The hidden benefit of veganism

Last night, at Matt Yglesias's book party, I was chatting to a couple of friends about my recent conversion to an animal-free lifestyle. The one thing I didn't expect was that it actually reduced the amount of time I spend thinking about food. This surprised the hell out of them, and it also surprised the hell out of me, so I thought it was worth mentioning.

If you are a woman who grew up in the eating disorder culture of Manhattan (and I assume many other places), you never really get over a certain obsession with what you eat. With time and a certain amount of determination, you learn to stop berating yourself for eating fattening, unhealthy food, and hopefully you unlearn the grotesque habit of turning everything you've eaten for the last week, and everything you plan to eat for the next one, into a major conversational topic. Nonetheless, there's still a little voice in the back of your head that speaks every time you open your mouth to put food in it, saying "Should you really eat that?" Mostly, I learned to tell it to shut up. But it was there, just the same.

That question has pretty much vanished from my mind. It's not that everything I eat is healthy--I breakfast much too frequently on ice cream sandwiches or plain white bread. But while it's pretty easy to miss key nutrients, it's pretty hard to actually eat an artery-clogging diet. And there are plenty of vitamin supplements for the nutrients.

If you care about animal welfare, it similarly removes that vexing question: "Where did this come from?" Everything I eat, I eat in good conscience. (And yes, I'm aware that rats die in fields of grain, etc. I'm all about harm minimization, not absolute purity; I wouldn't hurl myself in front of a moving train to save a rat either.)

The result is that I actually spend less time worrying about what I eat, even though I spend somewhat more time figuring out where to find food I can eat. The hedonic tradeoff is, surprisingly, on the side of veganism.

Comments

What's with the random, but frequent public service announcements on vegetarianism?

The Sonic Pulse toothbrush is also pretty wonderful and leaves your teeth feeling nice and clean, just like they are when the dentist cleans them (minus the "metallic" fluoride taste). But it's not like I'd expect a bi-monthly post on it.

Ya I know, no one's forcing me to read this...just wondering.

Posted by sam | April 22, 2008 11:19 AM

Hm. My vegetarian girlfriend worries about everything she eats.

Posted by Dave | April 22, 2008 11:28 AM

That doesn't sound particularly hedonistic... it sounds more like you've become less interested in hedonism. That's probably a good thing, though, but not going to convert anyone who really, really loves meat.

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | April 22, 2008 11:28 AM

One of my side themes is food blogging, that's all. Plus, I thought this was interesting. The longer I'm a vegan, the less I'll find to say about it.

Posted by Megan McArdle | April 22, 2008 11:29 AM

I'm going to have to disagree -- ice-cream sandwiches and white bread are inflammatory and potentially artery-clogging as well (in fact, I suspect that a spoonful of straight lard would be better for you than a piece of white bread), and vitamin supplements can't totally make up for what's missing in the diet (which is why several studies have found that vitamins don't make much difference).

Posted by Stuart Buck | April 22, 2008 11:35 AM

I'd like to hear a bit more about that vegan ice cream sandwich. Is the milk fat replaced with soy somethingorother?

Posted by kishin | April 22, 2008 11:42 AM

Of course, if a vegan just ate vegetables, nuts, and fruit (probably in that order), I could see it being a healthy diet, although I'd wonder about whether one is getting enough of the right kind of protein as well as B12. But white bread? The body needs protein and fat much more than it needs something that's the nutritional equivalent of cardboard. :)

Posted by Stuart Buck | April 22, 2008 11:47 AM

The body needs protein and fat much more than it needs something that's the nutritional equivalent of cardboard.

I deplore the implicit cardboard bashing.

Posted by Tom Maguire | April 22, 2008 11:52 AM

How much of what "we all know" about diet is mere superstition or junk science? Any "science" that doesn't rely on controlled experiments is terribly exposed to error.

Posted by dearieme | April 22, 2008 11:52 AM

I don't think my trim, omnivorous wife has ever berated herself for eating anything. Sounds like a problem that has little to with one's choice of diet.

Posted by joenyc | April 22, 2008 12:01 PM

Megan,

Do you find it difficult to eat at restaurants?

Posted by freddiemac | April 22, 2008 12:01 PM

They're tofu based. And actually quite delicious: Tofutti Cuties. I recommend the chocolate.

Not to get too deeply into my dietary problems, but I have a rather delicate stomach, and a requirement to take morning medicine that upsets it. If I ate milk, I'd have yogurt, but since I don't, I substitute simple carbs. Anything the least bit hard to digest tends to make me sick. By mid-day, I'm digging into the tofu, nuts, and lentils.

Freddiemac: not as hard as you think. You can usually cobble together a vegan salad, and french fries are almost always vegan (though not, sadly, at McDonalds). Every convenience store and gas station carries nuts when you feel low on protein.

The hardest part is really travelling; you end up eating a hell of a lot of grilled vegetables. Luckily, I like grilled vegetables. But best to stick some soy crisps and trail mix in the suitcase.

Posted by Megan McArdle | April 22, 2008 12:02 PM

I'm just wondering: Have you gained any weight since you went vegetarian?

Posted by Anna | April 22, 2008 12:06 PM

Nah, lost about ten pounds, but I've had confounding medical problems, so it's hard to tell what the cause is.

But I wouldn't try veganism as a weight-loss strategy. It's a hell of a major change to make just a lose a few pounds, and if you were doing it as a diet, you probably wouldn't stick to it any longer than Atkins. Plus you *can* eat crap on a vegan diet if you want to; I just have a limited capacity for dessert and chips.

Posted by Megan McArdle | April 22, 2008 12:11 PM

...hopefully you unlearn the grotesque habit of turning everything you've eaten for the last week, and everything you plan to eat for the next one, into a major conversational topic.

Still a bit of unlearning to do...

Posted by unlearner | April 22, 2008 12:19 PM

You can usually cobble together a vegan salad, and french fries are almost always vegan (though not, sadly, at McDonalds).

Unfortunately, this standard for "containing meat derived ingredients" outlaws the entire cuisine of Thailand. Unless, like my SF vegan friends, you for some reason believe that Thai people consider Fish Sauce non-vegetarian and somehow remove it from meals when they perceive that you are a vegetarian.

But the amount of "animal" in both McDonalds fries and an order of Pad Thai are, in comparison to the dish they are being used to *flavor*, infintesimal. It's a ratio issue for me, and "meat flavoring" is on the borderline for me in a way that, for example, soup stock is not. Stock has a much larger (perceptible, think chicken stock) proportion of animal material than McDonalds fries or Pad Thai.

