Does anyone know MMM's stance on veganism?

[GreenSheep]

there's no law against being mostly vegan, except for bacon. It's not a religion.

I think it's helpful to me mindful of your meat consumption, just like it's helpful to be mindful of your spending, but it's easy to ruin an entire week of healthy eating with a big plate of red meat just like it's easy to ruin an entire week of diligent frugality with a single purchase (e.g. a big plate of red meat).

Which isn't to say that small changes aren't helpful, just that it's hypocritical to proselytize the lifestyle while actively undermining it on the weekends.  Giving up your daily latte is great, but pointless if you're buying a new car every month.

I agree, of course. My point was that using bacon as an excuse is invalid. The fact that someone "can't" give up bacon doesn't mean they therefore have to continue to eat all other meat as well. I'm making the assumption that a person who is "vegan except for bacon" wouldn't increase their bacon intake to account for all the other meat they're not eating anymore. I also quietly hold out a little hope that a person who is able to do this would eventually just drop the bacon. For me it was cheese. I was "vegan except for cheese" until a year ago, when I just stopped eating cheese. I thought I'd miss it, and I don't. People are capable of more change than they realize.

[letired]

For anyone wrestling with the environmental impacts of diet, there have been a few interesting articles recently that dig into some of the nuance. The first one I could dig up is here.

TL;DR it's complicated, eating non-farmed-meat has a lower environmental impact than eating farmed meat, as with everything, the management decisions are critical to the net environmental impact of anything (meat or plants), and not all land that can support animals is viable as cropland.

For stuff like this, I like to remind myself that we're all swimming in this cesspool together, there is no opt-out, so I just have to do the best I can and look to things besides my weekly grocery shop to have a meaningful impact on the world.

[Metric Mouse]

We basically just eat deer meat now except when we eat out since my husband is a hunter now.  I feel zero guilt about it as 1. They are actively managed in our state due to starvation/disease/getting hit by cars and 2.  It GREATLY reduces the amount of other meat we eat.  Now, the  deer population probably can't sustain everyone hunting, but for the amount in MO hunting it's sustainable. 

Also, when you painstakingly butcher your own deer....it makes every meal you make with it pretty special.  It was a process (day long) to get that meat and we treat it as such!

Maybe people can look into hunting their own meat?  Just an idea!  My conservation/animal loving daughter (8 years old) says that anyone who hunts a snow goose is a hero in her eyes (they are starving to death due to over-population).

I'd recommend hunting moose over deer if you can swing it.  Moose is far less gamy, you get more meat, and it just flat out tastes better.

Buffalo would be even better - lots more meat.  And personally I think alligator is one of the tastier ones - they can also be hunted, if one can swing it.

[Neustache]

I'd recommend hunting moose over deer if you can swing it.  Moose is far less gamy, you get more meat, and it just flat out tastes better.

Buffalo would be even better - lots more meat.  And personally I think alligator is one of the tastier ones - they can also be hunted, if one can swing it.

No moose in our neck of the woods, but my husband would love that!  It'd involve travel, and then how the heck would we get all that moose meat back in our Nissan Versa? LOL.  Our deer hasn't been gamey yet, but I've had certain gamey smells when it hits the heat.  The taste has been fine, though.  I'll have to try moose meat someday to compare. 

[arebelspy]

I'm assuming that his stance is that he's found a balance between his priorities of personal health and environmental impact.  And definitely not vegan.

I'm assuming he's a raging hypocrite on this issue, like me and virtually everyone else here.

Guilty.

Actually, I think not being vegan is the biggest moral failing I have (among many candidates), and the only one I don't try to improve on. In fact, I do the opposite, and actively try to avoid thinking about it. 

For example, I try to be more honest, more generous, etc. every year.  But I don't try to eat no meat.

I'm such an asshole.

Thanks for calling it like it is, as always, Sol.

My approach of late has just been to reduce the amount of meat I'm eating.  Rather than have meat every day, we average two meat free days a week and try to limit meals with meat to less than six a week.  That way I can rationalize that I'm working on it without having to face the fact that although it's not good for me or the environment, I just enjoy eating meat.

As far as veganism goes, I'm not wholly convinced that there's significant benefit (to me, or to the rest of the world) made by cutting all milk products, fish, and honey out of your life.

