Foer's "Eating Animals"-- thoughts?

I just finished reading "Eating Animals" about factory farming and thought it was a provocative and interesting read. I'm curious to hear if other foodies have read it and have thoughts about it. Foer's now a committed vegetarian, but the book itself is not dogmatic in that direction and emphasizes humane animal husbandry as well. It had a powerful impact on me, particularly the cruelty of the factory farming process. It does not, however, make me want to become a vegetarian. After reading this, and Michael Pollan, I've ended up where Pollan more or less has. I want to avoid factory farmed meat. For me, this has meant eating vegetarian a lot of the times when I eat out and when I can't be sure it's come from non mass market sources. I'm definitely struggling with this as a life-long foodie. Some suggest that "Reason" and "Desire" don't always go together, and Foer asks us to choose the rational response, but I disagree and I do think they can be productively negotiated. In fact, I think what makes some foodies turn away from foodstuffs produced by industrial agriculture is the matter of "taste". That bland chicken, stuffed full of chemicals and genetically bred off its flavor just does not taste as good as the chicken that came from the small poultry farm that I grew up eating. I'm still trying to figure this out for myself in theory and practice. It means no fast food (which is not a problem, don't eat it anyway), no chain places, quality meat prepared at home, yes to Blackbird, Sepia, Frontera etc. But what about my beloved Lao Sze Chuan? And, gasp, Kuma's? I might need a chicken crack exception here. In part, I'm curious to hear the thoughts and practices of others as I muddle my way through this, imperfectly, trying to make better choices but also refusing what Pollan calls the "moral clarity" of the vegetarian.

Interesting thoughts that make me afraid to read "Eating Animals," for fear that I might move to exactly where you are. Actually, I was there for a few months a few years ago. I committed to the same eating habits as you, but then I either changed my mind or lost my will. There is so much I love about family-run ethnic restaurants like Sun Wah, and I was having a really hard time giving up the best things those places have to offer. I suspect that more motives were mostly selfish, but I also have a hard time believing that a planet without TAC Quick and Salam is a better one.

I have not read Foer's book; I just listened to a 6-1/2 minute interview on NPR and am thus qualified as an expert.

What I object to about Foer is much of what led me to go medieval on Mark Bittman a few months back. When Michael Pollan tells you about the awfulness of the food system, it's from years of research and thinking in the field, and with a thoughtfulness about the very real benefits of the system as it exists today, even as he seeks to awake us to its unseen harms. When Mark Bittman does so it's to scare the shit out of you; and when Jonathan Safran Foer declares (as he does to NPR) that eating meat is THE WORST THING YOU CAN DO TO CAUSE GLOBAL WARMING, we're firmly in the realm of designer hairshirts, the immensely privileged lashing themselves in public so we can see that they're the biggest sinners of all. (No attention is bad attention.)

The problem I have with this is that it affords the author and his followers immense moral superiority, but it's much less clear that it gets us any closer to a real world solution. Let's look at it this way: Foer, presumably, spent exactly $0 on meat this week. I, on the other hand, spent about $250 to buy a bunch of pork directly from a producer in Iowa who raises pigs naturally. Of the two of us, who did more for the cause? Well, depends on what the cause is. If the cause is personally not eating any more meat ever, Foer's purer than I am. If the cause is convincing others not to do so, it's not clear either of us achieved anything. If the cause is supporting an alternative to the awfulness of factory-raised meat, though, I'd say I'm $250 ahead of him in terms of helping a real farmer make a going business out of better practices. So how dare he NOT eat meat?

This is the eternal divide between puritanism and pragmatism— if you've come to see eating meat as original sin, you're not going to be very receptive to the incremental changes that may actually produce reform in the absence of a wholesale conversion of your fellow citizens. Since Foer brings up slavery as an analogy for meat farming (along with the Holocaust and many other subtle and non-inflammatory comparisons-- hey, Hitler was a vegetarian!) I think I can, without seeming ridiculous, point out an aspect of that analogy of my own. One segment of hardcore abolitionists decided that since the Constitution (which wedded slave and free states at the nation's founding) was itself inescapably tarnished by slavery, they would not vote, even for the nascent abolitionist Republican party. They were, as a result, immensely scornful of the Republican president eventually elected, a weak and vacillating backwoodsman who seemed indifferent to the morality of abolition and interested only in putting down the rebellion. It was very late in the day when people like William Lloyd Garrison came to realize that not only could Lincoln actually end slavery, but only Lincoln could, as a practical political matter-- because he, unlike them, was willing to work with the world as it actually was to move it toward what it should be.

