Posts Tagged fail

On the Offensive

Moo?

Moo?

This new article from Treehugger claims that attempts to present the argument that eating meat (albeit “ethically raised” “happy meat,”) is necessary to slow climate change. What the article does address is that ruminants (cows, bison, goats, etc) are a necessary part of the grassland ecosystem, providing the soil with a natural source of carbon. Lately, the carbon levels in the soil have decreased to merely a quarter or less of the carbon they once had. Allegedly, the carbon has switched phases from residing in the soil to residing in the atmosphere.

Ok, so cows need to roam free in their natural habitat. I don’t disagree with that.

The part that really offends me is that the author is implying that because the cows exist, we need to eat them, and that the cows only exist because there is a demand for them to exist. That is just not right. Cows existed in the wild ages before they were bred to serve “our needs” as a food source. Cows were placed on earth to fill a void in the ecosystem and to live for their own means. Because we’ve removed them from their natural habitat and bred them to best serve us as we feel we need them to, we have re-created the void. Furthermore, cows will not cease to exist if we stop eating them, just as apples wouldn’t cease to grow if we suddenly stopped picking them.

Additionally, the article is suggesting that we all switch to “organic,” grass-fed beef, which simply is not viable. The resources do not exist to produce the vast amount of beef that Americans consume every year in this manner. Meat is produced on factory farms for a reason- because that is the most economical means to produce the quantity of meat that is demanded. As long as Americans eat triple-bacon cheeseburgers and 21oz steaks, at least some of the meat will have to be obtained from factory farms, which are innately ethical and eco-disasters.

Comments (1)

A More Stupid Approach, or Four Happy Meat Fails.

So I’m currently sitting here reading an article from the Washington Post that was brought to my attention by my latest vegan blog discovery- Unpopular Vegan Essays. The article is entitled “For Meat-Eating Authors, A More Tender Approach.”

I think you can guess where this is going.

The article is about author Susan Bourette, who, after a dreadful field experience at a pork processing plant (like any experience at a meat processing plant could be pleasant), immediately went vegetarian, and then vegan. She cited as her motivation that she was revolted by “the way the animals were treated, the way the workers were treated, the unavoidable fact that animals died to provide carnivores like her with sustenance.” She lasted five weeks before she “was forced” to revert back to her old ways, because she was “pale as sticky rice, as weak as Scotch broth.”

The obvious is probably clicking in your head right now- she wasn’t doing it right. Now, I’ve probably mentioned how easy it is to eat vegan (and if I haven’t, I likely will), but you have to know a few nutritional basics. (For instance, because vegan food is generally lower in calories, you need to eat more food to get the same amount of calories you would’ve gotten before.) Because she went veg so quickly (and while she was away), it is extremely likely that she didn’t do any research. I myself transitioned to vegetarianism over a period of eight years and to veganism over a period of one or two years. I’m not saying that one timetable for going veg is better than another, but if you take time to get all the nutrition info, you are much more likely to be healthy and successful! (And having had ten years of preparation, I can say for certain that I know my stuff!) She’s not the first one to claim that veganism is unhealthy due to a poorly thought out transition. The least she could’ve done was pick up a copy of Vegetarian Times at the airport on the way home! Fail #1.

At any rate, “Bourette decided to come to terms with her carnivorous ways. If she could understand why she craved meat, she reasoned, perhaps she would get over the guilt of enjoying it.”

Any nutritionist (or doctor) could tell you that she was likely craving meat because she was low on iron (and probably other nutrients as well). Why didn’t she see a nutritionist anyway? If she was really set on the vegan thing, she would’ve made the trip before hastily deciding to dismiss it as unhealthy. Fail #2.

This is when she wrote Meat: A Love Story.

Gag me.

Her book is one of many recent publications promoting  “happy meat,” what omnivores (that’s right- humans are not carnivores- Fail #3) are pushing as a conscience saver. Other books include The Compassionate Carnivore: Or How to Keep Animals Happy, Save Old MacDonald’s Farm, Reduce Your Hoofprint, and Still Eat Meat, by Catherine Friend, and The Shameless Carnivore: A Manifesto for Meat Lovers, by Scott Gold.

These books seek to actually paint the picture that vegetarians have the wrong idea, citing that we are helping “animals at the expense of sustainable farmers.” Perhaps these “sustainable farmers” should focus their efforts on growing soybeans instead of raising meat, or else stop calling themselves sustainable. I suppose that no one told them that “whether cattle are reared organically or with conventional farming methods, the end effect is bad for the environment, according to a new German consumer report.” Fail #4.

Veganism is still the most sustainable choice.

Now, I’m not the biggest fan of PETA’s founder Ingrid Newkirk, but I think she puts it best when she says: “but why are these people so desperate to cling to a really bad habit? This is just guilt deflection. It’s like saying, ‘I’m still going to abuse children, but I’m going to be conscious about it and get them from a small family.’” Win #1!

Comments (1)