There seems to be a lot of FUD about McDonalds using "beef tallow" in their French Fries (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070407013726AAyxvpO etc) but this conflates a real fact and a technical one. Yes, there is a tiny amount of "beef flavoring" on the fries. Yes, the "beef flavoring" derives from animal fats. No, this does not mean the fries are "cooked with beef tallow," as McDonalds hasn't cooked their fries that way for almost 20 years.

IMO, if you are a religious or purist-ideological vegan the amount of beef in McDonald's french fries is relevant. If you aren't, it probably isn't. Apply the one-drop rule and sooner or later you're going to start asking if they use the same fryolater for the french fries and the chicken sandwich at every restaurant... this way lies madness! If McDonalds fries taste good to you (they do to me!) and they don't make you sick, and it makes you sad not to eat them.. I say eat them!

Of course, I'm only a vegetarian, so grains of herb salt all around. :)

=darwin

Posted by Darwin | April 22, 2008 1:02 PM

Actually, for some reason, they also contain whey--okay for thee but not for me. I don't super-stress, and if I have no access to other food I'll eat them. But if they were vegan, I'd eat them all the time.

Posted by Megan McArdle | April 22, 2008 1:06 PM

Look, the subject is not one I bring up, but it either is ethical to kill animals, or have them killed, strictly to provide oneself with comfort, or it is not. If it is, then there is no ethical difference between having a cow killed to taste it, or having a bird killed to obtain the lumber which went into making your bed. Conversely, if it isn't ethical to have animals killed strictly to provide one with pleasure, then the furniture and a good chunk of the living space most people use has to go, along with the steaks, if one is to be ethical. You don't get any credit for conciously deciding to only cheat on your spouse when he or she is out of town, and you don't get any credit for giving up the killing of animals to provide pleasure only when you are forgoing something you find it to be not too unpleasant to forgo.

Posted by Will Allen | April 22, 2008 1:06 PM

But while it's pretty easy to miss key nutrients, it's pretty hard to actually eat an artery-clogging diet.

If you buy into the PCRM/Ornish propaganda, I guess. But when it comes to promoting good health and preventing obesity, I'd rather take my chances with meat than with white bread and ice cream sandwiches.

Posted by Brandon Berg | April 22, 2008 1:10 PM

Wow, I've been an (non-prosletyzing, ethical/environmental, not health/religion) yuppie vegan for 12 years and never thought of that aspect. Or maybe I forgot about it. All these arguments above on "the level"/this way lies madness of veganism make me (us?) yawn. Heard that lots of times.
Vegans I know of do what they're comfortable with, and don't acknowledge any external standard which must be met.

Posted by RK | April 22, 2008 1:13 PM

And you could extend that hedonic tradeoff into almost any other area. I bet you enjoy food more now too.

Posted by Chris Dornan | April 22, 2008 1:13 PM

It's always good to resolve cognitive dissonance.

Posted by John Lynch | April 22, 2008 1:14 PM

Darwin, there's a Thai restaurant here in Portland, ME (Pom's Thai) where they explicitly state in the menu that their "vegetarian" stuff has no fish sauce. An alternative is to tell your vegetarian acquaintances that "fish sauce" is like "duck sauce": Just a name, y'know! They never seem to fall for it, though.

You can make your own Thai curries without fish sauce anyhow. Cooking for my veg. girlfriend, I've found that green curry sans fish sauce, with tofu and a fat dose of fried onion and garlic and fresh lime juice, is actually quite tasty — and I'm a carnivore. It's different, but it eats pretty good. The only trouble is the tofu soaks up the sauce, which chicken doesn't do. The trick with vegetarian cooking, I think, is not to try to clone meat dishes using fake meat, but to respect the protein you got for its own qualities.

However, meatlessness is not at all simple when you've got a carnivore and a vegetarian eating together. It gets downright halachic: My side of the grill for meat burgers, hers for veggie burgers, two spatulas, two everything. One cheese grater for cheese with rennet, one for without; or else grate her cheese first, or wash the grater in between. It's a PITA.

Another term in the hedonic equation is the fact that vegetarian food rarely gets any better than "good enough". Rennetless cheese is generally mediocre (mozzarella's an exception) — at least what's available in remote settlements in the Great North Woods. Go vegan and cut out cheese entirely, and you can't even eat a pizza any more. I mean, lentils? Dear God! It'll sustain life, but that's about it.

But I've never been a woman from Manhattan. If the eating-disorder culture there is so out of control that you can gain a net hedonic advantage by giving up raw salmon and duck foie gras to escape from it, that's just horrifying.

In favor of vegetables, you never need the kind of biohazard safeguards that you do with, say, preparing raw poultry.

Posted by McNamara | April 22, 2008 1:42 PM

If you are a woman who grew up in the eating disorder culture of Manhattan (and I assume many other places), you never really get over a certain obsession with what you eat.

And that's it right there.

If you are a Secret Asian Man who grew up in a middle-class Secret Asian Family, you'll eat anything smaller, slower, or stupider than you.

Posted by secret asian man | April 22, 2008 1:45 PM

"The eating disorder culture of Manhattan". Um, I guess if you'd been a poor Dominican gal in Washington Heights or a Chinese woman on Division St. you would've been spared this horror.

First that (a "disorder culture"), then the Jefferson Memorial oppression.

Geesh, life sure can be brutal.

(On the plus side, no one's called you a "lipstick libertatian" of late. There may be hope for humanity yet.)

Posted by Oppressed by Taste D-lite | April 22, 2008 2:10 PM

Isn't this "hidden benefit" essentially a function of having removed pleasure from eating? If I wore a uniform (or camo, or a Mao suit) every day, I suspect I wouldn't think much about clothes.

Posted by Tom T. | April 22, 2008 2:42 PM

"The hedonic tradeoff is, surprisingly, on the side of veganism."

The hedonic tradeoff is in the eye of the beholder. Or maybe the belly of the eater...no wait ... in the mind's eye of the...

I like thinking about food.

Posted by Njorl | April 22, 2008 2:42 PM

As long as you recognize that veganism is an affectation unmoored from healthy eating habits, that necessitates consumption of vitamin supplements -- and it sounds like you do -- then, hey, have fun with whatever works for you.

Just means that there'll be more steak for the rest of us. :)

Posted by BC | April 22, 2008 2:51 PM

Just a few comments, based on my many years of experience as a strict vegetarian (40) and a health-food expert.