The factory farming system will not change because a few people stop eating meat altogether; but it can change if rather more people support an alternative with their own money. At the same time, this is not the only issue at hand; if all the taquerias and carnitas places in town died because only naturally raised meat became available and only high end restaurants could afford it, that would have its own harmful social effects on immigrant and lower-income communities, which we would presumably not wish to see either. So support better products where you can, but don't feel impure because you bought a burger or a taco from your neighborhood joint, either. Seeing this issue in terms of your own purity has much to do with vanity, and much less to do with reforming a system.

P.S. Although I've been pretty scornful of Bittman's recent conversion to enviromental scold, the man does have a hell of a knack for condensing information for the general public, and one of his recent prescriptions— "Be a vegan until dinner"— may be the greatest nutrition/diet advice in the fewest words ever. I don't follow it every day— hey, I'm no purist— but just thinking about it has made me much more conscious about eating (and kept me from grabbing the same old crap in a hurry on more than a few occasions).

Smee, I have the same thought often. I want to only eat meat raised and slaughtered outside of industrial food conditions, for many reasons... food safety, pollution, animal cruelty, to name a few. I also think that industrial meat is artificially cheap, and makes it easy to eat it multiple times a day - even if its crappy, bland meat. I guess I wish that we took out the hidden costs of industrial meat - all the subsidies and environmental cleanup and salmonella that Pollan discusses. That cost would be inevitably be passed on to the consumer, and I think that's ok - because no one nutritionally needs to eat meat multiple times a day, or even several times a week. If we paid what it was really worth, we'd savor that meat a lot more.

But that's not reality. So when I order I ask questions about the meat - where it was raised, how it was produced. That works fine in the sit-down places where all the servers speak native English. But what about the neighborhood places we praise at the GNR awards? LTH posts often mention talking to the owners, and what great people they are. Let's not sell them short - these are professionals with all sorts of food wisdom and experience. Why not ask them about their food sources? Respectfully and thoughtfully, of course. We might be surprised to find we share a point of view. And they might be encouraged to know that all kinds of people - even their LTH regulars - would be willing to pay more for meat from alternative farmers.

Kennyz wrote:Actually, I was there for a few months a few years ago. I committed to the same eating habits as you, but then I either changed my mind or lost my will. There is so much I love about family-run ethnic restaurants like Sun Wah, and I was having a really hard time giving up the best things those places have to offer. I suspect that more motives were mostly selfish, but I also have a hard time believing that a planet without TAC Quick and Salam is a better one.

Much like Kenny's experience a few years ago, I was similarly committed to sustainable meats before I moved to Chicago. Living in central Virginia, I had easy access to sustainable meats for use in my own kitchen, and a slew of restaurants that used meats from the same producers. If it wasn't meat where I knew and felt comfortable with the farmer who raised it, I ate vegetarian.

When I moved to Chicago 2 1/2 years ago, I made an active decision to loosen up so that I wouldn't miss out on one of the big advantages of living in a big city - the incredible array of ethnic eats previously unavailable to me. I don't question where the pork on the rotisserie for my tacos al pastor at Maxwell St comes from, and (at least for now) I'm ok with that.

When it comes to what I cook at home, I'm still diligent and (much like Mike G upthread), keep a chest freezer stocked with disassembled local, sustainable, humanely-treated animals.

Every once in a while I find myself starting to eat meat without thinking about it - not because it's a delicious banh mi from Nhu Lan, lamb with cumin from Lao Sze Chuan, or a cemita atomica from Cemitas Puebla, but just because it's convenient. As soon as I notice this happening, I generally get back on track.

