Should We Eat Meat?

Thanksgiving arrives every year with a heated debate over how to best cook that plump and juicy turkey. But the idea of a tofu turkey (also known as a “tofurkey”) has gone from a joke a couple years ago to a reality for many. While vegetarianism has been practiced for over a thousand years in some countries, it is a relatively new concept in the West. And so, with the question cropping up more and more often, should we eat meat?

Next question in Animal Rights

You are seeing 15 Comments. See all 665 Comments on this Question.

Regarding Argument

We Cannot Justify Eating Animal Products

As yet unanswered

Prof Francione's cogent argument turns on the assumption that consuming flesh is not necessary. This assumption is sound given that even conservative dietitians argue that one can live an optimally healthy life free of meat and the reproductive excretes of nonhuman animals. Therefore, as Prof Francione argues, as these processes necessarily involve tremendous amounts of suffering, they cannot be justified unless we accept the premise that unnecessary suffering can be justified because of convenience, entertainment or gastronomical satisfaction.

However, accepting this premise begs the following question: Can we therefore justify suffering harm on human animals because of these reasons? If not, then we are either demonstrably arbitrary, which belies certain claims about justice we generally hold regarding "impartiality," or we are acting out of prejudice (i.e., X's suffering counts but Y's doesn't because Y belongs to a different group), which is ethically indefensible.

Go Vegan!

- Alex M August 9, 2008 8:17AM

Reply to this Recommend (2) Side: No

Thank You for your Comment

We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Speciesism
  
  Joan Dunayer has written a good deal about this.
  
  - M3house August 15, 2008 1:16PM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Reply to Alex M.
  
  The point is that we do not need a complicated theory to see the problem. We all agree--or say we agree--with the notion that it is wrong to impose suffering or death for reason of pleasure, amusement, or convenience. But that is precisely what we do when we consume animal products.
  
  I think you mean "raises" a question and not "begs" a question (unless I am misunderstanding your point). In any event, our relationship with nonhuman animals is characterized by our unjustifiable exclusion of nonhumans from our concepts of fundamental justice which, in turn, is related to certain speciesist aspects of our conceptualization of animal interests. Take a look at the Introduction to my most recent book, "Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation" (Columbia U. Press).
  
  Gary L. Francione
  Professor, Rutgers University
  
  - Gary L Francione August 16, 2008 10:45AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (3) Side: Uncommitted
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - Thank You Mr. Francione
    
    I appreciate your clarification to my point. I, indeed, meant "raises" a question. Although "begs" seems appropriate as well: If the imposition of suffering can be justified for X, Y, and Z reasons then doesn't it follow that our fundamental premise against "unnecessary suffering" is resting on rather shaky ground – what else could we justify? (Maybe it is, "we say we agree"?) However, as you argue, this is related to speciesism whereby the suffering of nonhumans isn't considered morally relevant. My further point here is that this prejudice violates yet another premise of fundamental justice we hold regarding impartiality and the universality of "moral" rights.
    
    - Alex M August 21, 2008 2:35PM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
- Can consensus of opinion be trusted?
  
  Alex said, "Prof Francione's cogent argument turns on the assumption that consuming flesh is not necessary. This assumption is sound given that even conservative dietitians argue that one can live an optimally healthy life free of meat and the reproductive excretes of nonhuman animals."
  
  It may be possible for some people to live an optimally healthy life free of meat and dairy. However, variations in biochemical and physiological makeup indicate that many shouldn't attempt to nourish themselves on a diet that totally excludes animal products.
  
  I know at least a half dozen people who experimented with the vegetarian approach but had to give it up because it damaged their health. One man showed me huge red blotches on his back that resulted from his experiment. Another told me he was cold all the time. Another, now in her mid twenties, recently added meat to a diet that already contained eggs.
  
  As far as dietitians are concerned, their education is shaped by the food manufacturing industry which employs about half of them. Food manufacturing involves mostly, wheat, corn, soybeans, and sugar. One estimate is that Americans obtain about 70% of their caloric intake from these four food crops.
  
  Corporate influence is also apparent in the recommendation to restrict saturated fat intake as much as possible. There is no solid experimental evidence suggesting saturated fats from animal products or other sources pose a health hazard. Quite the contrary. Recent research by Jeff Volek and others indicates that replacing vegetable oils with butter, lard, and beef tallow improves triglyceride and cholesterol blood values. Research into the effects of high sugar (especially fructose) intake by Peter Havel indicates that it is fructose, not saturated fat, that contributes the artery-clogging effect so prevalent in developed countries.
  
  Several times a year I have conversations with people who are dumbfounded that their grandparents lived long and were healthy and active to the end on a supposedly unhealthy diet that included copious amounts of bacon, eggs, and butter. And I recently clipped an article from our local paper about a 106 year old woman. I quote the last two sentences: As she fished from the dock, slowly retrieving a lure and hoping for a strike, she passed along her secret for a long life. "I eat bacon every morning," she said, "Crisp bacon."
  