(Emphasis added.)

This depends on your reasoning for being vegan.

Yours sounds environmental.

That paragraph has zero weight for someone doing it for ethical reasons related to animal treatment/exploitation.

That's why I find the "why" for each individual so fascinating.  Tells you a lot about them.

[GuitarStv]

I'm assuming that his stance is that he's found a balance between his priorities of personal health and environmental impact.  And definitely not vegan.

I'm assuming he's a raging hypocrite on this issue, like me and virtually everyone else here.

Guilty.

Actually, I think not being vegan is the biggest moral failing I have (among many candidates), and the only one I don't try to improve on. In fact, I do the opposite, and actively try to avoid thinking about it. 

For example, I try to be more honest, more generous, etc. every year.  But I don't try to eat no meat.

I'm such an asshole.

Thanks for calling it like it is, as always, Sol.

My approach of late has just been to reduce the amount of meat I'm eating.  Rather than have meat every day, we average two meat free days a week and try to limit meals with meat to less than six a week.  That way I can rationalize that I'm working on it without having to face the fact that although it's not good for me or the environment, I just enjoy eating meat.

As far as veganism goes, I'm not wholly convinced that there's significant benefit (to me, or to the rest of the world) made by cutting all milk products, fish, and honey out of your life.

(Emphasis added.)

This depends on your reasoning for being vegan.

Yours sounds environmental.

That paragraph has zero weight for someone doing it for ethical reasons related to animal treatment/exploitation.

That's why I find the "why" for each individual so fascinating.  Tells you a lot about them.

I've thought a lot about veganism.

I personally know a couple who have a small honey bee operation and have been selling the honey for decades.  The bees are better kept and in better shape than natural bees.  They suffer less.  I don't understand an opposition to honey from an ethical standpoint.  It doesn't hurt the bees any more than caring for a dog hurts the dog.  (There are certainly nervous system arguments to be made regarding ethics of killing both fish and insects as well . . . they are demonstrably differently wired animals than mammals and there are questions about their ability to even feel pain, but that's another kettle of fish - so to speak.)

I'm on the fence regarding the ethics of milk products . . . on the one hand, I've got some first hand experience with a well run dairy farm where the cows are well treated and the cattle aren't kept in inhumane conditions (it's Canadian so we don't do the same steroids/growth hormone/antibiotic craziness that you Americans do).  That said, I've certainly heard stories of people being assholes to animals in the dairy industry.


As far as my own health, eating a mostly vegan diet but including fish and occasional dairy products is measurably better for you than following a vegan diet when it comes to heart disease, cancer, bone health, and brain health.


Environmentally, fish are pretty decent as far as being a sustainable resource goes, assuming that proper aquaculture techniques are used.  Honey is a sustainable resource (there's an argument that helping pollinators like bees maintain high populations is actually beneficial since so much inadvertent human action has been taken to damage their ability to thrive in nature).  Milk products are a harder sell on this front, although several farming practices have been put forth in the past decade that improve dairy on this front.


So yeah, to recap  . . .
- Ethically bees get a pass.  Fish and dairy are hand-wavy.
- Personal health-wise fish and dairy (in moderation) are demonstrably good for you.  Honey is just a sugar, neither good nor bad for you . . . but certainly replaceable via non-animal sources.
- Environmentally fish and honey get a pass.  Dairy is hand-wavy.

That's why I made the argument that I did regarding veganism.

[arebelspy]

1) Hand-wavy may not be acceptable enough to some people.
2) Again, you presume that your level of interest/care/evaluation is the same as others'.

I know people for whom the exploitation is wrong, not the amount of pain.  Bees do not get a pass from this--manipulating and controlling another living being for your purposes is wrong, under this view.

[GuitarStv]

1) Hand-wavy may not be acceptable enough to some people.
2) Again, you presume that your level of interest/care/evaluation is the same as others'.

I know people for whom the exploitation is wrong, not the amount of pain.  Bees do not get a pass from this--manipulating and controlling another living being for your purposes is wrong, under this view.

1) Fair enough.

