Living with a vegetarian forces I to be a veggie when @ home. I love the food I get to cook and the best part is all the veggies I get to eat. Last night was a White Bean, Kale and roasted vegetable soup. Booya! Granted, tomorrow, I'll probably have a Higgin's burger for lunch. Give and take.

Just FYI, the reason for skinning fur-bearing animals alive (other than not caring) and why it's not uncommon, is that it's easier to remove the fur off of a live body than off of a dead one, when rigor mortis has set in.

It is terrible to see the dead, hopeless eyes of animals - especially the expressive pigs - raised on factory farms (where up to 98% of meat/animal products in the US come from). Death really is a mercy for them (even though their deaths are as brutal and painful as their lives).

Hope you stay vegan! You have the support of other vegans. Good luck.

On the issue of meat, the issue isn't so black and white. I choose to eat meat, but not from conventional sources that are more harmful to you, the environment or the animal. Eggs? I choose cage-free, veg-fed, certified humane options and I only pay $1 more for the dozen. Lamb or beef? When I decide to spend the money on it, I choose all-natural free-range or grass-fed if they have it.

The problem is not that people eat meat, it's that we regard it as a commodity product... whatever gets us from point A to point B. People have been tricked into thinking that meat should be cheap and plentiful. I walked into a Fred Meyer today and was horrified by the unappetizing selection of shrink-wrapped, shitty looking meats. People need to value what we do have and expect to pay more to purchase a more responsible product.

Lollypop—the blinking eye of an animal without its skin was enough to seriously traumatize me, but I could see why they did it—to stop blood getting on the coat. However, thanks for the physiological information. Rigor mortis, eh? Jesus.

I wonder what doing that for a living, skinning animals, must do to a person? Brutalising.

At the moment, I don't know if I'll stay vegan, I'm likely to cut out mass-produced meat at home, that's for sure. But I don't mind eating something if it has been raised and slaughtered humanely. My "beef" with that, is with finding farms where humane slaughter and rearing, genuinely does happen. It seems to be incredibly rare.

I think it's just as easy to drink soy milk as it is regular milk, and eggs-wise, I'm not sure. They've got to be super free range and expensive before I'd go near them.

TKrueg—where do you get your improbably cool eggs and super-organic humane meat from?

Matt- do you ever shop at New Seasons? Most/all meat suppliers are certified by the food alliance:

http://www.foodalliance.org/

They use third-party certification for farms that:
* provide safe and fair working conditions,
* provide healthy and humane treatment of animals; raise animals without added hormones and antibiotics;
* raise crops without genetically modified organisms educe pesticides usage and toxicity;
* conserve soil and water resources;
* preserve and protect wildlife habitat; and,
* commit to continuous improvement of these practices.

I'll look into it...

There are a few local ranches that are organic and provide excellent meat options. Carlton Farms pork, Painted Hills beef and Strawberry Mtn. Beef. I think that's what New Seasons carry.

I just don't get it. If we shouldn't eat animals, how come they're made of meat?

No seriously, I adore animals - they taste good.

But really really seriously now, it's good that you recognized the distinction between eating animals and growing animals for food. The moral argument for not eating meat is, to me, pretty thin. The moral agument for not mass farming chickens in tiny cages, pigs in slightly larger but proportionally oppressive pens and so on is orders of magnitude stronger.

There's a wealth of narrative about "primitive" peoples who celebrate the spirit of the animal they just killed or are about to eat. Those people recognized the connection - the circle of life thing.

I keep wondering how a vegan might feel when attacked by man-eating lions or sharks, and realizing people aren't always at the top of the food chain.

Any chance of throwing you to the lions before your week's out, Matt?

Thanks for the props Davis. One thing about the vegan diet is that all the beans and veggies make it a high-fiber diet. Yeah, natural laxatives - also good for preventing diabetes, lowering cholesteral levels, etc.

Anyway, another option for quality and humanely raised meat and dairy is to go directly to organic farms that raise their own animals. It is a very interesting way to meet rural families and support small organic family farms in our state, and you can see up close how they treat their animals. There are several websites that list these farms such as this one:
http://www.eatwild.com/products/oregon.html.

As for eggs; remember that it is legal to keep 3 hens per household in Portland. I get between 1-3 eggs per day from my very spoiled, happy, and well fed free range hens.

Hi Matt,

There is no reintroduction of wolves happening in Oregon. They are coming in on their own from Idaho. Oregon has a wolf management plan that was developed by a wide range of people, including livestock producers, and the plan will let the wolves come back on their own.

