±«Óãtv

Stephen's right ... the case for vegetarianism only got stronger if you want to live longer. Some people make an argument for vegetarianism on that basis of course. They argue that turning veggie is healthier and helps someone live longer. Seems like there's some truth to that. Stephen clearly doesnt care for longeivity or healthiness ... the candle that burns brightest burns out first!

I care primarily for happiness. I'd rather live 70 happy years than 90 semi-happy or 120 miserable. I don't believe prolonging life is itself intrinsically good.

And remember there are some quotes at the end of Williams link that anyone pushing such an argument must bear in mind.

SG

A key point which is high up the ±«Óãtv article is that American cattle are legally pumped up with steriods.
The study was done on US women.

This is why US meat is barred from import into the EU where steriods in cattle are illegal.

So perhaps these risks do not apply to women in the EU.
PB

Just in case anyone can't be bothered clicking on the link, here's a few quotes worth bearing in mind:

Dr Sarah Rawlings, of the Breakthrough Breast Cancer charity, said: "Very little is known about diet and breast cancer risk because we eat a variety of foods and separating out the effect of an individual food is difficult."

She added: "Previous studies looking at red meat and breast cancer have been inconclusive.

And Maria Leadbeater, nurse specialist at Breast Cancer Care, added:

"Further studies will need to be done to fully establish the exact nature of any link between a diet high in red meat and breast cancer.

"The benefits of eating a healthy and varied diet are well established and the biggest risk factors for breast cancer remain gender and increasing age."

This last quote is highly important. If gender is a bigger factor than eating meat then perhaps rather than conclude that the case for vegetarianism got stronger we should perhaps argue that the case for female sex changes has got stronger.

SG

The pertinent information in the results of this study is in the quantity of red meat consumed. The researchers contrasted women who ate more than one and a half servings per day - a LOT - with women who ate three or fewer servings per week. At no time did the results of the study indicate that a vegetarian diet was healthier than the three or fewer servings of red meat per week; yet again the answer is moderation, not abstinence.

Saying that this study recommends a vegetarian diet is like saying that a study documenting the negative effects of binge drinking recommends being teetotal. The answer is moderation (and we know that drinking wine regularly has various health benefits, for example).

I think most meat-eaters could be fairly satisfied with consuming three or fewer servings of red meat per week... I already fall into that category.

John:

I agree. I would add that these results only show correlation - not causation, so to use them as an argument for vegetarianism would be logically fallicious.

I must say that I'm amazed that any vegetarian would even suggest this report as anything like an argument or argument strengthener for their case. It smacks of desperation.

SG

As a vegetarian I would also be cautious reading the report that red meat may contribute to a greater risk of breast cancer. That said, there are many health reasons not to eat meat (saturated fat, cholesterol, growth hormones, antibiotics etc.).

I doubt many will convert to vegism for health or other ethical reasons (e.g. animal rights, climate change) in N. Ireland. But we do eat much more meat than we use to and it's often low quality and adulterated (Cf latest BSE scare in the province).

I think Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall's new Thursday evening Channel 4 show in which he tries to get people to think about how their meat lives and and dies - is a step in the right direction. Lots of meat is not good for you - especially if it's factory farmed.

Well...obviously lots is not good, but that applies to most things. Try eating only lettuce for a month and see what happens to you. Can you rightly conclude at the end of such an experiment that lettuce is bad for you? And, while it is true that meat can be high in many chemical-nasties, it is true also that vegetables can be too.

Lastly, perhaps the reason so few are persuaded by the "ethical" case for vegetarianism is because that case is wafer thin? Hey, I'm just asking...

SG

Haha William! ..... us libertarians are well represented on this blog, I'll tell ya that. :-)

I think the real message I take from this link is that we should all eat our steak rare.

I prefer medium-rare, but it's hard to get a good medium-rare steak in Ireland - we Irish always over-cook everything, and since this fact means mushy vegetables everywhere you go, you get just one more reason to keep meat in your diet.

SG

Meat is such an emotive issue. It tastes good and few people are willing to curb their enthusiasm for it. It is tied in with tradition, social outlook and even masculinity.

I don't agree that the ethical argument for vegism is wafer thin. I don't think anyone argues that factory farming gives animals a natural or decent life. We don't need to eat flesh to live, we choose to.

Most people decline to inform themselves about the food the eat (veg as well as meat) because it might mean they will learn something that will stop them indulging a certain pleasure.

