Wednesday, December 4, 2013
According to a 2009 poll, around 1% of American adults reported eating no animal products. In 2011 that number rose to 2.5%--more than double, but still dwarfed by the 48% who reported eating meat, fish or poultry at all of their meals. In this country, most of us are blessed with an abundance of food and food choices. So taking into account our health, the environment and ethical concerns, which diet is best? Are we or aren't we meant to be carnivores?
Clinical Researcher & Author, 21-Day Weight Loss Kickstart
President and Co-Founder, Farm Sanctuary
Nutritional Sciences Researcher & Blogger, The Daily Lipid
Farmer & Author
Author & Correspondent for ABC News
Clinical Researcher & Author, 21-Day Weight Loss Kickstart
Neal Barnard, M.D., is Adjunct Associate Professor of Medicine at the George Washington University School of Medicine in Washington, D.C., who guides numerous clinical trials investigating the effects of diet on body weight, chronic pain, and diabetes. Barnard’s most recent study of dietary interventions in type 2 diabetes was funded by the National Institutes of Health. He has authored dozens of scientific publications, 15 books for lay readers, and has hosted three PBS television programs on nutrition and health, ranging from weight loss to Alzheimer’s prevention. As President and Founder of the nonprofit Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Barnard has been instrumental in efforts to reform federal dietary guidelines. He also leads programs advocating for preventive medicine, good nutrition, and higher ethical standards in research.
President and Co-Founder, Farm Sanctuary
Gene Baur, President and Co-founder of Farm Sanctuary, has been hailed as “the conscience of the food movement” by Time magazine. Since the mid-1980s, Gene has traveled extensively, campaigning to raise awareness about the abuses of industrialized factory farming and our system of cheap food production. His book, Farm Sanctuary: Changing Hearts and Minds About Animals and Food (2008), a national bestseller, is a thought-provoking investigation of the ethical questions surrounding beef, poultry, pork, milk, and egg production. It describes what each of us can do to promote compassion and help stop the systematic mistreatment of the billions of farm animals who are exploited for food in the United States every year.
Nutritional Sciences Researcher & Blogger, The Daily Lipid
Chris Masterjohn pursued a career in health and nutrition after recovering from health problems he developed as a vegan by including high-quality, nutrient-dense animal foods in his diet. He earned a PhD in Nutritional Sciences from the University of Connecticut in 2012 and currently researches the physiological interactions between fat-soluble vitamins A, D, and K at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. He has published six peer-reviewed publications and has submitted one manuscript for review. He also writes two blogs. The first, The Daily Lipid, is hosted on his web site, Cholesterol-And-Health.Com. The second, Mother Nature Obeyed, is hosted by the Weston A. Price Foundation at westonaprice.org. The opinions expressed in this debate are his own and do not necessarily represent the positions of the University of Illinois.
Farmer & Author
Joel Salatin is a full-time farmer in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley. A third generation alternative farmer, he returned to the farm full-time in 1982 and continued refining and adding to his parents’ ideas. The farm services more than 5,000 families, 10 retail outlets, and 50 restaurants through on-farm sales and metropolitan buying clubs with salad bar beef, pastured poultry, eggmobile eggs, pigaerator pork, forage-based rabbits, pastured turkey, and forestry products, using relationship marketing. Salatin holds a BA degree in English and writes extensively in magazines such as Stockman Grass Farmer, Acres USA, and Foodshed. He is the author of eight books, including Folks, This Ain’t Normal: A Farmer's Advice for Happier Hens, Healthier People, and a Better World (2012). The family’s farm, Polyface Inc., achieved iconic status as the grass farm featured in the new New York Times bestseller The Omnivore’s Dilemma, by food writer guru Michael Pollan, and the award-winning documentary film Food Inc.
59% voted the same way in BOTH pre- and post-debate votes (19% voted FOR twice, 36% voted AGAINST twice, 5% voted UNDECIDED twice). 41% changed their minds (2% voted FOR then changed to AGAINST, 3% voted FOR then changed to UNDECIDED, 12% voted AGAINST then changed to FOR, 4% voted AGAINST then changed to UNDECIDED, 15% voted UNDECIDED then changed to FOR, 5% voted UNDECIDED then changed to AGAINST)*breakdown for those voting the same way twice adds to 60% due to rounding | Breakdown Graphic
It was an enlightening debate.