2) (Regarding exploitation avoidance - which is an argument I've always had a little issue with.)  Life doesn't exist in isolation.  If you view exploitation as purely wrong and something to avoid, it is not possible to live.

- You exploit the bacteria in your gut to digest food properly.
- You exploit the bacteria and fungus on your skin to stay healthy and fight off worse organisms.
- Without exploiting the bacteria and viruses that infect you throughout your life to build your immune system, you would die.
- Even as a vegan you exploit plants, fungus, and bacteria to provide sustenance.
- Most plants have significant and complex insect interactions.  I'd argue that it is not possible for an awful lot of plants to be farmed without exploiting insects . . . so the bee argument really really doesn't hold water.


Clearly exploitation must be acceptable.  The sticking point is merely which exploitation we're cool with.  If you're fine with exploiting plants, fungus, bacteria, and viruses (not to mention the many things that you exploit for clothing and housing), you're already pretty far down the exploitation rabbit hole.  Is exploiting billions of bacteria better than a few insects?  Is exploiting a few animals better than billions of plants?  Why?  Is rescuing a dog from a shelter so that you have a companion exploitation?  Why?  Why is it OK to exploit insects while growing crops, but not for honey production?  Why?  Sticky* questions to answer.

*Yes, that's a honey joke.

[shelivesthedream]

The thing that ticks me off with the vegan discussion (on both sides) is how incredibly black and white everyone makes it. Vegan or not vegan. Meat eater or not meat eater. Like if you eat vegan meals 364 days a year but have a hamburger on the 365th day, suddenly you have moved from "vegan" to "meat eater". I'm happy to have seen the introduction in the last few years of the idea of flexitarians and meat-free Mondays. I'd say about a quarter of my meals are vegan, half vegetarian, and a quarter meaty/fishy. So I sometimes describe myself as 'mostly vegetarian' but then people jump on it and say "Aha! So you do eat meat!" like that completely invalidates the 3/4 of my meals which are meatless. For that reason, I really like the idea of "vegan except for bacon" or "vegan except for cheese". It sounds like a happy compromise.

The environment is one of the reasons I am not 100% vegetarian. I think a healthy farm system requires some animal farming (pigs and chickens eat food scraps/waste and manure the land, wild animals can be hunted, sheep and goats graze on steep hillsides). And if everyone reduced their meat consumption by 75%, we could farm those animals that we do eat in a kind and sustainable way on our existing farmland. (A bit like how if we reduced food waste massively, we could afford to farm organically/less intensively.) Only thing is, I'm still working on how to ensure that all of our meat is sourced from sustainable/ethical places. I just feel like it's so hard to tell unless you saw the animal live and die.

[big_slacker]

Getting a full, balanced diet as a vegan is possible, but non-trivial.

I don't agree with that at all. I'm a 42 year old 100% plant based eater for years. I have no weird health problems that require a big mac every 6 months of fix, lol! This week I've got 5 hours of biking, 2 snowboard sessions and 3 lifting sessions. I literally have no eating plan at all. I just keep whole foods around the house and get enough calories by feel. I get my bloodwork done yearly, doc always tells me whatever I'm doing, just keep doing it. I wonder what the folks with deficiencies are eating daily, vegan junk food?

shlivesthedream: I'm of the opinion that the world is a better place when people adopt the 'least harm' principal and it's awesome when people do what they feel they can reasonably do towards that goal. I don't think it has to be black and white at all. I have a friend that hunts deer, doesn't approve of factory farmed meat and tries to avoid overeating animal products even though he's clearly not morally opposed to it. I'm totally down with that!

Arebelspy: I'm sure vegans or plant based eaters are happy to talk about it if asked. I just don't think it's cool to aggressively preach to people about it. It's so obviously a turn off and how many people have you ever argued over to your way of thinking? :D

[sol]

I literally have no eating plan at all. I just keep whole foods around the house and get enough calories by feel. I get my bloodwork done yearly, doc always tells me whatever I'm doing, just keep doing it. I wonder what the folks with deficiencies are eating daily, vegan junk food?

Yes, exactly.  Several of the people I've known who have gone vegan have basically had crappy American diets, and then subtracted cheeseburgers.  That leaves them with potato chips and chocolate and soda pop.  It's really easy to develop a vitamin deficiency when you eat liked that.  Those people were only saved from malnutrition by McDonald's, as horrible as that sounds.

