Googling “why not eat meat” leads to a whole lot of sites with lists of reasons. Here’s a general overview:
1. Global: If we all stopped eating meat there would be more resources for feeding the hungry around the world.
2. Physical: Animal fats raise cholesterol and clog arteries. Fewer people would die of heart attacks/diabetes/cancer if they abstained.
3. Religious/Historical: God/evolution didn’t design us to eat meat, and the Bible says you shouldn’t, so you’re sinning by doing so. Many cultures traditionally do not eat meat, so we shouldn’t either.
4. Ethical: Animals are living beings, so it is wrong to kill them for food.
5. Financial: Meat is the most expensive food, so we shouldn’t eat it.
6. Environmental: The agribusiness of meat production (usually beef is cited) is the number one cause of greenhouse gasses, pollution, and global warming. Meat husbandry is specifically at fault for the loss of topsoil. Therefore we should not eat meat.
As near as I can figure, even the lists with 30 or more items in them are basically summed up in one of the categories above. Let’s examine them more closely.
I don’t know about you, but a bag of wheat kernels looks much less like dinner to me than a package of ground beef. What do you do with a bag of wheat? Sure, you can grind it into flour and make bread. Even though I love fresh bread, I know many people are intolerant of gluten and many others are trying to cut back on carbs. Why would we inflict this on a third world country and teach them to get fat on carbs?
2. Physical. Does eating meat raise cholesterol and cause disease? Some studies indicate animal fats do not increase cholesterol. As for disease, see #6.
3. Religious/Historical. Or evolutionary, depending on the point of view. I see the same argument on both sides: humans don’t have the teeth to be carnivores; humans do have the teeth. Anti-meat-eaters say we don’t have the digestive track for it, but we certainly don’t have four stomachs like cows, who regurgitate the grasses they eat and reswallow them.
As for a general biblical injunction against eating meat, where? There are specific mentions in Genesis 9:4 (not eating the life-blood) and 1 Corinthians 8:1-13 (not eating meat sacrificed to idols), for example. However Jesus would have followed a kosher diet, eating mutton and fish at least, and the vision to Peter in Acts 10 certainly spoke of “killing and eating.”
Many cultures eat only meat when they have it, or for special feast days. There are Hindu and Buddhist sects that are vegan. Being a Christian myself, I won’t argue with you if you refuse meat due to your religious beliefs.
4. Ethical. If you don’t want to eat meat because animals are living beings, I can appreciate that. However, see #6.
5. Financial. If you can’t afford to eat meat, or choose to eat less of it due to budgetary concerns, I respect that.
6. Environmental. This is where the biggest brainwash (with the possible exception of religious) is going on against meat-eating. Their arguments are really against industrialized farming. Mad cow disease and avian flu are problems because of factory farms. I agree that the ways animals are treated in feedlots is inhumane. I agree that factory farms pollute the air and kill the soil.
May I suggest that it’s not meat-eating that is at fault, but factory farming? You may argue that if people didn’t eat meat there would be no need for feedlots, and you’d be partially correct. Modern grain farming, however, provides no better stewardship of the land.
Anything that is farmed in a monoculture creates an unbalanced environment. The only way to have a healthy earth is to choose many types of crops, to rotate those crops, to have diversity and options and beauty and flavor.
The environmental argument insists people should eat grains instead of meat. All through the Canadian prairies and the American plains lie massive grain fields grown with GM (genetically modified) seed that repels disease and kills pests. The ground is naked and dead, requiring the use of ever more fertilizers to create a growing environment. How is that healthy or sustainable?
If we farmed organically and locally around the world, we’d find that marginal land would be used for grazing, leaving the “good land” for vegetables and fruit. Food wouldn’t be a commodity but eaten rather than sold. Very little land would be needed for grain. We eat far too much grain–wheat and corn and soy (GMO) are in virtually every package of food in the interior of the supermarket. Don’t tell me it is better to grow grain than beef. It’s the processed food and all its contaminants that makes people fat and kills their health.
Why yes, I do seem to have some opinions on the cons and pros of eating meat. What do you think?
