Skip to content

On Eating Less Meat vs. Eating Fewer Animals

I’ve got myself a Gray Matter in Mark Bittman’s "Putting Meat Back in its Place." Similar to "Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler"
from January, his modus operandi is: there are many reasons to decrease your consumption of animal products (actually, he says "eat less meat"), and though he mentions that some might abstain for ethical reasons ("or even irrational" ones, and I have no idea what that means), he doesn’t ever take a stand.

I think everyone should eat fewer animals. Preferably none. Being the linguist that I am, however, I don’t interpret "eating fewer animals" the same way I interpret "eat less meat."

Let’s deconstruct:

Meat, though it might produce a visual, won’t produce the same visual as animal, as animal is the whole sentient human, face and all, and meat does not ordinarily have whole or face as features, which makes it easier to deny from whence it came. Practically speaking, however, when you eat less meat, fewer pounds of animals must be involved (in total), right?

Bittman does provide some useful tips in his list of ways to "ease your path to eating less meat."

  • The first tip is "Forget the protein thing," wherein he provides helpful information about grams of protein per calorie (with non-animal sources coming out on top). But his advice is to be omnivorous despite the fact that he just said that "per calorie, many plants have more protein than meat." My initial response was: If protein, the much-touted reason to eat animals, isn’t even a valid reason, why eat them at all?
  • "Buy less meat" is sort of a weirdly-obvious tip, but I’d like to see it as "Buy fewer foods made from animals," as it reminds you of what you’re doing.
  • I find it strange that he insists, "We’re not discussing vegetarianism, remember?" and if you click on the link provided you end up at the "Health Guide," which tells you that protein may be lacking in a vegetarian’s diet, and mentions the 1980s belief that food combining is necessary to get complete proteins. Great–advice that’s both dated and inaccurate, and makes it look difficult to be healthy and not eat animals. Not to mention the fact that vegetarianism includes eggs and products made from milk, and I don’t see how vegetarians could ever lack protein.
  • There’s some cooking advice for beans and grains that’s fine, though Earth Balance can easily replace butter. Then again, Bittman doesn’t address eggs or products made from cow’s milk at all; he focuses on flesh.
  • Above all, Bittman, like Pollan, doesn’t want anyone to feel like they’re missing anything. And I suppose that’s why he never takes a moral stand. To have a personal ethic and to live by it usually involves a change in one’s lifestyle more substantial than moving the animal flesh from the center of the plate (his tip #3).
  • Probably the most revealing of Bittman’s beliefs is: "Once in a while, forget the rules and pledges, and eat like a real American; obviously you can’t do this every time, but it’s an option." (This is, I suppose, akin to Singer and Mason’s Paris Exemption.) This tells me that if you don’t have an ethic that underlies your behavior, you have no reason to stick with the behavior. You can "eat like a real American," which I interpret as an insult as it means you’ll probably be gorging on food that isn’t good for you or the planet, and obviously makes no attempt to respect sentient nonhumans.

My biggest problem with Bittman and Pollan is their unwillingness to take a stand for animals. Of course, that would take them out of the mainstream, and their audience would decrease accordingly because the fact is, as we’ve all been saying for quite some time: Americans simply want to eat animals, and will concoct all manner of excuses and tips and paths that make sure they can continue to do so. And they’re not about to allow a little discussion about ethics to get in their way.

It’s our job to call things or processes or animals what they are, and to persuade people to at least entertain the question of whether it’s morally justifiable to kill someone when you don’t need to. It’s a culture shift, it’s a language shift, it’s a dietary shift, it’s a consumer shift, it’s the shift of several interconnected paradigms. And it won’t happen unless we are committed to making it happen.

6 Comments Post a comment
  1. Mary, why is this a "Gray Matter"?

    He advocates "meat as a treasure" and "tweaking" how humans consume the muscles, skin, fatty tissues, and internal organs of sentient nonhumans. It's morally odious and unmistakably inimical to the abolitionist message. These Bittman articles seem no less black and white than the wisdom of "tweaking" the treatment of the nonhumans we exploit (welfarism).

    Ethical reasons for eating "less meat"?. Clearly Bittman subscribes to Jay Weinstein's "Ethical Gourmet" school of morality. There are only ethical reasons for eating NO "meat", which encompass many other forms of exploitation as well.