[eat_plants]

Obviously, you can tell where I stand by my user name.  I like to say that I eat a whole foods plant based diet.  Been that way for 8 years now.  Went "cold turkey" overnight after reading Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease by Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn.  Changed my diet, changed my health.  Extensive family history of heart disease.  My dad died from his second heart attack at age 52, my older brother has already had 2 heart attacks, along with a couple of stents.  Youngest brother is trying to eat more plant based in order to decrease his dose of statins.  As for me, well, I'm 59, I run daily, usually 5 -6 miles and my labs are the best they've ever been.  I'm also female, so to be honest, I probably don't have as much of a risk as my brothers do. All the men in my family have died of heart disease.  I don't preach about it, and like others have said, when people ask I say that it works for me, so I'm continuing to eat this way.  It's second nature now.  I eat very simply, hoping to "do the least harm".   Always happy to try to inform others though, and I'm old enough to not care if some yells "bacon".

[dividendman]

I personally don't consider being "not vegan" a personal failing.  I don't think a vegan diet is "right" and "natural".

I never understand the not "natural" argument. One could argue many things are natural yet not good, e.g. rape, murder, taking a shit in a public area people frequent. There are also many things that are not natural yet good e.g. technology.

Even if being a vegan is not natural, why does it follow that being a vegan is therefore not good?

[Metric Mouse]

The thing that ticks me off with the vegan discussion (on both sides) is how incredibly black and white everyone makes it. Vegan or not vegan. Meat eater or not meat eater. Like if you eat vegan meals 364 days a year but have a hamburger on the 365th day, suddenly you have moved from "vegan" to "meat eater". I'm happy to have seen the introduction in the last few years of the idea of flexitarians and meat-free Mondays. I'd say about a quarter of my meals are vegan, half vegetarian, and a quarter meaty/fishy. So I sometimes describe myself as 'mostly vegetarian' but then people jump on it and say "Aha! So you do eat meat!" like that completely invalidates the 3/4 of my meals which are meatless. For that reason, I really like the idea of "vegan except for bacon" or "vegan except for cheese". It sounds like a happy compromise.

The environment is one of the reasons I am not 100% vegetarian. I think a healthy farm system requires some animal farming (pigs and chickens eat food scraps/waste and manure the land, wild animals can be hunted, sheep and goats graze on steep hillsides). And if everyone reduced their meat consumption by 75%, we could farm those animals that we do eat in a kind and sustainable way on our existing farmland. (A bit like how if we reduced food waste massively, we could afford to farm organically/less intensively.) Only thing is, I'm still working on how to ensure that all of our meat is sourced from sustainable/ethical places. I just feel like it's so hard to tell unless you saw the animal live and die.

I guess I don't see that as a 'compromise'.  I can see the argument "I'm reducing my meat consumption for health and ethical reasons." - I'd love this view. The "Veganism is sooo much healthier and better for you and everyone else is all ways and so obviously the only way to be healthy that I only eat cheeseburgers on Fridays" argument is severely lacking mental consistency. If a person is 'vegan most of the time, but sometimes consumes meat' then they are a meat eater. I have no problem with someone who is 'reducing/eliminating meat consumption for reasons x, y, z' (hell, I'd even support it) but people who argue they're 'basically vegan, except for bacon and steaks on date night' is really 'basically, exactly like every other person, just more hypocritical and smug about it.'

I'm all for more ethical animal husbandry, and would be the first to jump for joy at the rise in prices it would take to reflect that.

[Mmm_Donuts]

I personally don't consider being "not vegan" a personal failing.  I don't think a vegan diet is "right" and "natural".

I never understand the not "natural" argument. One could argue many things are natural yet not good, e.g. rape, murder, taking a shit in a public area people frequent. There are also many things that are not natural yet good e.g. technology.

Even if being a vegan is not natural, why does it follow that being a vegan is therefore not good?

+1. To base your moral compas on things that are natural vs unnatural, you'd have to be against cars, planes, basically any transportation (besides walking) or any communication technology. You would not be on the Internet. Doctors, medication, any sort of health intervention would be out, too.

