The Vegetarian Myth
Wow.
It isn’t often that I write book reviews (have I ever? – serious question), but it isn’t often that a truly important book like Lierre Keith’s The Vegetarian Myth pops up on my radar just begging for one.
You may remember it from a brief mention I gave back in September, or maybe from Dr. Eades’ endorsement of it. You may have even already read the book yourself. If you haven’t, read it. And if you have? Read it again or get one for a friend.
That goes double for vegans, vegetarians, or anyone on the cusp of adopting that lifestyle. If you fit the bill, especially if you’re considering veganism/vegetarianism for moral reasons, drop what you’re doing and run to the nearest bookstore to buy this book. It’s incredibly well-written, and the author has a real knack for engaging prose, but that’s not the main reason for my endorsement. The real draw is the dual (not dueling) narratives: the transformation of a physically broken moral vegetarian into a healthier moral meat eater; and the destructive force of industrial agriculture. The “Myth” in question is the widely-held notion that vegetarianism is the best thing for our health and for our planet. On the contrary, Keith asserts that a global shift toward vegetarianism would be the absolute worst move possible. It’s vitally important. It’s definitive. It’s somewhat depressing, and it’s brutally honest. It also might be the book that changes your life.
Lierre Keith is a former vegan/vegetarian who bowed out after twenty long years of poor health and paralyzing moral paradoxes. Her original goal was to explore the question, “Life or death?” as it pertained to food. She, like most vegetarians, assumed she had a choice between the two, that it was an either/or thing. Eating tofu and beans was life, while a burger represented death. Life didn’t have to involve death – that was the weak way out, and the honorable (and difficult, and therefore meaningful) way to live was by avoiding animal products of all kinds. No blood on your hands or on your plate meant a clean moral slate.
Or so she thought. See, Keith began as a moral vegetarian. She never espoused the idea that meat was inherently unhealthy or physically damaging; she was simply a young kid who “cried for Iron Eyes Cody, longed… for an unmolested continent of rivers and marshes, birds and fish.” We’ve all heard of kids who “turn vegetarian” when they find out their chicken nuggets once walked, clucked, and pecked. Well, Keith was that five year old who bemoaned the “asphalt inferno of suburban sprawl” as a harbinger of “the destruction of [her] planet.” Hers was a deep-seated commitment to the preservation of all living things, not just the cute and fuzzy ones.
That expansive scope meant she looked at the big picture, and suffered for it. She never got to enjoy that oh-so-common smug vegetarian elitism, because she was too aware. Seeds were living things, too. They may not have had faces or doting mothers, but they were alive, and that meant they could die. Killing slugs in her garden was impossible, and deciding whether to supplement the soil with actual bone meal was excruciating. Unlike most of her peers, she knew that avoiding direct animal products didn’t mean her hands were clean. They might not be dripping red, but living organisms died to make that head of lettuce possible. Fields were tilled and billions of microorganisms were destroyed, not to mention the mice, rabbits, and other wild animals whose environments are leveled to make way for industrial farming. And so whichever direction she went – home gardening, local produce, or grocery store goods – Keith was contributing directly and indirectly to death.
What’s a moral vegetarian to do?
She briefly entertains studying with a mystic breatharian, hoping to (tongue-in-cheekily) learn to subsist purely on oxygen. She spends hours picking slugs from her garden and goes to relocate them. Nothing works. She keeps coming back to death.
“Let me live without harm to others. Let my life be possible without death.” Keith realizes this vegetarian plea (which “borders on a prayer”) is impossible to fulfill. She can’t live and eat without something dying, and that’s the whole point of it all. Death is necessary and natural. Circle of life, you know? Without death of some sort, life would get a whole lot worse.
Keith ultimately sets her sights on one of our favorite human “advancements” at the Apple: agriculture! Readers of MDA already know how agriculture altered our trajectory forever, but maybe not in such vivid detail. We focus on the lowered life expectancy, reduced bone density, compromised dental health, and the stooped, shrunken skeletons of our Neolithic ancestors, but Keith shows how grain agriculture actually destroys the land it touches. The Fertile Crescent, ground zero for grain development, used to be, well, fertile. It was verdant, lush, and teeming with life – including nomadic hunter gatherers. Paradise, you might even say. Animals grazed on perennial grasses, pooped out nutrients, and gradually those nutrients would work themselves back into the soil. It was a beautiful, natural life cycle that worked great for millennia. But once grains were grown and the land was irrigated, everything changed. Perennial renewable grasses became annual grains. Animals no longer grazed and replenished the soil. The top soil was robbed of nutrients and faded away. Irrigation meant crucial annual floods were disrupted or even halted. A massive monkey wrench was thrown into the system, and rather than coexisting as a complementary aspect of nature, man thus commenced the conflict with the natural world that rages to this very day.
And that’s the crux of her argument – that modern industrial agriculture is wanton destruction. Grain-based, vegetarian agriculture is even worse, because it attempts to eliminate a crucial player in the normal life cycle of the planet. Animals, which provide manure, calcium, and other nutrients for the soil, have to be part of the equation. Whenever a culture turns to a grain-based agricultural system, these same problems arise. Annual grain crops killed the American prairie and, for the vegans out there, they kill the millions of animals, bugs, and birds that rely on specific ecosystems to survive. The vegan’s soy burger has nary an animal part, but the machines that worked the soybean fields were greased with the blood of a thousand organisms. The vegetarian’s wheat crops feed millions, but robs the land of nutrients and destroys the top soil necessary for life.
Primal readers won’t be surprised by what they read. They may be horrified at the extent of the environmental damage caused by industrial agriculture, but they won’t be surprised (given agriculture’s poor track record with our health). Keith lays out an effective case against grains (and for a Primal-ish, low-carb, high-fat diet, believe it or not) on nutritive, moral, and economical grounds that’s tough to refute. The nutritional information will come as second nature, but the sources are sound and the references are powerful.
There’s more, far more, but I’d rather not spoil the entire thing. Just read it and rest assured that it’s worth your time. The book is a must-read, and a great ally for anyone interested in promoting a healthy, sustainable, omnivorous future. Read this book and distribute it to your vegan friends.
Primal approved!
Check out excerpts on Google Books, read the first chapter here, or purchase the book here or here.
Get Free Health Tips, Recipes and Workouts Delivered to Your Inbox
Posted By: Mark Sisson
(
I’m working my way through this book right now and it’s really a gripping read. It’s opened my eyes to a lot and makes me even more certain of the primal way. Can’t recommend it enough!
Hi Mark,
I am a recent reader of your blog. I am a vegetarian making a transition to becoming paleo. It’s a tough road, but one I’m sure will pay off in the long run. I absolutely agree with the message conveyed by this book, but it can’t go without saying that raising cows and chickens does put a dent in our ecological footprint, more than modern agriculture does in my opinion. I understand ofcourse, that you fully endorse organic/free range meat, but I think it’s important to note that modern agriculture is not the only sin being committed.
No doubt there are problems with factory farming – on an ethical, environmental and public health level. Both need sweeping reform, in my opinion.
Mark,
Have a look at the BBC documentary ‘A Farm for the Future’ on YouTube, here’s the link for part one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xShCEKL-mQ8
GROK ON!
free range pastures do far less damage to the soil than burrow/row farming of crops. Read the book. Remember the dust bowl?
I absolutely agree with you, but what I was trying to say is that there are problems with both agriculture and factory farming and neither can be dismissed (as Mark noted above). Just thought I’d throw it out there to keep us on our toes :p
I think that all of the destroyed riparian ecosystems are proof enough that free range pastures are pretty damaging.
Small scale organic farms are pretty darn sustainable and can be an excellent use of under-utilized land in urban area, try grazing a cow in a vacant lot next to an apartment complex. Junk-food vegetarianism is destructive to the environment & quite un-healthy, no arguments from me, but when done in a thoughtful manner (like any other diet) can be healthy & sustainable… different strokes for different folks.
” but it can’t go without saying that raising cows and chickens does put a dent in our ecological footprint, more than modern agriculture does in my opinion.”
Maby you should read some books about permaculture, and please view a farm for a future (bbc) because this is not what she is saying.
If you eat the meat of grain fed animals you are right. But the emphasis in this book is on non-grain fed catle that’s part of a (permaculture)system. In a permaculturesystem everything has a function, preferably more then one. Producing food this way does put a dent in you’re ecological footprint.
Lierre’s book is absolutely stunning in its depth and breadth. She points out the things that we cannot, as moral beings, ignore: By living, we cause other living things to die. That’s it. Point-blank. There’s a number of other related myths that Lierre dispels as well, including my favorite: “You can grow a lot more grain than you can raise animals for the same amount of land – therefore, you should only grow grain and other plants!” Never mind that this myth is easily dispelled when you consider that much of the earth’s surface isn’t suitable for farming and cannot be made suitable, but it’s perfect for grazing and herding.
Vegetarianism, especially the vegan variety, is a truly unsustainable way of living. The problem is, we’ve got a population explosion on this planet because of the Neolithic Revolution, and our current population levels are not sustainable on any dietary system – paleo, vegan or otherwise. There’s just too damn many people on this planet. Nature knows this, and is coming up with ever more clever ways of eliminating the majority of, if not the entire, population of humans here on Earth (swine flu and AIDS being two of the latest). We are currently one step ahead in this footrace against Nature, but the ground is (literally!) disappearing under our feet as we run. One of these days, we’re going to lose this race, either through a sudden epidemic (think the “superflu,” like in Stephen King’s “The Stand”), or through mass starvation and die-off. It’s inevitable.
Prefacing this comment with the statement that I am NOT a vegetarian (had pizza and wings last nite for dinner), and I should probably reserve judgement till I read the book, but that will be a long time coming as there are many other books waiting in my queue already.
I get tweaked by an author, like Keith, who paints a doomsday attitude toward one method of doing anything. Yes, it’s self evident that if 6 billion people suddenly become Vegan, the world will become one large dust bowl before long. It’s just as accurate to say that if 6 Billion people go primal, there will be a shortage of free range game meat, and the increased demand would destroy the eco-structure. Need I go so far as to make the point that if 6 billion people went insectarian that they entire food chain would suffer catastrophic consequences?
Mark, I enjoy your blog as a casual reader, but I can’t get behind an author like Keith who purposely paints a doomsday scenario to make a point and sell books.
The best way to eat is moderation in all things, and if this book is an argument against grains, well I know several vegetarians who eat very few grains. Doesn’t mean they need to start consuming Bison.