For starters, being 'vegan' is a meaningless term. The health benefits of giving up organic milk and honey--not to mention unfertilized organic eggs--are non-existent and appeal only to the same obsessive-compulsives who acquire eating disorders in the first place. The above are 'victimless' food sources and deprive no animal of life or nutrition so long as the animals are range-fed. Without such husbandry, they would become extinct. So by all means use certified organic butter, milk, eggs, and honey in your meals--and especially desserts--and you will miss little from the 'meatworld.' Bear in mind too that the mere act of giving up meat (and cane sugar if you can) will stabilize your weight--I never 'watch what I eat', and I weigh exactly the same as I did 40 years ago as a teenager.

Here are a few other myths to be aware of: bottled water is bad for you. it isn't, unless it's on the shelf for more than a few months. The 'purest' water you can get commercially is distilled natural spring water. Avoiding tap water will reduce your risk of cancer by 50% over a lifetime.

'Natural sugar' is good for you. It isn't. It's better than oldfashioned refined sugar, which used animal bone ash and other toxins in its processing, but it has zero nutritonal value compared to honey or maple syrup.

Chocolate is good for you. It isn't. Especially the quantities that modern people eat. For your health's sake it should be avoided or cut with carob, which is extremely good for you.

Caffeine is bad for you. It isn't. Coffee, however, can be, especially in excess.

There are many more myths about lifelong vegetarianism. While it's true than you can replace meat proteins and steroids from other sources, you will definitely discover as the years go by that you become intolerant to alcohol and lactose (enjoy them while you can!) and that your youthful flat belly will never quite be the same again (veggies and grains are gassy, sorry). You will have less energy than your carnivore friends, and you will smell all kinds of gross things on their breath. So dating can suck. It's a lifestyle choice as profound as becoming a vampire--and not to be taken lightly. Oh, and after about 20 years you start to lose the enzymes that break meat down, so there's no going back at my age, unless you're into bulemia.

Good luck!

Posted by KIERKEGAARD | April 22, 2008 3:25 PM

I'm pretty sure it would be the reverse for me--If I became a vegan, i think I'd pretty much constantly be worrying about whether I was eating enough protein, whether my meals were combining items properly to make a complete protein, etc.

Posted by sara | April 22, 2008 3:51 PM

"The above are 'victimless' food sources and deprive no animal of life or nutrition so long as the animals are range-fed."

Obtaining foods from these animals does, however, prevent the animals from living a natural life. Cows and bees function in that way to feed their young. not humans. Chickens lay eggs to house their undeveloped chicks, Not feed humans. Filling human bellies was not the original and natural purpose for a cows milk.
I loose hair from my head sometimes. If I was taken from my natural environment and forced to give that hair (however pain free and well fed I was) to another species just because they liked it, I wouldn't be happy.

Posted by chew | April 22, 2008 5:08 PM

But white bread? The body needs protein and fat much more than it needs something that's the nutritional equivalent of cardboard.

Speaking as someone with a great fondness for chewing through cardboard, especially if other edibles or nesting materials can be found within, I take great exception to this. Cardboard, unlike white bread, contains actual dietary fiber.

If I was taken from my natural environment and forced to give that hair (however pain free and well fed I was) to another species just because they liked it, I wouldn't be happy.

If you were a chicken, your vantagepoint might be a bit more limited. For example, if someone kept refilling a food dish for you and put up a fence capable of repelling foxes, weasels, and skunks, it might be pretty close to chicken heaven.

Posted by aMouseforallSeasons | April 22, 2008 5:40 PM

Nah, lost about ten pounds, but I've had confounding medical problems, so it's hard to tell what the cause is.

Good thing you deserve health insurance. Unlike all those deadbeat losers whose employers won't provide it for them.

Posted by Ted | April 22, 2008 5:42 PM

Megan, having a "delicate" stomach has everything to do with an imbalance in the healthy bacteria in your intestines coupled with your unhealthy addiction to simple carbs (white bread/ice cream) for breakfast and a growing case of insulin resistance.

Start taking a pro-biotic/acidophilous supplement before breakfast and you can restore the balance of healthy flora in your gut that will literally cure your "delicate stomach."

Second of all, your assumptions that animal based foods clog your arteries are all politically correct lies fostered by big agricultural corporations that wanted to expand the market for vegetable oils and industrial mass produced soy beans.

Check these following links out:

Diet & Fat: A Severe Case of Mistaken Consensus

What If It's All Been a Big, Fat Lie?

The real key to dietary health is the ratio of fatty acids in your diet. The typical American diet has far too much Omega-6 fatty acids and not enough Omega-3.

The standard American Vegan/Vegetarian diet is founded on so many myths - and the biggest thing is that most Vegans think nothing of eating the unhealthy oils and sugars, and an absolutely unhealthy ratio of Omega 6 and Omega 3 fatty acids. And this imbalance is the cause of so much health problems suffered today.

The Queen of Fats: An Author’s Quest to Restore Omega-3 to the Western Diet

Vegan's also believe the absolute LIE that Soy Beans are a healthy source of protein...

The Truth about Soy

Finally, understand that the natural human condition is predicated on an Omnivorous diet. We were created/or evolved (whatever you choose to believe) to digest animal protein. That is why we have incisors in our dentistry and why our stomach's produce hydrochloric acid. We do NOT have the diet physiology of herbivores.

The real key here is understanding just how corrupted our national food supply has become. Ruminants were designed to eat grass. We put them in feed lots and feed them corn, soy and other grains. But you can buy free-range, organic, grass fed beef, which is rich in Omega 3 fatty acids and CLA...as well as other essential nutrients like carnotine and vitamins like B12. These are all vital nutrients that are severely deficient in our feedlot/fast food/cheap food paradigm cattle.

Militant vegetarians will argue that meat is bad for you. The truth is that meat raised badly is bad for you...meat raised naturally as they were intended to, is true "health" food, as well as being truly humane.

The true problem is that factory industrialization to leverage economies of scale produce cheap meats pumped full of chemicals and preservatives to allow them to be shipped nationwide all sacrifice nutritional quality for profit.

I eat meat daily...but I do care about animal mistreatment and suffering caused by the mass production methods of US agriculture...which is why I pay double what the average shopper pays for meat - because free range, grass fed beef costs 7-8 dollars a pound here in Hawaii.

Anyhow, vegetarians eat too much grain, usually bad oils, too much Omega-6 fatty acids and not enough Omega 3...and usually a severely deficient in proteins and healthy fats.

