Patrick J Battuello

Archive for the ‘Vegetarianism’ Category

The Folly of Plant Liberation and Why It’s Bad for Animals

In Philosophy, Vegetarianism on October 15, 2012 at 8:25 am

The animal rights cause faces stiff resistance at almost every turn. Industries profiting from the sale of animal products are firmly entrenched, and every relevant authority figure in a child’s life – parents, school, government – appears to sanction animal exploitation at mealtime. As if not enough, there are now those who would accord moral consideration to plants, further clouding the debate on what constitutes ethical eating. Although not necessarily intended to denigrate veganism, “plant liberation,” as espoused by philosophy professor Michael Marder in two New York Times articles, is a potentially regressive development for animal advocates.

In the first article, Mr. Marder cites a recent study that finds pea plants relaying biochemical messages (through roots) to other pea plants. This leads the easily-impressed Marder to ask: “Is it morally permissible to submit to total instrumentalization living beings that, though they do not have a central nervous system, are capable of basic learning and communication? Should their swift response to stress leave us coldly indifferent, while animal suffering provokes intense feelings of pity and compassion?” And then, this gigantic leap: “When it comes to a plant, it turns out to be not only a what but also a who — an agent in its milieu, with its own intrinsic value or version of the good. Inquiring into justifications for consuming vegetal beings thus reconceived, we reach one of the final frontiers of dietary ethics.”

Although “the subjectivity of plants is not centered in a single organ” (of course not, they have no brain), “this dispersion of vitality holds out a promise of its own”: Yes, Marder says, we can eat the “renewable gifts” from perennials, but “it would be harder to justify the cultivation of peas and other annual plants, the entire being of which humans devote to externally imposed ends.” In other words, ethical eating requires us to judge each plant species on its own merits. Wow.

In the second piece, Marder expands on this human-plant relationship. While conceding that plants are perhaps not conscious, he, nevertheless, sees them as “intelligent beings” and invokes Aristotle’s “vegetal soul.” We should not, Marder argues, treat plants as machines because we know what Cartesian evil that can engender. As applied to animals, this translates to a 17th Century scientist nailing unanesthetized dogs to boards and cutting them open to study their beating hearts. Is this even remotely similar to harvesting wheat? He also says “it is especially pernicious to grow plants from sterile seeds,” calling it a “violation” of their capacity for reproduction, and in a particularly offensive allusion to the Kantian precept that rapists and mass murderers often start out by abusing animals (which is generally true), Marder claims that “violence against plants backfires, as it leads to violence against humans…”

In fairness, Mr. Marder acknowledges that “plant stress certainly does not reach the same intensity and does not express itself the same way as animal suffering,” and he calls attempts to halt using animals as “meat-generating machines” “commendable.” But then he says, this “does not justify strategic argumentation in favor of the indiscriminate consumption of plants.” Sorry, but that’s exactly what it does because animals (at least the ones we regularly eat) are sentient and plants are not. Undeterred, Marder ends with this: “It follows that the struggles for the emancipation of all instrumentalized living beings should be fought on a common front,” and towards that end, “plant liberation” must be added to “our moral menus.”

I could call Mr. Marder crazy, but his university professorship would seem to indicate otherwise. In any event, Professor Marder, perhaps you could descend from your elitist tower and poke your head in at the real world where 50 billion animals whom nature has so generously endowed with the requisite hardware for experiencing pain are mercilessly confined and brutally slaughtered each year. Your senses thus bombarded with the same, easily-recognizable signs of suffering – writhing, contorting, moaning, crying, shrieking, squealing, avoiding – we see in ourselves, maybe, just maybe, the proper focus for empathy will begin to emerge.

In Michael Marder’s reconfigured society, the vegan/activist who insists on clinging to an antiquated (early 21st Century, that is) object of compassion risks being tossed from the moral high ground where only those willing to also embrace plant liberation need apply. But worse, if adopted, Marder’s specious nonsense would carry grave consequences for animals: Inspiring plant-eating compunction will confuse and paralyze well-meaning consumers, leading to “why bother” indifference, and the almost unfathomable suffering of livestock will continue unabated.

Bill Clinton, Vegan?

In Vegetarianism on August 29, 2011 at 1:34 am

If Bill Clinton is not our most intelligent president, he is, at the very least, in the conversation. A truly self-made man, Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar, graduate of Georgetown and Yale Law, and Arkansas governor before arriving at the White House. With virtually unlimited access to information, President Clinton was (is) brilliant and worldly. That said, it is entirely implausible that someone with this background could be oblivious to ethological studies that have razed historical barriers between us and so many other species. It is equally unlikely that he has been (continues to be) unaware of the inherent cruelty in factory farming. So, imagine the smiles permeating the animal rights community when one of the five most famous people on the planet declared himself a vegan. PETA, ever opportunistic, wasted little time in capitalizing. But wait, there’s a catch.