Also, I was talking about the wolves being good for the land as evidenced by the riparian areas returning near streams where they have been reintroduced, since the deer don't hang out there as much as they used to,(having to watch their backs and all) and how that in turn made the streams cooler and a whole host of other good trickle down effects in the environment. I wasn’t talking about cows at that point in the discussion.

And it is Defenders of Wildlife that has the compensation fund, not the government.

There are a few ranches in Oregon that have the meat you are looking for. I think Proper Eats distributes some of their meat. People buy it in advance and it gets delivered there for pick up.

I'm sure this won't be the only post I (eventually) make in response to all the content here, but first of all - if you truly want me to go shopping with you - e-mail me, and we can set it up. I don't know if I know any more than the average vegan, but hey, I live 2 blocks from People's and about 4 from New Seasons, so there you go - I'm conveniently located at any event (:

As to knowing where one's meat comes from - it's not something which concerns me a great deal, because I do believe it is wrong to kill an animal unless perhaps my life is threatened. (More on this when I'm fed and rested.) I do, however, have some resources.

A recent book by Peter Singer and Jim Mason - The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter gives a very good overview of different issues in food ethics, by tracing where the meals of three different families came from. One family eats the Standard American Diet, one family are "conscientious consumers" - free-range, organic etc. and the third family are vegans. By using these families as a jumping-off point the authors are able to explore organic free-range meats, local vs. organic, and many other issues. Singer also includes resources in the back of the book. I recommend this book to anyone interested in ethical consumption. I don't own it, but it's available at the library.

I've noticed that you're savvy enough to realize that you might not be able to take the labels you see for granted, and investigation might be necessary. That's very much the case. "Cage-free" hens for example, can simply mean thousands of hens languishing their lives away on a factory floor, living in their own shit. Singer's search for a "humane egg" in The Way We Eat yields very few options, though he's not really asking for much. Just sort of minimally humane conditions for an animal to live in.

And here's a link which gives a bit more info around the notion of free-range:

http://www.cok.net/lit/freerange.php

One important point it makes is that it would likely not be feasible to feed the American population as much meat as it eats now in a free-range fashion, because there actually would not be enough room for all the animals. The reason the Western world can eat as much meat as it eats today is due to intensive feedlot and battery cage type operations that confine thousands of animals in small spaces. As the population increases, this will become even more the case. The world either needs a lot more vegans or everyone has to cut down their meat-eating. If we don't do it ourselves, it's probably just going to be forced on us anyway, as the population increases and we don't have the luxury of using so much land to fatten animals.

At any rate, I'll probably have more comments later, when my brain is less fried from a day of classes.

I continue to appreciate the thoughtfulness and open-mindedness with which you have approached this project.

(:

- Jen

I'm all for the humane treatment of animals destined for our dinner plates, and for reworking farm subisidies to reward farmers and ranchers who do the right thing.

But I still hate stupid hippies.

I might as well cast my vote here: eating animals is OK; the meat industry is shockingly, abysmally, inhumanely not OK. I'm suspicious of the "free range" label and can't quite bring myself to buy meat from New Seasons on a regular basis. (Sometimes I really crave a boneless chicken breast, so I give in.)

I'd like to know more about the chicken at New Seasons. It's labeled "Pacific Village," which I think is the store's own brand. I'm sure these chickens are treated much, much better than those raised at your typical factory farm--there's no comparison, really--but I remain skeptical, for the same reason that I'm skeptical of "Big Organic" and the affluent-targeted marketing ethic that Michael Pollan calls "Supermarket Pastoral." Just because the food is presented to us in a way that flatters our notion of ourselves as enlightened consumers doesn't mean that the food is actually suffering-free.

I want to get me some hens. I also would be open to going hunting and eating venison with someone who has the right attitude about the whole thing.

Having said that, I think people eat WAY too much meat--organic and free-range or otherwise--and that we need to be scarfing a LOT more plant foods. Whole, unprocessed plant foods. Not high-tech vegan foods that imitate animal products and do it poorly. That doesn't make any sense to me.

Black beans. Quinoa. Buckwheat. Brown rice. Kale. Collard greens. Beets. Carrots. Almonds. Pumpkin seeds. Olive oil. That's what I'm talkin' about.

Matt, I agree with Jen (about many things) - while I think killing the lamb was horrible and I hope your conscience really kicks in about it, I appreciate that you're really giving this a shot, and trying to learn where AR/AW vegans are coming from. By really looking at the issue and be willing to watch videos etc., you're doing more than most meat-eaters are willing to do, and that's admirable.

You're welcome to come shopping with Lollypop too, if you want. I'm always happy to help people become vegan :)

Jim: Strawberry Mountain is a name I've heard often. I'm thinking of getting out there to see the place.