Here's what I learned about the vegan position in contrast to the omnivore position:
Close-minded: Inherent in the title is "[no one] should eat anything with a face". There's no room for omnivores.
Anti-evolution: Imposing a one-diet-fits-all model even though it is unnatural for our evolutionary system based on
VARIATION. Yet, with no historical or anthropological evidence, the vegans assume that all peoples everywhere will
have the same nutritional needs genetically. Wishful thinking.
Ethno-centric: Not every culture has access to the vast array of pills, powders and produce that wealthy westerners
take for granted.
Weak science: Fallacy's abound! Avoid meat because it has carcinogenic elements? Bollocks. False-dichotomy.
Carcinogens are everywhere. Toast is carcinogenic! The question is, do the benefits of a particular food/diet
outweigh the carcinogens that you will ingest regardless? And that overly-simplistic blame-meat story of the
patient with bad arteries, not a word about his overall diet. Interesting. Also, no historical/anthropological
evidence that veganism even works long-term because there has been no documented culture that has ever been purely
vegan for generations. And there are no farming methods of significance to point to either, unless you count the 2
vegan farms mentioned, the older one having been around for a mere 3 decades. *sigh* No tangible, long-term working
models; only theories.
This shoddy evidence seems more an excuse to simply promote their ethic, "killing animals is wrong". Of course it's
noble, but this is not a position empirically provable with science. It is ultimately a BELIEF.
In short, the vegans use weak scientific arguments to promote a belief system that is ultimately close-minded,
anti-evolution and ethno-centric.
WOAH! Is it just me or does that sound familiar?
I don't know what's more alarming, that such faulty belief systems get a pass, or that they were able to convert
the audience with their rhetoric and come away the winners in the debate (even though the opposition had an open-
minded, pro-evolution, non-ethnocentric position with solid current, historical and anthropological evidence: a
working model farm based on millennia of farming tradition, Weston Price's multicultural research highlighting the
benefits of an omnivore diet, and an ethic that treats animals as sacred in the harmonious way of the Native
An enlightening debate, indeed.
Compassion is delicious! FOR THE MOTION!! xxx
The research the vegetarians presented are false. Meat does not cause heart disease as proof that I am a paleo dieter, eat meat at every meal, eat lots of butter and cheese, and yet I lose weight AND have reduced my cholesterol levels.
The studies mentioned did not take into account carbohydrate intake, which causes inflammation.
I grew up in South America, Buenos Aires, and as it is a huge meat eating country, so did we eat dead corpses which would be barbecued on the huge grill under our pool I never thought anything of it well into my older years... I became veggie in my 30's but still did not see the link that animals have souls, have the same organs, blood, feelings, emotions etc as we do. It's only by seeing films like earthlings.com and meet your meat, and listening to Phillip Wollen that helps educate one towards a more compassionate way of living.... to me a dog is a cat is a cow is a chicken, all animals feel pain, and as ex rancher The Mad Cowboy Howard Lyman turned vegan says... Sure, certain methods of production are more ‘humane’ than others, but never forget, there’s no such thing as humane slaughter. I never saw an animal clicking its heels going to the slaughterhouse, saying, “Yippee, skippy, I’m going to be a McDonald’s burger tomorrow!” There is always fear in their eyes. They know exactly what’s going to happen"... Giving up meat or cutting it down is kinder all round as mostly everyone is beginning to learn these days!
Dr. Barnard and Mr. Salatin provided the better arguments of the night, however I was not swayed from any party. We kill local plants when we mass farm, therefore ecologically we are morally corrupt. We can not study all human life and diet, so any study could and should only pertain to the United States, and the ethnic diversity would still be an issue. To be truly Vegan, moral, and sustainable we would need to eat localized plant life only. True, maybe we should not all eat meat, but at the same time NO ONE has the perfect diet and we all are different.
absolutely brilliant carnivores. beautiful, rational argument by darwin's top tier species. like it or not, we're at the top of the food chain.
social justice? oh, you're in that crazy crowd. imagining injustices, usually, to justify stealing taxpayer property. it always boils down to justification for stealing private property, or blaming someone else for someone else's lot in life.
i have respect for my ancestors- they ate meat and we evolved bigger brains and smaller guts.
