The “Food Movement” That Isn’t
Print This Post
Erik Marcus has brought my attention to a book review by Michael Pollan wherein Pollan dismisses reality. Pollan builds up a straw-man argument against veganism, saying that “Animal rights advocates occasionally pick fights with sustainable meat producer,” (source).
The reality is that “sustainable meat,” “humane meat,” “happy meat,” “ethical meat” or whatever you want to call it isn’t even the issue! If nonvegans had a real choice and were able to buy that kind of meat, then maybe an “animal welfarism versus animal rights” debate would be worth our time. But that’s not even relevant today, as perfectly illustrated by Jonathan Safran Foer’s book, Eating Animals:
“We shouldn’t kid ourselves about the number of ethical eating options available to most of us. There isn’t enough nonfactory chicken produced in America to feed the population of Staten Island and not enough nonfactory pork to serve New York City, let alone the country. Ethical meat is a promissory note, not a reality. Any ethical-meat advocate who is serious is going to be eating a lot of vegetarian fare.” (Eating Animals, page 256)
Today – American food production of 2010 – it doesn’t matter whether or not you think animals deserve rights or simply better accommodations because right now – in reality – BILLIONS of animals suffer torturous lives and deaths regardless. The overwhelming majority of animal products available for purchase today come from factory farms. Anyone who purchases meat, eggs, or dairy from restaurants or supermarkets funds animal cruelty and funds environmental destruction. Simple as that. Unless you go to the “sustainable farm” yourself and you witness the animal “husbandry” firsthand, any claims of sustainability or humane treatment are completely meaningless.
How can Pollan reconcile his promotion of so-called humane and environmentally-friendly meat-eating with the FACT that it simply doesn’t exist?
Where does Pollan get off recommending ANYTHING other than veganism?
I can’t say it any simpler than Jonathan Safran Foer said it:
“Just how destructive does a culinary preference have to be before we decide to eat something else? If contributing to the suffering of billions of animals that live miserable lives and (quite often) die in horrific ways isn’t motivating, what would be? If being the number one contributor to the most serious threat facing the planet (global warming) isn’t enough, what is? And if you are tempted to put off these questions of conscience, to say not now, then when?” (Eating Animals, page 243)
Respond