, not political pressure, as the most effective means to change. I agree that we might be moving towards a tipping point in regards to cruel factory farming but why has this been business as usual since the 1940's?

I agree with Natalie Portman that giving up meat and dairy is best answer to the ethical dilemmas of animal cruelty. Likewise, giving up meat and dairy is probably the single most important thing an individual can do for the environment.

Actually going through with it is a separate matter - perhaps it takes 20 years of vegetarianism before one is able to commit to veganism! I'm far from the conversion personally; most restaurants still have a vegetarian option as an afterthought, usually a cheesy one. And cooking vegan at home requires careful planning and (animal-derived) vitamin supplementation. Congratulations to all of you who have achieved a meat-free life; may I join your ranks someday.

[allswellendswell]

As I said, the parallel was not overstated.

[Pablo29]

I find some of these posts a testament to the lack of information given to the public about where their food comes from. Of course it is a person's personal decision as to whether they believe eating animals is right or wrong. But, if one were to see firsthand the conditions of factory farms and slaughterhouses, I would find their morality questionable if they continued to support said places. There is a tendency for meat eaters to see vegetarians/vegans as moralizing, self-righteous folk, and no doubt some are, but if factory farms had glass walls, there would be a lot more people out there feeling compelled to protest the horrors carried out on a daily basis. Slowly, these issues are coming to light and one day we will look back on the ways in which we abuse animals as we do many other injustices throughout history.

[wolfguide]

As I read through the posts, I realize how divided the nation is on this issue. It seems incredible that there are voices that say "I want my cheap factrory food, and I don't care what the cost in morality, health, environment, etc." and there are other voices that say "please stop eating meat, please." There are libertarian voices, saying "Don't tell me what to eat." Kind of like "keep your government hands off my Medicare."

In this country, it seems, the squeaky wheel gets greased. If you want change, you have to make it. It doesn't just happen. Nothing is happening on the federal level, so states have taken it upon themselves to make change. In New York, folks can support Assembly Bill 8163, a bill that will ban hen battery crates, ban the confinement and tethering of veal calves, and ban pregnant sow gestation crates. It is a small step, but one that will make the difference in the lives of millions and millions of animals. Read more at: http://www.ab8163.com. Michigan has just done it, California did it last year. Other states have also banned extreme confinement of animals.

Rick Tannenbaum
The Hilltop Initiative
www.ab8163.com

[Chandra25]

I am astounded at the defensiveness of people who only care about their personal appetites and desires. Animals are sentient beings. They feel fear and pain. They enjoy their lives, just as our cats and our dogs enjoy theirs, indeed, as we ourselves enjoy our own lives. To argue in favor of their continued "use" for human enjoyment is complete species-ism. I am a 15 year vegan. I have friends who are 35 year vegans. We are healthier than most people in our age range. You don't need animal-derived foods for optimal nutrition. The only reason to eat meat is purely for pleasure. (Vegan food is fantastic but meat eaters have a bias against it). You deny other sentient beings their lives just so you can eat their flesh. I hope you meat eaters are all reincarnated some day as factory farmed animals.

[sadwitness]

Is it also "species-ism" that vegans still support flower and vegetable farming at farms in Columbia and Ecuador that use mistreat workers, often working them to death? I can't help but feel appalled every time I see my "Vegan" friends munching on melons in the middle of winter and breaking their arms to pat themselves on the back for their "ethical" food choices. Last Valentine ’s Day I reminded one of these "animal lovers" about the human suffering that went into bringing that dozen long stemmed roses to her desk to prove to her co-workers how desirable she is as a wife or a woman or whatever. Her response was "but they are so lovely, and it is only once or twice a year". Tell that to the women and children on the American owned sweat shops, that you support by this purchase, who work 20 hours a day leading up to the holiday of love, then find themselves unemployed and starving on the day after....

http://www.democracynow.org/2007/2/14/valentines_day_labor_conditions_at_us

[tugofpolitics]

Eating meat is healthy. Encouraging organic meat production with your wallet is a great idea. People should look to vegetables as their main course with a side of meat. If your budget can't afford organic meat, just keep thing in proper prospective: cows and such are a different species. No lion ever thought twice about the gazelle when it comes to feeding their families and it'd be difficult to blame them. You shouldn't either.

[speakyourtruth]

You have no right whatsoever to tell anyone else on Earth what they "should" eat. Saying : "People should eat this, or people should eat that," makes no sense, unless you are a child. Please rephrase your opinion to be more inclusive of other divergent points of view.

[CanisLatrans]

Things to bear in mind, also, are the public relations machine used by the meat industry in general, at least in the USA. I love meat, but the meat industry has put up a great deal of effor tot convince people they should have meat for every meal, breakfast lunch and dinner. You have to have, for example, bacon or sausage for breakfast (fortunately being Jewish allows me to wave this off, haha!) and hamburgers or hotdogs for lunch, etc.