I think lemoneater's point is an extremely important one. When I was stricter about my diet, it forced me to ask questions about the meat I was eating in restaurants, and I know that message was making it back to the management and/or chef (because often the wait staff wouldn't know and would have to go ask). It's a valid market signal and we as consumers need to do our part to represent demand. Now that I've taken a more moderate stance, I'm not asking those questions near as often as I should - I need to do my bit to let restauranteurs know that I care about the source of their animal proteins and that I'd be willing to pay a premium for the good stuff.

-Dan

There is no way I will stop eating meat, and i do not think for a second about where the meat on my plate came from when eating out, it usually isnt on the plate for long. My motto: "if it tastes good I eat it".

When shopping for what I am cooking I am a little more choosey, more in regards to quality, freshness, and the lack of adders vs what kind of farm the meat came from. If i can support a small scale local farmer that is just a bonus, moreso for the fact that i am helping a neighbor vs the belief I am part of some cause to "save the planet".

I'll talk pork specifically since that is what i buy/eat the most of. I do not buy any pork that has been "enhanced" with a salt solution, moreso because I dont want the things I smoke to taste like ham vs any other reason. I recently started buying some of my pork from a local butcher whose family owns a pig farm where they get their pork. I like that it pretty much gets slaughtered to order(gotta reserve spares, butts, etc early in the week so thye know how much to have ready) The cost is probably 2x as much as I can get these items for elsewhere, but I can taste the freshness.

"diferent strokes"

Well, I think that illustrates part of the problem with the haranguing-moralistic approach.

I, susceptible to such cityfied arguments, buy naturally raised pork because it's good for farmers, tastes better, isn't full of chemicals trying to make up for the flavorlessness caused by factory practices, etc.

Where Jim, turned off by being lectured by pointyheads like Foer, buys pork from his neighbors because he's helping them, it tastes fresher, and doesn't have an artificial taste from additives.

How can we ever bridge the gap between these two diametrically opposed points of view?

Mike G wrote:Well, I think that illustrates part of the problem with the haranguing-moralistic approach.

I, susceptible to such cityfied arguments, buy naturally raised pork because it's good for farmers, tastes better, isn't full of chemicals trying to make up for the flavorlessness caused by factory practices, etc.

Where Jim, turned off by being lectured by pointyheads like Foer, buys pork from his neighbors because he's helping them, it tastes fresher, and doesn't have an artificial taste from additives.

How can we ever bridge the gap between these two diametrically opposed points of view?

I agree Mike, unwittingly I share many of the same end result aspects, and obviously some different inerpretations of the same aspects as the soap box preaching, moral highground folks.

jimswside wrote:

Mike G wrote:Well, I think that illustrates part of the problem with the haranguing-moralistic approach.

I, susceptible to such cityfied arguments, buy naturally raised pork because it's good for farmers, tastes better, isn't full of chemicals trying to make up for the flavorlessness caused by factory practices, etc.

Where Jim, turned off by being lectured by pointyheads like Foer, buys pork from his neighbors because he's helping them, it tastes fresher, and doesn't have an artificial taste from additives.

How can we ever bridge the gap between these two diametrically opposed points of view?

I agree Mike, unwittingly I share many of the same end result aspects, and obviously some different inerpretations of the same aspects as the soap box preaching, moral highground folks.

Most food lovers would agree with Jim I suspect. I can recall shipping meat from Heartland Farms to my parents in South Carolina. They had pretty much stopped eating meat because it didn't taste the same, plus health concerns. The meat from Heartland only re-affirmed their thinking about eating meat from the grocery store. The meat from Heartland was amazing I'm told. My mother essentially, won't eat meat unless I suggest she really will enjoy it b/c it's a small farmer that cares about taste. The planet stuff won't move her, but she would listen to it.

Then again, I'm the vegetarian that feeds her dog "good meat" .

