Some of these veggie meats shown here are vegan, others are vegetarian.
- Is it ALWAYS better to choose the vegan option?
- What if the choice is between a) choosing the vegetarian option 100% of the time or b) choosing the vegan option 75% of the time and choosing the dead animal version 25% of the time? Then which is better?
Eric Marcus discusses Mark Bittman as well as the anti-vegetarian tribe:
being 75 percent vegan is vastly better in every respect than being 100 percent vegetarian. Bittman’s take:
“I’m not in favor of vegetarianism, really, because if you replace half a pound of meat with half a pound of cheese, you haven’t done anything. [...]
That echoes what I’ve often said in my talks, when I refer to myself as an anti-vegetarian activist.
1. Marcus is allying himself with an animal-eater. And when talking about animal suffering, that’s a dangerous thing to do. All the while, he’s alienating vegetarian allies.
2. 75% vegan isn’t mutually exclusive from 100% vegetarian, in fact, most vegetarians are probably at least 75% vegan. When I was vegetarian, I was at least 75% vegan.
3. 75% vegan ISN’T better than 100% vegetarian, because even most vegetarians don’t eat more than 25% of their diet in dairy and eggs. Really, who replaces half a pound of meat with half a pound of cheese? Who does that? Not most vegetarians.
4. The vegetarian is more likely to go 100% vegan eventually than the 75% vegan. Most vegans were vegetarians first.
5. There is a bright line difference between flesh (meat) and secretions (milk and eggs). There’s an ethical difference and a convenience difference as well. Vegetarianism is easier and more accepted by society at large than veganism. Besides, vegetarianism has a stronger ethical backbone than 75% vegan.
What do you think? Do Marcus and Bittman have a point or are they off base?