Your Challenge: explain why eating meat is acceptable

In a post last week I recounted by experience at the Intelligence Squared debate in which the team speaking in favour of eating meat struggled to develop a single coherent argument and where one member of the pro-meat eating team, also a pig farmer, was apparently almost in tears during question time.

It seems that I'm not the only person curious about how you might justify eating meat (in cases where other food is available). The New York Times would also like to know how meat eaters justify their actions. They are calling for 600 word entries. Submissions are due by April 8.

Entries will be judges by Peter Singer, Michael Pollan, Mark Bittman, Jonathan Safran Foer and Andrew Light. While Carol Adams has already responded to the judging panel by arguing that sexism is alive and well at the New York Times, it is nonetheless a tough panel and I am therefore hoping to see some very highly quality argument. 

I would love to enter, but try as I might, I just can't think of a sustainable, coherent arguments. How do you justify eating meat?

Academics from the world's top ranked university have recently published findings in a top-tier peer reviewed journal that suggest that 'red meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality'. Their results were generated by following 37,698 men and 83,644 women for up to 28 years. Over the past two weeks I have tried to find a published, peer reviewed study, from a respected institution, that demonstrates that there are health benefits associated with meat consumption. So far I have drawn a blank. (If any readers know of a suitable study I would love to hear about it).

So the health questions seems to be settled - eating meat is not a good idea if longevity or avoiding cancer is a priority for you.

Environmentally it is extremely difficult to make a pro-meat argument. Meat production appears to be inefficient, wasteful of water and it generates a massive amount of waste. And of course the suffering of animals in factory farms is well documented. 

So where will the winning entry turn? Pleasure? It is certainly clear that eating meat makes many people very happy. Tradition? It is something humans have done for a VERY long time and many social events and traditions are associated with eating animals. Those seem to be the two strongest arguments. But given all the negatives associated with eating meat the winning entrant will need to be very clearer and also demonstrate why human pleasure is more important that animal suffering. A very hard gig indeed. 

I can't wait to read the winning entry - get writing!!!

The Difficult Job of Justifying Meat

While most people eat meat, and almost all meat comes from factory farms, it seems that justifying both factory farming AND meat eating generally, is becoming a difficult challenge - especially among well education urban types.


I was reminded of this on Tuesday night when I attended the Intelligence Squared debate 'should animals be off the menu?': http://wheelercentre.com/dailies/post/22b6c7dc3f5e/. Hosted by the Wheeler Centre: http://wheelercentre.com/ at the Melbourne Town Hall.


Speaking to a full house, which clearly included many animal advocates, the team lead by Peter Singer appeared to have the much easier task.

The photo was taken on my mobile phone. I was seated in the second level and apparently it was the largest turn out for a debate yet. 


Those who were tasked with defending meat eating struggled from the start. The first speaker for the negative, Fiona Chambers, was not able to provide a coherent account of why animals should be on the menu, and during question time was seemingly on the verge of tears. But while the arguments were challenging for the negative, Adrian Richardson proved a popular and charismatic speaker. 


I  have long admired Peter Singer and felt that his capacity of logical debate was second to none. Yet Phil Wollen was immensely popular with the audience.


In the end the debate was won by the affirmative - animals should be off the menu. Some people appeared to change their mind as a result of the debate. However, I can't help but notice that the debate result stand in stark contrast to the reality of meat consumption. Phil Wollen reminded the audience that in the time it took of the debate to be held, 13 million animals were killed for meat. Seems like a large number if most people agree that animals should be off the menu! 

Should the government be telling people to eat meat?

Speak to someone who became vegan 30 or 40 years ago and they will tell  you how difficult it was. In Australia vegans had to import their own soy milk throughout the 70s and early 80s. Now every cafe in Australia has soy milk no question, and finding a vegetarian meal at a restaurant is easy in every Australian city.

But one significant challenge remains - changing the language we use to describe protein.

A newly established group called 'Vegan Australia' has begun lobbying the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). They want Australian dietary guidelines to be re-written so there is no food group called 'lean meat and poultry, fish, eggs, nuts, seeds, and legumes/beans'. Instead they want that group to simply be called 'protein' with a range of suggested sources.

http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/diet-and-fitness/vegan-call-to-rename-food-group-20120308-1um3k.html

This makes me wonder how important language is to our food choices.

I know that when I wanted to stop eating meat I faced considerable family pressure. Most of that pressure was based in fear (what would happen to me) and ignorance (people can't live without meat!) I wonder whether the next generation of parents will be less fearful for their children's health if the government doesn't actively prescribe meat as part of a balanced diet.

This also opens up questions about another item in the papers today. Researchers think that they are very close to developing a plant based meat that meat eaters will like: http://www.ingredientsnetwork.com/news-content/full/researchers-create-100-vegetable-meat-substitute.

If they can get the taste right. And if people will eat it, where would plant based meat leave the Australian government's 5 food groups!