Sorry to be so tardy with my response! Fascinating thoughts here. Mike G, I more or less agree with your criticism of the pointy headed Foer and I'm much closer to the Pollan view here. Also, I am to a large degree skeptical about individual dietary efforts as the vehicle for wholesale change and most of the time would rather focus my energy on federal policy. To that end, the Obama administration has a mixed record.
Personally, I'm definitely negotiating this in a very loose fashion. I'm attempting to buy sustainable, non factory farmed meat for cooking at home (and I must say, motivated as much by taste as by concerns about animal welfare), but eating out is much more complicated. A world without Lao Sze Chuan's aforementioned lamb, or the shrimp in mayo that I had for lunch yesterday, makes no sense to me. For me, for now, it means choosing vegetarian at mediocre places, chains, fast-food, where taste does not make an overwhelming case; eating meat at those fabulous ethnic places on occasion; wholeheartedly eating meat at places where they buy local, organic and humane, and spending a little extra to eat better sourced meat at home. In the few weeks I've been doing this, I find that I eat meat about once or twice a week and vegetarian the rest of the time. It's working for me. But I think I also have a degree of comfort with my "imperfect" choices and resist the ideal of perfection, as both impossible and undesirable to attain.

In the opening pages of Foer's book (which I'm furiously reading in preparation for his talk tomorrow at the Washington library), he writes, "conversations about meat tend to make people feel cornered." That sense of being cornered, which I have noticed among others and felt in myself, is, I think, frequently a pang of conscience.

David Hammond wrote:In the opening pages of Foer's book (which I'm furiously reading in preparation for his talk tomorrow at the Washington library), he writes, "conversations about meat tend to make people feel cornered." That sense of being cornered, which I have noticed among others and felt in myself, is, I think, frequently a pang of conscience.

I think your analysis is probably correct. LTH is a site all about consumption, and so we all tend to fall prey (no pun intended) to an "I want what I want when I want it" mindset. Part of each of us knows that there's more to living a good life than this, but we don't always want to know it.

My conscience doesnt bother me at all in regards to me consuming as much meat as I can(i simply like meat, & like to eat it every day). I just dont like to be advised/told how to live my life by some author or activist. Nothing about being cornered, but more about being talked down to as many of these enlightened folks tend to do.

jimswside wrote:My conscience doesnt bother me at all in regards to me consuming as much meat as I can(i simply like meat, & like to eat it every day). I just dont like to be advised/told how to live my life by some author or activist. Nothing about being cornered, but more about being talked down to as many of these enlightened folks tend seem to do.

So far there is little in Foer's approach that feels condescending or that could even be considered advice. It raises questions and discusses issues. But Foer's is just one voice, and I think the bigger question, for you, is this: should anything but appetite drive our dining decisions?

David Hammond wrote:
So far there is little in Foer's approach that feels condescending or that could even be considered advice. It raises questions and discusses issues. But Foer's is just one voice, and I think the bigger question, for you, is this: should anything but appetite drive our dining decisions?

I am not specifically referring to Mr. Foer, as I have not read his book, but others who I have encountered.

For me the only things that drive my dining decisions are: availability, quality, the time of year(for seasonal items), and $$$ on hand. I am a globalvore, as long as I like how something tastes I will eat it, no matter how many miles it traveled to get to my plate, or into my home kitchen.

As stated upthread some of my purchasing decisions are similar to the folks like Mr. Foer, but I do them for different reasons(not to save the world, but to help a neighbor or local business, or perhaps selfishly that it may just tastes better).

Is my way the right way? I personally dont think there is any right or wrong way in regards to this, just personal choice.

jimswside wrote:

David Hammond wrote:
So far there is little in Foer's approach that feels condescending or that could even be considered advice. It raises questions and discusses issues. But Foer's is just one voice, and I think the bigger question, for you, is this: should anything but appetite drive our dining decisions?

I am not specifically referring to Mr. Foer, as I have not read his book, but others who I have encountered.

For me the only things that drive my dining decisions are: availability, quality, the time of year(for seasonal items), and $$$ on hand. I am a globalvore, as long as I like how something tastes I will eat it, no matter how many miles it traveled to get to my plate, or into my home kitchen.

As stated upthread some of my purchasing decisions are similar to the folks like Mr. Foer, but I do them for different reasons(not to save the world, but to help a neighbor or local business, or perhaps selfishly that it may just tastes better).

Is my way the right way? I personally dont think there is any right or wrong way in regards to this, just personal choice.

My point with the quote about meat discussions making people feel "cornered" is that most of us, being carnivores/omnivores, get defensive when someone announces themselves as vegetarian, because their self-descriptor is taken to be a critique of us...which, admittedly, sometimes it is. That doesn't mean, though, that their point is bogus.