As CNN recently said, “Bill Clinton’s appetite was legend. He loved hamburgers, steaks, chicken enchiladas…,” but quadruple bypass and a couple “bent and ugly” stents later, and he is a changed man (although he still indulges a bite of Thanksgiving turkey). CNN’s Dr. Gupta: “You’re doing this for your health. Is that why you’re doing it?” Clinton: “Yes, absolutely.” While recounting his transformation, not a single reference to gestation crates, battery cages, and bloody abattoirs. Just his heart, the decidedly non-metaphorical one, that is.

There are omnivores who eat healthy and vegans who do not (although the CNN article notes that Clinton’s two health guides, Drs. Ornish and Esselstyn, “have concluded that a plant-based diet can prevent and, in some cases, actually reverse heart disease”). But what autonomous adults choose to do to their bodies is of no concern to me; in other words, and with all due respect, I am not overly interested in the state of President Clinton’s arteries. Although his new diet is a net positive for animals, let’s not fete this as another example of Clinton magnanimity; after many years of abuse, he is clearly in self-preservation mode.

For the record, though, Bill Clinton is a strict vegetarian, not a vegan. Veganism is a lifestyle or philosophy that affirms the intrinsic worth of other sentient beings and rejects their exploitation. If new studies were to promote the health benefits of certain animal products, I have little doubt that President Clinton would forgo his plant-exclusive regimen, leaving behind the 200 animals PETA says he now spares annually. On this specific issue, William Jefferson Clinton is no hero. Rather, he is but another selfish human being fretting about his mortality. Sorry, not impressed.

Chef Tal’s Veganism

In Activism, Vegetarianism on July 30, 2011 at 6:11 pm

Rarely does one ascend to a status where one name suffices. Rarer, still, for a vegan chef (or any vegan for that matter). Feted by the likes of Oprah, Ellen DeGeneres, and Chrissie Hynde, Chef Tal (Ronnen) is there and was recently featured in an LA Times article on the flexitarian movement: “So many people tell me, ‘I could be a vegan if it weren’t for bacon,’ and I tell them, ‘Be a “vegan” who eats bacon.’” The writer adds that Ronnen said this “with a shrug.” A shrug.

Ronnen goes on to say, “Real militant vegans hate when I say that.” And from the Times: “He’s part of a new breed of vegans and vegetarians who are taking the movement back from those militants brandishing bumper stickers that admonish us not to eat anything with a face.” Sorry, but that is the message, at least for those who care about animals, and I hardly consider myself a militant. Militant is obsessing over obscure food dyes (and chastising those who don’t), not taking umbrage at the suggestion of occasional bacon bites. Let Chef Tal marginalize sugar and wine production, but not the very foundation of animal suffering. The goal should be to avoid the obvious, and nothing is more obvious than bacon. Maybe with Ronnen, though, a little context is in order.

In an interview with The Oregonian (9/7/10), Chef Tal said, “It’s really great to work with people like Oprah and Ellen and show people that you can have satisfying vegetarian meals once or twice a week and have a really wonderful impact on your health and the environment.” The LA Times says that he “went vegan for humanitarian and health reasons.” So, pig suffering is very likely not his priority. If the impetus is selfish (his health, mankind’s environment), then indulging the meat craving every now and then probably isn’t that big a deal. But to some of us, it is.

There is a clear difference between a vegan chef offering meat alongside mock meats and suggesting meat as an occasional guilty pleasure. The former is inclusive (mixed groups can dine together), which may lead to introduction and (hopefully) transition. The latter sends a decidedly other message. When perhaps the most famous vegan chef on the planet says “be a “vegan” who eats bacon,” he is providing cause for people to continue (or revert to) omnivorism. Some say that vegans/activists must be practical in attempting to change sensibilities. Fine, I get that. But the ultimate message should be unequivocal and consistent: Meat, no matter the source, involves cruelty and suffering. That is either wrong or it is not. If it is, then even a little once in awhile is unacceptable. There has to be a line, Mr. Ronnen.

Finally, we should explore a fundamental question: What is bacon? To start, it is not simply thin sheets of pig fat (try eating that in the raw). Salted, cured, smoked, and pan-fried (and lots of foods taste better fried), the finished product bears little resemblance to the crude material. There is a reason that humans are the only omnivorous species (though many believe we are innate herbivores) who treats their meat in this manner. Meat for human consumption is a concocted taste, and who better to concoct than a classically trained chef? Since he does, and with great fanfare, he knows how good meat replacements are (the Gardein line is virtually indistinguishable from the real thing). And that’s what makes his comment so objectionable.

The Vegan Illusion?

