Jump to content
  • Welcome to the eG Forums, a service of the eGullet Society for Culinary Arts & Letters. The Society is a 501(c)3 not-for-profit organization dedicated to the advancement of the culinary arts. These advertising-free forums are provided free of charge through donations from Society members. Anyone may read the forums, but to post you must create a free account.

What are vegetarians missing?


indiagirl

Recommended Posts

Quote: from franklanguage on 1:46 am on Feb. 4, in our culture of supply and demand, animal cruelty and environmental damage are simply not issues for most people.

The notion that meat eaters by definition care less about environmental damage and animal cruelty than vegetarians is  one of many bogus claims made by vegetarians in their need to assert their moral superiority over omnivores.

The truth is that some meat eaters care about animal cruelty and some don't. Some vegetarians worry about the environment and some don't.

If you're definition of "animal cruelty" includes the killing of any animal,however they're reared and slaughtered,for food then, with respect ,you're arguing at the moral level of a five year old child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans are omnivores, regardless of how they may choose to change their diet, and for whatever reason. We do not have the option of making ourselves over into herbivores, even if we were to wish it sincerely and desperately.

Pre-agricultural humans have always eaten meat (evidence goes back millions of years here), to the extent to which it has been available. Vegetarianism is a modern (ie, historical era) cultural invention.

Pre-agricultural people sustained themselves on meat (consuming the entire animal), foraged leaves and roots, nuts, seeds, and fruit, if it was in season.

The things they did not have available are new developments of the agricultural era: grains and beans in any significant quantity; and products of the industrial era: vegetable oils, and refined carbohydrates like white flour and sugar.

Our biology has not changed in the past 5,000 years.

If you examine the data that many dietary assumptions are based on, you would be surprised how limited the scope of the research really is. Some of the best data supporting common assumtions is "test-tube" in nature, and hasn't been successfully duplicated in human subjects. The prime study connecting protein intake with osteoporosis measured a limited number of subjects over a two-week period. Subsequent research indicates that the factors measured take a dip in the two week time period, and in fact it is necessary long term to obtain sufficient protein in order to prevent osteoporosis. The Japanese government is trying to get people eating the traditional diet to get more protein to prevent osteoporosis, and is recommending eating more pork. Studies linking cancer with diet usually forget to mention that for all the types of cancer that seem to be prevented by the low-fat diet, there are more excess cases of breast cancer. People on a low-fat, low-cholesterol diet have an overall higher death rate from all causes combined, including violence (murder and suicide both)!

Maybe there's truth to the old joke: do you live longer, or does it just seem longer?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't feel like diving fully into this conversation, although I'm much enjoying all the considered opinions, but there's one pet peeve I'd like to home in on.

The fact that heart disease is the leading cause of death in the US does not in itself mean that Americans eat an unhealthy diet.  The leading cause of death in Japan, by far, is cancer.  This doesn't mean that the Japanese live a cancer-prone lifestyle and are unaware of the dangers of carcinogens.

Cancer and heart disease are diseases of the elderly.  It's very sad when a young person dies of one of these diseases, and it's especially sad because it's so very rare.  Eventually, everybody dies of something.  A quick measure of the overall health of a country is to ask not just how long people live but what they are dying from.  If the answer is "cancer and heart disease," this suggests a healthy nation, not an unhealthy one, a nation that has largely triumphed over infectious disease.

In 1940 the leading cause of death in Japan, again by a wide margin, was tuberculosis (I'm using Japan because I found a handy graph).  That was a period of serious ill health.  The cancer rate at the time was very low and has been rising steadily.  Why has it been rising?  For the same reason it's been rising everywhere else in the industrialized world:  the population is aging.  They are dying of cancer (and heart disease) because they are not dying of tuberculosis, pneumonia, the flu, and cholera.

Sure, Americans should eat better and get more exercise, but that won't cure cancer or heart attacks. Arguing that people get cancer or heart disease due to a single cause not only shoves modern epidemiology under the rug, but it tries to twist an achievement into a mistake.