Unfortunately, this strategy will come back to bite us one way or another.

V.S.:

Meat is linked to masculinity? What?

Your first response to my comment about the case for veggism concerns factory farming, as if meat eating is inextricably linked to that practice, which, of course, it isn't. Your second response is that we don't need meat to live - true, but hardly worth saying really. We don't need green vegetables to live either, but they're one of many things we could eat to do that job. No food in and of itself is "essential."

As for not informing ourselves, that's true of many people, as you point out. For myself I was nearly a veggie. I was initially persuaded by Peter Singer - until I suddenly realised I disagreed with the fundamentals of his ethics, regardless of how brilliantly he argues from them. I got literature from many animal rights / veggie groups about going veggie and why. I count myself, perhaps arrogantly, to be well informed.

SG

There is a macho element to meat consumption - it's something real men do! Burger King has recently used this theme in an ad for it's latest megaburger. It has associations with male hunter roles and virility. Why is it, for example, usually men who perform the meat cooking rituals at barbeques?

We should be informed about what we eat. If you have thought about your diet and can justify to yourself the killing of other beings for the sole reason of appeasing your palate that is, at least, better than just blindly eating whatever the agribusiness/fast food/supermarket corporations tell you to eat.

However, I find myself in agreement with well-known carnvivore Hugh Fearnley Whittingstall who avers that you should only eat meat if you are prepared to raise and kill it yourself. I am not and I imagine many other would be veggies too if they had to kill their own turkey twizzlers.

I was always a little confused by vegetarianism in practice.

Carmine is a food colouring made from the acid of the cochineal insect - it's great stuff, used for its brilliant red hue in products like strawberry yoghurt, ruby red grapefruit juice, etc. Will vegetarians look for and avoid carmine (and all its various labels; E120, Natural Red 4, Crimson Lake, Cochineal, etc.) in every product they consume? If not, how is that consistent? If so, do they also eliminate the wearing of clothing coloured with cochineal and many other such practices?

Gelatin (in the U.S.) or gelatine (in the U.K.) is made by boiling animal bones, tissue and skin. From that we get the collagen, which creates that fantastic jelly that we use in gummy bears, gummy blue sharks, Jell-O or jelly, and a million other products. I've yet to meet a vegetarian who would not consume gummy bears and these million other products out of principal.

Why?

VS:

Meat consumption is something women do too, no? Come on, isn't this the world's thinnest argument you've latched on to?

I should only eat meat if I am prepared to raise and kill it myself, huh? Perhaps I should only eat vegetables I plant myself in my own backyard too, eh? Maybe farmers are the only people who have a right to the food chain.

Anyhow. I don't know if this counts but I have caught, killed, prepared and eaten fish. I'm not terribly squeamish about this sort of thing and doubt that I'd have a problem killing animals for food myself. But, hey, maybe I'm just trying to show how macho I am, eh?

SG

Well you just met one.
I am a vegan and an avid label reader. Many veggies prefer to avoid processed foods because of the additives you mention. Many avoid wearing wool, leather or silk and eating honey or dairy products. Gelatine substitutes from seaweed (agar agar or carrageen) are sometimes used by those who need a jelly fix.

I should be clear that no diet avoids the suffering and killing of other beings (how many insects etc are killed just ploughing a field for potatoes?). I would guess too that most vegans do have to compromise occasionally - my mother for example thinks macaroni cheese is suitable for vegans and I haven't the heart to turn it down when I go for Sunday lunch.

We may not all be 100% consistent in our moral outrage but who is? Perhaps too we are a preachy lot. However, animals do suffer pain and none of them wants to die. Killing one so that I might enjoy a particular gustatory sensation from its flesh is not morally defensible and disregarding vegetarianism on the grounds that all vegetarians are not perfect is hardly reasonable.

VS- What do you do when mice infest your home? Or flies, cockroaches, other vermin? What do you do when lice infest your hair? Do you ever blow your nose with antibacterial kleenex? What do you wash your hands with after using the bathroom? Do not all of these practices involve killing innocent beings?

Well SG you certainly prove my point that meat eating is an emotive topic. Let me point out that I am not making an ad hominem attack on you nor do I think that your position is merely macho swagger.

My point is that meat eating is immoral. We cannot help but cause suffering to produce food but we can reduce the amount of that suffering by not killing animals directly for consumption. I would be interested to know why you think it is justifiable to cause suffering to another being when you don't have to.