Notta: this issue of "growing animals for food," is pretty much the most important distinction, I think. The difference between eating "grown" animals and eating animals that have been sustainably, humanely reared, seems to me as crucial as black and white.

CBF: I'd love to keep hens but we don't have an apartment with a garden/yard. So until then, I need to find somewhere that sells supercool eggs, or I've got to cut them out.

Vanessa: Sorry I've misrepresented your film! I'll clarify these points in tomorrow's blog. This is one of the perils of talking without a notebook, and of course, of blogging without a fact-checker. Sorry again. And thanks again for dropping by.

Jen: the word "free range" is really dodgy. You're right. That's why I talk about "supercool" eggs. Because it's hard to know whether anybody's doing what they say they are on the labels. Nobody's really investigating, after all!

Watanabe: I'm largely with you on the hippies thing.

Spine: I agree, I, definitely, eat too much meat. It's a load of horseshit really, and I plan to eat much less from now on. As I said yesterday, it's mainly about habit, nothing more.

Lollypop: I don't think I'm going to become a vegan for good. Maybe I will, but I doubt it. See, for me, it's like why I never got "confirmed" as a Christian in high school, despite being christened as an infant. I could see a lot of the stuff about Jesus being good, etcetera, etcetera, blah blah blah, but never bought the "he's literally the son of God," parts. With veganism, I buy most of the tenets, and the reasons behind it, and I think it's valuable to try it, but fundamentally, I don't buy the "killing an animal is wrong," part. I don't. It's wrong to treat animals like they don't matter, and like they don't have feelings, but ultimately, I still see humans as having the right to kill animals. I just can't eat that wafer, you know?

Thanks everyone for making this such a lively debate. More, please!

Well, it seems like killing someone who wants to live simply because you like the taste of their flesh is a very trivial reason to take away someone's subjectivity - their very being.

A few things (because I sometimes work in the New Seasons meat dept)...

-New Seasons carries mostly Country Natural Beef (Food Alliance certified, range-fed, goes to smaller feed lots where it's fed vegetarian, natural non-corn grain feed) and private label Pacific Village all grass-fed beef. Beef from the former is raised mostly here in the state or farms in the NW, beef from the latter comes from our lamb farmers in the lush lower Willamette valley. The diet tends to provide meat with Omega 3s and other helpful compounds.

Our poultry comes from a farm, regrettably in N. California... but it doesn't come close to resembling the corporate farms that are always referenced. It's true that chickens given free range access don't always act as such, but they're not jammed in like sardines either. It's more like 75% free space, 25% bird. They get all-vegetarian diet, no antibiotics, hormones or animal biproducts.

We don't carry veal or farmed salmon for obvious reasons. The meat buyer and everyone on down are obsessive about quality control and paying a fair amount. In return, they have close ties to the individual farmers and monitor their practices first-hand. I've met them too, and they're the first people to decry the inhumanity of corporate meat slaughterhouse/packing industry.

Jen made a point that grass-fed isn't sustainable nationwide, which is somewhat accurate. But corn production/land would be displaced too, so...

Also, people should value meat more. There's a reason McDonalds can sell you a 'burger' for .99 cents. REAL meat costs REAL money. Cut down your consumption if you have to, but don't buy that 'meat' from Safeway or Fred Meyer that comes from some dusty shit-pit in Texas.

I agree with SPINE's comments... stretch your diet with real grains and bulk, unprocessed items. Real fruits, real vegetables. Don't eat burger every day.

And no, I'm not a hippie. I don't think you need to be one to appreciate a fairly pragmatic and ethical approach to meat-eating.

I would recommend that everyone read Michael Pollan's "Omnivore's Dilemma". I'd say it is a lot less biased than Singer and is extremely informative as far as ethical consumption is concerned. It'll also explain what is wrong with industrial organic, and also why "organic" and "free-range" barely mean a thing.

Eating meat isn't what's wrong, Factory farming is what's wrong.

On the same hand, I find processed foods of all kinds wrong. I find fake meat products especially wrong. It's kind of admitting that meat is damn tasty(which is why people eat it isn't it?)only fake stuff gets it's taste artificially. I'm against high-tech food and cloned meat.

We're lucky, in that in Portland makes it easy to make ethical eating choices and to eat local. I'd like to point out that Food Front Co-op on NW Thurman carries a lot of local meats/produce. Matt, most farmers markets have local eggs. They're about $4 a dozen. Hillsdale Farmers Market runs almost year round.

We're also lucky, that in America-land of excess and waste, we can get on our choosy moralistic high horse and refuse to eat what the millions of starving people in the world go without.

Lastly, it's extremely expensive to be ethical. Considering the diminishing middle class and the growing working poor, I'm not sure how a family of 5 would do it. I'm single, it's easy.

