Part-time Veganism
Print This Post
Time tackles flexitarianism:
Although the American Dietetic Association (ADA) doesn’t track the number of part-timers [vegetarians], the group says roughly 2.5% of Americans are strictly vegetarian, a diet that poses no health risks as long as practitioners get enough protein from beans and other nonmeat sources. “A partial-vegetarian plan is a little more user-friendly,” says Dawn Jackson Blatner, a flexitarian and ADA spokesperson.
The goal for many activists is simply to get more people to eat less meat. “Absolute purists should be living in a cave,” says Ingrid Newkirk, president of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). “Anybody who witnesses the suffering of animals and has a glimmer of hope of reducing that suffering can’t take the position that it’s all or nothing. We have to be pragmatic. Screw the principle.”
Read the whole Time article here >>
What do you think of Newkirk’s quote? Is she right that promotion of veganism without an acceptance of part-time veganism (aka flexitarianism) isn’t pragmatic?
I agree that every bit of progress should be applauded. If that means we can get many more people to go vegetarian at least part of the time, why not? Overall the idea is to decrease exploitation and suffering of animals, and less meat eaters could mean less forced breeding and torturing – a step in a better direction.
It is however important that semi-vegetarianism is not accepted as the solution. It is just a step. Like humane farming methods, this addresses certain symptoms of the problem, but not the problem itself, which is that we abuse and kill animals for food, etc. in the first place.
Still, my opinion is that introducing people to meat-free living – even one day at a time, is worthy our best efforts. It will allow people to see how easy it is, how many plant food choices there are, and how good they feel. This could slowly break down the objection by many main streamers, and helps convincing people that vegetarians and vegans are not an elite bunch of lunatics who live an impossibly hard lifestyle.
I think it’s OK to encourage people who want to go veg partime. Let them get started and become more comfortable with the idea, and then bring in the other messages that target the real objective: elimination of animal exploitation for any reason.
As someone planning to start being Vegan tommorow by going cold turkey on animal products, I think Newkirk’s point is a good one. My transition will be difficult, but I don’t want to feel totally defeated and give up if in two weeks I have a moment of weakness and eat some cheese or chicken. I don’t think other people want to feel the same way, and I think it’s more important to be encouraging. If people still eat animal products but eat more vegetables, they’re likely to find more ways to prepare and enjoy them, and will be more likely to turn to those food options and enjoy them instead of animal products in the future instead without even realizing it.
There’s a correlation between the consumption of animal products and the empathy someone feels towards animals, including humans:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0010847
I firmly believe that any reduction in animal eating is a good thing because it raises the consumer’s awareness of and compassion towards animals.
But I agree with Ina that it’s not enough. And when I advocate for animals honestly, I promote veganism primarily, not part-time veganism.
While I think there is definitely merit to the idea of getting people to gradually transition to veganism or to at least reduce their consumption of animal products, I think that Newkirk and the Time article presented this really badly. For instance, was the remark about how absolute purists should live in caves really productive, or does it just make veganism seem unreasonably difficult? And I think the idea of a part-time vegetarian is a little ridiculous. I think you can as much be a part-time vegetarian as you can be a part-time feminist. So while this may be a picky point, I feel like such people should not identify themselves as any kind of vegetarian, because they really aren’t, but as either in the process of becoming one or as eating vegetarian part-time. So I think it’s a good point but one presented rather badly.