I am encouraged by some of the comments, and I'm also saddened by others. "wow" said to "let the human animal live the way it evolved to"? This same person argued that superior intellect came from eating meat. The sentence he wrote did not even make sense or make a complete thought.
Quite honestly, I came to this debate with an open mind. Clearly, the side for the motion was better prepared with science and evidence, and presented a much clearer and stronger case for the motion. There was little question in my mind that you could make a case that eating other animals was healthier for you, and no there is absolutely no doubt. Do a little research outside this debate, ask your doctor, read the resources available. All point to a meat free diet.
Very interesting debate. I came in believing that a vegan diet can and is a very healthy diet and I believe that one day I will switch to it. But I feel that the work that Joel Salatin was over looked by those arguing in favor of the proposition. I like the philosophy of his farm and approach, building his farm around an ecosystem and wish there were more studies around the overall impact of his ecosystem solution on the environment and human health. I was not overly persuaded by Gene, he kept correctly pointing out that most of our meat comes from factory farms but then compared that with local organic produce where most of our vegetables do not come from. Both sides made points but weren't always arguing the same thing.
Great job from all participants, including the moderator. Great to see both sides represented well and personally, I'm pleased that the majority of the people sided with the Vegan argument. It's difficult to debate against the motion on the health, environmental, and ethical positions of Veganism. This was an enjoyable debate.
Your show should be called Intelligence Run Amok. None of you would even be here if it weren't for Meat. What do you think got the brain activity beyond foraging for berries? What a waste of man power. If there are any left.
Gill Jacobs, what do you mean by "sentimentalizing" animals? All lives are precious. Of course lions can't be vegetarians. They are obligatory carnivores. Human beings are not. I wouldn't judge you or anyone for eating meat, but it IS possible to be healthy on a plant-based diet.
Heard today on WNYC, Feb 1, 2014.
My experience is similar to other commentaries: many meat eaters are angry and dismissive about vegetarian diets rather than the reverse. (And tend to make bazaar equivalencies such as the comment about killing microbes - just beyond the beyond.)
Stating that growing plant food uses more resources pound for pound than growing meat - an outright lie, by any standards.
For me, nothing is more offensive than specious reasoning and gross generalizations.
1) (All)Science is subjective. Wrong. Not every study manipulates the data to conform to the hypothesis.
2) Vegetarians have increased dental decay. Wrong. See NIH and Mayo Clinic.
3) Forward facing eyes indicate a species are carnivorous. Wrong. Current thinking is this type of eye placement developed in animals living in cluttered (leaves, bushes, etc.) environments. Consider predators without this eye structure: killer whales, orcas, crocodiles, mongooses, tree shrews, snakes…
4) Going philosophical? could “…trade dead bodies and thin people and heart attacks all night”… what?
5) Re Jesus and Mohammad eating meat – when speaking of religion, one should always keep the historic setting in mind. In Jesus’ and Mohammad’s time, women were chattel, slavery was the norm, the husband could impregnate another woman if his wife is infertile (the issue was never his infertility), and so on.
6) Not mentioned: herbivores have longer digestive tract for processing plant material. Carnivores have short digestive tracts. http://dujs.dartmouth.edu/fall-2010/turning-waste-into-food-cellulose-digestion
After reading an article that moved me, I am embarking on a vegan diet.
I am not a Buddhist, but came across this across article.
All it needs is compassion.
Imagine you stepping on a nail, now imagine what a lobster feels when you dunk it in boiling water.
They scramble relentlessly trying to get out.
Now, the following story here made me think.
One day while cooking an eel in boiling water, this man noticed that this eel kept arching it's body out of the boiling water, but kept it's head and tail stuck to the bottom of the scorching pot. The eel eventually succumbed to death, and it's entire body just sank in. When the man cut the eel open, he found lots of eggs inside. Which tells us that animals are quite intelligent and aware of death and will do anything to save their offspring.