    Also, you write: "I think everyone should eat fewer animals. Preferably none."

    You often seem distraught at our lack of progress toward eradicating nonhuman exploitation. Perhaps wielding phrases that are less equivocal and more honest will help? Does Mary Martin really PREFER that everyone eat no animals? I don't think so. That wording certainly does not reflect veganism as a moral imperative. Observe:

    I think all parents should abuse their children less. Preferably none.
    I think college students should date rape fewer peers. Preferably none.

    Finally, I do agree that "meat" (as with "leather", "wool", et cetera) operates euphemistically and helps to obscure horrors. The more terms we can unpack the better.

    June 13, 2008
  2. Nathan,
    My Gray Matter is purely linguistic. We all want people to eat fewer animals. We advocate going vegan one day (or even one meal!) a week, and then another, and so on, in the transition to veganism if doing it overnight is out of the question.

    My Gray Matter is: "Eating less meat" isn't the same as "eating fewer animals" or having more meals without animals in them, HOWEVER, the net result could very well be the same (fewer animals being slaughtered). Shouldn't we be for–not eating certain kinds of animal products from nonhumans raised or killed in a certain way–but eating fewer of them? Don't we agree with Bittman and Pollan, in part?

    When I say I think everyone should eat fewer animals, and preferably none, that is how I honestly feel. I'd rather you eat fewer animals than more, (like by increasing the number of animal-free meals or days) and none is my ideal. If someone is never going to stop eating animals, do you not try to persuade them to at least have some animal-free meals? Those meals represent fewer animals being bred for human consumption. Isn't that your goal? How is that dishonest?

    I'm not one to use the child abuse and rape analogies. My strategy is to present my thoughts in a way my listener will be receptive to them, and I have used those analogies but found them too problematic, plus I can do better job without them.

    In my experience, helping people examine what they do and why they do it is far more effective (with regard to getting them to go vegan) than telling them what is right and wrong. That just shuts their ears and/or makes them defensive.

    Finally, I'm not now, nor have I ever been, a member of the . . just kidding. I am not now, nor have I ever been distraught, as one of my biggest faults is detachment. I cultivated detachment for years and I think I went a bit overboard.

    I feel each emotion or quasi-emotion that comes my way, including being disturbed or disappointed, then I move forward. If I didn't, I probably would've been paralyzed by the reality around me a long time ago.

    June 13, 2008
  3. "My Gray Matter is: 'Eating less meat' isn't the same as 'eating fewer animals'"

    Used as such, both "less" and "fewer" have no place in the abolitionist lexicon. They do not appropriately reflect the morally odious nature of what they qualify. Try NO, NONE, NOT, NEVER, STOP, CEASE, and so on. Whether "animals" is preferable to "meat" is irrelevant considering the context.

    "We all want people to eat fewer animals."

    I find this type of language to be inconsistent with a rights-based approach. Furthermore, people are free to provide whatever definition of veganism they see fit: diet, dance routine, religion, or whatever. To me, vegans should be humans who think it is wrong to use sentient nonhumans. So I want every human to become vegan, which means to accept a simple moral principle that requires non-participation with the exploitation of sentient nonhumans. One major aspect of veganism operates on the level of sustenance. But veganism also operates on levels like entertainment, clothing, and companionship. So I am simply uncomfortable with the word fewer, and want people to stop using "animals".

    "Don't we agree with Bittman and Pollan, in part?"

    Not when it comes to the human/nonhuman relationship. But if they came over to my apartment right now and said my shirt is purple, then we could be said to agree on something. Less suffering is better than more suffering. Less sentient beings used is better than more sentient beings used. But, as a matter of normative guidance (how we should proceed/react/process/comunicate/advocate), that does not make less suffering and less sentient beings used morally acceptable, laudable, or otherwise worthy of being promoted.

    "If someone is never going to stop eating animals, do you not try to persuade them to at least have some animal-free meals?"

    Because veganism is so consistent with notions held so widely, I strongly disagree with the premise (use of the word never). But even if true, and it would be impossible to know with which humans it is — making the point when we should compromise our principles very troublesome to locate, I wont advocate anything other than what is consistent with veganism as described above. The "movement" is predominated by those who provide watered down messages that demand little and coddle heavily. A movement for basic nonhuman rights, at least concerning interpersonal communication and outreach, will unequivocally claim that nothing less than veganism is morally acceptable. The only room for flexibility is found within the particulars of how member thereof choose to relay the claim.

