Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on September 8, 2010 at 5:04pm

Yes, it is my review. I attached chapter 1. Check it out and see if you like it. It is an interesting book.

Permalink Reply by Michael Sizer-Watt on September 8, 2010 at 6:21pm

OK, I haven't read a single thing past the title (which I had come across recently) but she's challenging claims made by some pretty reputable individuals. I find it very hard to believe one can provide any decent argument against the fact that a diet that requires less fresh water, less land allocation, less chemical supplementation and (whether you care or not) less animal suffering is better for life. (I don't say either the environment, nor people, nor animals, because they're all life, and they all benefit from more efficient use of resources, less chemical contamination and reduced harm)

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on September 8, 2010 at 6:29pm

That is precisely the argument she takes on. Of course, she does not advocate that factory farms are the answer, either. She doesn't let them off the hook, to be sure.

I think her argument is that we evolved to be hunter/gatherers, and our biology demands animal products for optimal health.

She also points out that agriculture leads to top soil erosion, biodiverstiy loss, ecosystem destruction, imperialism, diseases of civilization, pollution (such as dead zones), and also demands a huge amount of fossil fuels (which are also bad for the environment).

they all benefit from more efficient use of resources, less chemical contamination and reduced harm)

This is what she says is the mistaken belief of vegetarians. Agriculture is not efficient, and it does not reduce harm.

She gives a pretty convincing argument, and I suspect she's right. However, it is such a complex issue that I don't feel totally secure in my opinions, as I can't possibly know all there is to know on the subject.

Please check it out if you have time. I have attached some scans.

Permalink Reply by Michael Sizer-Watt on September 8, 2010 at 8:53pm

Well of course! It would be even better to commit mass suicide, and then our bilogical footprint would be reduced to zero.

Agriculture is incredibly efficient (10 - 100X that of hunting and gathering). It's what took humanity out of hunter bands and tribes and into villages and cities. Now, whether that's good for everyone, I agree is highly debatable (leaning toward not good) but the cat's out of the bag.

Permalink Reply by Adrian on September 9, 2010 at 12:03am

Dallas, the author seems ridiculously ill-informed. Her knowledge of vegetarian nutrition, not to mention vegan, seems laughable, and no doubt was a contributory to her health problems; the ignorance that is, not the veganism. There are millions of meat eaters out there suffering health problems as a result of a similar ignorance of omnivorous nutrition.

Furthermore, study after study shows that health amongst vegetarians is generaly better than the rest of the population, and that they are less susceptible to many degenerative diseases such as bowel, stomach and bladder cancers, osteoporosis, heart disease, stroke, hypertension, diabetes etc etc. (I suggest you google The Oxford Vegetarian Study if you want more details, and there are numerous other studies, including an exhaustive US study based on 7th Day adventists).

She constantly projects the prejudices and ignorance of her past life, and those of the circles she communicated with, onto the millions of vegetarians and vegans in general, which is completely unjustified. Her assertions about what vegetarians understand about nature, the environment and agriculture seem pretty baseless, and are certainly not borne out either by my personal experience, or by the published material of many vegetarian authors and campaigners.

Her premise of comparing an idealised past livestock production to the intensive arable production of current agribusiness is a fallacious argument. It is a form of special pleading that we compare an idealised form of production for one side, but do not allow consideration of the best practice for the alternate side, but instead insist on comparing it to worst practice. I have come across this tactic several times recently, and it seems to be a current fashion in anti-vegetarian literature (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/sep/06/meat-production...). It's fashionability does not make it any less wrong. There are many valid criticisms to be made against some of the old comparisons of environmental impact of livestock production, but that does not negate the fact that they were the product of legitimate research, which has already been updated, and will continue to be so as new evidence emerges.

She seems to be advocating some return to a hunter-gatherer idyll in the extracts you posted. This is naive in the extreme. With the population we have we simply can not avoid a grain-intensive diet, and so her critique of arable production is invalid, as we have no realistic alternative. Indeed, we should diversify our food supply to take advantage of the many hundreds of edible plants not currently cultivated, rather than rely so heavily on grass production for ruminant pasture, and on monocultures of the limited species we do cultivate. There would beopportunity for far greater diversity of domestic food supply and far less imports if so much fertile land was not devoted either to livestock production or to raising crops to feed to livestock.

There are alternative production methods to alleviate or remove most of the problems she identifies in arable agriculture, and these apply equally to a vegetarian/vegan diet as to a livestock-based one. It is only after taking account of these that we can really consider the relative impacts of a vegetarian diet versus her projected livestock ideal. When such a diet model is detailed and modelled against a meat free diet, I am pretty confident that we will find that at worst they will be similar, and most likely will still favour the vegetarian/vegan alternative in environmental impact. However, we live in the present, and it is clear that, under current production models, the meat-based diet is more destructive than the meat free alternative.