Posted by Dave from Hawaii | April 22, 2008 5:44 PM

Whether meat tastes good (as it obviously does to many) is pretty well irrelevant to the moral argument. First, what tastes good to us is largely a matter of what we're used to. But more importantly, if subjecting others to serious harm (suffering and/or death) is something to avoid where possible, then the fact that one would find it inconvenient to give up meat cuts no ice. It's what you'd say to a cannibal: "I don't care what they taste like. Stop eating them."

Of course, one can avoid the injunction to give up meat by denying that non-human animals are "others" in the relevant sense. The corollary, however, is that one is then logically committed (absent a great deal of intricate and dubious argumentative gymnastics) to endorsing eating mentally handicapped orphans or grinding up the unwanted senile elderly for dog food.

And what, really, would be wrong with that? After all, it's a jungle out there. And just look at these great, big, sharp teeth we have. We didn't claw our way to the top of the food chain just to eat tofu.

Posted by mijnheer | April 22, 2008 5:51 PM

Whether meat tastes good (as it obviously does to many) is pretty well irrelevant to the moral argument. First, what tastes good to us is largely a matter of what we're used to.

Actually, meat tastes good because it provides nutrition the body needs, nutrition that is hard to get from vegetables, grains and fruits...namely fatty acids and protein.

Eating meat is not an act of cruelty. The industrial/factory farming methods to mass produce meat is. Vegans/Vegetarians point to the obvious cruelty of the factory/industrial meat production practices and use that to say all meat consumption is bad, that all meat is cruel and inhumane.

No...all CHEAP meat is inhumane, because the methods used to mass produce it at a central location is cruel and inhumane.

Posted by Dave from Hawaii | April 22, 2008 6:00 PM

Megan, you might want to do some empirical evaluation before you get too confident about it *not* being an artery clogging diet. See, for example, Gary Taubes' book Good Calories, bad Calories; what you describe is nearly pessimal for glycemic stress, and there's pretty good evidence for that raising the icky lipid profile. The people who eat lots of, say, white rice while having long lives also have tended to have long periods of semi-starvation.

My experience (yes, n=1) is that by giving up all high glycemic foods (well, nearly all, and exceptions only in small amounts) is that my total lipids went down by 35 percent which the lipid fractions improved fairly dramatically. (I also lost about 15 pct of my starting body weight.) Since I'm doing this eating lots of meat, eggs, and butter, this is not the expected result according to the standard model. But, again, n=1.

Oh, and I don't think ice cream sandwiches count as "animal free", unless someone has reclassified cows as vegetables.

Posted by Charlie (Colorado) | April 22, 2008 6:13 PM

Charlie, Megan eats soy-based ice "cream."

The people who eat lots of, say, white rice while having long lives also have tended to have long periods of semi-starvation.

More like they also eat a proper ratio of Omega 3 and Omega 6 fatty acids...lots of vegetables and meats.

Posted by Dave from Hawaii | April 22, 2008 6:19 PM

"Actually, meat tastes good because it provides nutrition the body needs, nutrition that is hard to get from vegetables, grains and fruits...namely fatty acids and protein."

Oh...so THATS why things taste good.
My vegan chocolate bar must be really, really good for me.

Posted by chew | April 22, 2008 6:26 PM

mijnheer, lemme know when you give up the furniture you use to give yourself comfort, at the expense of the critters that had to die to provide it, and you better not be living in an abode that takes up much more than 100-200 square feet, lest you needlessly contribute to the death of some creature for no other reason than to give yourself some elbow room in which to relax. Hope you're not grabbing a refreshment at Starbucks, either, given that plenty of creatures had to die to give you a place to get some caffeine.

From what I've read, Gandhi may have come close to that sort of ethical standard, except, if the movie was acsurate, his living spaces far exceeded what was needed, so unless each furry little creature was gently moved to other areas when the post holes were dug, or lumber cut, or roofing material obtained, etc., even ol' mahatma was kiling animals that didn't need to be killed in order for Gandhi to survive. When it gets to the point that an ethic can or will only be followed by a microscopically small percentage of the human race, if by anyone at all, that's an ethic mostly designed to allow pseudo-followers of the ethic to feel good, when they don't find
following it too uncomfortable.

Posted by Will Allen | April 22, 2008 6:28 PM

Will Allen: It's quite true that it's basically impossible to live without doing harm to others. In our daily lives and in our patterns of consumption, all of us are involved at least indirectly in the exploitation of humans and other animals. In my view, that's no excuse for not trying to minimize that harm. Giving up meat is a significant step that most people can take without harm to their own health (despite what Dave from Hawaii believes). Meat-based diets typically result in significantly more suffering and death in total than do meatless diets, in part because much more land has to be used to grow the crops to feed livestock. Free-range meat would not be able to sustain anything like the present level of world meat consumption, and large-scale hunting would soon wipe out wildlife. For its part, industrial meat production is possibly the biggest single ecological catastrophe affecting the planet. (If you're sceptical, start by googling "Rethinking the Meat-Guzzler".)

Posted by mijnheer | April 22, 2008 7:19 PM

By the way, I love all your posts on food, recipes, diets, obesity, etc. They're my favorites by far.

Posted by AS | April 22, 2008 7:49 PM

No, mijnheer, giving up meat is something that some people do, and some of them do it to allow themselves to feel good about their own rectitude, because they don't find that giving up killing animals for meat is a terrible hardship, whereas, say, giving up having animals killed for furniture manufactuting or coffee consumption would be. They are kinda' like serial adulterers who say they only cheat on their spouse when they are lonely, being away on business. The ethics, or lack thereof, of an act are not dependent on the degree of discomfort an actor would have by forgoing the act. Otherwise, lying would be perfectly acceptable when telling the truth would provide a result one didn't like.

The fact that you don't obtain as much pleasure as some other folks from eating a steak, or that you would consider life without furniture to be more unpleasant than life without meat consumption, says exactly nothing about the ethics of killing animals, or having then killed, strictly for the provision of human pleasure, be it to provide a strip of bacon, or a sofa.

Now, having said that, I really don't normally wish to explore others' dietary habits, with the exception of discussions pertaining to culinary techniques. It really is none of my affair, and discussions of personal habits among strangers are entirely too common for my comfort. However, once someone makes or implies an ethical claim for behavior x, that necessarily implies a statement about the ethics of behavior not-x, which is when I join the topic.

