The Vegetarian's Dilemma
As a new father who (ages ago) did a short stint as a press secretary, I'm already thinking ahead to the questions my son will throw at me. Yes, I know 8-month-old Isaac can't even say "Dad" yet, but these questions are coming, and I'm sure they're going to be way tougher than the ones reporters usually lob at Washington politicians. (OK, in the current age of media obsequiousness, that's not saying much.)
So I'm planning for answers — and, as any press secretary knows, that requires thinking about what evokes the queries in the first place.
The toy pistol question, for instance — Isaac will see a friend with a cap gun and ask why he can't have one. (Answer: Devices that kill people shouldn't be the basis for playthings.) The tackle-football question — he'll ask me why I don't want him to play. (Answer: because football can cause long-term brain damage.) The existential questions about God and life and death — ugh, I don't want to even begin thinking about those.
But before any of these inquiries are but a twinkle in Isaac's eye, I know I'm going to face an interrogation about vegetarianism. At some point soon, he'll ask why our family doesn't eat this stuff called "meat" that's everywhere.
I have my substantive answers already lined up, so I'm not worried about what I'll tell him. (We don't eat meat because it's unhealthy, environmentally irresponsible, expensive and inhumane.) With this question, I'm more concerned about the prompting. Why is he almost certainly going to ask at such an early age?
I think I know the answer — and it's not the ad campaigns that make meat seem like a rational choice ("Beef: It's What's for Dinner"), a healthy alternative food ("Pork: The Other White Meat") or a compassionate cuisine decision (Chik-fil-A's billboards, which show a cow begging you to spare his life by choosing chicken). No, Isaac's going to have questions because of the grocery — more specifically, because of the vegetarian aisle that subliminally glorifies meat-eating.
I realize that sounds like an oxymoron, but the next time you go shopping, imagine what a kid gleans from veggie burgers, veggie bacon, veggie sausage patties, veggie hot dogs, Tofurky and all the other similar fare that defines a modern plant-based diet. While none of it contains meat, it's all marketed as emulating meat. In advertising terms, that's the "unique selling proposition" — to give you the epicurean benefits of meat without any of meat's downsides.
Obviously, this isn't some conspiracy whereby powerful meat companies are deliberately trying to bring vegetarians into the megachurch of flesh eaters. If anything, it's the opposite: It's the vegetarian industry selling itself to meat eaters by suggesting that its products aren't actually all that different from meat. The problem is how that message, like so many others in American culture, reinforces the wrongheaded notion that our diet should be fundamentally based on meat.
For those who have chosen to be vegetarians, this message is merely annoying. But for those like Isaac who are being raised as vegetarians, the message is downright subversive. It teaches them that as tasty as vegetarian food may be, it can never compete with the "real thing."
That message will undoubtedly inform Isaac's early curiosity — and maybe his questions won't be such a bad thing. Maybe they'll motivate me to spend more time in the supermarket's raw produce section, and maybe my ensuing discussion with Isaac will help him better understand why our family has made this culinary choice.
However, that doesn't mean the subtle propaganda won't ultimately win out, thus adding another carnivore to a destructively meat-centric society.
David Sirota is a best-selling author of the new book "Back to Our Future: How the 1980s Explain the World We Live In Now." He hosts the morning show on AM760 in Colorado. E-mail him at ds@davidsirota.com, follow him on Twitter @davidsirota or visit his website at www.davidsirota.com.
COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM
|
 |
Comments
|
11 Comments | Post Comment
|
|
Hey, are you a first time daddy? Can't wait to micro-manage little Isaac's life, mold him into the model citizen that you find lacking in all others, even as you walk self righteously down the vegetarian aisle. Not up to your standards, eh? Got four myself, and they are delightful and a joy; this in spite of the fact that one enjoys football. Well, you've been given your little bundle of chemistry set, don't blow it. Write another column in 20 years, that should give us the relief we need from your smarmy self. Your last paragraph already disclaims responsibility for how Isaac turns out, you can always blame society. How liberal of you!
Comment: #1
Posted by: Tom
Thu Aug 18, 2011 8:38 PM
|
|
|
|
Not being a parent myself, I hadn't realized that my fellow peace-and-love liberals might be giving their children just as much stuff to rebel against as do Bible-thumping Republicans. Hope you enjoy your son's teen years!