I'm a meat eater but I typically go two or three days, sometimes a couple weeks, without meat. You don't need meat all the time, but the meat industry isn't just pushing an "ideology", they just want to make money by convincing people to buy & eat meat their bodies don't actually need. Back in the days when meat was a luxury item, people got along fine eating it every once in awhile or a few days. We need to reject the "meat cascade" being pushed for artificial reasons like profit, and let animals grow naturally and humanely, and with humane ways to kill them. Sure, meat will go up in price as a result, but... if you're not buying it each day, it won't be so bad.

[Snagsby]

Excellent post.

[younowme]

All I know is that this lovely young woman is the greatest actress alive today. Would like to see more of her work.

[sadwitness]

Agreed, moderation and attempt to focus on the origin of all of your consumables is a much more ethical choice, in my opinion. I eat meat but I only buy locally raised meat and I eat less than I did years back. I also only eat vegetables that are currently in season, unless I have canned or frozen them from local seasonal purchases. I hope that vegans will become more aware of the impact that their diet choices have on the "human farm animal", those workers that are driven so hard to bring the fruits and vegetables to their urban shopping carts...

[wolfguide]

I hope that readers of this post that livein New York State will reach out to their assemblypersons and state senators and tell them to support New York Assembly Bill 8163. The bill takes the small step of banning hen battery cages, veal crates and tethering, and pig gestation crates. For more information go to: http://www.ab8163.com.

Thank you.

[Caru]

Though I deplore the current state of factory farming, I'm an Omnivore Ms. Portman please respect that.

[serendipity-a]

Caru, it doesn't seem that Ms Portman doesn't respect your position, it's just that she has come up with valid arguments and you haven't.

[Konstantine]

This is a well-written article that makes some good points.

There are two basic issues - health and morality.

On the health front, there is no credible evidence to suggest
that a strictly vegetarian/vegan diet provides significant
advantages over one that includes meat and fish. In fact,
the opposite may well be the case.

On the morality side, it is virtually impossible to make
a compelling case that eating animals is ethically wrong.
It just doesn't compute. If you are going to give an
argument for it, you'll need premises from which to derive
that conclusion. And I can guarantee you that you won't find
premises that are *more* intuitively plausible or compelling
than the proposition that eating meat is ok. In fact,
I challenge any vegetarian/vegan, Ms. Portman included,
to present a *logical argument* for the conclusion that
eating meat is wrong: give us a set of uncontroversially
true premises which entail that conclusion. And good luck
with that.

If you can't give such a rational argument, then your
position is reduced to an emotional appeal to intuition.
Your intuition tells you that eating meat is wrong. Fine.
But that just doesn't resonate with most other peoples'
intuitions.

[RI]

As to proof of health benefits of the vegetarian diet: Theere are many. For example, recently on Oprah, Dr. Oz discussed the research results showing the groups around the world with the longest and healthiest lives. In the U.S., that group was the 7th Day Adventists, who are vegetarians.

Regarding the morals: We all must kill to live: that is a tragic fact of life on this planet, but many centuries ago, Hindu texts talked about the moral, physical and spiritual value of taking the least amount of life.

They mapped the active centers in the body and talked about how plants have only 1 active center. Fowl and reptiles 2. Mammals 4. Humans 5. Some modern science has shown this. In any case, we recognize the differences. The most obvious are mobility and awareness. Plants are very limited in mobility and awareness, but animals are very expressive in mobilty, awareness, and emotions.

[Konstantine]

This is not rigorous research. The 7dth Day Adventists could
live longer for other reasons. Please point to properly
randomized *controlled* studies published in peer-reviewed
scientific journals.

But while we're on the subject of informal, anecdotal,
non-rigorous opinions: I'd heard that the people with the
longest average living spans were found in Bulgarian
mountains near Greece - and they routinely eat meat.
Japanese longevity is also well-known, and they eat fish.

As for the Hindu texts, I do not abide by them any more
than I would abide by the 12 gods of ancient Greece or
by the "texts" of scientology or some space-alien cult
etc. etc. If you want to persuade people to quit eating
meat, try rational argumentation, not religious dogma.

[grumpyfarmer]

Its a long hard slog on the Huff post for a cattle farmer. Perhaps the best post I could make was my wife was a PETA member before she met me, and would not eat meat because of their explanation of how it was raised. Before we were married, on her own she resumed eating beef, because as she put it "the way things really are is not the way PETA described". As far as the takeover of food production in this country by big corporations, that is a long and complicated story that will never end as long as corporations can borrow money at cheaper rates and in greater volumes than regular farmers, and as long as you need a certain volume to sell at one price, and a certain volume to buy at a price, for instance I grow around 400 acres of soybeans a year, and my seed costs me around $5-$10 an acre more than someone growing 1000 acres, who knows how much the difference is for someone growing 10000. A question I have for everyone, would it be wrong to limit the amount of farmland non-farmers and investors could buy? One of the biggest hurdles independant farmers face is the cost of farmland, driven up by developers and investors.

[brady61995]

yes that would be wrong. what you can do is get with indy farmers and try to use your buying power and selling power together. you cant limit what someone can buy.