We need more like this guy
http://www.polyfacefarms.com/

Snipe- you should be skeptical.

Matt-don't drink the kool-aid

You only think Pollan is less biased because what he says affirms what you want to do.

If you REALLY are concerned with the starving people, cook, you will go whole foods vegan, as lower on the food chain means more food for all. Grains that go to feed animals could be going to those poor people you say you're so concerned about. Meat is not an efficient use of resources.

"Local" does not mean o.k. for the animals, automatically. The only way you can really know how these animals are treated is to see them on the farm, to transport (which is usually horrific), to slaughter.

http://www.whyvegan.com (look up the transport section)

TKrueg - thanks for the info. Any meat I eat comes from New Seasons already, but I hadn't had a chance to dive into all of the details of their sourcing (something these recent conversations have made me want to do). I'm glad they're around. I figure the more I support their practices, the more common they'll become—I feel like I can have a much larger impact if I do eat meat but am very picky about how that meat got to my plate. Maybe that attitude of mine will become more popular, like the 'trend' of organics did (my parents rejected organics until a year or two ago... maybe I can get them to stop buying the cheapest chicken they can find.).

Girl_Cook -

What kool-aid is Matt not supposed to drink?

It's funny that people often view vegans as brainwashed and gullible. The only reason I was able to become a vegan in the first place was because I started to question the dominant paradigms of our society. If anything, I feel that in abandoning meat-eating as a knee-jerk experience, I exited a cult, complete with cult members trying to get me not to leave it! (most vegans get shit from meat-eating friends trying to get them to "stay in the fold".)

First, I went out and found out what was going on "down on the farm". Most Americans simply have no idea and don't bother to question this. They've drunk the Kool-Aid of advertising and tradition. I know this, because I ate plenty of meat for the first 25 years of my life.

I got really defensive when I first heard vegetarian and vegan ideas. I thought those people must be freaks; it all sounded ridiculous.

But at a certain point I opened my mind and learned a few things. And I do mean "learned" - I didn't drink any Kool-Aid. I read, and read and read. And researched. And picked apart philosophical arguments. And thought, and thought.

And eventually I came to a conclusion based on logic and research that it isn't right to kill animals if I don't need to, any more than it would be right to kick a cat in the face unless my survival were somehow at stake.

When I learned about the environmental ramifactions of eating meat, that just gave me one more reason to care so much about veganism.

It's pretty lame that in spite of all the time and effort many if not most vegans spend on really learning about issues, we're still stereotyped as being somehow cultlike or simple-minded, etc.

No one, however, questions the cult of meat-eating, because it is the dominant one. No meat-eater is expected to defend their position with facts, logical, research or philosophy. You can eat the vilest factory-farmed burger, but no one will accuse you of being an extremist, part of a cult, or simple-minded, even though that decision is almost always an unexamined one.

As to Michael Pollan's book - I haven't read it yet, but I have read Singer's and he deals with many of the arguments in Pollan's book, as it came out later. As well, Singer cannot be said to be biased any more than Pollan is. Singer gives a well-researched, footnoted account of factual information and then moves into philosophy. One can clearly see where Singer is stating facts and where he is stating opinion. Singer has a personal bias towards veganism, but Pollan has a personal bias towards meat-eating. Meat-eating is a position just as much as veganism, which tends to get lost in any accusation of materials by vegan authors as "biased". Any author has a bias, as any good reader knows. That's why you look at their facts and research and evaluate it for yourself.

And as to "fake meat" tasting like meat - it actually really doesn't. I know plenty of vegans who won't eat fake meat if it tastes "too real". I also think that this idea of vegans all sitting around constantly chomping on their fake meat is a little silly. Fake meat is more of an occasional thing for most vegans, and a transitional thing for a lot of new vegetarians. Good cooking using whole foods is more the norm.

And as to this notion that it's bad for poor people or insulting for poor people in other countries not to eat meat, dairy and eggs! What? It actually probably helps those people because we're contributing less to things like global warming, which is currently causing huge unprecedented droughts in Africa. By using up more of the world's resources to eat animals, that's actually harmful to people in developing countries, as is importing an unsustainable westernized meat-based diets to countries that can't support it.

As to it being a luxury to be ethical - yes, in some cases it is. But why should that mean that those who can't afford it shouldn't do it? It is ethical, after all, as in good. I'm not exactly King Midas over here, either, but I do okay. I just make buying ethical food a priority over owning Season 6 of "Sex and the City" or whatever. Because in the long run, buying cheap food costs everybody more. You just outsource the cost onto animals, the environment and other people.

Excuse me, in my last post I meant:

"Does that mean those who CAN afford it shouldn't do it?"