(I could also point out how irresponsible it is to reproduce, given the population explosion that's threatening to destroy civilization. But I won't.)
Comment: #2
Posted by: Steven Doyle
Fri Aug 19, 2011 5:55 AM
|
|
|
|
As an 88 year-old great-grandmother, I say "More power to you!" in your attempt to do the right thing for little Issac. I admire you for your decisions and wish you a great loving and caring relationship with your new son. My own two sons found their athletic outlets in swimming and the martial arts--with my blessings. I am also convinced a plant-based diet is far healthier and certainly much more ethical than one of chemicalized animals raised and slaughtered under questionable conditions at best.
Comment: #3
Posted by: Joanna Garrett
Fri Aug 19, 2011 11:03 AM
|
|
|
|
Re: Steven
I came back thinking I might have been hard on the brand new daddy, I do know how proud, hopeful, and exhilerating new parenthood can be. I don't know why, Sirota just grates on me like a young Conason. I was so struck by your parenthetical comment, it made me sad. At what point in history have people lived better than now? All political discussion aside, children represent hope for the future. There lies the dichotomy of modern liberalism, a belief in people's right to choose mixed bitterly with a menacing fingerpoint at almost anything someone might actually choose. For example, they are all for reproductive choices, just not much in favor of reproducing. Whence a wagged finger and reminder that population explosion is a killer. All of our history shows a clear progression, when has mankind been better off? 50 years ago? 150 years ago? Yeah, there are wars, and there are very poor conditions for many people, yet we are all better off than even a century ago/ I just can't get with the dystopian view. We move on, always. Petroleum companies will one day die a natural death as something else comes along. Whale oil producers were huge in the first part of the 19th century. Where are they now? We moved up and on. As we most likely shall continue to do if given the room to grow. There is no need to see a little old lady freeze in her home for lack of energy, and I blame liberals for such a condition because there is no workable form of energy production they do not oppose, and don't think the energy producers don't use these "useful idiots" to jack up the price. Liberals are a grim lot who see no hope, and children are the essence of hope.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Tom
Fri Aug 19, 2011 12:17 PM
|
|
|
|
Today is the first time I ever felt the urge to create food porn.
I made a beautiful lunch today. From my Angelic Organics box I had roasted eggplant covered in sauteed chopped onions, tomatoes and basil with feta cheese; fresh sweet corn; salad with sliced fennel and granny smith apples and a home made lime dressing; sliced heirloom tomato with shredded parmesan cheese and Tuscan Italian dressing.
With food like that, who needs meat?
Comment: #5
Posted by: Cynthia
Sat Aug 20, 2011 12:59 PM
|
|
|
|
The way the economy keeps sinking people will be reduced to eating weeds and bugs to survive. BTW, Cynthia Feta and Parmesan cheeses come from those filthy, despicable, unhealthy ANIMALS. What a loony-tune world vegetarians and vegans live in.
Comment: #6
Posted by: David Henricks
Sat Aug 20, 2011 6:05 PM
|
|
|
|
Food porn?
Comment: #7
Posted by: Tom
Sun Aug 21, 2011 7:58 AM
|
|
|
|
David,
Rather than abuse or praise you with some useless rhetoric, I will present some reasons why vegetarians ought to be happy that food producers make meat substitutes. First, I suppose we agree that, given the current way of raising and slaughtering animals, animals suffer. I won't address any other reasons why one should not eat meat, but the reduction of animal suffering is a reason not to eat meat. So, it would reduce some animal suffering if some more people didn't eat meat. I will claim that having meat substitutes makes it easier for some people to cease eating meat. And so, in general, if a thing makes it easier for a person to cease eating meat, that thing is good, insofar as it reduces animal suffering. And I would claim that there are at least a few people who became vegetarians because having meat substitutes made it easier than it might have otherwise been. The fact that it is a good thing to have meat substitutes should outweigh any facts that having these meat substitutes in a store makes one feel uncomfortable, or complicates one life in some way. So, a vegetarian should be happy with the good, and not made unhappy with the discomfort.