Matthew Amster-Burton, aka "mamster"

Author, Hungry Monkey, coming in May

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote: from Fat Guy on 4:21 am on Feb. 4, 2002
Quote: from franklanguage on 1:46 am on Feb. 4, 2002

I'm not out to change anyone's habits, especially since I know these message boards are mainly populated by upscale restaurant-goers who are mainly interested in the end product and are not concerned with what chemicals might have got in it along the way.

These boards are populated by highly educated, aware, conscientious, ethical people who know a tremendous amount about what goes into their food. And if they don't, they always have you to remind them.

Down boy, down. :)

Seriously... I think franklanguage has pushed some buttons.  For his sake, I'll put forth the proposition that this board is fairly well integrated between "upscale restaurant-goers", "home cooking types", culinary professionals and, ehem, regular joes.  

The one thing we ALL have in common is that we care about what we are eating as more than just fuel.  Under that broad categorization I think it accurate that SOME of us don't think in particular about preservatives and additives, but MOST OF US DO.

Getting back to the topic of vegetarianism for a moment, I agree with the premise that it is a modern "construct"--not a natural thing.  That doesn't make it wrong, at most it simply invalidates the shallow arguments of many that it is inherently more nutritionally sound.

Discussions of the horrors of cattle ranching (or poultry ranching, or pig farming, or almost any kind of animal husbandry) are certainly valid topics, but they are not relevent to a discussion of the nutritional values of various types of diets.  Vegetarianism can be a very valid moral choice, but that's where that argument begins and ends.

(Edited by jhlurie at 10:58 am on Feb. 4, 2002)

Jon Lurie, aka "jhlurie"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree jhlurie, politely.  I reacted to the same one sentence Steven did:

"since I know these message boards are mainly populated by upscale restaurant-goers who are mainly interested in the end product and are not concerned with what chemicals might have got in it along the way"

In this one sentence Franklanguage was guilty of a presumption, an unverifiable over-reach--that immediately caught my eye as I suppose it did Steven.  Who among us has not wished we could take back one sentence but this hardly qualifies as pushing buttons.  Other than this one sentence, I found Franklanguage's post extremely thought-provoking as I have his/her others--and essential in my mind to what makes eGullet special.

Steve Klc

Pastry chef-Restaurant Consultant

Oyamel : Zaytinya : Cafe Atlantico : Jaleo

chef@pastryarts.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm guilty of something too: Letting the thread get sidetracked. I think we should have a thread on the ethical justifications for vegetarianism. I'll happily start one. I feel badly, however, that we've hijacked Indiagirl's original question. She had a very specific issue she wanted to discuss, and we should probably refocus on that. As I said, I'm happy to start a thread for the larger topic too, if you all would like that.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indiagirl could take half a step towards being omniverous by eating mushrooms.  They are more genetically similar to animals than vegetables...

=Mark

Give a man a fish, he eats for a Day.

Teach a man to fish, he eats for Life.

Teach a man to sell fish, he eats Steak

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They also present the most meatlike flavor profile when prepared certain ways. If you take bland supermarket chicken and pork as your benchmark, you can usually do better with a portabella mushroom.

We haven't discussed the facsimile issue at all. Vegetarians have a lot of meat-substitute foods available to them. It's my kneejerk reaction to oppose these pretend foods on principle, but I suppose if they do their job there's nothing too severely wrong with them. I have on occasion had TVP products that tasted pretty darn real. One of the most widely available, semi-convincing products out there is Bacos TVP faux-bacon-bits.

I bet if you work with tofu and mushrooms you can close a bit of the flavor gap between vegetarianism and omnivorism. And is there any doubt that eventually -- though maybe not in our lifetimes -- we will have the ability to artificially emulate the flavors, aromas, textures, and appearances of most food products, even very rare and complex wines?

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And is there any doubt that eventually -- though maybe not in our lifetimes -- we will have the ability to artificially emulate the flavors, aromas, textures, and appearances of most food products, even very rare and complex wines?"