People who are really poor should obviously feed their families however they can.

There isn't enough space for all animals to be what you would like to think of as "free range." 10 BILLION land animals are killed each year in the US for food.
http://www.cok.net/lit/freerange.php
You're not doing the animals any favor by eating them, which is what it sounds like you're trying to argue (that you can do more good for them by eating them than not). Those "free range" animals are still products, and their treatment reflects that. Free range chickens are not getting vet care for their infections and illnesses, etc. They're not loved pets. They're commodities, even on a free range farm. EVERY calf is taken away from it's mother on the day of it's birth or soon after even on so-called "humane" farms, so humans can take their milk. They may cry for each other for months. Real humane. You're a mammal. Let's say someone takes your baby on the day of it's birth and see if you like it.

my answer was to "blog junkie"

Dear Matt,

Looks like you've got your plate pretty full over here with lots of things to think about and lots of viewpoints to respond to! It seems kind of exhausting really!

I think that it's awesome that you're thinking about ways to live more ethically. Whether or not you were to ever go vegan, that willingness to learn about things and make changes based on them really inspires me and makes me feel happy about involving myself in thi blog.

There are definitely still parts of veganism - namely vegan philosophy - that would be useful to explore, and vital to explore in understanding what makes vegans tick. I don't know if it's something you'd have time to do in this week, however, since you do seem bombarded on all sides by viewpoints and information and, likely, your own thoughts.

But if you ever do get a chance, I would suggest reading "Animal Liberation" by the very "biased" (lol) Peter Singer.

I was handed that book about 2 weeks after going vegetarian, and I ended up crying myself to sleep over parts of it. But the strength of Singer's book is not in the gory details (though he includes some); it's in the philosophy.

Whether one agrees with it or not, Singer lays out the basis of the modern animal rights movement in his book. Lately, Singer is not so much in the good graces of many vegans and activists. But that book stands as an introduction to the notion of "speciesism" - the idea that our own species is somehow more deserving than any other, and the idea that therefore our insignificant interests should trump the far more significant interests of other animals.

As in - a person's taste preference for meat should trump the animal's desire for life and freedom.

Ethically, that's pretty shaky - life and freedom less important than taste? - unless you decide that animals are that much less significant or deserving of respect than humans.

Singer talks about speciesism and tries to see if there's any logical basis for it, and comes up with none. As a former philosophy major, what Singer said made sense to me. His arguments held and still hold for me. I could find no logical reason why a small human interest should trump a larger, vital animal interest. After reading Animal Liberation I knew that I would eventually have to go vegan to be in line with my own ethics.

I admit that when I first heard the term "speciesism" it sounded stupid. It's only been over a number of years of not eating or exploiting animals that I've started to really understand the term.

Still, Singer's book started my thought processes. I would say that it was one of the 5 most revolutionary reading experiences I've ever had. I think everyone should read it, because it examines an assumption that is almost never examined in this country.

I'm sure that at least someone will argue Singer's philosophy with me based on my short, inadequate synopsis. I hope that people will realize that I can't possibly do justice to a philosophy developed over the span of a whole book.

Dominion by Matthew Scully offers a completely different philosophical approach to the issue of animal rights and welfare - a religious conservative approach - yet comes to almost the same decisions as Singer from a practical day-to-day standpoint.

So yeah, I really commend you for doing the hard, unflinching work of watching "Earthlings" and looking into all these other things. Reading about animal rights and the philosophical underpinnings of the movement is the next step to understanding what it's all about. A lot of people don't bother with that, and sometimes I wonder if that accounts for the number of ex-vegans out there. For me, I just can't imagine going back. It would be like waking up one morning and deciding to cook my cats for breakfast. I mean, why not?

Speciesism?

What a bunch of fucking hippies.

http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/philosophy/animals/singer-text.html
There is a better version in the new Animal Liberation volume, but this is something to think about.

Watanabe, someone just wrote a thoughtful, intelligent response to what Matt is trying to do, and your response is childish, nasty, and essentially meaningless. I don't think you do your "argument" any favors when you resort to simple name-calling. What you show is that you don't HAVE an argument.

veggies are not worth a lot these days, their stock is dropping in the media market http://www.trendio.com

But it's so much fun to make chicken noises and say "fucking hippies" on the internets.

Since some are equating the otherwise non-lives of animals in the food industry with the civil rights struggle, are there any plans for a million chicken march on washington?

Have you ever seen chickens in a place like China? They live 'in the wild' and have to scrounge for their own food. They rape each other and peck each others' eyeballs out. Maybe it's just all the years of oppression.