I believe there IS a right and wrong choice as regards food behavior, just as there is with any other behavior. I do believe, for instance, that it is wrong (from an at least an environmental and evolutionary standpoint) to hunt a species to extinction. So I, for instance, try not to eat fish that is on the endangered list -- I don't always succeed, but I think that small effort is worth my attention, and I do so not because the fish doesn't taste good, but because avoiding it seems like the right thing to do.

David Hammond wrote:
My point with the quote about meat discussions making people feel "cornered" is that most of us, being carnivores/omnivores, get defensive when someone announces themselves as vegetarian, because their self-descriptor is taken to be a critique of us...which, admittedly, sometimes it is. That doesn't mean, though, that their point is bogus.

I believe there IS a right and wrong choice as regards food behavior, just as there is with any other behavior. I do believe, for instance, that it is wrong (from an at least an environmental and evolutionary standpoint) to hunt a species to extinction. So I, for instance, try not to eat fish that is on the endangered list -- I don't always succeed, but I think that small effort is worth my attention, and I do so not because the fish doesn't taste good, but because avoiding it seems like the right thing to do.

I respect your and others opinions on this topic, event though I have a differing one.

jimswside wrote:

David Hammond wrote:
My point with the quote about meat discussions making people feel "cornered" is that most of us, being carnivores/omnivores, get defensive when someone announces themselves as vegetarian, because their self-descriptor is taken to be a critique of us...which, admittedly, sometimes it is. That doesn't mean, though, that their point is bogus.

I believe there IS a right and wrong choice as regards food behavior, just as there is with any other behavior. I do believe, for instance, that it is wrong (from an at least an environmental and evolutionary standpoint) to hunt a species to extinction. So I, for instance, try not to eat fish that is on the endangered list -- I don't always succeed, but I think that small effort is worth my attention, and I do so not because the fish doesn't taste good, but because avoiding it seems like the right thing to do.

I respect your and others opinions on this topic, event though I have a differing one.

Respectfully, the "it's all up to the individual" position seems to me a cop-out. Behavior, even legal behavior, cannot ultimately be justified on the basis of it feels/tastes good. That said, letting this go.

My favorite quote from Foer's to date: "If we let dogs be dogs, and breed without interference, we would create a sustainable, local meat supply with low energy inputs that would put even the most efficient grass-based farming to shame."

David Hammond wrote: "If we let dogs be dogs, and breed without interference, we would create a sustainable, local meat supply with low energy inputs that would put even the most efficient grass-based farming to shame."

And what would these dogs eat? Us?

teatpuller wrote:

David Hammond wrote: "If we let dogs be dogs, and breed without interference, we would create a sustainable, local meat supply with low energy inputs that would put even the most efficient grass-based farming to shame."

And what would these dogs eat? Us?

If given the opportunity, I have no doubt they would.

David Hammond wrote:
Respectfully, the "it's all up to the individual" position seems to me a cop-out. Behavior, even legal behavior, cannot ultimately be justified on the basis of it feels/tastes good.

not really a cop out imho, I'm simply uninterested in policing/judging my fellow man, and appreciate the same in return.

either way its all good, a friendly debate is good & educational, and it would be a shame & boring if everyone thought/lived alike.

David Hammond wrote:So I, for instance, try not to eat fish that is on the endangered list -- I don't always succeed, but I think that small effort is worth my attention, and I do so not because the fish doesn't taste good, but because avoiding it seems like the right thing to do.

Despite good intentions, another quote from Foer that makes me think that maybe I'm still a heartless, conscience-free bastard: ""No fish gets a good death. Not a single one. You never have to wonder if the fish on your plate had to suffer. It did."

I've been trying to avoid typing out a long passage from The River Cottage Meat Book ever since this thread came back to life. Essentially the argument is one about the naivete of imagining there's an easy state of nature that animals would revert to if we simply let them be. Preying on each other is their natural state, whether or not we remove ourselves from the list of predators; our wholesale switch to vegetarianism would instantly encroach upon whatever land we imagine them returning to; and most of all, the "just say no" approach willfully ignores the millennia by which certain animals and ourselves become adapted to one another. As he points out (echoing a researcher named Stephen Budiansky), certain species adapted to us as a food source and protector, and accepted as part of that deal that we would eat some of them under certain conditions-- and if they hadn't liked that deal, well, for most of that process they were not fenced or cooped, so pigs or chickens could have fled en masse to the woods, and instead, they fled the woods to us.