I agree!
Diana
Thanks for coming by, Diana!
This is something I care a lot about, so I hope you’re Ok with a very long post. 🙂
I would argue that the health arguments are not as simple as many people would like us to believe. Many of the studies saying that saturated fats are a problem included trans fats, along with the saturated fats. I saw a report recently that indicated that as trans fats have been decreased in the foods people are buying, heart disease has decreased. They couldn’t find a different cause for the decrease, so they concluded that trans fats are one cause of heart disease. So, until they study saturated fats separate from trans fats, they really don’t know if they’re a problem or not.
Also, there are saturated fats that are vegetarian in origin, like coconut oil and palm oil, that have been shown to be healthy. Chemically, they’re the same type of fat as animal-based saturated fats, so I’d like to see a study that compares vegetable and animal saturated fats to see if they are processed differently in some way that makes the animal-based fats unhealthy.
As for diabetes, since it’s the body’s lack of ability to manage carbohydrates that is the problem, suggesting diabetics eat more grains is counterproductive. But the goal of the researchers seems to be “how can we make it possible for diabetics to eat the “healthy grain-based diet” they’ve decided is best for everyone? And how can we make sure these poor diabetics don’t get sicker when they eat “in moderation” the treats their friends and family are eating? They don’t ask “what diet best keeps the disease from getting worse?” Or, if they ask it, they decide diabetics won’t follow the advice anyway, so they refuse to say, “If you want to control the disease, you must cut out the high carb foods.” Thus they recommend a “low-carb” diet that consists of exactly the number of carbs they recommended when they said diabetics should eat a high carb diet with lots of “healthy” grains.
In order to eat that many carbs, I’d need medication. But by keeping my carbs to what my body can handle, my glucose numbers remain stable and in the normal range,which also keeps the likelihood of complications lower. Because I don’t have access to health care, I don’t know about other health issues I may have, since they’re certain that my high-meat, low-carb diet will automatically lead to me dying of a heart attack. To be blunt: I’m going to die of something. I’d rather it be a sudden heart attack than the slow, painful death from diabetes complications. For now, I’m happy to be medication-free and everything else seems to be working fine.
I’d say that some people can do very well with a vegetarian diet. Others cannot. And for the health of those who cannot, I’d say we need to have animal products available. I don’t want to end up with the kidney failure my aunt died from or be blind or have extremities need amputation because the politicians decided we can’t have meat, poultry, fish, eggs, etc. anymore for whatever of the above reasons they choose to state, causing me to have to increase the carbs I eat, causing the disease to go from “pre-diabetes” to full-blown Type 2.
Until the “experts” look past their biases and ask the right questions, we really won’t know what a healthy diet is. For example, with heart disease, they’re not looking at the possible effects of carbs because they already decided it’s the saturated fats from animals. They’re not researching truly low-carb diets with diabetics because they’ve decided that we can’t be healthy without some not yet determined number of whole grain carbs every day.
If we don’t want to stop allowing people to have meat, fish, and dairy, I think it’s entirely possible, if we get creative, to come up with a solution to feeding the planet. But we need the will to look for that solution and as long as there are people who want to keep consolidating farms into bigger and bigger corporations so they don’t have to share the profits with as many people, it won’t happen. If we were willing to share both the wealth and the food, we might have a chance at providing real food for everyone.
Well said, Linda. Thank you!
LOL! You picked up the wrong part of my comment to do your post on :P. Believe it or not, I don’t disagree with your premise. I agree that traditional animal and land husbandry was much more sustainable and that many allergies, even gluten allergies, are a result of the modern version (GMO maybe?) of wheat.
However, I still contend that the balance of meat to other types of food is off, especially in American culture. Neither a bag of wheat nor a pound of hamburger should look like dinner. Either by themselves will not provide the nutrition the human body needs. We’re omnivores. We’re not designed like a cow, but neither are we designed like a wolf. And the only way even wolves survive on that diet is by eating the organs most humans scorn.