Also, if you have a bone to pick with this whole "humans eating meat" thing, we're going to have to go back a ways to place the blame where it belongs. Probably a reptile or fish ancestor of ours. But who knows, maybe it's just a single-cell organism that invented eating another living thing.

I guess you can blame God, if you're into that sort of thing.

While I still support the humane killing and consumption of animals, I too have to say, Watanabe, stfu.

I understand some folks concern that 'free range' is just a marketing term. But please don't paint all free-range products as frauds, because it's simply not true. The problems are with the corporate meat industry trying to figure out how to exploit a new emerging market... but they're supplying the mega-chains with their token organic/free-range selection anyway, so it doesn't resemble the smaller, local farm operations that supply New Seasons, Zupans, and local co-ops. I've peeked behind the curtain, and it's a big difference.

People do need to read the label and think about local/sustainable options that are better. I avoid Horizon dairy products because they're not local (Maryland?) and their organic claims are perhaps dubious. But good, local dairy options are plentiful here, so I simply move on.

In all honesty, I feel more kinship with a vegan who is conscious of the food he/she eats than the traditional american omnivore. At the end of the day, these consumers need to heed some of the lessons from the vegan community about utilizing simple, organic elements into their diets. People need to regard meat in much the same way.

But Jennifer, your cat would totally eat you for breakfast. Not that I'm suggesting you should eat the cat before it eats you, but just that animals eating each other is a normal part of life. Humans are the only animal who make ethical considerations of what to eat. Just curious, what does Peter Singer say about omnivorous animals? Are they being speciesist?

Not to mention, people who live in areas where climate makes agriculture impossible and hunt for subsistence, like Inuit or Sami people. Should the entire province of Nunavut pack it in and move to Iowa? Or just start importing massive quantities of soy seal meat? Sustainably hunted animals from a stable wild population have a lower environmental impact than farmed plants or animals.

I do believe that if we want to avert an environmental catastrophe on this planet then we as a species need to drastically reassess our diet and system of agriculture. Part of that process is switching to a mostly plant-based diet. But it's also worth examining our destructive means of crop production too (not to mention our government corn subsidies, the reason why beef is 0.99/lb at fred meyer).

There are ways that animals can fit sustainably into our system of agriculture, but that means there will be a lot less of them. For instance, cows and sheep can pasture on land unsuitable for crop agriculture. If you are eating grass-fed beef then you are paying about what beef should cost, and that means people will be buying less.

And one final question for the silk and honey avoiding crowd, what about all the bugs and slugs that are killed as a process of plant agriculture? Even organic veggies that you buy at the farmer's market are most likely treated with BT or other bio poison. Doesn't this put lettuce on par with other insect-exploiting substances to be avoided?

hey bridge burners- why couldn't the Mercury have VIEWED and REVIEWED and/or blogged about this film Earthlings back in November when there was a free screening at the Hollywood theater?

In response to poo poo

You make many interesting points and they are ones that I have thought about over my years of being vegan.

1) Animals eat animals and humans are the only ones who make ethical considerations. True enough. We are also the only animals that make laws - does that mean that since it's natural not to make laws we shouldn't make laws, either? We are very lucky to have developed to the point where we can make better choices for ourselves, animals and the planet. Why shouldn't we do that? Many people say that we can ethically eat animals because they are lesser than us; we are somehow better. But then they turn around and say that we can eat animals because we are no different than animals; we're also animals "the same" so it's "natural" to eat animals. Kind of having one's cake and eating it too. And cats and wolves bear little relation to human beings. When's the last time you saw a human sprint after a wild animal, pounce on it and gnash it apart with their razor-sharp canines? It's no coincidence that most of us need tools, processing and cooking to eat animals; we're not as rabidly carnivorous as these arguments might suggest. Our closest animal relatives eat very little to no meat.

Secondly, animals may eat other animals, but they don't put other animals into confinement for years on end, nor do they eat ridiculous amounts of unnecessary food, nor do they end up ruining the environment they're living in by eating too much of the wrong kinds of foods. Humans are out of balance with the rest of the planet right now. Veganism can serve not only as an ethical decision, but a corrective to that unbalance.

And animals are of course, not being speciesist. They're surviving. People who live in most parts of the world today don't need to eat animals to survive. If people do live in parts of the world where animal food is the only food available, then of course that's what they should eat to survive. But is that the case for anyone reading this blog? I kind of doubt it.

As to silk and honey - Dr. Michael Gregor wrote an excellent article on this issue for Satya magazine. I believe I linked it under Day 2 of this blog. He has anticipated your concerns about insects. Not all vegans avoid honey and silk, although if people are able to, why not avoid them?