And take all the fun and danger out of it? I hope not! Life is risky, and some foods are risky, but for me, I'd rather have it that way as long as I can make an informed decision.

When I consider not eating pork, I think of the relationship I have with the man who raises the pigs I choose to eat, and the affect my decision has on his livelihood.

But to me, at heart is also that I have the luxury of making these choices. I can choose to eat or not eat products because I live in a rich country with plentiful options, and because I choose to have relationships with the people I purchase from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote: from Tony Finch on 9:29 pm on Feb. 3, 2002

As I understand it there is nothing in mainstream Hinduism which forbids the eating of meat,apart from beef.Most Hindus in India are largely vegetarian through economic,rather than religious reasons.

The idea that being vegetarian "serves a higher good" is both obscure and highly questionable.

The idea that a vegetarian diet in itself is "healthier" than a non-vegetarian diet is bogus.

Interesting observation.  I had always thought that Hindus had rules forbidding killing similar to the Buddhists and Jains.  (I can't remember if Jains are a Hindu or Buddhist sect.  Boy, I've forgotten a lot.)  But I'm pretty certain the vegetarianism practices by a lot of Hindus is not economic.  Ghandi was raised vegetarian, and he was not poor.

I've gone through a few vegetarian phases.  Although I see nothing immoral per se about eating meat, I do think that if we can live without killing, we should try.

However, I realized that as "inhumane" as our meat industry may be (and I'm not saying it is or isn't), I would think that any cow would rather be slaughtered with a bolt to the head than get chased down by a tiger and have its stomach ripped open, or, even worse, getting chased down by a pack of wild dogs.  Of course, the tiger and dogs don't know better, but from the cow's point of view, I'd say that the human's slaughtering method isn't the worst way to go.

But I found that my diet ended up too unhealty.  I would either fill up on heavy cream sauces and cheeses to satisfy my cravings, or miss out on too many protein sources.  And let's face, eating is one of the few pleasures in my pathetic life.

(Edited by Dstone001 at 12:15 pm on Feb. 4, 2002)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To be honest after all this yadda I'm still not sure what question Indiagirl is asking.She wants to know what she is "missing".Well its easy enough to find out.Just go ahead and stick that piece of pork in the curry and see if she likes it. If she doesn't like it then she knows she's not missing anything doesn't she.

What's stopping her? "The issues" of course,the ones this thread has gone on to talk about.To Indiagirl it's not as simple as going out and buying that piece of pork and giving it a try.To her it marks the crossing of some kind of moral/spiritual rubicon.This is OK as long as she realises that  this is a totally self-imposed situationand there's no-one who can advise her without imposing their own self-imposed considerations upon her.

So my advice is-forget all considerations other than your own taste.If you hate it,then you'll know your not missing anything and if you love it,then the other half of that culinary world opens itself up before you.

Go for it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With respect, Tony, I don't think it's that simple.  Indiagirl has been frank with us in saying that it isn't a moral issue.  But it IS an issue of habit.  You don't necessarily break the habits of a lifetime in one bold leap, without consideration.  Well, maybe some people do, but Indiagirl doesn't sound the type.  She's simply asking "is it really worth it".

On another thread we sidetracked into the rather sick topic of drinking urine.  To some people the thought of eating animal flesh might be as extreme a change as for you or I to contemplate drinking our own urine.  Someone would have to prove the benefits to us first.

Jon Lurie, aka "jhlurie"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But do you wonder if you're missing something by NOT drinking your own urine? Does it occur to you to urinate into the curry?(sorry,but this is your analogy).

No-one can "prove the benefits" to Indiagirl of eating meat.The question "is it worth it" is unanswerable by anybody other than her.And there is no way for her to answer it other than to try it and see if she likes it.She can ease herself in slowly or she can try that hunk of pork.Either way animal flesh or fish has to pass her lips before she can know.Finally it IS as simple as that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also I was in Paris and Barcelona last year and will be in Portugal soon and feel like I cannot completely experience these places if I cannot eat their food (although I did find a stunningly good vegetarian restaurant in Barcelona).
That's exactly the sort of thinking that might make me do something new or different. Curiosity is a powerful motive. Ignorance is only bliss when you don't know what others are eating, or better yet, when you don't know they are eating. When you know what they are eating, but don't know what it tastes like, there is a nagging hole in your knowledge.