Let people be and eat what they want. They would do best if they ate like their ethnic ancestors of a few generations ago and, for some cultures, that was vegetarian. It would be better for the environment if those of us who eat way too much cut back in general The best thing that can happen is that there continues to be a diverse selection in diet amongst this planet’s inhabitants, and not to try to convert people to one dietary dogma. I will not recommend this book to any vegetarian friends because it’s not my business to challenge or impose my beliefs on them and it shouldn’t be yours either, Mark, sorry.
Still a happy reader, just not with you on this one.
- Charley
It’s not about ‘imposing beliefs’ on anyone. It’s about access to information. That information may be the truth of the matter or it may not. It’s up to the vegetarian/vegan person to make up their mind on that. If they are rational people they’ll weigh the evidence and consider it carefully. But it’s the awareness that is important and books like this do a wonderful job of allowing people to become more aware of the ramifications of their choices.
Regarding the ‘doomsday attitude’ – we’re in the middle of a mass extinction. I’d say it’s appropriate to point out that furthering the vegetarian/vegan cause is only going to push us further into that extinction.
Here here Charley! Thank you! Live and let live. Eat and be happy.
I was lucky enough to be sent an early draft of this- it’s a really excellent work.
Best bet is to order online- I have yet to see this book in any bookstore as it goes against anything in its catagory and would upset the sales staff like finger nails on a chalkboard at B&N or Border’s. This is a powerful, well orgainzed and written book. Please use the information wisely no fair shoving facts down the throats of vegans at a party- though tempting. LOL
I think even if a vegetarian read the book, they’d still not be convinced. They’re not really into facts. Because it’s so… noble to be a vegetarian after all.
On the other hand with all those cows contributing to so-called global warming, I’m happily doing my part to reduce the population of the grass fed ones anyway. That’s noble and tasty!
What ‘facts’ aren’t vegetarians ‘into’? That current large scale agriculture, including live transport and slaughtering techniques are necessarily cruel?
That most meat eaters resort to ridicule and small-minded humour to justify their inability to examine their own practises?
That animals are largely misunderstood and science is continually revealing a depth and complexity to their behaviours often traditionally used as the basis for what separates them from humans, such as self-awareness?
I’m definitely getting this book, but ultimately the end result is the same, unless the critics see anything in absolutes, they are unwilling to modify their behaviour. For me, vegetarianism is not necessarily the healthiest diet, but I’m willing to take the hit for the irrefutable, no matter how hard you try, fact that current farming practices are unacceptable.
Nobody’s arguing that current farming practices are unacceptable. They are. The Primal Blueprint calls for eating pastured, grass-fed meat and organic vegetables, not factory-farmed crap. But I think that it’s important to note that it’s the farming style and the monocultural grains that are the problem, not the meat and the vegetables themselves.
Grains are never good, and neither are legumes. They will kill you.
“Grains are never good, and neither are legumes. They will kill you.”
Is this a joke, Griff? You are up against the vast amount of scientific evidence out there if you want to make that claim.
Keith has no scientific background and is therefore wholly unqualified to make the majority of claims in her book and, like you, she makes plenty of ridiculous, unsubstantiated claims about nutrition (such as there not being any plant sources of tryptophan, which is totally, 100%, false).
Her book is great for defensive omnivores who need pseudo-scientific proof that their destructive habits are justifiable. I’ll give her that.
I think some things should be moderated
Coming from a raw foods background I haven’t been eating grains for the most part so that hasn’t been my difficulty. I will always prefer fish but I know my body is wanting some meat which I’m trying to work my brain around. This book had been mentioned in the forums and will be at the top of my list to read.
I have to disagree with you Dave, RN. I have been corresponding with many raw vegans over the last few years and I have found the vast majority to be extremely well read. I have even shared on some of those forums my foray into primal and not had one negative comment hurled at me. In my experience they’ve been a pretty peaceful bunch.
Del,
I am currently reading a book you may find of interest,
Catching Fire: How Cooking Made Us Human by Richard Wrangham.
It discusses the evolutionary impact of cooking and discusses raw foods as well.
Thanks David. I’m adding it to my list!
I haven’t read the book, so I’m going off of Mark’s review. Is vegetarianism, per se, the problem, or is it industrial agriculture. In other words, if someone were to have their own garden and subsist off of organically grown vegetables, legumes, nuts, and seeds – as well as a backyard chicken coop for eggs, and maybe a goat or two for dairy – would that form of vegetarianism be a problem at all?
If the answer is no, then this is an example of a misdirected effort. Sure, the author’s intentions may be in the right place, but if the end result is a vegetarian deciding to include factory-farmed meat into his/her diet, while continuing to consume industrial agricultural products, then that just makes things WORSE.
EVERYONE should be encouraged to grow their own food, raise their own chickens, and produce their own dairy as much as possible. Failing that, people should make every effort to buy from local, small-scale farms that maintain a natural ecosystem. To me, taking this attitude is much more productive than maligning another group of people for their beliefs, whether or not you agree with them.
We are seeing how the in-group/out-group phenomenon is failing us now in the current political climate in the US. Republicans vs. Democrats, gay vs. straight, Wall St. vs Main St., public health care option vs. private industry, etc. Forming cliques and attacking the outsiders is obviously not a productive strategy. Let’s not alienate anyone and work towards education and support instead of hurling thinly-veiled insults (vegetarian “myth”) that obfuscate more important issues.
Both of them are bad. Industrial agriculture is globally unsustainable, and vegetarianism, especially veganism, is personally unsustainable.
You cannot live without animal products – specifically meat and eggs. You CANNOT. You will be sick all the time. Lierre’s experience was horrifying. I don’t recommend having it.
So while we should all grow our own food, how do you suggest we raise our own animals when the majority of us live in urban areas and when that ratio is going up every year? This year was the first year in which more people in the world live in urban areas (cities) than in rural areas. That’s not going to change. It’s just going to keep on going up and up until 99% of all people live in urban areas.
I would have to disagree with you Griff. A bridesmaid in my recent wedding is 100% vegan, and has been for many years. She also teaches serious kick boxing classes, while working on her PhD. She is happy, healthy, and full of energy. Now, I do not subscribe to this way of living, and don’t quite understand it, truth be told, but I see first hand it can work for some people. It takes effort, sacrifice, planning, and understanding, but it is doable.
I second JG’s point. I know vegans who are in fabulous health. It was my ideal to be a raw, vegan but a couple years in I hadn’t been able to completely go with it. When I found Mark’s site it seemed like exactly what I was trending toward. Lots of veggies and some clean, natural protein. I do want to work some meat into my diet so I think reading the perspective in this book will be a good step for me. Overall, I think those eating REAL, organic foods are going to be the most healthy. Some people are able to go into realms that other of us can’t so easily but I don’t dispute real food at all.
And I’ll disagree with you right back. I didn’t start having illnesses like RA until I went vegetarian for two years. I’m glad I stopped when I did, or I might be as sick as Lierre was. And I did all that “effort, sacrifice, planning and understanding” – and I was constantly sick as a dog.
I have never yet met a vegan who was not sick with at least three different problems that were not responding to medical intervention. Never once. Vegetarians? Yes, occasionally – but only occasionally, because they were lacto-ovo vegetarians and at least got some animal products into them.
I second Griff. Even if your bridesmaid friend is in “perfect health”, which I have a hard time believing, veganism will take it’s toll sooner or later. She may be healthy now, but she also could be a major life event away from a serious tailspin in her health.
I’m betting that people who can live for a certain amount of time on a vegan diet are running on solid reserves they’ve been blessed with since birth. What I mean is, they probably have great genes.
The thing about vegans is their diet is completely out of balance. Carbohydrates dominate their plate. Where are they going to get their protein? From starchy carbs in for form of beans, rice, whole wheat bread etc… Unfortunately, starchy carbs are the ones you want to avoid the most. But they base their diet on these starches because they need the fat and the protein.
Anyways, I don’t want to bash veganism. But it’s not optimal for human health. When Dr. Weston Price did his world tour of various tribes in various parts of the world, he did not run across one single tribe that was sustained by veganism. Not one!
Griff, it sounds like you’re making a blanket statement about vegans to justify your beliefs. Obviously, most people know vegans who live healthy lives. Some vegans may be unhealthy, just like some meat eaters may be unhealthy. Broad generalizations don’t help us reach common ground. They just cause tangential conversations about whether the blanket generalization applies to everyone.
As far as urbanization goes, last I knew, people could choose where to live. And even in cities, we’re seeing more urban gardens, community gardens, rooftop gardens, backyard chicken coops, rooftop beehives, etc. Humans are industrious and are capable of getting out of the grasp of industrial agriculture if they truly want to. This can be supplemented with CSAs or farmers markets run by local farmers. These are the issues, not whether some people choose not to eat meat. Stop making vegetarianism an issue and we can move on to more productive conversations.
UH: See my response above regarding vegetarianism.
Regarding urbanization and choosing where to live: People live where the jobs are. That’s not really something they can choose. And yes, the urban gardens are helping to some extent, but not nearly enough. We are simply an unsustainable population at this level of people.
Don’t know if it has been said elsewhere, but there is absolutely no such thing as a true vegan. The average individual unknowingly ingests all kinds of insects and other critters each year. As far as I know, that counts for protein.
“You cannot live without animal products – specifically meat and eggs. You CANNOT.”
There you go again, Griff, with your unsubstantiated claims. I’ve been vegan for longer than Keith was and I’m in great health. How can you make the statement above when there of millions of healthy vegans in this world and when even the mainstream medical community accepts that it’s not only possible but beneficial, while consuming animal products is detrimental to human health in myriad ways?
Someone here surely is not well-read. I’m not naming any names, Griff.
Think what you like, honeybun. The current science (as substantiated in detail by Gary Taubes, the Drs. Eades, and Mark) have demonstrated that what I’m saying is the truth. Lierre’s experience demonstrates the truth of the science behind what I’ve said. The mainstream medical community is a bunch of quacks who swallow what they’re told without examining it critically, so I’m sorry – not willing to believe their nonsense over the scientific evidence I’ve read and seen for myself.
Now, you can believe it or not as you like, but I bet I’ll live a longer, healthier life than you will. You eat nothing but grains for a year, and I’ll avoid grains for a year, and we’ll see who’s better off by all the conventional measures of health come this time next year – how about it?
And speaking of not naming names, I notice you’re not even willing to name yourself. I don’t think you have much in the way of credibility. So I’m not going to bother responding to you further. Have a nice day.