Posted by Will Allen | April 22, 2008 7:49 PM

Meat-based diets typically result in significantly more suffering and death in total than do meatless diets, in part because much more land has to be used to grow the crops to feed livestock. Free-range meat would not be able to sustain anything like the present level of world meat consumption, and large-scale hunting would soon wipe out wildlife.

The first part of your statement is in actual agreement with what I'm trying to impart here...WE SHOULD NOT BE FEEDING RUMINANTS CROPS OF GRAIN! It is not their natural foods...free range grassland!

And I positively refute the notion that free range meat is not sustainable...it most certainly is. Because ruminants can graze on vast tracts of land that are otherwise unusable for any other agricultural purposes. Rocky, hilly grasslands...the great plains alone used to sustain millions upon millions of buffalo for millenia - until they were indiscriminately slaughtered into near extinction for the commercial exploitation of their skins.

The difference is that free range, 100% grass fed cattle is a lot more expensive than what people are used to paying for their meat. They are leaner, not as fat, and require a lot more work herding, rounding up and such versus thousands of cattle confined on a feed lot.

You would NEVER see a $.99 quarter pound hamburger where it not for the mass production, grain fed cattle industry.

Posted by Dave from Hawaii | April 22, 2008 7:58 PM

"The corollary, however, is that one is then logically committed (absent a great deal of intricate and dubious argumentative gymnastics) to endorsing eating mentally handicapped orphans or grinding up the unwanted senile elderly for dog food."

Only if you're into strawmen.

The natural human diet is omnivorous and humans have long established, institutionalized predator prey relationships with certain species (different species for different groups of people). And before the advent of industrial meat production this was probably overall a good thing for the prey species involved. They were protected and looked after and when the time came given a death that was almost certainly less traumatic and painful than they would suffer in the wild from predators, disease or starvation.
But commerce has corrupted many wholesome practices and meat consumption is certainly one of them.

But humans aren't evolved (unlike some species) to favor cannibalism and when that practice has occurred it's either the result of starvation conditions or invested with ideological/religious overtones. In other words cannibalism is rather like vegetarian/veganism (and anorexia for that matter) in that it is a more or less conscious modification of established human nutrition, often undertaken specifically to make an impression on others.

I'm all in favor of humane animal husbandry and slaughter and if I had my way many factory farming technologies would be illegal (and meat would be more expensive and most people would eat less of it). But I'm okay with the human status as partial predators. It beats the alternatives (prey and scavengers).

Posted by michael farris | April 22, 2008 8:18 PM

Michael Farris: You think that eating and otherwise exploiting animals is not "invested with ideological/religious overtones"? I beg to differ. I think it is very much invested with such overtones. See, for example, Meat: A Natural Symbol, by Nick Fiddes; The Sexual Politics of Meat, by Carol J. Adams; or Brutal: Manhood and the Exploitation of Animals, by Brian Luke. I believe that for many or most meat-eaters, the practice manifests a pathology of desire for domination over the other, a desire rooted in existential dread about humanity's supposed privileged place in the universe and the possibility of salvation. This fact helps explain why even the mention of vegetarianism provokes the kind of hostile and frenzied response that it often does. (I am not necessarily including you or any specific other poster here in the category of the existentially challenged. But it is remarkable how vegetarianism gets under people's skin.)

Posted by michael farris | April 22, 2008 9:01 PM

What's really weird is that I'd recently read your old 'why I eat meat' article, and (not knowing you'd since become vegan) spent a good 5-10 paragraphs respectfully disagreeing.

Another thing that's weird is that vegetarianism or veganism, when mentioned even in passing, illicits these kinds of 'boo-hiss' dummy spits. Imagine for a moment you wrote about the 'Hidden Benefit of Going To Church' being that you get to see that guy from the coffee shop, and then internet erupted into a Christopher Hitchens style god-hate psycho-fest. You'd think, 'what a bunch of nuts'.

Rule of thumb everyone: if an article has 'Vegan' in the title, and it's not a kind of manifesto (at least, not a serious one), you can be pretty sure it's not a judgement on your views nor an invitation to try and enforce them. I see this all the time and it's infuriating. Once, I witnessed some hapless veggo on a web forum ask about non-leather bicycle saddles - what followed was like a reenactment of the crucifixion.

Posted by Simon | April 22, 2008 9:16 PM

Yeah, nthing the Gary Taubes suggestion. It's a good book about politics and relevant even to vegans and vegetarians. Why? Well, I myself gained massive amounts of weight eating Tofutti Cuties and their ilk. I know enough vegans that I know obese vegans and vegans who have had heart attacks.

The sugar-cutting article in Slate reminded me that the real villain is refined carbs.

I guess my point is, nutritionally, almost any whole food, including meat, is better than white bread.

Posted by Melissa | April 22, 2008 9:27 PM

I believe that for many or most meat-eaters, the practice manifests a pathology of desire for domination over the other, a desire rooted in existential dread about humanity's supposed privileged place in the universe and the possibility of salvation.

Bullshit. I eat meat because I recognize that I am a part of the universe...one that is based on a cycle of life that involves predation. Life feeds on life is a fact of life. Participating in the very process every other living thing does is just simply existing as we were meant to.

This fact

Ummmm, you just stated your opinion, than called it a "fact."

helps explain why even the mention of vegetarianism provokes the kind of hostile and frenzied response that it often does. (I am not necessarily including you or any specific other poster here in the category of the existentially challenged. But it is remarkable how vegetarianism gets under people's skin.)

More like the self-righteous, condescending tone many vegans/vegetarian's take such as the one demonstrated by your post is what provokes "hostile" responses.

While I was not being hostile in the least bit, I am tired of the total demonization of meat eating per say, when in fact the true problem is the modern industrial farming methods employed to produce maximum profits with minimal and/or detrimental nutritional value.

So many vegan's/vegetarians have the pretense that they are somehow enlightened and superior to meat eaters.

Sorry...but denying your bodies natural dietary structure does not impart any kind of superiority - it just means your nutritionally deficient and fooling yourself into thinking you're healthier.

Posted by Dave from Hawaii | April 22, 2008 9:31 PM

Also, Will Allen, I've never met a vegetarian so stupid that they believed wearing/using leather was less cruel than eating meat.

It's the biggest straw man argument there is - that vegetarians are either a) complete idiots who don't know about the origins of leather, or b) secretly and shamefully subverting their own morals because they love to talk about respect for life but are in fact weak, spineless, blowhards.