Robert Buxbaum

WorldTable

Recent WorldTable posts include: comments about reporting on Michelin stars in The NY Times, the NJ proposal to ban foie gras, Michael Ruhlman's comments in blogs about the NJ proposal and Bill Buford's New Yorker article on the Food Network.

My mailbox is full. You may contact me via worldtable.com.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote: from Tony Finch on Feb. 4, 2002

No-one can "prove the benefits" to Indiagirl of eating meat.The question "is it worth it" is unanswerable by anybody other than her

I think you're wrong there, Tony. The whole premise of eGullet is that people can listen to others talking of their own experiences, and deduce from that whether or not they themselves would enjoy those experiences.

So when I read Charlie's review of Flanagan's, I can ponder whether or not I might enjoy it. The better I know Charlie, or the more of his reviews I have tested, the better. But I can also rely upon Charlie's 'style' and language to help me in my assessment.

What Indiagirl is asking us to do is not just to say "Go try it, girl" or "Nahhh you'll hate it". She is asking us to deliver a review of meat as food. It also happens that every single meat eater here also eats vegetables,  so how can we possibly not also be able to give Indiagirl a relative view ?

When I read Charlie's review of Flanagan's, I decide whether it's a "must visit soon" or a "maybe when I've run out of better options" or a "not ever" option. What Indiagirl will do is to conclude either she is missing something so wonderful that she will definitely go for it, or else it sounds so marginal that she will regret trying.

The point is, I guess, that if she randomly gives meat a try, and then hates it, that she will feel that she has irreparably 'defiled' her traditions and upbringing for no good reason. So she just wants to know whether that's a risk worth taking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's more akin to explaining sex to a virgin. It can be done, and there is a pool of common experience that can be drawn upon to bolster one's powers of explanation, and in the end sex is not the same or even pleasurable for everyone. But ultimately one has to try it to find out, and most people who try it don't regret it -- but some do. Still, once you've tried it you can never truly unscramble the eggs.

Indiagirl, to argue by analogy here, do you drink wine? I mean in a serious fashion, i.e., are you a connoisseur of fine wine? Or is there some other variety of food (cheese, perhaps) or drink that you are very serious about? Or is there a particular food you feel you just can't live without? I think meat is similar to one of those categories, multiplied by a factor of several. To deprive yourself of it is to close off an entire body of experience.

There may be reasons to do that, of course, but you're asking about the magnitude of what you're missing. The magnitude is great.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote: from Tony Finch on 9:54 am on Feb. 4, 2002

If you're [sic] definition of "animal cruelty" includes the killing of any animal,however they're reared and slaughtered,for food then, with respect ,you're arguing at the moral level of a five year old child.

Low blow! (Where's the referee when you need him/her?) And did you not review any of the links I embedded in my post? There is much evidence that as meat-packing concerns and factory farms increase production, they need to speed up assembly lines and increase risk of injury to workers - as well as cruelty to animals. Animals that should be stunned before butchering are often fully conscious when their throats are slit.

Of course there are websites detailing animal cruelty, the most famous organization being PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals). There is also a site called Slaughterhouse Pictures which carries pretty graphic depictions of routine slaughterhouse procedures. There is also the Slaughterhouse Cam, providing online videos of slaughterhouse torture. If you're able to show or tell me of any meat-packing concerns that are concerned for animal welfare(and I know they exist, but they're the exception, not the rule), please tell us.

Oddly enough, animal cruelty isn't the first reason I became vegetarian. (Although I don't currently eat or use dairy products, I don't consider myself "vegan" because I still use leather products, beeswax, and wool.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote: from Fat Guy on 6:42 pm on Feb. 4, 2002

I think it's more akin to explaining sex to a virgin. It can be done, and there is a pool of common experience that can be drawn upon to bolster one's powers of explanation, and in the end sex is not the same or even pleasurable for everyone. But ultimately one has to try it to find out, and most people who try it don't regret it -- but some do. Still, once you've tried it you can never truly unscramble the eggs.

Indiagirl, to argue by analogy here, do you drink wine? I mean in a serious fashion, i.e., are you a connoisseur of fine wine? Or is there some other variety of food (cheese, perhaps) or drink that you are very serious about? Or is there a particular food you feel you just can't live without? I think meat is similar to one of those categories, multiplied by a factor of several. To deprive yourself of it is to close off an entire body of experience.

Funny, I was just thinking of a New York Times piece I ran across today about Marmite. The URL is '>http://www.nytimes.com/2002....ml.

Everywhere in the above paragraph that you've said "sex", just substitute "Marmite". At least, that's the impression I get of a native Britisher's point of view - and according to the article, the owner of Myers of Keswick says, "In all honesty, I like Marmite on toast, especially with eggs, but I sometimes stand back and smell the Marmite, and I think to myself, `Boy, you'd have to be broght up on this stuff to form any appreciation for it in midlife.' "

So I don't know if that's how it would be for you. Of course, the quality and preparation of the meat is of paramount importance, and this is why I'm so insistent that it's more dangerous to eat meat nowadays than it used to be: too many health and safety rules are violated nowadays for me to want to risk it anymore. I stress that I'm not trying to live forever; I'm trying to protect my health and quality of life right  now, that's all. Your mileage may vary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't let Wilfrid get wind of the Marmite example, or he'll beat the crap out of me with it on the UK board "stars" thread.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indiagirl,if this issue is more than just taste (will I like it/won't I like it,un answerable,ultimately by anyone other than you) then it is about "other issues".

One of those issues may be "animal cruelty.Many vegetarians appear to believe that ALL rearing and killing of animals for food iswrong/cruel. How it is done is irrelevant. If you believe this you will not enjoy meat because you will see yourself as complicit in animal cruelty.

If you take the position that it is possible to rear/kill animals for food in ways which are not cruel then it will be possible for you to find sources and suppliers whose practices reflect a more 'enlightened' view of animal husbandry. You might have to pay more.But then maybe that's what we'll all have to do if we want to see the abandonment of some of the practices described in posts above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote: I'm so insistent that it's more dangerousto eat meat nowadays than it used to be: too many health and safety rules are violated nowadays for me to want to risk it anymore. I stress that I'm not trying to live forever; I'm trying to protect my health and quality of life right  now, that's all. Your mileage may vary.

The idea that it's more dangerous to eat meat  than it once was is false. There never was a "golden age" in which food,meat included ,was produced under more stringent health and safety regulations than it is now.Despite some of the appalling husbandry practices which take place in the industry far less people are actually poisoned  now by the food they eat than at any time in the industrialised age.

Unlike before,it is now increasingly easy to find meat sourced and supplied from those who believe in ethical and natural husbandary practices,rendering illogical the idea that you must give up meat to escape the mass produced stuff. Your health will not PER SE be improved or your life PER SE prolonged by eschewing meat.

Franklanguage-you just don't want to eat meat anymore.That's fine but you're doing what a lot of vegetarians and proto-vegetarians do-dressing up matters of personal taste and preference behind a false facade of  illogical cant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe killing sentient animals for food is cruel, yet I enjoy meat tremendously, because I am a hypocrite. So there.

Steven A. Shaw aka "Fat Guy"
Co-founder, Society for Culinary Arts & Letters, sshaw@egstaff.org
Proud signatory to the eG Ethics code
Director, New Media Studies, International Culinary Center (take my food-blogging course)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think it is hypocritical, merely recognition that humans are at the top of the food chain.   That there is something inherently cruel about killing animals for food cannot be denied.  I think that is why the process from slaughter to eating has been surrounded by so much ritual (religious and otherwise) -- to somehow justify and sanctify it and make it morally and ethically acceptable.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...