I'd be curious to what degree, if any, Foer deals with this sort of practical, hardheadedly Darwinian objection to his highhandedly moral arguments. In my admittedly limited exposure, he deals solely in feelbad moralism. To return to his (overheated) comparison of meat-eating to slavery, his point of view seems to be similar to that of those who thought the way to end slavery was to pack up all the slaves and return them to Africa— at which point what happened to them after that was none of our concern. To me, it's immoral not to recognize that certain animals are in a longterm relationship with us, and we can't just kick them out to make ourselves feel better.

Mike G wrote:I've been trying to avoid typing out a long passage from The River Cottage Meat Book ever since this thread came back to life. Essentially the argument is one about the naivete of imagining there's an easy state of nature that animals would revert to if we simply let them be.

My guess is that it'd be less an "easy state of nature" and more like simply vastly reduced numbers. The Botany of Desire perspective is that certain animals played upon our desire for them to "trick" us into breeding more of them. Were it not for their delicious meat, pigs might have gone the way of the Dodo.

The slavery analogy is kind slippery in that although it would have been physically possible to stop slavery and send all former slaves back to Africa, it's inconceivable that everyone now eating meat would give it up overnight, thus causing vast numbers of domesticated livestock to lumber back to the wild from whence they never came.

So, how was Foer? Did you take him to Jones Good Ass BBQ and Foot Massage after?

David Hammond wrote:Despite good intentions, another quote from Foer that makes me think that maybe I'm still a heartless, conscience-free bastard: ""No fish gets a good death. Not a single one. You never have to wonder if the fish on your plate had to suffer. It did."

IMO a fish is about as intelligent as a mushroom. Bugs are right up there with fish on the intelligence scale. Imagine the millions of bugs chewed up in the combine harvesting the wheat he eats (not to mention the rodents, bunnies, snakes, etc). How can he live with himself?

Mike G wrote:So, how was Foer? Did you take him to Jones Good Ass BBQ and Foot Massage after?

Surprisingly, given the sobriety of the topic and the threatening-sounding book title, funny. He read a short passage and the rest was Q&A, which I thought was very telling, because this guy is not an evangelist. He is interested in dialogue on this topic, and although some of us who feel cornered may accuse him of dictating how we're supposed to eat, he's not doing taking an authoritarian or preachy posture at all. There's a lot of soul searching: not melodramatic sob-sister hand-wringing but rather simple self-questioning and an effort to call out what he sees as contradictions in all of us who eat meat and yet say we're against cruelty, injustice, the destruction of the planet, etc. And yes, if his stats are correct, the environmental damage caused by limitless flesh-eating appears to be much more significant than I had imagined.

Also telling: afterwards, before meeting The Wife at Green Mill for gypsy music, I ate at Demera. Had the vegetarian platter. Rarely go that route.

teatpuller wrote:

David Hammond wrote:Despite good intentions, another quote from Foer that makes me think that maybe I'm still a heartless, conscience-free bastard: ""No fish gets a good death. Not a single one. You never have to wonder if the fish on your plate had to suffer. It did."

IMO a fish is about as intelligent as a mushroom. Bugs are right up there with fish on the intelligence scale. Imagine the millions of bugs chewed up in the combine harvesting the wheat he eats (not to mention the rodents, bunnies, snakes, etc). How can he live with himself?

Does a being have to be intelligent to suffer? That assertion is, all due respect, preposterous.

As it turns out, the Jains (the most extreme vegetarians, ever) do not farm because doing so kills life in exactly the way you describe. So they hire others to farm for them, which can of course be interpreted as cynical, though within their possibly pre-Hindu belief system (dating is uncertain), having others soil their souls keeps the Jains clean and ready for billions of years of rebirths.

David Hammond wrote:
Does a being have to be intelligent to suffer? That assertion is, all due respect, preposterous.

Do you think mushrooms suffer?

teatpuller wrote:
Do you think mushrooms suffer?

Im sure someone will, or has already written a book that thinks they do.