My shoes are microfibre, my couches fabric, my toiletries not tested on animals, my jacket vinyl. Is that everything? No, but I try. The emulsion layer of film is gelatin based, so watching one is technically out. Do most go this far? Probably not. The logic is simple, however: if vegetarianism became the norm and gelatin grew to be prohibitively expensive, alternatives would be sought. Animal friendly change driven by the free market.

Posted by Simon | April 22, 2008 9:39 PM

No...all CHEAP meat is inhumane, because the methods used to mass produce it at a central location is cruel and inhumane.

Short version: Only expensive meat is ethical.

I'm all in favor of humane animal husbandry and slaughter and if I had my way many factory farming technologies would be illegal (and meat would be more expensive and most people would eat less of it).

Short version: It's wrong that poor people can afford to eat the way I do.

What was the remark I saw once? Rich white people invented "food ethics" once poor people could afford the same foods they could?

If the way to be more ethical is to do exactly what you and everyone else is doing now, only pay more for it, then I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Posted by AT | April 22, 2008 9:43 PM

Short version: Only expensive meat is ethical.

Short version: It's wrong that poor people can afford to eat the way I do.

Short version: This argument is vacuous and stupid.

The mass, industrialized production of animal flesh has resulted in cheap meat. But the process results in meat products that are nutritionally deficient, and can be factors in health problems, as well as incredibly destructive to the natural environment.

This is not a class based argument. It's an either or: either you allow the means of cheap, mass production that are unhealthy and environmentally degrading, or you don't. If you don't, than the price of meat HAS to be more expensive because the costs of producing natural, healthy meat are much more to begin with.

It has nothing to do with rich people trying to keep good food from the lower classes.

America USED to be a farm based economy. Meat was expensive, but even the poor folks ate locally grown produce regularly.

Posted by Dave from Hawaii | April 22, 2008 10:02 PM

Simon, if you have no wood, plastic, metal or other hard object in your furniture, congratulations. Otherwise, you are having animals killed to produce something, furniture, which serves no other function than to give you pleasure. I've lived for weeks at a time without furniture; you don't need it at all, absent a somewhat unusual medical condition. Frankly, the odds of the cloth used in your furniture being produced without the killing of animals is pretty damned small; I doubt if even Gandhi ahieved that. Live in an abode of more than a couple hundred square feet, at most? Sorry, but you are having animals killed for no other reason but to give you pleasure. The fact that you don't like steak as much as other people doesn't tell us much.

Jeez, you really think furry and feathered creatures aren't killed to make vinyl? What, do you think viny asteroids plummet form the heavens, and are then carved up to make coats? I mean, I'll give you a pass, since unless you live in a pretty hot climate, you really do need clothes to live, but gosh, the notions some people have!

Posted by Will Allen | April 22, 2008 10:03 PM

Will, I agree that nothing is created in a cruelty free vaccuum, but let's apply your logic to something else; the environment, say.

"You're not living a carbon-neutral, wasteless lifestyle. You are in fact selectively wasting because it gives you pleasure in certain instances, or at least, pleasure outweighing the ethical cost. I for one, defecate in the street."

The problem is that you are talking about apparent inconsistency of logic, and I am talking about harm minimisation WITHIN society. If there is a movement toward a nudist, chairless society then fine, I can dig it. More likely however, there will be a move toward less harmful farming and manufacture. I'm taking steps toward a goal that you disagree with, and that's fine. If I accepted your premise as a viable way to live, I'd give your thoughts the serious consideration that would merit. But I don't, and so I don't.

Posted by Simon | April 22, 2008 10:23 PM

This is not a class based argument. It's an either or: either you allow the means of cheap, mass production that are unhealthy and environmentally degrading, or you don't. If you don't, than the price of meat HAS to be more expensive because the costs of producing natural, healthy meat are much more to begin with.

I understand that it is not your motivation, but it is a necessary result of your preferences that we return to a state where income is much more of a factor than it is now in determining what kinds of foods people get to eat. I believe it's a good thing that we have progressed from a civilization where only the richest 5% can afford to eat meat regularly to one where 95% can afford it. And you say it's not because cows aren't happy eating corn? It's not as healthy for us as it theoretically could be? You are free to buy whatever you wish, but most people think these are worthwhile tradeoffs.

America USED to be a farm based economy. Meat was expensive, but even the poor folks ate locally grown produce regularly.

Yes, and it used to be a place, not all that long ago, where life expectancy at birth was 40, many lived in pain throughout their lives from conditions that are treatable now, and most did exhausting manual labor 365 days a year from dawn to dusk until they died. I don't think we miss that.

Posted by AT | April 22, 2008 10:35 PM

Simon, you can do anything you wish. The only time I get involved in this debate is if someone makes a claim, overt or implied, that killing animals, or having them killed, for no other prupose than to provide a human with pleasure, is unethical. I've been around the world several times, and lived on multiple continents. I've yet to meet anyone who actually believes this; the closest I've met were a few people in very acetic religious orders, and even they fell short by a large margin. In contrast, I've met tons of people who lie exceedingly rarely, maintain sexual loyalty or abstinence, and adhere to all manner of other ethical standards.

I thus conclude that the ethical standard which prohibits the killing of animals, if the killing only serves the purpose of giving a human being pleasure, is largely a phony one in which people are actually saying "It is unethical to kill or have animals killed solely to give me pleasure, except if it is something that I really, really, really want." Sorry, I just don't see how it is that your not enjoying going to Morton's nearly as much as someone else is ethically significant.

Posted by Will Allen | April 22, 2008 10:44 PM

Will Allen: Your very generous notion of what constitutes killing strictly for pleasure allows you to prove beyond a shadow of doubt that black is white and up is down. I take my hat off to you and throw in the towel.

Posted by mijnheer | April 22, 2008 11:23 PM

Because absolutism is technically impossible, for anything, and so we are left with 'less of a bad thing is better than more of one'. You said it yourself - 'lie exceedingly rarely'. 'Never' would be, strictly speaking, a lie.

The cheating analogy is an example based on a localised phenomenon under your direct control - within certain parameters. Expand your definition of cheating to include touching, looking at, thinking about someone else, and your options are reduced to, essentially, hermitage. Factor in atomic exchange (just for fun) and you'll find you're currently cheating on your partner with everyone living and most of everyone dead.

Suggesting that the validity of a stance is determined by the likelihood of success is to suggest that 'I will never kill ducks at 2:35PM on a Tuesday' is 'ethically relevant'.

In order to affect change, it has to be something the majority of people are able to do while going about their daily lives. If you're out protesting animal rights every day and building huts out of dung when you're supposed to be running the local power plant, or policing the streets, or whatever, well, that's going to cause problems. But you try because you hope for a day when the impossible becomes merely difficult, and the difficult mundane. I refer again to the environment analogy.

Posted by Simon | April 22, 2008 11:23 PM

Simon, if you can't tell the difference between a lie, told in a moment of failure to adhere to an ethical standard, and a premeditated concious decision to violate an ethical standard on a daily basis, well, there is little point in discussing ethics with you. If deriving pleasure from something which was obtained by the killing of an animal is wrong, because the something was sought purely for pleasure, then don't seek to derive pleasure from something which was obtained by the killing of an animal on a daily basis in a premeditated fashion, purely for the attainment of pleasure. This is only complicated by your desire for pleasure. Either go for the pleasure or don't; I really don't care. Just don't go for the pleasure while claiming to be in pursuit of an ethical standard which prohibits that which you voluntarily seek on a daily basis. Your daily actions reveal your true preference, rendering your words meaningless.

Posted by Will Allen | April 22, 2008 11:48 PM

Will - it's a moment of failure to find a viable alternative, for both lying and animal ethics. You could tell the truth in these situations - if you choose not to it is because you made a determination based on an effort versus value equation. Sadly, I am not immune to this reasoning - I exert effort where I feel the return is 'ethically significant'. I have never pretended to be or do anything else. I am at heart an ever hopeful pragmatist. The environment issue, for me, is the same.

If you purchase anything made from anything, I could accuse you of ruining the environment for your own pleasure.

If you do not spend every waking moment serving humanity, I could argue that you are a misanthrope.

The truth is that as market demand for vegan lifestyle goods increases, it becomes the norm and the original suppliers of these goods move on to tackle the next thing, and the next. Vegan toothpaste, for god's sake. I'm under no illusion that I will transcend my corporeal state, but I strongly believe in the power of a well placed dollar to prod the market where I want it to go.

My words and my actions are the same Will, the difference is that you are arguing 'person as the ethical construct', whereas I am arguing 'person as agent for ethical change'.

Posted by Simon | April 23, 2008 12:13 AM

Simon, I'm not making any claims with regard to the environment or serving humanity, therefore your accusations and arguments would be utterly pointless. When one decides, on a premediated, daily basis, to engage in action x, while arguing that x is unethical, your words are utterly empty. Making ethical claims which on a continuous basis you don't adhere to means you aren't taking your ethical claims seriously. This is the poseur's stance, and there is no reason for anyone else to take your ethical claims seriously either.

Posted by Will Allen | April 23, 2008 12:29 AM

You're repeating yourself Will.

If 'Vegan' in your mind means 'never hurts an animal ever', then unfortunately that is not what I am. But if you reread everything I've said, you'll find I never gave that definition.

You have not directly stated that you care for the environment or people, but just because you're not talking about them doesn't mean the issue is off the table. In fact, your silence on these issues doesn't lend your argument much credence. You are suggesting a model for ethical living, and I am disputing the validity of that model.

Just assume for a second that what I'm saying can't be so casually dismissed as 'utterly pointless' and rebut something.

Posted by Simon | April 23, 2008 12:42 AM

But you can buy free-range, organic, grass fed beef, which is rich in Omega 3 fatty acids...

No it isn't. While grass-fed beef has a higher n3:n6 ratio than grain-fed beef, the overall PUFA content of beef is very low, so even grass-fed beef doesn't have much in the way of omega-3 fatty acids.

Posted by Brandon Berg | April 23, 2008 12:50 AM

Well, first, simon, I never claimed you asserted a vegan never hurts an animal, ever. If you are going to just make stuff up, what's the point? I disputed the notion that it is unethical to kill animals, or have them killed, purely for purpose of giving a human pleasure, and further stated that there aren't actually any people, or so few they can barely be indentified, who believe this to be the case, as revealed by what behavior people actually engage in on continuous, premeditated basis. If no person in the world abstained form alcohol, I'd conclude that no person in the world really believed that abstaining from alcohol was really ethically demanded.

Look, you think killing animals, or having them killed, purely to provide you pleasure, is to be avoided, except when it is a pleasure you really want to have. Thus, "yes" to furniture, "no" to steaks. Hey, it's a (mostly) free country, and I like it that way for he most part. However, there is no reason for a person who enjoys steaks and furniture as much as you enjoy furniture to view your choices as ethically significant, because your hierarchy of pleasures sought via the killing of animals has no ethical significance.

Posted by Will Alllen | April 23, 2008 3:04 AM

When exactly, simon, did I put forth a model for ethical living? I merely disputed an ethical contention.

For the record, I make no blanket statement regarding the badness of polluting, and I neither confirm or deny that I am a misanthrope. If you feel better by asserting that I am, you just go right ahead.

Posted by Will Allen | April 23, 2008 3:12 AM

"You think that eating ... animals is not "invested with ideological/religious overtones"?"

I would agree that meat has a ... spiritual element that fruits or grains lack (why slaughter has often been tied to religious rights especially for larger, more charismatic mammals, though not so much for less appealing non-mammals). But these are not really like those of cannibalism.

Short version: humans on the whole are hardwired to eat some non-human animals and to not eat each other. Reworking that wiring takes more effort than following it.

"a desire rooted in existential dread about humanity's supposed privileged place in the universe and the possibility of salvation."

I'd say it's more a result of human consciousness of the fact that humans are not apex predators. Short version: Human meat eating probably evolved from opportunistic predatation but human ancestors were also prey and humans still are natural prey for a number of species (crocodiles, bears, big cats, arguably sharks). Humans know that other animals can do to us what we do to our prey species. Other midline predator-prey species are spared that conscious knowledge.

"This fact helps explain why even the mention of vegetarianism provokes the kind of hostile and frenzied response that it often does."

I'd say the reaction (which does exist) is maybe more similar to homophobia: a majority recoiling at what's seen as a deviant minority.

Which raises the question whether vegian (new cover term) preferences are genetic. One thing I've noticed among the more successful vegians I've known is how many of them have never really much liked meat; going vegian for them was mostly avoiding a food they didn't much like (like me avoiding okra or most fish).
This can be contrasted with the profile (more common IME) of someone who goes vegian for a time (often a couple of years or more) and then backslides.

While humans as a species are omnivores the balance between more herbivorous and carnivorous preferences can vary a lot between individuals and those that go vegian (new cover term) are probably mostly naturally inclined that way.

Vegian preferences are perfectly normal and reasonable but cloaking it in terms of morality is probably counter-productive.

Posted by michael farris | April 23, 2008 3:36 AM

Will Allen believes that he is making airtight logical arguments. In a limited (and boring) sense, he is. Which is why he keeps repeating them.

Unfortunately, as mijnheer quickly detected and Simon elaborated, his mechanistic approach isn't particularly relevant. Unless I've missed the memo, blog comments are for feedback and trash talking, not formal logic wanking.

Look, you think killing animals, or having them killed, purely to provide you pleasure, is to be avoided, except when it is a pleasure you really want to have. Thus, "yes" to furniture, "no" to steaks.

The end result of Will's reasoning chain seems to be that ultimately no decision can be more or less ethical because human life necessarily negatively affects animals. He does allow that some human *could* meet the absolute ethical standard professed (?) by vegetarians, perhaps who could match the standard of the "tons of people who lie exceedingly rarely" by some private definition of "lie" and "rarely." Because, I guess, lying "rarely" is different from engaging in acts which cause harm to animals "rarely." Also per Will, no intermediate action which causes harm but in lesser degree has any ethical meaning if all other such actions are not themselves taken. Ok.

Isn't all of human existence "purely for the purpose of giving a human pleasure," specifically the pleasure of NOT DYING? What exactly *does* have "ethical relevance" in a world where bacteria and animals (and other humans?) are one undifferentiated continuum of things to which it is impossible to do lesser harm?

Everything is nothing. QED.

Yes, Will Allen, I know you know how to parse logical constructs. I'm sure that you'll seize upon some misunderstanding I've made of your brilliant and obvious insight. Bully for you.

You also appear to believe in an absolute ethics ("it is unethical"). Yawn. I don't care. People usually have the courtesy to masturbate in private.

=darwin

Posted by darwin | April 23, 2008 4:22 AM

darwin, apparently logic is not the only thing missing from your mental diet, as it appears literacy also is also off the menu. As I've already written, ya' ol' moral reasoning titan, you, there is a difference, to anyone who has achieved a room temperature I.Q., between a violation of an ethical standard without premeditation, and only then very rarely, if at all (I used the phrase "very rarely" because I can't be sure if any person has avoided lying completely), and a concious, premediatated decison to violate an ethical standard on a continual basis. The former happens because people aren't perfect, whereas the latter happens when people, underneath all their empty rhetoric, really don't think the ethical standard they espouse is something they intend to adhere to.

Look, if someone doesn't want to eat meat or wear leather, it isn't any of my business. I. don't. care. Got it? If someone, however, is going to claim that there is an ethical standard which they think is important, that of not having animals killed purely for the purpose of giving a human being pleasure (by the way, people kill themselves every day when not dying is found to be not very pleasurable. No, all of human existence is not for the purpose of giving a human pleasure), then that is something that is reasonably subjected to logical scrutiny. If people claim that there is an ethical standard to be followed, while the continually violate that standard on a premeditated basis, it is reasonably concluded that they don't mean what they say.

I know you believe it discourteous to examine ethical claims. Here's the solution, Socrates; stop making ethical claims, and then you won't be subjected to the discourtesy of having them examined. Does everything need to be explained to you?

Posted by Will Allen | April 23, 2008 9:37 AM

michael farris: That was I (mijnheer) whose comment about existential dread you responded to. I have no idea how your name got attached to the bottom of my comment. In any case, thanks for responding.

Hume made the point that we cannot derive what ought to be directly from what is. But I have some sympathy with Aristotle's idea that connects human flourishing with what is natural. This means that we cannot neatly divorce morality from our biological and cognitive capacities. But that still leaves a lot of room for choosing, and arguing about, how best to pursue our better natures.

The traditional belief that all humans are essentially different from other creatures has been undermined by Darwinian theory, by animal studies, and by philosophical argument. It is still widespread in the public arena, but increasingly the moral (if that's what it is) justification for human dominance is being made on grounds of natural predation and ecological balance -- i.e., we are top predators (at least once you include our technological enhancements) and tough luck for everything else.

We have the choice to view other animals either as our kin, to be included in the moral community, or as prey, to be subordinated and exploited. I don't think that any appeal to the way things just naturally are will decide that one.

Posted by mijnheer | April 23, 2008 12:57 PM

"The traditional belief that all humans are essentially different from other creatures has been undermined by Darwinian theory, by animal studies, and by philosophical argument."

We actually agree. I think that humans aren't that different from other animals and acting in way consistent with our evolutionary history (including omnivorism) is not bad. I think of my omnivore diet as a direct expression of my animal nature. That's not to say I have no concern for other species or don't want the animals that people eat to be treated well before the most humane slaughter possible.

And of course omnivorism is not the only possible appropriate human diet. Vegianism is a perfectly fine option for those inclined for whatever reason and it doesn't need any justification. But claiming that it's inherently morally superior to the natural human diet is pushing things too far.

"we are top predators (at least once you include our technological enhancements)"

No humans aren't apex predators, we're close to the top but not quite there. We've just found more efficient ways of keeping our predators at bay. But humans mostly don't eat the animals that can treat us like prey, our main concern is usually preventing them from predating us or our prey animals. (I really don't want to get sidetracked onto hunting issues, but I will say that I think recreational trophy hunting is morally wrong and that food hunting and/or culling herds that don't have predators or other population inhibitors are justifiable).

Posted by michael farris | April 23, 2008 2:15 PM

Oops, I forgot this.

"We have the choice to view other animals either as our kin, to be included in the moral community, or as prey, to be subordinated and exploited."

Well, my choice is to recognize that animals are not moral agents.
That doesn't mean I think it's okay for people to do anything they want to them.

Posted by michael farris | April 23, 2008 2:27 PM

You're not a vegan if you eat ice cream.

Posted by scruncher | April 23, 2008 6:28 PM

David in Hawaii you are calling veg*ns condecending yet you are the ones using words like "stupid" to describe other posters. Is that not condescending? Or is it ok for omnis to condescend but not veggies? I don't like prosthelitizing, holier-than-thou types either, but you will find it on both sides of the argument if you bother to look.

Will Allen....hmm. You are just regurgitating the same argument over and over again about elbow room and furniture. Why don't you actually try participating in the conversation rather than yelling from atop your soap box with your fingers in your ears?

And also, for those who may not be aware, there is no need to "combine foods" in order for a vegan