Also, the death of my dogs devastated me. My love for them made me realize that all animals feel love and pain, so this also greatly influenced me into eating clean for the body and spirit.
We,the human animal, can make choices.
That is the difference from other predators.
It is proven, that vegetarians live longer and a healthier life.
It just takes a little time to research how satisfying and tasty vegetarian dishes can be.
You will not miss meat and feel great.
When Joel Salatin mentioned Jesus and Mohammed, as wise and as sources of moral that should predict today's environmental questions, he COMPLETELY lost any credibility that he had left in this debate.
I wonder if the panelist FOR the motion (as well as those who voted for the motion) are philosophically consistent and think that an abortion is immoral on the same grounds used in this debate. The two issues may seem unrelated, but each time the team spoke about the moral reasons why killing animals is wrong, I kept feeling like I was hearing echo's of people who would be making a pro-life argument (central nervous system, can feel pain, there are other alternatives, etc)
1. if we stop artificially inseminating animals, there won't be so many.
2. i would ask the pro-eating animal side- would you kill the animal that you were eating before each meal? literally, go outside in the morning, kill the pig and then make it into "sausage", the for lunch, go outside, kill a chicken for your chicken "salad", etc.? why pay someone else to do your dirty work?
3. the conditions and danger of the workers in the factory farms is atrocious. and most are immigrants. americans don't want to do that job.
4. i to would ask the pro-animal eaters, would you murder your cat, and then go get another one, and then murder them? or your dog if you have a dog instead? what's the difference, really? to call one a pet and the other dinner is a huge disconnect. intelligence is the ability to make connections.
I heard this debate only on January 2, 2014, via a local NPR affiliate. For a debate beginning with both sides opposing "factory farming," the losing side missed an opportunity to make a key point against vegan agriculture. Namely this: If so-called factory farming is identical to "industrial agriculture," then how is vegan agriculture any different from industrial agriculture or today's version of commercial organic agriculture, both of which rely on food trucked hundreds or thousands of miles? The only true local agriculture--resilient agriculture--is that which regenerates its own fertility forever, and has the smallest possible carbon footprint. As Joel Salatin effectively argued (especially when mentioning the work of Allan Savory), grazing animals, their hoof action and their manure are key components of local foods systems. In short, animals are part of our ecosystem and must be factored in per the contributions they provide. The question, then, is how to do so in the most humane way possible. A animal sanctuary implies merely a kinder gentler zoo.
Robert R. Fiske states "As much as we like to 'think' we can 'think our way' into a new role in the ecosystem, I find it mainly audacious and a bit silly of us to try to believe that."
As a species we not only thought our way into a new role in the ecosystem, we have achieved it already. We are the only species that has reproduced to an unsustainable level and in so doing we are destroying life on earth.
What is audacious and a bit silly Robert, is to believe that we can continue on this path of destruction indefinitely. The United Nations has stated that a global shift towards a vegan diet is vital to save the world from hunger and the worst impacts of climate change.
The enormous weight of suffering that animals endure in meat and dairy production is important and most people do indeed put a higher moral value on sentient beings than they do on vegetables, moulds and yeasts! Shame on you, Robert.
My rule of thumb-if I couldn't kill it myself, I shouldn't be eating it. I am not sure about the 'face' thing--where does that leave oysters? Clearly if I were poor/living in a country with few resources, I would have no choice and to say it is wrong in those circumstances is silly. That said, there are Hindus/Jains in poor areas who somehow manage but clearly they are in a minority and perhaps it is less difficult to find non-root vegetables etc where they live. In any case there is no reason to go passing judgment. The goal should be try not to harm, try not to waste and try to be grateful--and not go around picking on everyone who makes other choices. I don't understand being vegetarian just for one's own health, I am not convinced it is always better.
I promised myself a decade ago I'd drop meat from my diet. Time to make good on that promise.
Make sure you enter the (*) required information where indicated. HTML code is not allowed.