No, you’re not in great health, you are probably 5′10 140lbs with no strength or work capacity to accomplish any physical task in life.
‘I’m in great health. How can you make the statement above when there of millions of healthy vegans in this world’
…Speaking of unsubstantiated claims…
What is “great health” to you may not be to athletic people.
C truly chose the wrong site to spout off “facts” from the ‘mainstream medical community’
Great health, to me, means I have no self inflicted physical ailments of any kind. My blood vitamin levels are all within range –except cholesterol — which is below the normal range.
“No, you’re not in great health, you are probably 5′10 140lbs with no strength or work capacity to accomplish any physical task in life.”
“What is “great health” to you may not be to athletic people.”
Where do you come up with this shite, nelter and gambo?
I’m letting you all know that I have been vegan for longer than keith and I am perfectly fine, as far as health goes.
“The mainstream medical community is a bunch of quacks who swallow what they’re told without examining it critically”
Sounds more like the majority of posts on this site actually.
‘I am perfectly fine, as far as health goes.’
I’m sure ur health is adequate for YOU while on a vegan diet. If ure lucky enough it may last you into old age.
But you’ll never be in as good shape as you could have been.
So just you keep tellin’ yourself that Mr/Mrs. Iinsultpeopleontehinternetz
Then BAM! Herpes.
there is no proof for what you say. just more defensive omni talk.
I’ve been an unhealthy omni before, for over 20 years of my life actually. My health is much better now. Not that typing this will halt your unsubstantiated claims.
C, what is your height/weight/bodyfat %? What is your 400M and 5km run times? What is your max deadlift, squat and number of pull-ups? Oh you don’t do those things? You are not functionally healthy.
Wow, great, now I can do more than tell people that this book MUST be read, I can point them to your excellent review. Thanks, Mark!
Lierre’s book is profound to me on so many levels. I was a vegetarian, then a vegan, I’m a Nutritionist, but am now leaving that profession to farm. Her book was everything I’ve ever felt, learned, experienced written with such eloquence as to leave me in awe of her talent. Lierre is able to write with compassion and understanding, bolstered by thorough research.
I read parts of her book to my life-long farming buddy – a guy who has farmed his entire life, raising bison, cattle, and sheep on pasture and he just nodded his head in agreement to everything I read on pastures, grass, soil, ecosystems, and ruminants. He gave the book his stamp of approval with one of his “she REALLY gets it” exclamations.
As mentioned I definitely will read this. I can definitely identify with having a hard time eating creatures. That set in for me when I was very young.
Mark, I’m curious. Carrie mentioned in her post that one of your kids gravitated to vegetarianism from a young age. Is that still the case? I know Carrie mentioned she sticks to fish only. Obviously you have had to confront some of this stuff in your household. It seems like you all manage to keep the peace so it seems you have found a peaceful way to all live healthfully and honoring one’s own inclinations. Have you written about that?
Del Mar Mel, it’s true, my son Kyle (15) is a vegetarian by choice. (My wife started him off as such and he continued after the age of two). He does eat eggs in some forms occasionally, a little cheese on a pizza, lots of nuts, avocados and nearly every day has a big glass of my Responsibly Slim protein powder (maybe 30 grams there alone) and a packet of my Master Formula vitamins. Additionally, he eats very little grains and tons of vegetables. He is a great athlete, the smartest kid in his class and has always been quite healthy. While he knows where I stand, I don’t ever get in his grill about how he eats. He’s almost 16 and has been proud to have been labeled as “the kid who doesn’t eat meat” for his entire life. While he probably will one day, for now I’d rather not be militant about my own position. In extreme cases, forcing the issue during teen years can backfire.
I had the same thing in mind as Del Mar Mel , For the most part of my teen life i was a vegetarian, ate meat a little once in a month when i was back from my boarding school to home for a weekend break.
I really sucked at sports,athletics etc. i was an average student. My brother 4 years younger is a meat lover opposite of me but people cannot believe we are 4 yrs apart, most say we look like twins. He was among tall-heavy kids in class and i was among short-skinny-fat kids.
I began changing my habits from CW to PB style and there is a great increase in physical performance and i am able to outperform many of my athlete friends.
I really appreciate how you respect your son’s choice.
My parents also respected my choice of not eating meat often and didn’t force me but encouraged me to have the meat that i like occasionally.
This is very high up on my queue…looks excellent. I have a few vegan friends so I expect many interesting conversations ahead!
That book seems like a good Christmas gift for my little sisters (they’ve both been vegetarian for several years). My heart goes out to vegans and vegetarians… for moral reasons I avoided as many animal products as I could for about 8 years, but fortunately about 6 months in I started to “cheat” once in awhile (never with meat or fish, though). Terrible guilt afterwards but apparently my body’s needs won out over my idealism… it probably saved me from a lot of permanent damage, and I don’t like to think of how much happened before I backslid.
Animals used for food really are treated horrendously a lot of the time, and I would never eat anything other than free range/organic/wild caught, etc. Anyone who would buy intensively produced animal products while aware of the incredible suffering that goes into it (unless they had absolutely NO choice) is not someone I would want to get to know.
I applaud your approach with your son. Personally, I was thrilled when I saw Carrie’s post about her diet and mentioned your son. I had already been tending to eat like Carrie and the mention of your son further reinforced that I can do this without having to sit down to a steak everyday. Not that steak isn’t incredibly appealing at times but it is currently not so easy for me.
I’ve had a tremendous education on your site and with your book. I hadn’t been paying much attention to animal foods the last few years so I had never heard of grass “finished”. After reading that I scoped out a butcher shop in La Jolla that is organic, pastured, grass finished so I figure I’ll make it in there at some point. Many thanks!
I ordered this book for my vegetarian husband as soon as I read Dr.Eades’ review. But before the book arrived, he switched sides
I’m currently reading this book and Lierre Kieth’s voice is compelling, passionate yet rational. I want to give it to my vegetarian friends but don’t know how to do it without offending them.
Ask for their help. It always works! ” I read this book that I found compelling and I want to share it with you but I am worried it will somehow offend you.”
Whenever I want to give people advice they’re not going to like, I just say that I won’t say it because I KNOW they’re not going to like it. It usually works, curiosity wins over “being offended” and most let their guard down.
This book is next on my list.
Ethical vegetarianism is a very tricky issue. I see two main general approaches to it: rational and emotional. My comment is about the rational side of it.
Rationally speaking, and in my opinion, standing by vegetarianism as a more ethical lifestyle should result from taking into account much more variables than people usually consider.
One of them is, as Griff mentioned before, the unsustainable population levels we have today.
It could be argued that very dense cities have a lower environmental footprint that big, spread-out cities.
Think of heating, for example. An apartment building in New York sheltering 200 people in a small area will use much less energy than 50 big houses with 4 people each. So it is not as simple as “you can choose to move to the country side and be greener”.
Large scale monoculture do have a monstrous environmental impact through habitat loss, soil degradation, eutrophication of water bodies, leeching of chemicals into the soil, depletion of underground water stores, big increase of GHG emissions (solid preparation, grain cultivation, harvesting and transportation (to usually distant areas) is very fuel-intensive).
It could also be argued that a vegetarian would have a lot of trouble in consistently meeting his daily caloric requirements without recurring to any sort of starches coming from large-scale monocultures.
The above might be possible for some people, but if we increase the scale a lot, the scenario looks pretty grim if you ask me. Large scale vegetarianism would require very heavy changes in urban planning, and would probably imply switching from dense urban centers into spread out houses with big cultivated backyards.
So advocating for large scale vegetarianism seems implausible. And small scale vegetarianism seems only plausible as long as the majority is not a vegetarian.
And to complicate issues further, we also face the “my (human) health vs. your lack of (animal) suffering” question.
Are animals and humans equal? Should we all have the same rights? If so, vegetarianism should be just a very first shallow step. urban living should be avoided, drugs that have been developed thanks to animal testing should not be taken, plastics and other products made from hydrocarbons, which are made from jungle-destroying and sea-polluting oil wells should never be purchased. Owning wood-made objects (even if the wood is certified) is in direct contradiction to animal welfare.
So taking a superior vegetarian moral stand reflects, imo, an obscene oversimplification of the effects of our mere existence in the biosphere.
It is tempting to take a more “primal” stand and consider ourselves as animals who act like animals, who are part of the biosphere and have a necessary, unavoidable and important impact on it, and who evolved to thrive on meat.
But the question remains: are we ethically entitle to inflict animal suffering. If so, how much? And how can we do it while minimizing our environmental footprint?
The real root of the problem is there are too many people. The population growth is not sustainable for vegans or meat eaters in the long term unless there are changes, as suggested earlier.
Oh god seems I got carried away, sorry for the massive comment.
Not at all, SS – I think what you wrote was eloquent and to the point. Well said.
I agree-well said!
Kindle has it. Boo-yah and purchased.
I’m thrilled this topic has been addressed. I’ve been reading the (mostly glowing) reviews about Johnathan Safron Foer’s book “Eating Animals” with some dismay. While no one in their right mind would agree that the industrial factory farm is anything short of death camp for animals, few people consider the ramifications of industrial agriculture. As I’ve mentioned here before, I was vegetarian for 20 yrs- and in excellent health, I might add. I rarely missed a day of work. Exercise and eating clean was, and still is, a big part of my life. But when I discovered this site all my moral arguments for vegetarianism were intelligently and effectively countered. The MDA, along with the works of Michael Pollen and Barbara Kingsolver, as well my schooling, forced me to reconsider my position. So here I am, a born-again carnivore, dry-brining our farmer’s market turkey for tomorrows Primal feast! I have to say the transition for me is hard- not the enjoying of the protein (yum) but the bones and blood- I’m still a bit squemish!
I look forward to reading this highly recommended book as much as I’ve enjoyed the lively comments on this topic (and the site in general) . Thanks for bringing this up, Mark- my fave post by far!
I’m halfway through reading this book and you’ve given me a great reminder as to why I need to pick it up and finish it.
As you say, much of the content doesn’t come as a complete shock but at the same time it’s incredibly eye-opening to learn the full extent of the effects of a vegetarian diet – both to our health and our planet.
Even a chapter in I felt powerfully equipped to fight back against some of the naysayers who claim meat-eating is ruining the planet. It’s actually been a great help in rounding out some of my own writing with some more detailed facts.
It’s something most people worry about, they suddenly learn where their meat came from and feel remorse for the poor little “insert cute animal name”.
The truth is, we disrespect these animals, in life by the way we raise them, and in death by not appreciating their sacrifice.
Most “undeveloped” longstanding cultures perform ceremonies after a kill, honouring the animal for giving it’s flesh so that the community can live on.
By not doing this, I beleive it encourages vegetarianism, and by doing this, you become more in tune with the life and death cycle of the world, the most fundamental system that many of us are ignorant of.
Something to think about.
Maybe a nature reserve for natural human existance is in order?
This.
An awesome response.
A nature reserve for hunter/gatherer man. At the current rate of ecosystem destruction I can almost see it coming to that.
One of the things you said about vegetarianism I found particularly interesting: in the minds of many of it’s practicioners, the more honorable, and therefor more meaningful, approach to life was vegetarianism precisely because it was more difficult to live “free of death.”
In today’s world, saturated with Kantian philosophy, many people regard something being more difficult, or even blantantly impossible, as prima facia evidence of it’s moral superiority. If there isn’t something to suffer over, or to act against who they really are for, they’ll invent something.
What these people don’t realize is that, ironically, it is far, far more difficult to choose the “easy way” (ie: to take advantage of what nature affords us and to live in accordance with our nature as humans). It is more difficult because virtually every philosophical approach to morality, throughout history, has, to one degree or another, extoled the rejection of who we really are. To get over that – to truly reject the rejection-counseling notions – and to come to regard, with all of one’s being, living how we should live as honorable is truly the most difficult, and meaningful, moral test a person can go through.
I’ve never heard one vegetarian or vegan claim that we can live a life free of death, or deny death, or whatever. That’s silly.
That is just one of the absurd assertions which keith’s book is based upon.
non human animals (at very least, the ones we routinely exploit for food or clothing) are sentient, meaning they are sensate individuals capable of having subjective experiences. Plants and microorganisms, as far as we currently know, are not sentient. They do not have brains or central nervous systems, as animals do. keith overlooks the fact that veganism is, and always has been, about living a life without exploiting animals as far as is possible and practical. It’s never been about being 100% vegan (that’s currently impossible in this society, which was set up by animal exploiters –human and nonhuman alike), and it’s never ever, been about denying death or the cycle of life. Who has ever said that it was?
Again, more people who don’t read but are quick to attempt to justify their exploitative and oppressive habits.
sigh.
I’ve never heard one claim that death-free life is possible either, but that doesn’t stop them from holding it up as a moral ideal (and evaluating the various ways men can live based upon how closely they can approach that ideal).
I say that any way of life which regards the impossible as the desireable is not only pointless, but actually immoral to follow.
All vegans/vegetarianism is is a heavily-camoflagued recycling of the mystical, reality-irrelevant ethics of the major religions. These people think they’re nothing like their unenlightened cultural antipodes, but if you dig deep enough into the philosophical fundamentals you see that they’re exactly the same type of people. Both preach self-denial, both admire making things unnecessarily difficult, both extol the “virtue” of sacrifice (even if their objects are different).
If anything, the only thing veggie-heads (and hippies/liberals of all sorts, for that matter) are mad at meat-eating, conservative, religious people for is that they don’t practice what they preach as consistently.
I love how non-vegans always want to tell vegans what veganism is all about.
It might make you feel better but it’s not reality, Grant.
“Both preach self-denial, both admire making things unnecessarily difficult, both extol the “virtue” of sacrifice (even if their objects are different).”
Where do you omnis come up with this shite? It’s quite comical.
What sacrifice? What’s unnecessarily difficult?
Elsewhere, I’ve heard Ms. Keith speaking about her acceptance of the fact that life requires death. That’s a definite improvement over her fanciful notion that it doesn’t, however I still suspect that she hasn’t completely freed herself of the trappings which could, once again, make her regard eating meat as immoral.
She is taking the utilitarian approach. She is still hanging on to her belief that biological life, per se, is the root of morality; it’s just that as of right now she’s convinced that eating meat is the best way to serve that root. She’s saying, in effect, reject vegetarianism because that lifestyle actually causes more death than a meat-eating lifestyle does. That’s certainly true, but that isn’t what makes the latter morally acceptable.
No matter which option she chooses, she’s still regarding an impossibility (life sustained without death) as a moral ideal, and then judging her particular options according to how close each one comes to that ideal. Why regard something which could never happen as desirable, preferable, or moral? It’s pointless. So long as she does so, the only thing keeping her on the meat-eating side is a large, complicated body of knowledge telling her that her new side is the least deadly. She’s right, but that’s not enough. What’s to keep her from falling into, for example, the rationalization – which many vegetarians already possess – that it’s not the dying per se which is the moral issue, but the pain involved in the dying? Clearly, if that were the standard, vegetarianism is the moral answer.
How can Ms. Keith get out of this precarious situation? She needs to find a stronger grounding for her conviction of the moral acceptability of meat consumption than a utilitarian one. That means finding a stronger grounding for the issue of morality itself. In other words: from where does morality come?
The answer to that question lies in the issue of volition. Volition is the ability to choose; to willfully guide one’s actions towards one thing and away from another. Inanimate objects don’t have volition. They simply react (or don’t react) to whatever affects (or doesn’t affect) them. Plants and animals, similarly, don’t choose anything. A tree does not turn it’s leaves towards the sun by choice; it does so automatically, as a result of it’s chlorophyll’s chemical reaction to sunlight. A bird does not build a nest because it prefers to keeps its eggs there, as opposed to buried under the ground. It simply does it automatically; as a matter of instinct. It has no ability to not build a nest, any more than it suppress exploiting the ability, inborn from birth, to build one.
The only creature which possesses volition is the human being. Only humans have the capacity to override the myriad of plant-like biological and animal-like psychological urges afflicting us, and to do things based upon an imagined, conceptualized idea of how things would be if did them. With that in mind we can choose to take action, or we can choose to refrain. We are the only species which can do that. It is our volition which the root of the issue of morality. Morality is the science which judges volitional action. Action which didn’t have to happen, but did, because someone chose to do it. Moral/immoral actions are necessarily human actions, just as amoral actions are necessarily non-human actions.
So what does this have to do with being a vegetarian versus eating meat? Every species has things which are good for it or bad for it, but humans are the only species which has things which are moral for it to do (or have done to it) and immoral for it to do (or have done to it). It follows, then, that the only *moral* question pertaining to the issue of vegetarianism versus eating meat is it’s effect upon human life. What humans do to animals is a moral question, but not based upon the effect our actions have on the animals per se. Ony based upon how what we do or don’t do to animals affects us. Certainly, that effect can take encompass more than just the nutritional issue – so the questions about the environmental and economic impacts of the two type diets are perfectly valid – but ultimately it’s not about how much death (of non-human living organisms) that each one causes overall; it’s how much death (or degradations in the overall quality of life) of human beings each one might cause.
“She’s saying, in effect, reject vegetarianism because that lifestyle actually causes more death than a meat-eating lifestyle does. That’s certainly true, but that isn’t what makes the latter morally acceptable.”
How is that “certainly true”?
Seriously?
100 pounds of beef: one dead organism.
100 pounds of wheat: thousands of dead organisms.
That’s rubbish! What about the microorganisms that are eaten by the cows? Much more than are killed to eat the plant source directly.
And anyways, where do you get your figures… besides out of thin air?
Plus cows are provably sentient. Microorganisms, like plants, are not.
10 pounds of grain = 1 pound of meat, it’s the average ratio.
So, 100 pounds of beef = 1000 pounds of wheat which in turn equals tens of thousands of dead organisms.
Beautiful. Robb Wolf bowed out on basically the same reasons years ago. It is frightening what people are convinced of.
im linking you into our post tomorrow as well… Keep it up Mark!
Hey! To each, his own. Some have to eat animal protein to be healthy and some don’t. Why do we have to moralize to be on the right side?
GRANT – I’m going to guess that you didn’t read the book because the criticism you do have would have been answered by the book. I suggest you pick up a copy. You say, “What’s to keep her from falling into, for example, the rationalization – which many vegetarians already possess – that it’s not the dying per se which is the moral issue, but the pain involved in the dying? Clearly, if that were the standard, vegetarianism is the moral answer.” Not true. There are two refutations to this. One is that in order to have life you need death. Keith says morality of life doesn’t enter in. It is nature pure and simple. Pain is part of death, or often is. If pain was the main issue then we are no better than the vegans on the website (from her book) that wish to divide up predators and prey on either side of a river to prevent death and I presume pain. Also, nature is no more moral or immoral than a comet in the sky. Keith would say you are guilty of falling into the “humanism” trap. Read the book for more details. Part 2 refutation: Keith (I believe) would also say that you are missing the central point: that agriculture causes more death, which would also mean more pain, than they know. Agriculture is death and pain. Not only that but it is death and pain that is only for profit. Agriculture, monocropping specifically, is death of animals. Death is pain, right? Death supersedes any human made rational that is anti-pain. Also, she takes down the philosopher Peter Singer (who I often enjoy) much in the same way.
You’re actually claiming that plants feel pain?
That was proved long back in the late nineteenth century, by J.C.Bose.
He showed that plants can “feel pain, understand affection etc.,”. He showed that they grow well with soothing music and get retarded with loud and harsh music.
No he didn’t. His observations don’t prove a capacity to feel pain. A sensitivity to certain things does not require that capacity in order to be sensitive.
Yes Grant, plants feel pain.
Read:
The Secret Life of Plants
http://www.amazon.com/Secret-Life-Plants-Peter-Tompkins/dp/0060915870
Any book which thinks that an artistically written bald assertion is an adequate synopsis shall not be read by Grant.
(Nor will any reply to a comment of mine which thinks that saying “read this entire freaking book” is a useful contribution to the discussion be responded to politely)
Plant are not sentient. No brains, no central nervous systems, no benzodiazepene receptors or any other indicia of sentience, or the ability to feel pain. Is that seriously your only proof? The secret life of plantS? Really?
Animals have interests. Plants do not. Do you honestly believe there is no difference in me putting a knife into a carrot and a knife into a cow? The cow will try to avoid the pain, the carrot will not.
Just have to jump on the dogpile here in absolute enthusiastic support of this book.
I don’t think I’ve written more than one book review on any book before, and I’ve so far done three and I’m probably not done yet.
Don Matesz at Primal Wisdom blog has two excellent reviews up as well, one on the Moral Veg and one on the Political Veg.
This book sounds fascinating. I was vegetarian many moons ago and it kinda sorta worked for a while. But then it didn’t and I suffered big time. This book won’t change my mind on anything (preaching to the converted?!) since I think I know a fair amount about the damage being wreaked, but it will still be a good read nonetheless.
Thanks for the great review, Mark
I like to think that by not eating meat I am affecting the supply/demand cycle for the horrific meat industry.
i dont disagree with eating meat, just with the way we abuse and torture sentient animals to harvest our meat.
If all the vegetarians in the world started eating meat it is undeniable that supply would have to go up to meet demand and there would be more suffering.
Unless all meat was free range/organic and not tortured pumped with drugs and industrialised. That would be great.
Can’t the same be said for primals? If they went meat free, were should all those soyabeans, veggies and fruit come from? Either way we have to be aware of the fact that most of our food is made in a not so healthy way. Be it direct or indirect. There is enough meat to get your hands on that is not pumped with drugs or industrialised… Atleast here in the Netherlands it’s not so hard.
I’m surprised at the children who suddenly find out where meat comes from and become vegetarian. Children should understand and perhaps see where meat comes from.
As a child, I used to watch the butcher in the morning say a little prayer and then slaughter a cow. All while waiting for the school bus.
My parents told me back then that the prayer is to thank God for the meat and that the butcher is very skilled that the cows dies almost immediately. That eased my concern somehow.
No longer religious, I still secretly murmur a prayer sometimes when I have my hands deep in bloody meat and never forget where it came from.
You’ll probably have social services all over you if you take a child nowadays to see how a cow is slaughtered.
It was not traumatic, it was eye-opening and educational.
I am reminded of the ubiquitous shots of lions and cheetas and the like taking down a wildebeest, hyena, or what have you, often played in slow motion and with the sound off. This is considered educational television. Why is it OK to watch a lion kill its prey, but not OK to watch a human do the same? I really don’t get this attitude. (I agree with you, though.)
Well, those animals NEED to eat other animals. We humans have NO nutritional requirement for animal flesh and secretions. We can get ALL our vitamins and nutrients from plant sources. Therefore it is unnecessary for us to do so. That can’t be said for true carnivores.
What about your B12?
B12 is made by bacteria and is found in the soil. That’s how it ends up in the flesh of rotting animals (not to mention the bacteria present in rotting animals). I get mine from a fermented yeast. And B12 supplements are plant based as well.
I’ll type it again – We humans have NO nutritional requirement for animal flesh and secretions. We can get ALL our vitamins and nutrients from plant sources. Therefore it is unnecessary for us to do so. That can’t be said for true carnivores.
Why are the majority of B12 deficiency cases found in animal eaters?
B12: An essential part of a healthy plant-based diet
by Stephen Walsh, PhD
http://www.scienzavegetariana.it/rubriche/cong2002/vegcon_B12_en.html
“Our need for B12 has nothing to do with a need for meat.
Ultimately all B12, including that in meat and milk, comes from bacteria just as the B12 in supplements and fortified foods does.”
Your understanding of this gets worse and worse.
http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html#2
That should take up a good part of your day. If you actually did some actual research, followed the citation, a better part of a year.
Except that a growing body of science is showing that while nutrients may be found in fruit & vegetables, it doesn’t mean we are able to convert them into a usable form.
Take beta carotene – Vitamin A for instance:
http://www.upi.com/Health_News/2009/11/23/Some-women-may-lack-vitamin-A/UPI-10441258957333/?form_372.replyids=1&form_363.replyids=1&form_346.userid=215&form_346.replyids=4978
I’d hate to think I was covering my nutritional needs, to then find out that I was one of almost half the population that simply cannot meet their needs on a purely vegetarian diet.
Maybe there needs to be a way to ’screen’ our genetic makeup to see what our genes are able and designed to thrive upon…
Personally, my own experimentation with diet has shown that my system prefers to live on a meat-only diet. I am obeying my genes. And my lifestyle allows me to cover all my nutritional needs – but unlike vegetarians, I know for sure that the nutrients in animal products are directly usable by my body. No screening necessary.
I respect everyone’s lifestyle choices, so long as they are doing what works for them and are doing their best to reduce their environmental impact upon the Earth.
PS. If this is not posted somewhere else, here’s a very thought-provoking article about the ethics of eating meat:
http://www.westonaprice.org/healthissues/ethicsmeat.html
Guess what’s under the christmas tree this year
Hope I can get some of my vegatarian relatives primal!
Does anyone else find it highly ironic that this post immediately follows “Diet as Dogma”?
Most of you paleo/primal people are just as bad as vegans/raw foodists when it comes to belittling other diets.
Mark, thank you for exposing me to the primal diet and this book which I intend to read. However, the elitist attitude towards food that has grown around this blog has really turned me off. I won’t be coming back any time soon.
AlainaOfArc, I feel the same way and have limited my visits here for the same reason.
I have learned much here that I am grateful for and will continue to carry with me.
My focus has grown. I’ve moved on to Traditional Foods. Price’s research resonates with me and the community is very diverse and accepting. Besides, fermenting is fun! LOL.
We are all just trying to do the best for ourselves and our families. When the student is ready, the teacher will come.
Force leads to war.
Aw… cmon… it’s not that bad… it’s mostly fairly decent rhetoric.
Hi,
A quick comment about a vegetarian diet: tried it for a few months after being a meat eater for all my life. What to know what happend? Lost all my muscle mass, became skinny, and people thought I looked sick!
I think this author doesn’t know the The farmer and Filosopher Masanobu Fukuoka, whose developments in natural agriculture are outstanding, withouth the use of tilling, composting, fertilizing, etc etc, you should go and see this, read the book “The one Straw Revolution”
Plus, we live in a very diversified world, with diferent climates, diferent people, with diferent constitutions, differente enviroments ofering diferent types of food. If you don’t consider Yin and Yang, you could not possibly help someone achieve great health, by just prescribing wath myght have worked for you.
Here’s the thing. Vegans are obviously concerned with sustainable practices of producing food. Our current system of industrial agriculture was not set up by people adhering to vegan ideals. Since veganism began, Vegans have pioneered different, sustainable techniques, such as veganic agriculture and forest gardening because they are very aware of the problems with our current system (not to mention that a vegan, Richard St Barbe Baker, helped curb the cattle culture caused Dust Bowl problem in the 30s and spearheaded the Saharan reclamation work). To blame vegans for having to live in this current world with our current industrial agriculture is erroneous, to say the least. Everyone reading this gets their food from a store, not solely from hunting and gathering. Many recent studies have shown that vegans indeed contribute less to environmental degradation simply by not consuming animals, even much more than “locavores”.
Veganism is the solution, not part of the problem. If it was more widely adopted then the vast amount resources that go into “raising” animals for food would be freed to benefit the environment and those in need. Remember that the vast majority of monoculture crops go to feeding livestock for human consumption, not to feed vegans.
Paleo living could only be practiced by a small fraction of the current population. therefore it is an impractical, and elitist, solution to the many current crises we face today.
What do you think animals raised for their meet, milk or eggs eat? Let me tell you: grains.
Animal-based diets are much more unsustainable than vegan diets, since one pound of meat production requires 10+ pounds of grain. Let’s say if you eat vegan, you damage the environment 1 units. If you purely eat animal products, your damage is 10+. If you are in between, the cost is in between. This is so simple.
Mert:
Wow. Wow and wow.
I’ve just bit my tongue over most of the veg-idiocy, but have to step in here.
….Simply to call attention to the fact that you either haven’t read the thread or are too stupid to understand it.
In either case, #FAIL
This is why I rarely bother about or am concerned about vegggggggggies.
When I am, it’s merely for sport.
That’s funny, Richard because you are not really saying anything. Your petulant, wanna-be quippy one liners don’t add up to a logical argument.
that’s why you eat grass fed animals
We don’t advocate eating grain-fed meat. You are what you’re eating ate, too. We advocate eating grass-fed, pastured meat.
So your straw man hypothesis is just that: a straw man.
The nutrition section is a little too WAPF-influenced for me; I did like the thorough excoriating the book gives to agriculture, however.
It’s worth noting that agriculture has been violent and destructive from the very start, and that industrial agriculture, like the industrial revolution itself, merely accelerated the problems inherent in the system.
Agriculture demands ever greater amounts of land to produce ever greater amounts of people; the only way to get that land is to take it from someone else. The story of Cain and Abel is the story that has been playing out since the Agricultural Revolution, 10,000: the agriculturalist takes the land of the nomad by force, sowing his fields with the blood of the people who once lived there. The culmination was in 1492, when the last place in the world left untouched by this system was taken. This is our culture – a culture of imperialism, but more importantly a culture where food is kept under lock and key and sustainability is hardly even thought of. Can we fix it? I sure hope so, but I’m not confident.
Mark, your review is spot on and, as is usually the case, it is wonderfully written. I myself have been trying to get that sad, important book into as many people’s hands as I can.
A number of the posters here — some of whom have clearly not read the book and yet have commented based upon, I suppose, their interpolations of Mark’s comments of it — are mistaken on a number of points. For example, the book is not alarmist “in order to make money” as someone suggested. It is alarmist because it is truthful. I don’t imagine the author will make a ton of money on it as it is too contrary to CW. Second, if you are a vegan or vegetarian and want to stay that way, despite so much logic, science, good sense, and even morality, pointing in another direction, then why on Earth are you on this site in the first place? A sine qua non of any “Primal” or “paleo” approach is that humans are meat eaters. Period. Without that, you ain’t gettin’ it. It’s also not about standard confinement animal feedlot operations (CAFO) Please get that, as it is implicit in every sentence written about animal vs. plant food!! Fer chrissakes, I cannot believe the number of people that ignore this important point. Anyway, an omnivorous/carnivorous diet is factually what we humans are biologically adapted to eat. Thinking otherwise is delusional. How exactly our omnivorism is proportioned is what may be debatable, but not the factual reality of it.
Can we all go Primal instead of Agricultural or vegetarian if we wanted to? No. There are too many of us for any kind of truly sustainable diet/lifestyle. One of the sad messages of the book is that the planet cannot sustain 6 billion people. Period. She is not making this up. Things are going to get much, much worse before they get better (that’s my sentence, not hers). Many of you want that not to be true, I am sure, so you say that hers is an alarmist view, or that we’ll ‘figure something out’ …as we always have (famous last words!) or that it really isn’t true (the la-la-la defense, as Mark said the other day) or that, well, dammit, eating meat is still just plain bad no matter what, etc., etc. But, when all stock is taken and if we are honest with ourselves, most likely all that Lierre Kieth says in her book is true.The facts are out there if we are willing to look at them. That is basically what she does in her book: she lays out the facts. It was not easy for her either.
Human anatomies much more resemble that of herbivores than carnivores. The famous Richard Leakey (http://www.leakey.com/richard_leakey.htm) has come to this conclusion as has Dr Patrick Walsh (http://www.enotalone.com/article/3313.html) and many others before them, including Carolus Linnaeus the botanist, physician, and zoologist, who laid the foundations for the modern scheme of binomial nomenclature. He is known as the father of modern taxonomy, and is also considered one of the fathers of modern ecology.
That doesn’t mean that we cannot eat animals it just means that our bodies are “designed” to consume vegetable matter.
Linnaeus writes: “Man’s structure, internal and external compared with that of the other animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables are his natural food.”
Walsh writes : “The only animals that have both prostates and seminal vesicles are herbivores-veggie-eating animals like bulls, apes, and elephants. There is only one exception to this rule: humans. Men have seminal vesicles, too. In other words, man, a meat-lover, has the makeup of an animal that should be a vegetarian.” (I’d like to see any of you, including keith dispute this!)
Leakey writes : “[y]ou can’t tear flesh by hand, you can’t tear hide by hand…. We wouldn’t have been able to deal with food source that required those large canines”
William C. Roberts, M.D., editor of The American Journal of Cardiology writes : “When we kill the animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings.”
The list goes on and on. These people are qualified to make these statements. Someone like keith is not at all in the least.
Again, people… READ!
But the argument should end here: Even if we can eat animals to a degree, we can live healthfully without eating them. Therefore it is unnecessary for us to do so.
One more quote from a favorite author of mine, Leo Tolstoy: “A human can be healthy without killing animals for food. Therefore if he eats meat he participates in taking animal life merely for the sake of his appetite.”
And when did he write that? Think about it folks.
It’s funny that when people start challenging the belief system here, comments start being moderated…
Comments with links are moderated, but I would not expect you to have figured that out given your astounding level of ignorance.
William C. Roberts, M.D., editor of The American Journal of Cardiology writes : “When we kill the animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings.”
Believing that statement right there shows you know ZERO about biochemistry or anything involving the human body. Please Miss C, show my one study that proves meat consumption kills us and I will gladly show you why the science around it is god awful.
Even if I don’t, William C Roberts and the other I listed do.
How are you qualified to say otherwise?
And read The China Study -the most comprehensive study of nutrition ever conducted.
Oh my, C trots out the China Study.
“What is most shocking about the China Study is not what it found, but the contrast between Campbell’s representation of its findings in The China Study, and the data contained within the original monograph.
Campbell summarizes the 8,000 statistically significant correlations found in the China Study in the following statement: “people who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease.”26 He also claims that, although it is “somewhat difficult” to “show that animal-based food intake relates to overall cancer rates,” that nevertheless, “animal protein intake was convincingly associated in the China Study with the prevalence of cancer in families.”27
=============================
Figure 1
Associations of Selected Variables with Mortality for All Cancers in the China Study
Total Protein +12%
Animal Protein +3%
Fish Protein +7%
Plant Protein +12%
Total Lipids -6%
Carbohydrates +23%
Total Calories +16%
Fat % Calories -17%
Fiber +21%
Fat (questionnaire) -29%*
* statistically significant ** highly significant *** very highly significant
==============================
(Data taken from the original monograph of the China Study.)
But the actual data from the original publication paints a different picture. Figure 1 shows selected correlations between macronutrients and cancer mortality. Most of them are not statistically significant, which means that the probability the correlation is due to chance is greater than five percent.
It is interesting to see, however, the general picture that emerges. Sugar, soluble carbohydrates, and fiber all have correlations with cancer mortality about seven times the magnitude of that with animal protein, and total fat and fat as a percentage of calories were both negatively correlated with cancer mortality.
The only statistically significant association between intake of a macronutrient and cancer mortality was a large protective effect of total oil and fat intake as measured on the questionnaire. As an interesting aside, there was a highly significant negative correlation between cancer mortality and home-made cigarettes!28 Campbell’s case for the association between animal foods and cancer within the China Study is embedded within an endnote. Campbell states: “Every single animal protein-related blood biomarker is significantly associated with the amount of cancer in a family.”
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
“Even if we can eat animals to a degree, we can live healthfully without eating them. Therefore it is unnecessary for us to do so.”
Show me ONE culture that survives on no animal products and has ZERO degenerative disease.
The ONLY thing that is in season year round is meat! Apples don’t fall from the tree continuously. There is a significant difference in surviving (you) and thriving (me).
The fact that humans, whenever possible, chose animal flesh over plant based foods is neither arguable nor does it make any sense. Chose the food most dense in calories and nutrients.
http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/AJCN%20PDF.pdf
Your knowledge seems woefully inadequate on this topic. The traditional Inuit are some of the healthiest cultures ever known. With NO sign of any western diseases (Metabolic syndrome, CVD, Cancer, Hypertension, Obesity) and consisting on an predominantly all meat diet. Upwards of 70% fat. Please show me ONE vegan culture with this level of health.
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox
http://www.jbc.org/content/87/3/651.full.pdf+html
Leakey writes : “[y]ou can’t tear flesh by hand, you can’t tear hide by hand…. We wouldn’t have been able to deal with food source that required those large canines”
My god how ignorant.
We’ve been tool makers (stone) for at least 2.3 million yeas, Homo Habilis.
And check this out, cause if you’re so ignorant about stone tools then you’re probably ignorant of the fact that our ancient primate ancestor the chimpanzee hunts cooperatively to kill colabus monkeys, rip them limb from limb to great tribal fanfare and eat the flesh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDFh5JdYh7I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1WBs74W4ik
Smoke that, Mr or Ms Anonymous.
I HAVE read the China Study. It may be one of the worst representations of research I have seen. His conclusions DO NOT even match the data from the China Project.
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html
READ CAREFULLY! Campbell makes the assumption that feeding rats pure casein protein (massive spike in both insulin and IGF-1) induces cancer. You cannot eat pure casein protein in nature!!! He feed them PROCESSED FOOD! He then takes this marvelous research and concludes that there is association between all animal protein. Only having data from feeding rats processed pure casein. I could have told you that would have gave them cancer. But that gives us nothing to go off of. It is very said so many people get confused by fancy graphs and big words. Learn how to read research!
Richard, I have provided proof for my claims.
You just make comments about how ignorant people that disagree with the premise of this site. I think your readers can decide who is supporting their arguments with facts and who is ignorant… I hope.
“I have provided proof for my claims.”
Oh, so you’re a liar too.
haha – clearly the entire premise is ridiculous, but even if it vegetarianism could be blamed for industrial grain agriculture – why do you think we grow so much Grain??? The U.S. ALONE could feed approx _800 million people_ (back in 1997) with grain that livestock eat.#1 Seems to be a case if ideology before facts me thinks…
#1 http://www.news.cornell.edu/releases/Aug97/livestock.hrs.html
So what should we be eating? Meat from factory farming is of course bad, and apparently agriculture is bad, but if everyone ate grass-fed meat, wouldn’t the environmental impact of that still be pretty bad? Grass-fed is better, but animals, especially cows, still harm the environment. I guess there’s just too many people on the planet for there to be a good solution?
That’s right, Cassie.
Plus grass fed cows produce much more methane. Grass fed cows could not possibly be a solution to feeding the world’s population by a long shot and it accounts for a single digit fraction of cows “raised” for human consumption.
Again, as I said above, eating animals is not only unethical because they are sentient beings, but it is also totally environmentally unsound for the current population, or even a small fraction of it.
Grazing cattle is the #1 cause of top soil erosion and desertification, water pollution, and all around environmental degradation from small to large scale, much of this caused PRIOR to industrial animal ag.
we have the current intensive, grain fed system because it’s the ONLY way the current population of omni’s can eat the meat and secretions they want. However it’s an inefficient use of resources from water, to grains, to land (especially in the case of grass fed), to fossil fuels and, as said above, it’s destructive to the planet. How many of you unapologetic omnis have read a pro vegan book? I’m willing to bet it’s not many if any at all because most folks seem to believe whole-heartedly what keith says although much of it’s been debunked over and over and over again.
I’ve read the book and I find it amazing that people here think much of her info is true. I mean just in her introduction she makes elementary factual errors like saying there are no plant sources of tryptophan or saturated fat. She could have at least done a simple google search, and you all could too.
She does do a decent job critiquing industrial ag, I’ll give her that. But her conclusions are as sloppy as Griff’s writing skills. ; ).
Just read the part in the book about sprinting where Carl Lewis is mentioned as one of the best sprinters of all time. Ironically Lewis is a vegan who credits that fact as one of the most important factors in his performance.
I don’t offer this as an argument to PB; only a fact to be pondered by those who are a little too single minded or believe that there is only one way to achieve great health and performance.
Actually Carl Lewis didn’t turn vegan until 1990, and he frequently tested positive for performance enhancing drugs both before and after he switched his diet. I wouldn’t exactly hold him up as a good example of successful veganism under those circumstances.
Understood that he didn’t go vegan until 1990 but he credits the switch in his diet to his highest athletic performance. In 1991 he set the world record in the 100 meter dash.
Unfortunately, it seems most of the US Track team is on performance enhancing drugs. Just read an article in an issue of Self Magazine about a female sprinter who was stripped of her titles after she began working with the team “consultant” and tested positive for drugs. Basically she couldn’t compete if she didn’t. Sad state of affairs in pro sports today. It would be nice to see pure athleticism without the use of drugs.
Even without the drugs, Carl Lewis would clearly be a competitor. Just thought it ironic that the very sprinter Mark mentions in the book is in fact a long time vegan.
@C
My, my, where to begin.
First, please read the book we all started talking about. It might just be the awakener and educator that you clearly need. I have read the modern “bible” for vegetarianism, the China Study, and am well aware of many other vegan/vegetarian screeds. But, because I read other stuff (unlike you, I suspect) I can clearly tell the wheat from the chaff (pardon the grain-based metaphor).
Humans are meat eaters, please look at actual, modern, biological, archaeological and anthropological sources. Of course, it’s possible that our distant ancestors –Lucy, and the like, were primarily herbivorous, but not us. Oh, wait, I forgot the 35,000 year old cave paintings showing humans hunting spirolina and goji berries, so I guess you must be right. Sheesh. All you need do is read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, by Weston Price and you’ll see what a true scientist, WITHOUT AN AGENDA, can do.
You know, I have a number of friends whom I cherish dearly, but whom are vegans, as well. And, try as I might –gently, of course — I just cannot get through their kale-addled brains enough for them to begin to even entertain other viewpoints. This is most frustrating because they are getting sicker and fatter.
Frankly, this issue might be the most fundamental difference between those who pray to the veggie gods and those who kneel to the meat deities; most primals/paleos/etc., HAVE actually examined alternatives, they HAVE educated themselves –usually extensively (speaking for myself and, I know, a number of others here) — and have finally come to their fact-based conclusions. Vegans, by and large, have not.
Whaddya wanna bet that C has never heard of the Expensive Tissue Hypothesis, or how it relates specifically to Kleiber’s Law.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/low-carb-library/are-we-meat-eaters-or-vegetarians-part-ii/
Since this seems to be a site for true believers, I won’t waste much space trying to refute claims that vegans are all weak and sickly, etc. (The ones I know personally, including an international track medallist, seem remarkably healthy.) But I will note that if Lierre Keith thinks that killing microorganisms presents a moral dilemma for vegetarians, then perhaps she’s met some unusual vegetarians; in any case, she has a very poor understanding of the the ethical basis of vegetarianism. At the risk of having this post moderated out of existence for including a link, I suggest that anyone who is seriously interested in the ethical debate about animals read this book:
http://www.broadviewpress.com/product.php?productid=951&cat=12&page=1
While some sort of “paleo” diet is no doubt sustainable for a small minority, it is not sustainable for billions of people and will not become sustainable globally unless we bomb ourselves back to an uncivilized state of existence. A CIVILIZED global society can minimize negative environmental effects by becoming vegetarian — thus radically reducing the amount of agricultural land required to feed everyone and maximizing the amount of land available for wildlife. Also, a vegan diet minimizes the number of sentient creatures killed:
http://www.animalvisuals.org/data/1mc/
@Beast man
You seem not to have read the book so I would say that it is not Lierre Kieth who has a “poor understanding”. Kieth’s commitment to vegetarianism rested on a wide spectrum of beliefs, not just the trivial one you cited. She speaks with first hand knowledge of the various moral, political, and nutritional beliefs of vegan/vegetarians.
Unfortunately, there will be far more head-in-the-sand vegan/vegetarians who will not educate themselves, than whom are willing to potentially disabuse themselves of long held dogma by at least exploring what Lierre Kieth has to say.
This book is an important work and Lierre Keith is an author to watch. This book helped me end my 12 year stint as a vegetarian and vegan. I agree with most of her conclusions and agree with most of her sources. I don’t always like her sources (Weston Price Foundation has made some questionable claims about homosexuality, but their food and nutrition facts I find mostly accurate), but mostly I do. I find this a fairly agenda free book in regards to capitalism. Now who is going to tackle the question of over population and not have it turn into a thin veiled racist polemic? That’s what I want to know. Peak oil, climate change, monocropping, overpopulation, and about every “ism” you can think of is a hard battle to win. But they are all related and interconnected. There is a hard road ahead and Lierre Keith’s book helps up head down that road and in the right direction. The last thing Keith would want would for this book to turn into a dogmatic cult-like movement, so let’s help her out by incorporating the messages into other existing movements. Cheers everyone.
I like the vegetarian concept of ahimsa, and so tried to be vegan for an extended period. I got sick and stayed sick, with a variety of imflammatory illnesses. Tried PB and these illnesses vanished. Repeated this twice more with similar results. Not scientific proof I know, but good enough for me.
What is PB?
thanks for the review mark…and for your book. The journey towards this lifestyle has been remarkable for me. As a pastor who believes that we’re body/soul/spirit, I was particularly intrigued by the recurring theme Vegan Myth Book: No Life without Death! – That’s the message of Christianity, all the way back in the garden when God kills a couple of animals to provide coverings for the first couple.
Hoping that you’re familiar with the work of farmer/poet Wendell Barry too. He’s a huge advocate for localized economies, and this is the place where my faith life joins all that you’ve been teaching. It’s a beautiful synthesis of realities!
Richard:
My last reply is baggage, and having read your reply again, I want to just say that in spite of that difference, I wish you all the best in health. For you and yours.
I have pastors who are family and I love them, in spite of the fact I no longer value their religious beliefs. But I do value them.
So, my former comment ought not be taken too harshly, I hope.
“No Life without Death! – That’s the message of Christianity, all the way back in the garden when God kills a couple of animals to provide coverings for the first couple.”
Laf, but SUPER points for style & entertainment!
(former fundie baptist and now athie for 20 years)
I ordered the book for my wife. I was a lacto-vegetarian for about 3 or 4 years back in the early 90’s. Although my health seemed acceptable back then, I had no way of knowing for sure since I was a broke grad student with no medical healthcare benefits (still broke, but at least I have a job with health insurance) … but I do know that I never felt as good back then as I do now with the PB dietary foundation.
Back then I was searching for a non-religious spirituality in a very agnostic Gaia hypothesis sort of way and vegetarianism seemed to fit into my life at the time from both a spiritual and health quest perspective. I still wonder about the inter-connectedness of my life with the planet and although I would still consider myself agnostic, I feel that I have drifted more and more towards the atheistic end of the spectrum. And though I still wonder about my connectedness, I no longer have a need or desire to be connected just as I no longer see a need or desire to be vegetarian.
I also have no need or desire to argue with ignorance (at least relative to my own) … so I’ll avoid trying to convince anyone of what way of life is right for them and instead sit back and read the posts for entertainment and/or a learning experience.
Perhaps the book covers it, but what this blog entry doesn’t convey is that raising grain-fed meat is FAR more destructive to the environment than raising grain for people to eat.
Modern agriculture in the US uses about eight times the arable land, water, and petroleum products to produce one pound of cheap, factory-farmed beef as it does to produce one pound of grain. EIGHT TIMES.
Recommended film for those interested in US food production: “Food, Inc.”
I have no moral qualms with grass-fed meat, or meat that comes from animals responsibly hunted, but do not eat factory-farmed products. I end up eating legumes & nuts almost daily, along with piles of vegetables, mostly because it’s actually easier & cheaper than procuring all of the grass-fed meat. Pastured turkey for Thanksgiving, the occasional buffalo burger or serving of fish, maybe some of my uncle’s venison at Christmas, that’s about all the meat I’ll have this year. Sorry, not going to can my values for the paleo craze.
Oh, and as to healthy vegans: a certain Crossfitting, ultra-running Ironman I know is in great health right now — knocked nearly an hour off his best ironman time last weekend, and went totally vegan a while back. So if we are going anecdotal, spare me your “all vegans are unhealthy.” We should WISH to be as unhealthy as that guy!
The entire “environmental destruction” issue – no matter what side of the meat-eating issue you’re on – misses the point. Was the environment “constructed”? Not unless you believe in God (and even then he did a damn poor job because if the Earth were a house, the plumber, electrician, and every other specialist would be over every day fixing the details).
Look people, evidently 6 billion people is “sustainable.” If it’s not, then global warming and soil depletion will stir up a few natural disasters, famines, and resulting wars to take care of all of those extra humans. But one thing is for sure: without all of that big bad industry, 5.9 billion of those people wouldn’t be here.
So what if the number is, say, 7 billion? Alright, let industry run free until the planet is “destroyed” all that much more and those extra billion people can live. And then, once that happens, the Earth will lash back and drop us back down to 6 billion (or whatever number it can really support).
No amount of government action, dietary activism, or anything else is going to change the actual number of people the Earth can support. Hell, we can’t even figure it out except by finding out the hard way.
So let’s stop talking about it, shall we? It’s a waste of time. The only reason anyone should ever be discussing vegetarianism vs. eating meat is for the dietary considerations.
Grant, very good. Obviously, you’ve read or at least heard of, James Lovelock. So ultimately you may well be right and it’s pointless to discuss these matters. However, I’d point out that the sustainability of 6 billion people is not possible, as you suggest. Lierre Kieth’s book goes to some lengths to demonstrate this. (It really is a good read, you know.)
The point she makes is, we are NOT currently on a truly sustainable path and THAT is why there’s all the fuss. If Lovelock and Kieth are right, then there’s nothing we can do to stem the tides of change anyway. Many will die. What she and others are saying, however, is ‘let’s see how we’re can survive or even thrive during the coming changes’ and let’s try to do it without everything turning into Mad Max.
Whenever someone concludes that doing something is pointless and unnecessary, but that it should be done anyways, he or she is trying to sell a book, win social prestige, garner political power, achieve some kind of unsustainable internal peace, or some combination of all of those things.
I’ll say it again: if 6 billion people is too many people, the extra people will die. Period. Do you think that doing it preemptively – by regulating the economic activity which made possible and maintains those extra people – is going to make them go quietly? You don’t want a “Mad Max situation”? In other words: you don’t want them to resist since that would destroy not only the portion of the economy they depend upon, but other portions as well? Fine, then you’re going to have to round them up and exterminate them. I suppose a “Nazi Germany situation” is preferable to a “Mad Max situation”?
Here’s the solution (assuming you’re right that what we currently have is too many): no regulations whatsoever. Let the people who don’t achieve it die from their lack of access to fuel, clean air and water, nutritious food, and their protection from natural disasters. They’ll die in little spurts, and it will be entirely their own faults for losing at “musical chairs.”
But, of course, environmentalists will never let this happen because – as I said above – their real agenda is to control other people’s lives, or to exploit their ignorance, so that they don’t have to have real jobs.
(and no, I’ve never heard of James Lovelock. I realized the point I’m making all by myself).
Grant,
You say: “Here’s the solution (assuming you’re right that what we currently have is too many): no regulations whatsoever. Let the people who don’t achieve it die from their lack of access to fuel, clean air and water, nutritious food, and their protection from natural disasters. They’ll die in little spurts, and it will be entirely their own faults for losing at “musical chairs.”
Well, that’s probably more like what is to happen, although I wouldn’t say the loser of the musical chairs is “at fault” for anything, other than being born in the wrong place and at the wrong time. My Mad Max allusion was not meant as you interpreted it. I didn’t take the time to think of a better one, I guess.
You say: “(and no, I’ve never heard of James Lovelock. I realized the point I’m making all by myself).”
Congratulations! No insult to your intellect was intended in my post.
Vegan, high-raw (the difference maker for me) here. I recently made the switch and I personally feel great.
In my opinion, Tte problem with the fundamentalist claim that vegetarians or vegans have health issues is the fact that you can eat poorly on ANY diet, including a plant-based one.
So, I must mention: The modern bible for vegetarians/vegans is actually Thrive, by Brendan Brazier (not the China Study). Pro Ironman triathlete, spent 17 years honing his nutritional approach. You can eat unhealthily on ANY diet, he shows you how to “thrive,” and other than a bias against supplemental support (which I think is good for your everyday health-conscious person) and a bit of misinformation about agave (the book was published before this, but new research shows it is less healthy than previously thought, with fructose levels as high as hfcs), he is spot on. Great book about nutrition in general, even non-vegans have enjoyed that one.
Also, just for an eye-opener, check out http://www.veganbodybuilding.com – browse around, I suggest you click profiles.
And if you’re in the mood, there’s http://www.veganathlete.com.
Again, regardless of this author’s experience, you can eat unhealthily and have health issues on just about any diet, one that’s high in animal products/cholesterol/fat, etc., or one that is high on organic plant matter.
Meat or no meat, cooked food or no cooked food, I think a diet that is plant-based is great. With the open mind I had going into this, I still say “Don’t knock it til you try it!” And by the way, you don’t have to be vegetarian or vegan to enjoy vegetarian or vegan meals and foods.
I say try everything, be knowledgeable with whatever you’re doing, keep an open mind, and with that open mind – one that listens to find out rather than to confirm – be willing to possibly change or evolve (slowly at your own pace and on your own path of course).
And again, if you are thinking of trying vegetarianism/veganism or a high-raw or 100% raw lifestyle, I suggest you check out the above resources, in addition to the myriad others that are out there.
One more (one of THE BEST!): Go to youtube and search “Karyn Calabrese part 1″ and watch the 4-part interview (the ten part is great too, when you get the time). That woman is 61, has been vegan for almost 40 years and raw for 20+ years. She looks amazing, and her health perspective is very interesting.
Enjoy the links. Best of luck to all. Peace and good food this holiday season
.
Roxie, thanks for the various links. I will check them out as time allows.
You make a very good point that any diet can be unhealthy. This is indeed one of the overlooked points in the “raw/vegan food is better for you” camp, isn’t it? The fact that people who switch to a vegan diet from their really crappy diet to something that is more fresh and whole is regularly overlooked. It is the vegetarian vs. meat-and-fat issue that is trumpeted. This is the message of many including Campbell and the “Food Matters” people, and many, many others. Another oft-overlooked point in almost any of these discussions — yet it’s something Mark has pointed out repeatedly — is that when vegetarian diets are compared to meaty diets and found to be “better” in some way, the “researchers” NEVER seem to correct for, or even check for, refined carbohydrate intake. They always point to meat-and-fat as the culprit. It is insidious.
As regards Brendan Brazier, I would simply repeat the comments I made above about the Crossfitter ultra-triathlete fellow.
Further to that, though, Brazier is still a young man, plus he has to jump through immense hoops to “thrive” as he does. One of the very precepts of the Primal or Paleo movement — call it what you will — is it’s rather simple. Being a raw/vegan is much more complicated and difficult. Unless, that is, you don’t want a nice variety of tastes and foodstuffs. And, it’s nearly impossible to thrive as Brazier does without supplementing, big time (Vega shake, anyone?). But, on a Primal type of diet, it is relatively easy to thrive.
I know a man who has eaten an all-raw, primarily meat and fat diet for the past 35 years (meat/fish/fowl). He, like your vegan example, is 61 years old and looks amazing, too. (62, actually). His health perspective is definitely “interesting”. (Hell, I think a raw meat diet trumps a raw vegan one any day. LOL) However, most people would simply shy away from it because of all the pro veggie hype there is in the world.
All is not quite as we think it is, I am sure.
@cp
You are right that growing grain to feed to animals is a big part of the problem. However, it is not “far more” destructive than growing grain for any other reason; it is the same. If you mean that there is more land devoted to grain for livestock, then you would be correct. But, either way, the destruction to the land/environment/ecosystem is equal. Obviously, you haven’t read the book, nor much of Mark’s blog because these issues are dealt with variously.
Also, as regards your anecdote about the ultra-triathlete Crossfitter being healthy “right now”, well, I’m sure it appears that way to any who would care to look. Although, the words “right now” are perhaps telling. Who knows what the constant inflammation of his heart will do to him in the long run. Perhaps nothing, perhaps something. Same goes for the very high carbohydrate, or at least high calorie, diet he needs to be on to sustain the energy levels required to be in an “ultra” sport. How long can that be sustained? Don’t know. What happened to Steve Redgrave, the Olympic rower (type 2 diabetes) is not unexpected if you look into these things.
Anyway, maybe the question should be, “do we equate what “ultra” athletes do or eat to “health” or instead, to performance?” I would say the latter. If you are an ultra anything, you are extreme. To be extreme is probably not the same as being “healthy”. Marathoners are known to die during competitions. This is unheard of for power and strength athletes such as powerlifters and Oly lifters, although many of the higher level ones do have shorter life spans which has often been attributed to steroid use. My point, though, is that both of these groups ought to be considered as very fit as measured by their level of performance — one is endurance, the other is strength, power, and explosiveness — but are they healthy?
I will pick up a copy. I’m a vegan. I’d like to see the other perspective. Although I don’t think this simple book can alter my lifestyle. Veganism is NOT something you can just reverse in one day and frankly these don’t seem like strong enough arguments. Factory farming is not natural PERIOD.
Look – I’m a cancer researcher and I just want to point out two things. 1) We are genetically quite different and react to drugs and food in very different ways. One can NEVER say that an individual cannot live as a vegan. This is nonsense. Some people will benefit hugely and others will suffer. The emerging field of personalized therapeutics and dietomics will reveal this. It will take a few years but you will see this happening. So please be careful with generalizations. I have known people who stopped getting ill when they stopped eating meat…OK they ate some fish. I know some extremely healthy vegans and I have met others who have become ill while a vegan. There are various reasons for this difference two of which are effort (completeness of the diet) and metabolic pathways (i.e., genetics).
2) A philosophy that attempts to minimize the amount of suffering that animals go through should be seriously considered. The suffering these animals go through is very real and unnecessary in that it can be reduced greatly. So if one chooses to not eat meat because they have compassion for animals and do not want to participate in the meat industry, then I applaud their efforts. Watch I Am an Animal: The Story of Ingrid Newkirk and watch your reactions carefully.
I find this standpoint very interesting indeed. I have to agree with the author when he states that something is inevitably going to die in the production of any sort of food. That’s just the way the life cycle. I live a mostly vegetarian lifestyle because of factory farming methods and because free ranged meats aren’t always free ranged (I know, I know, the food industry has never lied to us before). I do have no qualms about meat gathered either by my own hands or someone I know. Fishing or hunting, much like Grok would have done it. Its and odd lifestyle choice I know. I feel animals and humans should all be apart of the cycle. Factory farming looks a lot like a scene out a horror movie. I feel vegetarians can do very well and I personally have (granted I need to be more careful of grains), but it isn’t to say that the world should convert over night. We have to find that fine balance.
Ecotopia by Ernest Callenbach is an interesting novel from the 70’s about the 3 west coast states seceding in 1999 (it was the future in the 70’s
from the union and building a sustainable eco state, combining the best of green technology with the greenest best practices. Factory farming was eliminated, wildlife came back and the people once again actively hunted for a significant portion of their food and regressed to a more “primitive” (ie. primal) society.
I spent a couple years on the vegetarian lifestyle. I quit many years ago around Christmas time as I went with some vegan friends to get real Christmas trees. As we loaded up our cars, I wondered why it was wrong to eat an animal but A-OK to kill hundreds of millions of trees every year (which lived 10-20 years before harvest) just to have it in our living room for a few weeks and then throw it out on the curb. Why was the tree not afforded the same respect as a chicken? Then I saw that same no-win abyss of guilt that Lierre Kieth saw. The guilt of just being alive.
I realized vegetarians/vegans tend to personify animals. You are not eating chicken, you are eating a dear innocent animal named such and such. What they do not do is consider the big picture as outlined in “The Vegetarian Myth” where a grain based society may actually cause more environmental destruction, animal death and suffering. It’s the forest for the trees thing. It’s a poor chicken instead of populations of species.
Unfortunately for cosmic randomness completely beyond our control, life MUST die so that life can live. And on a daily basis. And if you don’t think it is random and believe in god, then blame her. It was a diabolical idea indeed.
Why the hating on vegetarians? I’m not one, yet some of the comments here seem as silly as the ones on vegan blogs which claim human beings do not have the proper teeth to ingest meat.
Human beings as a species, omnivores that we are, can thrive on a fairly wide range of diets. Evidently certain kinds of diets at the fringe, such as extremely large amounts of saturated fats, show specific bad results in many predisposed people.
As much as the vegans might wish it would happen, it is unlikely that the masses are going to reject meat eating and bring on the dire consequences described in this dystopian tome.
The diet that is most healthy for one individual may not be the best for another. Complicating matters, some people will sacrifice their health for reasons emotional or ethical or hedonistic; for others, health trumps all.
Why oh why oh why oh why! do Paleo’s and eat advocates ALWAYS falsely typecast and strawman vegetarians and esp. vegans as HIGH GRAIN/GRAIN DOMINANT consumption… grains are NOT a part of healthy, human diet… fruits/veggies/greens/seeds/nuts ARE…
they are not equivical…. because one is a vegan per se, doesn’t = they are grain consumers, hence vegan diets (as falely and largely portrayed) are unhealthy and unfit for human consumption….
ridiculous… I swear, I can’t believe the entire Internet is RIFE with all thee inaccuracies on BOTH sides….
Its not a vegan or vegetarian vs meat eater paradigm. Its RAW vs cooked!
The bottom line with vegetarianism is that humans are privileged to have a choice in what we eat. (At least for now, god help us.) Sure we kill organisms walking around or fighting a flu but that is certainly no argument for purposefully killing creatures to eat them. Elsewhere on this blog you’ve argued that animals kill one another for food, therefore it’s “natural” for humans. By that argument you could endorse cannibalism and infanticide as OK since chimps do it. I am not a vegetarian but my boyfriend is and I respect his decision. I try to eat healthfully, but obsessing over what or what not to put in my mouth and in what ratio, what time of day, and how often is not my idea of healthy. I am just thankful I can afford and have access to healthful food and clean drinking water.