I think the argument is simplified too much on all sides, and a cohesive look at nutritional needs and a sustainable way to provide those needs would benefit everyone, even those whose political climate makes any type of food hard to come by. For example, you can grow wheat as well as making bread. Hamburger offers no chance at a future meal, but at the same time might give the strength to grow the wheat.
I generally agree, Margaret, that we’re omnivores and should choose from the broad spectrum. Except for the problems many people have with the type of allergies that cause anaphylactic shock or celiac disease or diabetics or… I almost never eat grains. i mostly eat animal products and low-carb veggies. I eat some nuts and berries, but rarely eat higher carb vegetables and fruits. It’s not “balanced” but it works for me. I think a lot of people need to eat somewhat “unbalanced” diets, especially as we age and our metabolisms don’t work as well as they used to. However, if you’re talking about people with normal metabolisms, I agree completely.
Balanced, in this case, doesn’t mean even. I’m allergic to gluten, myself, but there are a lot of grains that I can still eat. I haven’t had the chance to find and try heirloom wheat to see if it causes the allergy too (not sure I’m willing to risk it either). So yes, I understand we can’t all have the same diet, but a carnivores diet isn’t going to improve things.
I get a kick out the ethical argument, because there’s also an argument that plants respond to pain as well, so it would also be unethical to eat plants. Fine. No plants. No animals. Maybe eat rocks? So they have a more stable atomic structure, and they are slower to respond to the pain they’re feeling. Does that make it okay to eat them?
We have a food chain. We use the food chain. Man, for now, is at the top of the food chain. He pretty much eats whatever he wants. After that, you have a few polar bears and other large carnivores/omnivores (what are whales classified as?) who eat what they want, and it migrates downward from there. Most of us (not all) have a taboo on eating other homo sapiens.
But if you personally believe it’s wrong to eat other animals or plants and animals, I fully support you in exercising that belief. (Not, you, Valerie, but the wider “you” audience.) If you believe it’s better for your health and that of your family to eat or not eat certain things, I fully support you in that, because, frankly, we don’t really know. We believe we know, but for every belief we have about food, someone can support an equal and opposite belief. And of course, different people are affected differently for a variety of reasons, and people need to take their individual situations into consideration when making food choices.
The other arguments, I mostly agree with. I don’t disagree with the ethical argument, but I’m expanding on some things I happen to think about it.
It’s true, we DON’T really know. Every few years something new is villainized and (sometimes) a few years later the report is OOPS, that’s actually really healthy. Or vice versa.
I’m enjoying reading this discussion.
As a farmer I say… fire up the grill! 😉
I’m with you there, Pegg!
It’s interesting that God gave us meat to eat after the flood. The world changed. I think we are meant to be stewards of our planet and that means plants, animals, oceans, land, air. But one of the things I find interesting is the concept of eating seasonally. It’s a natural way of being. I love a diet full of variety. Some meals are meat based and some are vegetarian based. I’m not a vegetarian. I simply love the variety available to us. I do wish human beings would be more careful of the stewardship they’ve been granted.
Angie
Agreed. Variety is such a boon, and seasonal eating makes so much sense.
I try to eat certified organic meat as much as possible, especially beef. Also dairy. I will eat Perdue chickens that are certified no hormones, no preservatives. Not all Perdue chicken is certified this way. Have to read.
I agree that not eating meat will NOT help the global poor. The reason they are starving is due to their own warlords, not US meat industries.
And I absolutely agree that crops have to be rotated to keep the soil living and that certain vegetables must be organic.
If not eating meat would solve the world’s hunger problems, our moms were on the right track when they told us to “eat up” because the kids in Africa were starving. How did that make sense again?
What a good topic to bring up–thanks, Valerie! My family were vegetarians when I was little, and we ended up having some major health problems (especially dental) from it. The Weston A. Price Foundation has a lot of good research and information on all this for anyone who is interested: http://www.westonaprice.org/ They have a few weird spiritual perspectives, but their science and research regarding food, farming, and health is very high quality. Blessings!
Thanks for checking in with that perspective, Kiersti. Childhood dental problems are the worst, as they can haunt a person for life.