Reducing meat consumption has so many benefits for health, the environment and the suffering of animals it just seems a no-brainer to me.

VS- I appreciate what you say above and respect the fact that you are a believer enough that you actually practice what you preach. Do you think that vegetarians are merely nervous vegans? Or maybe vegetarians are unprincipaled vegans, like environmentalists who drive cars?

Hi John,
I think it is important not to be holier-than-thou in these matters. If someone feels they cannot give up meat then perhaps they could try eating less and eating organic - at least that way there is a chance the poor beast had a decent life and a quick death. Daily meat eating is only a relative recent (post WWII) phenomenon in this part of the world.

If one can become a lacto-ovo vegetarian
that's better but you should be aware that milk and especially egg production involves much unecessary suffering and death (what do you think happens to all the male chicks that are hatched - gassed and turned into cattle feed usually, FYI).

Best, to my mind, is to avoid animal products altogether but it takes time to do. I started by eating less meat, then going veggie for many years and then finally deciding that dairy and egg consumption was not defensible either. The lacto-ovo veggie position is hardly morally consistent but I would not denigrate anyone who holds to it.

What is important is people know where their foods comes from, what's in it and that their dietary choices have health, environmental and moral consequences.

VA / Anon - Although I disagree with your position, I basically have no problem with what you've just said, and I applaud you for having the ideological faithfulness to live it out. I, of course, also agree that there are ethical considerations with regard to what we eat (and with regard to anything we do, really) and that too few are interested in considering them.

VS:

It really depends on what ethic you adhere to and what your moral foundations are. Your ethic seems to be some breed of utilitarianism, which to many people appears to be the only ethic on the market, so to speak. Your ethic seems to be the kind of utilitarianism - similar to someone like Peter Singer - which holds the reduction of suffering to be paramount. I don't adhere to utilitarianism, and have many philosophical problems with it. Ultimately I think it's intellectually bankrupt, practically impossible and at odds with the kind of beings we actually are. As for me, I'm, broadly speaking, an egoist. I believe that to speak of value requires a valuer - a mind to actually do the valuing, and I think it's fairly basic that we value those things in terms of our own rational self-interest - despite the fact that this is often dressed up as altruism. As far as, say, the life of a cow goes I do not value it much apart from the fact that it is good to eat them, their skin is usual for all kinds of things - from coats to shoes to drum skins - but other than that I have little empathy with a cow. I have no desire to torture or maltreat animals for no reason. But, to kill them and eat them? I have no reason not to. Perhaps if you could convince first of your ethic, satisfy me that it's foundations hold, then perhaps I might be on my way to a vegetarian lifestyle.

SG

SG:
The alleviation of all suffering is impossible but I do not want to live a life where I merely scramble to secure my own comfort and bugger everyone/thing else. It is not a life worth living.

Altruism is self-serving - you are correct. Benefitting others actually - in the long term - benefits ourselves. Not killing animals for food can benefit our own health, the environment and society we inhabit. I see no reason not to engage in altruistic behaviour - in fact I think it's dumb not to.

Your thinking seems profoundly dualistic but your self and other beings are not entirely different. In fact it is the universal experience of suffering that unites all sentient beings. Can you really not empathise with a cow's wish to avoid pain and death?

Taken to it's logical conclusion your position would result in monomania. There is always a danger that this form of libertarianism will slip into libertinism.

PS Apologies for forgetting to sign previous post.

VS:

Egoism isn't about securing our own well-being and bugger everything else. Egoists know full well that their lot is bound up with the lot of others in many instances. Not killing animals, you claim, benefits me. But then again, killing them for food also does. So, acting in my own self-interest I should balance those benefits in my mind and choose accordingly. I choose to eat meat because the benefits of so doing are greater to me than the benefits of not doing so. I value eating meat higher than any potential risk to my health - whatever risk there actually is.

With regards to monomania - my version of egoism is a million miles from that. As I said above, any rational egoist will acknowledge that in many cases their happiness is bound up with the lot of others. But, as far as eating, say, a cow goes to me the balance tilts against vegetarianism. Now, obviously you make your own judgment - bacause you value differently to me. Your happiness is, apparently, bound up with cows and pigs in a way that makes you view the matter radically differently. And that's fine. Each man and woman makes his own decision to suit him or herself

That is the essence of egoism, and the essence of libertarianism.

SG

Very good site!