Mitchell
Comment: #8
Posted by: Mitchell
Sun Aug 21, 2011 1:25 PM
|
|
|
|
Dear David Sirota,
I admire and appreciate your work covering economics, policy, and politics. This post is more personal, and I would like to respond directly to the assumptions made in it. For your family's sake as well as your own, please consider reading "The Myth of Vegetarianism" by Lierre Keith, a current and longtime environmental activist and former vegan. Veganism destroyed her health. While the body has innate wisdom and self-healing capacities, not all conditions are ultimately reversible. Nor is the condition of the land that has been appropriated for agriculture for too many centuries. Yet it is certainly worth undoing as much destruction as possible.
I also encourage you to check out the Weston Price Foundation. Price was an early 20th-century dentist who traveled to indigenous cultures throughout the world to discover what made them so healthy compared to modern urban dwellers of "civilization."
His findings surprised him. As expected, their diets were as varied as their different tribes and cultures, but a few elements common to all stood out: (1) they ate the same traditional foods their ancestors had for many generations - which included nothing requiring modern processing to be edible (as grains, flours, and soy products are); (2) none were vegetarian; (3) all ate a high-fat diet, anywhere between 30% and 80% of total calories; (4) the parts of animal food considered most valuable were organ meats and fat; (5) if sources of animal fat and protein were not available in the immediate environment, members of the group would travel up to 4 or 5 days' distance to secure such foods, especially for pregnant women and young children. When Price asked the different tribes and villagers why they went to such lengths to maintain these eating patterns, they responded: "to make perfect babies."
Surely you realize that arguments comparing plant-based agriculture with the factory farm system are specious. The real comparison needs to be between agribiz and factory livestock as against small organic plant-based farming and humanely and organically raised livestock. There is no way to grow crops without animal products for soil amendments and fertilizer unless resorting to petrochemically-based synthetic materials.
I wish you and your family health, happiness, and fulfillment.
Sincerely,
Madolin Wells
Comment: #9
Posted by: Madolin Wells
Mon Aug 22, 2011 12:43 PM
|
|
|
|
Mitchell,
Excellent point! I was thinking along those same lines as I was reading David's article. Since the meat industry has been around far longer than meat substitutes, it only makes sense that the substitutes would have to be made to look/taste/feel like meat, otherwise why would meat-eaters make the switch? In the end, what's most important is getting people to switch and the more people who switch the better. These products are really meant to be a substitute for meat, not vegetables so they naturally have to appeal to existing meat eaters -- they aren't trying to get people who don't eat or like meat to eat their products. So I don't believe they are the problem or solution that David makes them out to be. Only education of the public about the problems with meat can help fight the industry propaganda (granted, this is a nearly impossible fight, but it needs to be had).
David Henricks - get a clue. Animals aren't slaughtered to make cheese. And for those who are still concerned about the abuse of factory farm animals, they can go organic. Furthermore, one has the option of becoming a vegan if they so choose. Just because you don't understand something doesn't make it "looney". And no one (besides you) listed as a reason for vegetarians not eating meat because animals are dirty. You've created a straw man argument for Cynthia (as those on the right so frequently do when they have no good points to make) just so you could bash vegetarianism. Nice.
Tom - You always have the option to go away if you really want the "relief" you "need from <David's> smarmy self"! No one is making you read his columns (unless of course you are one of those people who are paid to harass liberal blogs and get paid by the negative post). The rest of us would all appreciate the relief we need from YOUR smarmy self (and twisted thoughts that never make any sense). You don't understand what liberalism is and from your posts it appears you really don't understand what conservative ideology is either.
Comment: #10
Posted by: A Smith
Tue Aug 23, 2011 5:00 AM
|
|
|
|
Al, Al, Al, whatever have I done to make you treat me so poorly? Is Sirota really worth allowing our mutual respect to wither and die on the vine? I read smarmy David because I read everything. I take a bite, nibble around the corners, come back, and then make up my own mind, so I never comment with terms like "industry propoganda" or phrases such as, "(...this is a nearly impossible fight, but it needs to be had)." I admit I didn't bother to nibble on that one. Your right, I don't understand liberalism, and I might not understand conservatism, but I never say anything "twisted", no degenerate here, and I always make sense, your decoding issues are your own. Just because you don't understand me doesn't make me "looney", I think that is how you phrase it. As for going away, nah, I'm having too much fun.
Comment: #11
Posted by: Tom
Mon Aug 29, 2011 11:03 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