Finally, her writing is littered with basic factual errors. One example that leaps to mind is her assertion that tryptophan can not be found in any plant sources. This is total nonsense, and it points to the complete lack of basic research undertaken to support her arguments. FYI, tryptophan is plentiful in chocolate, oats, dried dates, milk, yogurt, cottage cheese, red meat, eggs, fish, poultry, sesame, chickpeas, sunflower seeds, pumpkin seeds, spirulina, and peanuts. A fair percentage and variety of plant and/or dairy sources there! A basic wikipedia search would have revealed this to her, never mind a proper scientific literature search.

I'm afraid that, from the extracts you posted, I will not be rushing to read any more of it. I've seen the same arguments elsewhere, far better written, and without all the personal angst and digressions. And the arguments themselves are far from conclusive, and based on flawed assumptions.

Permalink Reply by Adrian on September 9, 2010 at 12:39am

Thanks for posting the links to the reviews. I only wish you had done so earlier, and then I wouldn't have had to wade through the extracts myself LOL!

Permalink Reply by Michael Sizer-Watt on September 9, 2010 at 9:26am

"I wonder if there is such thing as a "vegan community"" - tell me about it! I hate when people say "the black community" as if they all live in one place. argh...

Permalink Reply by Adrian on September 9, 2010 at 2:31pm

And the "gay community" or "atheist community" too!!

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on September 9, 2010 at 10:38am

Everyone, thanks for responding and for all the info. There is a lot of stuff here to read through, so I'll comment back when I can.

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on September 9, 2010 at 6:07pm

Michael: It would be even better to commit mass suicide, and then our bilogical footprint would be reduced to zero.

Well, no one is advocating that!

Agriculture is incredibly efficient (10 - 100X that of hunting and gathering).

Efficient for who? I'm not sure I agree with that. It strikes me that gathering existing food was probably more efficient than converting (clearcutting) existing ecosystems into crops that have to be maintained, plowed, watered, and protected from pests. Is animal agriculture efficient? Humans went from hunting large animals to housing, feeding, medicating, and transporting them. This does not sound efficient to me. But then again, if you look at it from the perspective that consolidating food production has freed us up to do other things, then it may seem efficient. It is certainly a complex issue, and I think how you define efficiency would have a lot to do with whether or not you think agriculture is a good thing.

Adrian: There are millions of meat eaters out there suffering health problems as a result of a similar ignorance of omnivorous nutrition. Furthermore, study after study shows that health amongst vegetarians is generaly better than the rest of the population, and that they are less susceptible to many degenerative diseases such as bowel, stomach and bladder cancers, osteoporosis, heart disease, stroke, hypertension, diabetes etc etc...

...based on 7th Day adventists.

I agree, but what always troubles me about any of these "studies" is that human lifestyles are so complex, and genetics are so complex, that I don't see any way to feel 100% certain about the conclusions drawn from them. For every study that says one thing, there is another one that says just the opposite.

I think you could find vegans and carnivores alike who suffer similar problems, but who really knows what the causes are.

She quotes a 7th DA study, but picks it apart for overlooking other factors.

She seems to be advocating some return to a hunter-gatherer idyll in the extracts you posted. This is naive in the extreme.

Yes, she does. But I get the impression that at the end of the day, she does not really believe that this will happen. And yes, she does idealize the past. She often evoked the "noble savage" mythos, which I disagree with. She also evoked "the sacred" way too much for me, too.

...the meat-based diet is more destructive than the meat free alternative.

I'm pretty sure that she would not deny this, with our current methods. Like I said, she pretty much attacks everyone.

One example that leaps to mind is her assertion that tryptophan can not be found in any plant sources.

Thanks for that info.

Adriana: But the most illogical point is: vegetarians (or vegans) are a tiny portion of the population in the developed world; whatever additional calories from veggies and grains they need do not make any difference whatsoever on how much agriculture exists, or on the fact that monocultures exist. So, who cares if a tiny % of people don't eat meat? Why even bother to write a book about how vegetarianism is a myth? Who cares? Vegetarians are just so few.

Great point. I overlooked that passage, or had forgotten it by the time I got to the end. (It took like a month to read this.)

I'm not against killing animals per se, I'm against raising hordes of them in horrible conditions, where they suffer their entire lives, and have horrible deaths.

That is the problem I have with eating meat, too. But of course, I still eat it. You know that story, I think.

Thanks for all that other info you provided -- the critique and all. I read it, but I'm not going to respond to it all.

@ Stephen: Thanks for the video and reviews. It was stupid to pie her. I've not read the reviews, but I will. I do want to see what they have to say on the subject.

@ Everyone: Thanks for your comments. I enjoyed reading your input. One day I may discuss my own eating habits.

Permalink Reply by Sydni Moser on September 11, 2010 at 9:50am

Check out this new article posted in the AlterNet 9/8/10...

OK, I Take It Back -- We Don't All Have to Eat Vegan to Save the Planet

I used to think being a vegan was the only ethical way to eat. But an important new book suggests we can change our food system to allow for healthy meat consumption.

http://www.alternet.org/story/148098/ok%2C_i_take_it_back_--_we_don...