Veganism is about avoiding the main sources of suffering and death for animals and the main sources of environmental devastation. All the vegans I know try to extend the vegan lifestyle beyond avoiding animal products to eating organic and local foods, bike-commuting and many other environmental endeavors. Caring about animals also means caring about the environment.

We obviously can't be perfect, but neither are omnivores. We're all trying to do our best to save the planet. Veganism is one major way that people can contribute, but nobody's saying it's the only way or the end of the road in terms of living an ethical life.

In response to poo poo

You make many interesting points and they are ones that I have thought about over my years of being vegan.

1) Animals eat animals and humans are the only ones who make ethical considerations. True enough. We are also the only animals that make laws - does that mean that since it's natural not to make laws we shouldn't make laws, either? We are very lucky to have developed to the point where we can make better choices for ourselves, animals and the planet. Why shouldn't we do that? Many people say that we can ethically eat animals because they are lesser than us; we are somehow better. But then they turn around and say that we can eat animals because we are no different than animals; we're also animals "the same" so it's "natural" to eat animals. Kind of having one's cake and eating it too. And cats and wolves bear little relation to human beings. When's the last time you saw a human sprint after a wild animal, pounce on it and gnash it apart with their razor-sharp canines? It's no coincidence that most of us need tools, processing and cooking to eat animals; we're not as rabidly carnivorous as these arguments might suggest. Our closest animal relatives eat very little to no meat.

Secondly, animals may eat other animals, but they don't put other animals into confinement for years on end, nor do they eat ridiculous amounts of unnecessary food, nor do they end up ruining the environment they're living in by eating too much of the wrong kinds of foods. Humans are out of balance with the rest of the planet right now. Veganism can serve not only as an ethical decision, but a corrective to that unbalance.

And animals are of course, not being speciesist. They're surviving. People who live in most parts of the world today don't need to eat animals to survive. If people do live in parts of the world where animal food is the only food available, then of course that's what they should eat to survive. But is that the case for anyone reading this blog? I kind of doubt it.

As to silk and honey - Dr. Michael Gregor wrote an excellent article on this issue for Satya magazine. I believe I linked it under Day 2 of this blog. He has anticipated your concerns about insects. Not all vegans avoid honey and silk, although if people are able to, why not avoid them?

Veganism is about avoiding the main sources of suffering and death for animals and the main sources of environmental devastation. All the vegans I know try to extend the vegan lifestyle beyond avoiding animal products to eating organic and local foods, bike-commuting and many other environmental endeavors. Caring about animals also means caring about the environment.

We obviously can't be perfect, but neither are omnivores. We're all trying to do our best to save the planet. Veganism is one major way that people can contribute, but nobody's saying it's the only way or the end of the road in terms of living an ethical life.

Without getting into the ethical discussion as to the morality of killing animals for food (of which this has never been an issue with me), I would like to comment that I became a vegetarian due to the environmental, and societal (i.e. humane treatment) reasons only. After being a vegetarian for 10 years I re-assessed my beliefs and analyzed my possibilites. I determined that my reasons for becoming a vegetarian in the early 90's no longer applied. I found I could have a far more beneficial environmental, societeal, AND economic impact on the world (but most importantly my local community), NOT by being a vegetarian, but by purely focusing on buying only local products. This includes meat, but as I said, I don't have a problem with killing animals. But then again, I grew up in rural Oregon, surrounded by farms, sheep, and cows, and where my local grocery store posted polaroids of the cute little (now dead) animals with their owners above the meat cooler. Anyways, I digress. My main point is that if you are concerned with not just the morality of killing animals, but also the sustainable aspects of eating FOOD, I believe that by far the greatest impact you can have is to buy local products by local companies, whether or not that includes meat. This is one thing that I don't think a lot of vegans/vegetarians address enough.

And lastly, a personal observation, and maybe even a question (and yes, this is a stereotype): Out of all the people in this city I know, it is the vegans and vegetarians who do the most blow. Seriously!! Granted these are the friends I have and the people I'm exposed to and they are also urban/hipster/hippy/burner types, but jesus, it is SOOOOO HARD to take them seriously about their ethical, healthy and sustainable "lifestyle" when 10 minutes later I see them snorting enough coke to kill an elephant, maybe topping it off with a bit of E, and then drinking til dawn.

PS I've really enjoyed reading the vegan perspectives I've seen here. I still haven't changed my mind, but you're mostly intelligent discourse is enlightening and refreshing.

Dan—thank you! Your first paragraph perfectly articulated my line of thinking, which I've been having trouble articulating. I, too, opted to start eating meat after a decade of vegetarianism, but had so many thoughts and reasons in my brain that it was hard to put them all together explain why in less than 100 words (because EVERYONE asked. How do you explain over a year of soul searching that quickly? My process for deciding to eat meat was a hell of lot more thoughtful than my one for going veggie). I'm going to print and save your comment—tuck it into my wallet.