  - David Brown September 6, 2008 6:15AM
  
  Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
  
  Thank You for your Comment
  
  We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
  - regarding nutrition
    
    You said, "many shouldn't attempt to nourish themselves on a diet that totally excludes animal products."
    Unless someone does not have access to a wide variety of plant foods or that person refuses to eat a wide variety or can't eat a wide variety due to allergies, there is no reason anyone can't go vegan and enjoy optimal health.
    
    Any diet can lack nutrients. Whether you eat meat or not, you need to pay attention to your diet and eat a wide variety of nutrient dense foods.
    
    In my experience, the people who have "failed" vegetarianism or veganism simply refused to eat a wide variety of plant foods and instead starved themselves or their children by consuming a very low variety and low calorie diet. I have also heard of people who simply couldn't figure out ways to modify a vegan diet for specific food allergies. Luckily, some people have persevered and have successfully adapted veganism to their allergies and conditions. They are paving the way for more people to do the same.
    
    This has more to do with our society's lack of nutritional understanding as well as the scientific community's preference for certain diets and certain nutritional studies than it has to with veganism.
    
    - ElaineVigneault September 8, 2008 10:20AM
    
    Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
    
    Thank You for your Comment
    
    We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
    - Generalizing from personal experience problematic.
      
      Hi Elaine,
      
      You are absolutely correct to say that people need to consume nutrient dense foods. Wide variety, however, may not be a requirement for optimum health. It's been reported that raw milk from pastured livestock has furnished adequate nutrition for certain individuals for periods ranging up to four decades. Google "The Milk Book."
      
      This is not to suggest that everyone is capable of metabolically processing such a boring diet. Variations in biochemical and physiological makeup make individualized nutrition a scientifically verifiable necessity.
      
      At the extremes are the obligatory vegans and obligatory omnivores. Most of us fall in the middle range. It would be an interesting experiment to try to adapt a group of healthy omnivore athletes to a high quality vegan diet to see how it affects physical performance.
      
      Responding to a comment of mine, Dr. Michael Eades said he finds that vegetarian athletes invariably improve when he has them add meat to their diets.
      
      On the negative ledger for vegetarians, Dr. Michael Eades reports that "... vegetarians have significantly higher rates of advanced glycation end products (AGE) than do omnivores." To read more about this, Google "Eades Vegetarians Age Faster."
      
      - David Brown September 9, 2008 5:55AM
      
      Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
      
      Thank You for your Comment
      
      We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - Cow's milk is not healthy for most people
        
        Milk!?
        The vast majority of humans cannot drink cow's milk without negative repercussions.
        Cow's milk is for baby cows, not adult humans.
        
        - ElaineVigneault September 9, 2008 9:35AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Milk still benefits some.
        
        Elaine,
        
        By your logic, since many people cannot tolerate peanuts, no one should consume peanut butter. Likewise, since seeds are meant for reproduction, people ought not to use them for food.
        
        Realistically, nutrients are nutrients whatever their configuration. Where is the sense in restricting ones choices simply because not everyone can tolerate all the same foods?
        
        Part of the problem regarding modern methods of milk production has to do with pasteurization. My son-in-law is allergic to pasteurized dairy products but can drink raw "milk without negative repercussions."
        
        - David Brown September 9, 2008 11:03PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        In reality...
        
        You said, "nutrients are nutrients whatever their configuration."
        
        Actually, that's not true. Nutrients interact with other nutrients and become more or less effective. Read The China Study by by Dr. T. Colin Campbell and Thomas M. Campbell II. Here's an excerpt: http://www.thechinastudy.com/PDFs/ChinaStudy_Excerpt.pdf
        
        - ElaineVigneault September 10, 2008 1:47PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        More comments in this thread
        
        Not true
        
        Sure there are plenty of people who are lactose intolerant. But the "vast majority"? That is not true, and I think you know it.
        
        - LagerHead June 17, 2009 7:57AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
      - athletes
        
        "he finds that vegetarian athletes invariably improve when he has them add meat to their diets."
        
        Athletes improve when you give them steroids, too. Doesn't make it a good idea.
        
        - ElaineVigneault September 10, 2008 1:45PM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (1) Side: No
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
        
        Good point
        
        Yea, let's compare eating meat , which is done by approximately half of the animal kingdom (totally random, made up statistic, but you get the point) to illegal drug use . I can see Goodwin's law coming true any minute now!
        
        - LagerHead June 17, 2009 8:00AM
        
        Reply to this Recommend (0) Side: Yes
        
        Thank You for your Comment
        
        We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.

Related Debates

Experts on "Yes" Side

Reason Foundation
Free Minds and Free Markets See arguments
Consumer Freedom
Promoting Personal Responsibility See arguments

Experts on "No" Side

PETA
People for Ethical Treatment of Animals See arguments
Gary L Francione
Rutgers University School of Law See arguments

Most Objections