In Activism, Vegetarianism on July 23, 2011 at 3:17 pm

The following picture is making the internet rounds…

While appearing to confront vegans with a sobering and inconvenient reality, the illustrator’s conclusion, in truth, is grossly misleading. Beyond even that, it quite possibly is the most fatuous argument against veganism this side of sentient plants (plucking plants causes pain). Outwardly, it suggests that genuine veganism is unattainable. More shameful, however, is the not-so-subtle implication that vegans are delusional in believing that their lifestyle makes any difference.

But facts, as the great John Adams once said, are stubborn things, and this is an inescapable one: If humans were to cease consuming beef and dairy tomorrow, the domesticated cow would vanish from the planet. While a plausible argument could be made that leather is a stand-alone product, the remaining uses are afterthoughts that would disappear along with the bovines. In other words, capitalism, in maximizing profits and covering costs, dictates that no (or very little) part of the body be wasted. But if not for meat, the synthetic alternatives to all 80 byproducts would be (and some are now) far less expensive.

The picture clearly intends to make vegans feel powerless. Reasonable people should see this as the easily refutable propaganda that it is. While reading ingredient lists is second nature to most seasoned vegans, eschewing all animal products (as the illustration accurately conveys) is virtually impossible. But the goal, in a truth that occasionally escapes even some vegans (the vegan police), is not personal purity. The meat, dairy, and egg industries would collapse upon themselves without demand for meat, dairy, and eggs. So boycotting those products would engender the noble end that all ethical vegans seek: the elimination of the livestock animal.

Pictures like the above are mere smokescreens designed to confuse and paralyze (creating a why bother apathy) a well-meaning public. In the end, veganism is a philosophy, not some self-indulgent badge of honor; a philosophy that is fairly simple and direct and cannot be derailed by sad attempts at diversion.

Meatless Mondays and Weekday Vegetarians

In Vegetarianism on July 19, 2011 at 10:54 am

“Absolute purists should be living in a cave. Anybody who witnesses the suffering of animals and has a glimmer of hope of reducing that suffering can’t take the position that it’s all or nothing. We have to be pragmatic. Screw the principle.” (Ingrid Newkirk, PETA president, Time, 8/23/10)

In what PETA (and Peter Singer) endorses as an eminently practical approach to diet, many people are turning to quasi-vegetarianism (though Gary Francione dissents). Meatless Monday (“to improve personal health and the health of our planet”) is an idea attracting attention from renowned chefs and suburban moms alike. Time reports that Wolfgang Puck, Jose Andres, Mario Batali, et al. are not only celebrating vegetarian dishes for health and the environment, but also for the diversity they bring to the table. Andres: “I love meat, but it’s boring.” This, of course, is not an animal rights message (see Why Become a Vegetarian?), but noteworthy nonetheless.

Meatless Monday is also being promoted by Madison Avenue icon Sid Lerner (NPR, 8/9/10). Initially motivated by high cholesterol (which he attributed to animal fat), Lerner now touts the various health benefits of meat reduction, though he remains unapologetic about enjoying it. His goal is to make meat more condiment than centerpiece, especially for hospitals and schools (the Baltimore public school system embarks on its second year of Meatless Mondays this month). Predictably, the meat industry is not amused, believing the campaign to be an animal rights ploy wrapped under the guise of health consciousness. Oh well.

Graham Hill of TreeHugger has proposed the Weekday Vegetarian program (short speech here). Explaining the adverse effects of meat production (including, in a refreshing exception to others in this article, massive cruelty), Hill offers a compromise: no faces during the week, your choice on the weekend. And an occasional slip here or there is not world-ending. Because animal exploitation is not the priority (he says in Time, “a great steak is just amazing”), he can still feel good about his greater contribution to the planet while enjoying a sirloin on Saturday. Still, his logic is sound: “After all, if all of us ate half as much meat, it would be like half of us were vegetarians.”

Relative to long-term historical prices, today’s meat is cheap. Factory farming is efficient and allows more people than ever to dine on animal bodies. Time reports that “the average American over a lifetime consumes 21,000 animals,” and “we eat 150 times as many chickens a year as we did 80 years ago [per capita meat consumption has increased 8% since 1970].” So, meat is affordable, accessible, and firmly entrenched in the SAD and food pyramid. Change, as Ms. Newkirk alludes to, may need to come incrementally.

I love food. And while I can appreciate an initial skepticism on changing lifelong tastes, becoming vegetarian (or vegan, for that matter) is not nearly as difficult as some (Graham Hill) portray. It does not require extraordinary self-discipline and should never be mistaken for asceticism. If anything, my dietary horizons have greatly expanded over the past nine years. But the problem with Meatless Mondays and Weekday Vegetarians (and Vegan Before Dinnertime) is the focus. A simple question for Puck, Lerner, and Hill: Do animals have intrinsic worth and moral relevance? If yes, then exploiting them for our pleasure (food) is a gross injustice, regardless of planet and health ramifications. In fact, I would argue that the conversation about meat’s wrongs should begin and end here.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.