    Additionally, all time spent convincing person-X to do something that, ethically speaking, makes no sense whatsoever and compromises fundamental principles — just do less of evil-Y, or perpetrate fewer instances of evil-Z — is time not spent convincing person-X of veganism, or moving on to person-K, who might be more receptive. Finally, there will never be a movement capable of interjecting basic nonhuman rights (abolition) within the government/superstructure until there is a serious hearts and minds campaign with veganism as the baseline. Person-X, if convinced of the less/fewer approach, contributes nothing pro-abolitionist to anyone or anything.

    "I'm not one to use the child abuse and rape analogies."

    My point was not to suggest that you should necessarily utilize them in advocacy, but to show that your statement — "I think everyone should eat fewer animals. Preferably none" — does not help reveal veganism as a moral imperative, because it is inconsistent with how we discuss other moral imperatives. We cannot expect anyone to understand how seriously we take nonhuman exploitation, when our language addressing it is inconsistent with how we discuss human exploitation. So such analogies are useful, whether or not we explicitly use them.

    June 15, 2008
  4. Nathan,
    I differ with some abolitionists on this one in that, though I'm always clear about my beliefs, and I say what I would like the world to be like, if someone doesn't share the belief that not using sentient beings is a moral imperative regardless of what I say, I want them to at least cut back on the number of animals they kill.

    I have no choice. I cannot control what they do. And 20 years ago, when I would do tell everyone what they should believe I got exactly nowhere. I alienated people and was not an effective advocate at all.

    You say yourself: "Less sentient beings used is better than more sentient beings used." That's my point. And it's where I intersect with Pollan and Bittman.

    June 15, 2008
  5. Mary,
    Abolitionists should never be in the business of patting people on the back for non-veganism as an end. Your statements are reminiscent of Marcus, who is quick to assume the futility of vegan advocacy and compromise for less/fewer. You just happen to go with use, while he goes with suffering. In either case, someone ends up feeling good about their non-veganism. Abolitionists should never validate non-veganism. Throwing around the word never, with respect to receptivity to veganism, reeks of self-fulfilling prophesy and cynicism, which are anything but empowering or inspiring of creativity.

    Calmly, unabashedly, and unflappably offering an unequivocal, persistent, sustained, and uncompromising vegan message is surely distinguishable from "tell[ing] everyone what they should believe".

    Following up on a point within my last post, I will add: Anyone convinced of the less/fewer approach, anyone pushed a little further along the "spectrum", is not only incapable of contributing anything pro-abolitionist, but will actually distract from the message because they can point to/reference acceptance from an abolitionist for their non-veganism. Anyone observing or otherwise privy to the thumbs up for non-veganism is conditioned for unresponsiveness to any vegan advocacy they receive. Simply put: it sends the wrong message, one that gets around, one that pervades the discourse and distracts from abolition.

    As an aside, I find it fairly astounding that I should have to defend the normative guidance of abolitionists exclusively proffering an unequivocal vegan message. Would abolitionists with respect to slavery spend time promoting fewer slaves, or less suffering for extant slaves? Tweaking slavery, whether human or nonhuman, can only hinder progress toward eradicating slavery.

    June 16, 2008
  6. Nathan,

    You say: "Anyone convinced of the less/fewer approach, anyone pushed a little further along the "spectrum", is not only incapable of contributing anything pro-abolitionist, but will actually distract from the message because they can point to/reference acceptance from an abolitionist for their non-veganism."

    I'm pretty sure that's an insult, and that's fine.

    I want people to not eat animals. If they're going to eat animals, like my father, who I promise you will NEVER stop and he's 75 years old, I want them to eat more animal-free meals rather than going the happy meat route.

    Call me a Marcus doppelganger. Call me a non-abolitionist. If you asked anyone I have influenced in their transition to veganism, along the spectrum you don't like to talk about, they will tell you–and this includes my husband–that what they most appreciated was that though I was always on message regarding what veganism is and what it means to me, I supported them where they were and didn't push them.

    I have found what works in my efforts at vegan education, and I've been pretty damn successful. If you want to say that I'm not an abolitionist, go for it. I've been using the term less and less myself.

    June 16, 2008

Leave a Reply

You may use basic HTML in your comments. Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS