Let's talk about food

I love cooking and food. I find cooking particularly relaxing - after a long day of being exceedingly detail-oriented and precise it is nice to chop and sautee with abandon.I am a vegetarian for numerous reasons, but mainly because there are many cons to eating meat (for the individual, community, environment) and not a single real pro that I can think of... Many people claim that "meat tastes good" is enough of a reason, but I've found that there isn't much from the flesh-world that can't be substituted with something from the veggie-world (bone and gristle might be an exception). A close friend who is a major carnivore tried my meatless country-fried-steak with sausage gravy and said it was better than the real thing.Contrary to popular belief, most vegetarians I know eat a much greater diversity of foods than meat-eaters.

Out of curiousity, if steaks of human flesh was "infinitely better" than beef steak, would you eat them? What about steaks of golden retriever? My exact response when it comes to the idea of eating flesh. How do you know it is humanely and sustainably raised? What is your definition of humane and sustainable?I know I can buy a chunk of meat with human-certified/organic/small-farm labels all over it, but how can I know that it came from a happy animal, that lived, was transported, and was killed 'humanely'?(Truthfully, I find the entire process, regardless of how it was carried out to be inhumane by nature - I'm wondering what your own or industry standards might be.)What about health concerns? "Proper proportion" may seem reasonable, yet red meat is chock full of carcinogens. I may well as claim cigarettes are fine as long as I only smoke a pack a week - nevertheless they still are damaging. So what are the pros, other than "it feels good?"

I think your tone was unfortunate in your reply, but at least it (and holmes patting you on the back for trouncing arguments I hadn't even made) annoyed me enough to reply: Great. Neither do I.However, it does at least seem that you are judgemental against vegetarians. That is my gut response at least when you (and others) counter my choice of lifestyle with assertion and evidence that eating meat is "normal". Sounds a lot like the countless arguments that seek to demonstrate that heterosexuality is "normal" as a way to denigrate homosexuality. I didn't question the morality of eating meat. You are arguing with yourself there.I questioned the idea that 'X'-feels-better-than-'Y' is sufficient reason to choose 'X'. It obviously isn't in our minds, since you would apparently not eat a golden retriever steak if it tasted better than a beef steak. We seem to agree on that point. Again you are arguing with yourself here. My fake-meat dishes have, on occasion, fooled the meaties. But that isn't the point.The point, as you outline, is largely nurture. It is what one is trained and accustomed to in their diet. Soy tastes better to me than flesh after eight years of avoiding flesh and enjoying soy.Many people would prefer a Big Mac and Coke to a well-seasoned filet mignon (from a sustainably-raised, humanely-raised animal) with a nice glass of red wine. Does that make one of those choices better than the other? No, not simply at the "feels good" level. I applaud you for that. And thanks for answering my other questions regarding your choices. This is that pesky "meat-eating-is-normal" argument that I think is as pointless as all of the other "X-is-normal" arguments. Humans do a hell of a lot of things that aren't "normal" in regards to biology and ecology, and arguments akin to yours here have been used for and against all sorts of moral issues.In any case, you are arguing with yourself again. I agree that humans are omnivores in a biological sense. I also know that as a human I can make moral decisions (as do you) regarding my diet, and choose how I deal with that biology.The very fact that you used cultural arguments above to justify dietary choices contradicts the biological arguments you make here. You obviously follow culture over biology in making dietary choices. After all, you "are capable of consuming and deriving nutrition from animals" raised in non-humane, non-sustainable manner, yet you go to great lengths to avoid that source of nutrition.If the other great apes are any indication, not only are we omnivores, we should be subsisting on a diet mainly of fruit and insects, with vegetables and raw monkey flesh to supplement. Does that biology match your dietary choices? Or do you cook your meat (monkey or otherwise), which vastly increases the carcinogen content? Not in any way a rebuttal to my carcinogen concern. Which is better - "no carcinogens", or "carcinogens in moderation"? You've chosen "carcinogens in moderation" for your diet.And meat is not "perfectly healthful", at least not according to numerous presentations at the 2003 American Association of Cancer Research annual meeting's (the largest annual meeting of cancer researchers in the world) Nutrition, Diet, and Cancer symposium. Speaker after speaker, all top researchers in the field, had one message in common - the single most important dietary change that one can enact to reduce their cancer risk (across all cancer types) is to eradicate flesh from their diet. All forms of flesh, completely. Even eating flesh once a week drastically increases your lifetime cancer risk. (I have to say that I was amazed at the consensus and complete lack of detraction among the several hundred researchers in attendance - quite unusual for a claim that counters basic precepts of our culture).In any case, carcinogens in moderation are still carcinogens.An interesting factoid: Only two species in the world regularly get prostate cancer. Humans and dogs. Humans that eat cooked red meat, and dogs that live with humans and eat the scraps of that cooked meat. Not at all, and calling it silly isn't a constructive reply.Which is better - "no carcinogens" or "carcinogens in moderation"? Quite frankly I find this statement ridiculously ignorant - at least in regards to vegetarianism as a choice. It is a sign that we live in a great overabundance of resources that the average American has the luxury of eating meat at every meal. What portion of the world's population has that luxury?Meat-based nutrition requires far more energy/time/land/resources to produce than vegetable-based nutrition; the standard number I've heard is that meat is 5% efficient. That is, you could feed 20 people a vegetarian diet with the same amount of resources that would only feed one person on a meat-based diet (after passing all of those resources through the inefficient "meat-filter").You drive an SUV (metaphorically). I safely ride my bicycle to work on a well-marked, well-maintained bicycle lane (metaphorically). Both of these things are made possible by overabundance of resources in our country/community. To call my mode of bike-riding "an incredible luxury" may be true, but it is quite different from your luxury of driving an SUV every day. This is especially the case when countless more people in the world are riding bicycles than cars by necessity, since they don't have access to the resources required for any kind of car (or an infrastructure that allows the car to be used).Do you not realize that huge portions of the world's population are essentially vegetarian by necessity? When my wife traveled across Southern Mexico doing social work, that was the case for just about everyone she met - corn, beans, sometimes an egg or a bit of cheese - every day. People in the lower class had that meal once a day, people in the middle class had it twice a day, with perhaps the luxury of a piece of fruit once a week. (The upper class was about 1% of the population and ate meat.) Nearly everyone only ate meat a few times a year, generally as part of community celebrations.Similar situations exist throughout the world.We do live in a great overabundance (perhaps overindulgence is better) of food. However, I have made a choice to minimize my indulgence in this overabundance. Many people are vegetarians for this reason specifically. It wasn't a judgemental question. Why did you think it was? Why did you find it necessary to point the finger at something from my personal life I mentioned in a thread a year ago? I find your response just so... ridiculous. I never claimed eating meat for pleasure was somehow morally wrong, so your response is completely off-base.To recap: You said there were few "cons" to eating meat. I asked what the "pros" were, other than "it feels good". Your apparent answer: I think this is why I found your previous line ridiculous. It doesn't seem that you have any other "pros"... other than "it feels good". And despite your railings and protests, I'm not passing judgement on you for that reasoning and choice. For that, I applaud you.However, I am disheartened, that you (someone who appears to spend a heck of a lot more time than I do making moral choices about their diet) are giving the standard reactionary response to any mention of vegetarianism.Why is that? People always bitch about "preachy vegetarians", yet usually the mere realization that I am a vegetarian throws people into argumentative fits, that eating meat is normal, and that vegetarianism is not a healthy choice. Usually at the end of their fit they tell me how much they can't stand preachy vegetarians like me. In a couple of cases I've been called a preachy vegetarian when I haven't said a word.What is this reaction to vegetarians? Guilt? Xenophobia?

Holmes - I felt compelled to respond to your message (even two+ months later), especially since it was so off-base and involved calling me a hypocrite. I'm glad you enjoyed schraf's response to my post; however her response didn't accurately reflect what she was replying to. I was posing questions to her to get to her cultural, logistical, medical thoughts on meat consumption. ("Almost vegetarians" like schraf often have interesting views on such subjects.)She though I was sitting in judgement. I was not. (Unless you can point out to me where I said it was morally wrong to consume flesh, or that humans are herbivores, or any of the other details she argued against that I never brought up). Please point out to me where I've been hypocritical, or retract the statement. I've already replied to schraf above that part of this idea is flawed - the frequency which westerners consume meat is a testament to overabundance, not vegetarianism. A vegetarian diet uses far less resources that a meat diet; and thus much of the world's population is vegetarian by necessary.In any case, simply because I choose to be vegetarian does not mean that I am "putting on airs,... a sort of mysanthropy and delusion" (it seems you are passing judgement on moral eaters, by the way - moreso on schraf who carefully evaluates her food choices as "humane" and "inhumane").It is unfortunate that vegetarianism is so routinely and predictably attacked. Simply the fact that I am a vegetarian causes everyone to believe that I am judgemental of meat-eaters. The predicament of the vegetarian is akin to living in society where the realization that someone is a heterosexual is accompanied by the immediate assumption that said person is a rabid homophobe.I don't judge meat-eaters. In fact, if you read through the first few pages of this thread, it rather seems that it is the vegetarian that is being judged by the meat-eaters. I've chosen to not eat flesh, for a variety of reasons (one of which is that it nauseates me). Why is that wrong? Why am I a hypocrite for enjoying anal sex but not fried chicken? (By the way, I've been told many times that vegetarians do, indeed, taste better.)
_________________________________________By the way, good luck on your personal battles with diet and digestion - I've got multiple close family members with both psychological and pathological issues with food - one of the reasons I was involved with gastrointestinal research for several years... I'm not sure what your situation is, and don't want to seem as if I'm giving medical advice; but you may want to think about a regimen of serial elimination diets. There are some good books that outline week-by-week diet plans that exclude certain dietary components in series - some people facing surgery have avoided it by simple dietary changes (and revealed the underlying problem rather than just attempting to repair the symptoms). My wife was someone who underwent surgery (not to mention years of extreme pain before and after the surgery) before we realized that simply cutting dairy out of her diet completely eliminated the problem.In any case, best of luck.

Again, ridiculous. I made no "judgemental comments about "golden retriever" steaks" or any thing else. You had commented that meat-tastes-better-than-soy was one of the reasons you enjoyed meat. I simply asked about your "taste-test" in regards to a meat not accepted in Western culture, in order to get to your philosophy on the subject. Honestly. To me dog meat is philosophically equivalent to beef, which is one of the reasons I don't eat beef - I would never eat one of my dogs. It wasn't an "over the top attack." It was a simple question. No, not at all. I write what I mean. If I wanted to be judgemental, I would have been.Besides, if I wanted to attack you with something cute, adorable, and beloved I would have picked on your cats and horses.(And I simply love being called judgemental by someone, who, in the next breath states: "I know what you mean - you don't mean what you wrote, you mean what I have judged you to have meant." Fantastic - I'm a vegetarian so I must be in rabid judgemental attack mode if I ask you a simple question about meat). Nope. Wasn't trying to make you feel bad about eating meat. Have you simply ignored my repeated statements that I respect your choices regarding diet, in order to have something to attack me about? And you wonder why I call you "reactionary"?In any case, I was simply choosing types of meat that are culturally abhorrent in the West - human flesh and pet flesh were the first that came to mind. "Fish eyeballs"? Why the hell would I choose fish eyeballs? Please understand that you chose to interpret my questions as an attack - I asked you what the pros were of eating meat other than taste, and for that you labeled me a "self rightous vegetarians who presume to lecure [you] about [your] personal food choices with the assumption that [you] haven't given serious thought to them." Now I say "please" to you - the very reason I engaged you in discussion was because you were a moral eater who I knew had give serious thought to the subject. And where did I lecture you? Yep. I already said that. Are you reading my posts, or just reacting to what you assume they contain? And again, whether or not we can do something biological has nothing to do with moral/philosophical choices. I can biologically reproduce via rape, but I choose not to. Is it easier to get beef from a McDonald's or a researched, visited, humane/sustainable farm? What does "easy" have to do with anything? You obviously don't take the "easy" route when making your moral decisions about diet. The implication as I took it - that vegetarianism is not normal at the cultural or biological level. Those seemed to be your arguments (at least that meat-eating is "normal"). If that was not what you meant, then I read your intent incorrectly. What the fuck? Judgemental, a bit?If I mention to you that cigarettes contain carcinogens and I therefore do not smoke them, would I be "scared of getting cancer"?Actually, I was a cancer researcher (with a primary focus on gastrointestinal cancers) for over seven years, including dietary studies. I still serve as a consultant for such studies. The fact of the matter is that there is a consistent correlation between meat consumption and cancer (and several other classes of disease, including major killers like heart disease and diabetes).You can trot out all the weak, tentative-medical-advice ACS proclamations you want; reading them actually took me back to the symposium I mentioned. Another consensus among the professionals there was that Westerners would never follow a meat-free diet (and asking them to do so would have essentially no effect on their diet), and so a low-meat diet should be promoted to patients since such would be more efficient at getting people to actually reduce meat consumption. I see that idea reflected in the ACS statement. I never mentioned a veggie diet preventing cancer. I mentioned meat increasing susceptibility to cancer. There is a clear difference. My recollection of this theory is that it doesn't increase susceptibility to initiation of cancer, rather, eating high (3+ servings a day) amounts of soy is associated with accelerated expansion and progression of already existing estrogen-responsive tumors. That is an important distinction. Absolutely. I don't worry about it either.There is a difference between being knowledgeable and being "scared". Maybe if you were not so judgemental you wouldn't call people weak for the basis of decisions in their lives. I don't feel morally superior. If I felt morally superior I would tell you directly.Save the lecture? Should I no longer reply with content? Give me a break - we are on a discussion board to exchange ideas. It was my understanding that you and holmes were making the assertion that vegetarianism is permitted by overabundance. Simply not true - a point that it appears you now agree with since you learned it 20 years ago... All available from non-animal sources, so these aren't unique "pros" to eating meat. (By the way, what exactly is "high-quality protein"? You do realize that the same amino acids are present in animal and non-animal protein? There is no difference in "quality".) Nope. How many times are you going to call me a liar?I wanted to double-check that my question was in fact how I remember it. Here it is: Good, I did not in fact claim nor imply that your pet Sparky was the same as a grilled sirloin. I asked a straightforward question about the taste of flesh vs. cultural perceptions of said flesh. Perhaps you can point out where I "started it". Besides, I was responding to your message #26 (you know, the one where you called me a judgemental hypocrite and felt compelled to bring up my sex life), not your message #15.Why did I bring up "reactionary"? Because you twisted a simple question I asked into a claim of moral superiority, and you now call me a liar when I try to clarify that the question was indeed to be taken in a straightforward manner. To clarify - I wasn't talking about you at the very end of my response, which is why I used the word "people" instead of "you". I was trying to discuss with you the average response I get from meaties when they discover I'm a veggie. Sorry if it seemed like I was pointing the finger at you there... Sorry, babe, but again I was trying to discuss an average response. Perhaps you would rather point fingers and call me a judgemental liar than actually read what I have written and have a decent, open discussion.This is actually one of the reasons I took a break from the forum. Seemingly intelligent people were having extensive, unnecessarily personal, and at times ferocious arguments based on a potential negative implication of a statement, rather than asking for clarification or taking people at their word. It doesn't seem that much has changed.

That's too bad. I've actually had the exact opposite experience - that vegetarian food is a lot more complex and interesting than standard meat and veg fare. Believe me, I regularly eat vegetarian curries that would melt your face.I suggest you try a different source, or cook for yourself; and perhaps tell the restaurant(s) that their vegetarian fare sucks. Or instead of seeking out a crunchy granola shop for your curry, go to your favorite Thai restaurant and order vegetarian. Is simple.Frankly, I find your commentary a bit amusing - obviously you know enough about spices to know that it is not the fact that a meal is vegetarian that makes it bad. After all, if you had a bad run with bland meat, would you be judgemental about meat and meat-eaters? No, I'd guess you would try another source or grab a bottle of hot sauce.

Who else did? Holmes? I'm still not sure that he even read my message you responded to, or he was just patting you on your back for your arguments. I replied to him directly to clarify and he hasn't yet responded.The only other response I recall was Crash's "if we're not supposed to eat animals why are they made out of meat" bumper sticker reply, which I took solely as a cutesy comment. As a side note (and I'm not sure why I didn't bring it up before): I am an animal researcher, and have been steadily for well over a decade. I'm guessing I've been responsible for the death of many more mammals and fishes than you have over the past several years. I kill them with my own hands on a regular basis.Thus, it would be completely illogical and ludicrous for me to try to preach to you and try to make you feel wrong about using animals in another capacity.Get over it. I asked you a simple question, and you took it as judgemental, and thus called me a judgemental hypocrite and brought up my sex life. I call that unneccesary and nonconstructive; "jumping down my neck"? Sure, since you felt it was necessary to get personal.I guess I'm still not sure why you aren't capable of accepting my clarification, and would prefer to repeatedly call me a liar instead.

Hopefully you aren't grouping me into this description. I am a devoted organismal biologist and have killed thousands of vertebrates in the past several years.In fact, I'll be killing some in the next few hours.For a variety of reasons, I choose not to eat meat - guilt is not one of them. For some reason this brings down belittlement and judgement, and the assumption that vegetarianism can only stem from a perverse, non-sensual, political, unhealthy diet.Believe me, vegetarian food can be extremely sensual. From my personal view, things like fat, gristle, skin, and blood are the very antithesis of something positively sensual; and are rather disgusting and disruptive to an enjoyable sensual experience. So I don't eat them - because they interfere with my sensual experience.Besides, it seems you might agree that the seasoning may be the most sensual part of eating. You can add the same seasoning to non-meat as you can to meat.Perhaps you could cut back on your broad stereotypes of vegetarianism - you also don't seem to have considered spiritual or cultural reasons for vegetarianism.The bottom line: You enjoy meat, which is fine; I don't enjoy meat, which should also be fine. There is no reason to call me dysfunctional for my preference.

I preferentially buy locally-grown food, mainly because it tastes better; are more sensual, as Crash might put it.But hell, no, I haven't given up bananas - they are one my favorite foods. I love 'em so much I buy them by the bunch.Good thing I haven't been moralizing or holier-than-thou about food, huh?

Then why propagate the stereotype? The people I know who are indeed strict vegetarians, and have been for a significant portion of their lives, are not preachy at all (then again, I try to avoid assholes). Most preachy vegetarians I've met have been vegetarian for a few months after stumbling upon a PETA website or the liner notes to a Moby album, and are subsisting on bagels and french fries. You're correct.Also, meat, particularly when it is burned or seared, has carcinogens that cannot be found in any vegetable, nor added to them. (The carcinogens are partially responsible for that unique flavor.)Not a guilt-trip; consider it a public service announcement from someone who was a cancer researcher for seven years and can't help himself. I think that spiritual and cultural reasons are the reason most people are voluntary vegetarians - at least at a global level. Even in the US, I would venture a guess that the majority of vegetarians that have been so for more than a year or so are so for spiritual, cultural, or at least philosophical reasons.

Actually I don't live in a city, and I spend nearly zero time in the sun. And it has nothing to with fear, it has to do with preference. I've always loved rainy days.Stop being such a fool. Obviously different carcinogens have different potencies and risks.If someone close to you suddenly started smoking 3 packs a day, would you be concerned? Or would you throw up your hands and proclaim, "hell, everything causes cancer, so you might as well smoke 'em up!"Carcinogens from meat are the most potent naturally occuring dietary carcinogens that I am aware of in standard diet (few people chow down on cycad nuts, for example). Meat-based carcinogens really are in a potency class far above other common dietary carcinogens.In any case, I don't see why you think it is appropriate to attack my personal health choices. If I choose for health reasons not to eat burnt meat, drink a pint of whiskey, smoke a box of cigars, and lay out in the noon-day sun everyday, that should be fine - the fact that you think it is appropriate to belittle me for such choices demonstrates that you are the one in inappropriate attack mode.Also, I was thinking about your refusal to believe my clarification on the infamous "golden retriever" question. How would you have responded if you had known I was a meat-eater or animal researcher? If you would have responded differently, you were indeed being prejudicial in your response to me.I'm also waiting for a response to message #197.

When you admit in one breath that the stereotype doesn't hold for everyone in a class of people, and in the next hold that the stereotype is the truth anyway, doesn't that qualify as bigotry?

I never said that; in fact I said: You should know because you quoted it.I stated that eating a diet containing red meat would expose you to a greater carcinogenic effect than eating a diet free of red meat. Do you disagree? But these Laramie cigarettes taste so smooth! And they relax me after a long day at the mine! Plus they make me look sooooo cool! Did I claim I had any?All I said was that meat, particularly red meat, contains potent carcinogens; and that red meat consumption has been correlated to cancer incidence (and a host of other diseases).I didn't say a vegetarian diet was perfect. I didn't say that meat didn't contain nutrients. I didn't say that humans were not omnivores.Yet you continue to argue as if I had made those arguments. Where?I do recall you telling me that the reason I'm a vegetarian is because I live in fear. I consider that an attack. I never disregarded it. I simply stated that I never made that claim. I had stated that red meat consumption increases cancer risk, NOT that a vegetarian diet reduces cancer risk. You never answered my question; but I assume that if you knew I was a meat-eater when I asked you that question, you would have taken it on face-value, instead of calling me a judgemental hypocrite, then a liar when I tried to clarify. Which means you had a prejudicial reaction against someone because they were a vegetarian, a reaction that you maintained throughout the discussion. Thanks for at least a half-hearted apology. (Truthfully I was more bothered by being called a liar when I tried to clarify). If I want to ask someone their thoughts on eating human or dog flesh in the future, I will - I've had that conversation several times with various people and never been attacked like I was here. In fact, when I asked one person the question I found out that they had indeed eaten dog on several occasions.I don't see how such a question (or any open-ended question) qualifies as a "hyperbolic comment."

Already answered directly in the post you are responding to: Do you really not understand? Or are you just looking for something to be argumentative about?An analogy: "Cigarette smoking" is associated with an increased cancer risk. "Not cigarette smoking" is not associated with a reduced cancer risk. No I am not. Already explained that several times. Meat contains carcinogens and is associated with cancer incidence - you yourself provided a reference to that effect.The comparison holds that both red meat and cigarettes contain carcinogens. There is a correlation between the consumption of each and the initiation of cancer. That does mean that the consumption of the two is equivalent in all ways or in net health effect.Again, I already explained that to you. I never made such a claim, so why should I provide research for it? (And again, I already explained that too...)Schraf - When you (or holmes or crash) give reasons for your dietary choices, you see yourself as sane and normal. When I give reasons for my dietary choices, I am being "preachy", "holier-than-thou", "judgemental", "moralizing", and "scared" - not to mention a liar, plus: psychologically-disturbed, guilt-ridden, unhealthy, incapable of enjoying life, non-sensual...This is apparently how you and others prejudge me and others simply because I am a vegetarian.On top of that, you are obviously more interested in being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative than having a decent discussion, to the point that your entire posts are arguing against claims I never made.I will NOT be responding to you again in this thread.

Hi lfen,Good to talk with you again after my absence (and pigmentary metamorphosis).There have been some peer-reviewed studies showing that many Asian diets are extremely healthy - including some that contain essentially no (non-seafood) meat or dairy.One interesting thing that came out of one several years ago was a revamping (for some) of the measure of health for a country - 'lifespan" was generally used, and the US ranked well. However, if "disease-free lifespan" is used, the US falls in the ranks - we are apparently very good at keeping people alive a long time in miserable health with little quality of life.I believe Okinawa ranked first in disease-free lifespan, and their diet consists mainly of lots of fresh vegetables and lots of fresh seafood (I don't remember off-hand if they are big soy/tofu consumers...) Soooo... Okinawans (?) don't live as long as Americans, but they are healthy longer, essentially til they drop dead one day.One concern I have with the Okinawan diet is the increasing levels of toxins present in sea-life (mercury, arsenic, etc...) I wonder if people who follow that diet for the next hundred years with fare as well as their ancestors...