Thanks, Jennifer for answering my questions. I'll probably never be vegan but it's nice to know that there are a lot of thoughtful people making well-informed decisions about what they eat. And to answer one of your questions:

Not all vegans avoid honey and silk, although if people are able to, why not avoid them?

One reason why I use these materials is because they can be more environmentally sustainable than the alternatives. Bees take a naturally occuring substance that is indigestible by humans and transform it into a digestible food. There are several superb varieties of locally grown honey available here. Sugar cane must be grown on farms far away from Oregon, then harvested and processed with energy intensive machinery. this argument could be made about other non-vegan products too. It's not always true that if there's an animal involved it must be bad for the planet.

I personally can't get over the labels attached to diet choices. For instance, someone who cooks all their own food from scratch using organic ingredients and whole grains is in the same category as a person who subsists on fritos and pillsbury crescent rolls, as long as they don't eat any animal products. But someone who cooks their own food from scratch and also eats eggs from their own chickens or fish from a sustainable fishery is in the same category as a person who eats at mcdonalds three times a day. I'm sure nobody here would fess up to it, but there are some pretty snotty and elitist vegans out there (as well as some real a-hole meat fans).

In response to Dan -

The first vegans I ever met did heroin. They were friends of a friend and I too thought that was a little weird, though not necessarily ethically inconsistent since they're only destroying themselves.

However, I don't know (or know of) any vegans now who use anything harder than marijuana. And those who do drink or smoke pot do so very infrequently. My omni friends are generally the big drinkers and stoners.

So this is definitely a stereotype based in a certain group of acquaintances. I think if you attended the Vegan Holiday Festival or NW Veg's VegFest you would see that vegans represent a substantial cross-section of people, many of us very dull. (;

As to the local angle - I definitely try to eat locally as a vegan. It's very possible to do this, especially in Oregon where many vegan companies are based. Peter Singer, however, writes a very compelling comparison of organic vs. local produce in his book The Way We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter, showing that while people generally believe that buying local always trumps everything, sometimes just as much energy is consumed to move things around locally. I can't reproduce his research here, so please check that book out of the library if you're interested. The whole book is very well worth reading.

That said, I have my doubts that eating meat is more sustainable, even if it's local. Just the fact that you not only have to feed an animal and/or take up land for that animal to graze is a substantial use of resources that no vegetable on its own requires. Water is also needed for the animal, as well as transport to and from slaughterhouses and processing. Finally, if you're talking about cattle, the recent studies related to global warming and diet show that methane (yes, cow farts) are a major contributor to the global warming problem. Since methane is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2, smaller amounts do more damage. I think Matt linked to the press release about the Gidon and Eshel study in one of the previous entries, as well you can google Diet and Global Warming and access the pdf of the full, peer-reviewed study. Another site you might want to look at is Center for Science in the Public Interest's new site - Six Arguments for a Greener Diet - they go over the varying environmental impacts of different food choices. I don't know if they specifically deal with locally grown meat, but they do deal with the impact of grass-fed meat in their calculator and scorecard. They are not affiliated with any vegan organization.

- Jen

Day five, up now!

http://www.portlandmercury.com/blogtown/2007/01/being_a_vegan_day_five_you_are_what_you_eat.php

Jennifer,

I appreciate your comments. One thing I would like to note however, is that true sustainability is not just the "environmental" impact. But also equally important are the societal and economic factors. You are of course right that eating meat is not as environmentally sustainable as not eating meat, even if it's local. However, by my choosing to support a local company who raises meat in a humane manner I am creating social and economic equity by supporting a smaller farmer who has less resources than industrial farmers, and the money am spending is staying in my local community. THIS is what is important to me. Sustainablity is not just the environmental impact of my choices, and perhaps that's an additional point I should have emphasized.

Dan, go to day five, up now. Jen's off and running already...

Damnit people, it all comes down to respect......do some research on the sentience of plants......EVERYTHING IS ALIVE.......this problem of the brutiality of animals/humans/plants/the WHOLE EARTH.......comes from the base problem of A BASIC LACK OF RESPECT!!!! AAARRRUUGHHHHHH!!! stop arguing amongst yourselves and join together to stop the actual problem......

Damnit people, it all comes down to respect......do some research on the sentience of plants......EVERYTHING IS ALIVE.......this problem of the brutiality of animals/humans/plants/the WHOLE EARTH.......comes from the base problem of A BASIC LACK OF RESPECT!!!! AAARRRUUGHHHHHH!!! stop arguing amongst yourselves and join together to stop the actual problem......