Nope, that argument doesn't work in the 21st century, unless you are Amish, I guess.

[shelivesthedream]

The thing that ticks me off with the vegan discussion (on both sides) is how incredibly black and white everyone makes it. Vegan or not vegan. Meat eater or not meat eater. Like if you eat vegan meals 364 days a year but have a hamburger on the 365th day, suddenly you have moved from "vegan" to "meat eater". I'm happy to have seen the introduction in the last few years of the idea of flexitarians and meat-free Mondays. I'd say about a quarter of my meals are vegan, half vegetarian, and a quarter meaty/fishy. So I sometimes describe myself as 'mostly vegetarian' but then people jump on it and say "Aha! So you do eat meat!" like that completely invalidates the 3/4 of my meals which are meatless. For that reason, I really like the idea of "vegan except for bacon" or "vegan except for cheese". It sounds like a happy compromise.

The environment is one of the reasons I am not 100% vegetarian. I think a healthy farm system requires some animal farming (pigs and chickens eat food scraps/waste and manure the land, wild animals can be hunted, sheep and goats graze on steep hillsides). And if everyone reduced their meat consumption by 75%, we could farm those animals that we do eat in a kind and sustainable way on our existing farmland. (A bit like how if we reduced food waste massively, we could afford to farm organically/less intensively.) Only thing is, I'm still working on how to ensure that all of our meat is sourced from sustainable/ethical places. I just feel like it's so hard to tell unless you saw the animal live and die.

I guess I don't see that as a 'compromise'.  I can see the argument "I'm reducing my meat consumption for health and ethical reasons." - I'd love this view. The "Veganism is sooo much healthier and better for you and everyone else is all ways and so obviously the only way to be healthy that I only eat cheeseburgers on Fridays" argument is severely lacking mental consistency. If a person is 'vegan most of the time, but sometimes consumes meat' then they are a meat eater. I have no problem with someone who is 'reducing/eliminating meat consumption for reasons x, y, z' (hell, I'd even support it) but people who argue they're 'basically vegan, except for bacon and steaks on date night' is really 'basically, exactly like every other person, just more hypocritical and smug about it.'

I'm all for more ethical animal husbandry, and would be the first to jump for joy at the rise in prices it would take to reflect that.

Yeah, you're right, "compromise" was the wrong word. Maybe "happy medium" would be better? What I was trying to get at was the balance between ethics and deliciousness. You know, when people allegedly accept that eating a plant-based diet is a good thing but claim that it would be impossible to give up bacon - and that therefore means they might as well not bother at all and eat Chicken McNuggets every day. "Vegetarian except for steak on date night" actually sounds like a pretty good rule of thumb to me. I don't believe veganism is an optimal diet generally, but mostly vegan seems like a good idea. It's like MMM and frugality - you don't spend no money ever, but you also don't blow it all on toys. You pick what's most important to you and spend (or eat) there and cut back empty spending/calories. Having a bacon sandwich or some grilled sesame salmon in a sticky ginger sauce once or twice a week gives me a lot of pleasure. More than that would be diminishing returns, or even a hedonic meat treadmill! So I've found a nice balance of being mostly vegetarian. I think that's descriptive, as "vegetarian" describes my meals rather than my identity, rather than hypocritical.

[big_slacker]

I literally have no eating plan at all. I just keep whole foods around the house and get enough calories by feel. I get my bloodwork done yearly, doc always tells me whatever I'm doing, just keep doing it. I wonder what the folks with deficiencies are eating daily, vegan junk food?

Yes, exactly.  Several of the people I've known who have gone vegan have basically had crappy American diets, and then subtracted cheeseburgers.  That leaves them with potato chips and chocolate and soda pop.  It's really easy to develop a vitamin deficiency when you eat liked that.  Those people were only saved from malnutrition by McDonald's, as horrible as that sounds.

To be fair they're almost as malnourished with the standard American diet, they just get some b12 and iron from the beef and D from the cheese pizzas, haha! It's a pretty sad commentary on diet when big macs and cheese pizza are primary sources of essential nutrients. :D

In terms of the label above I wouldn't say 'vegan except' because vegan is an ethical philosophy, not a diet. If you're eating bacon you are very much not vegan or 'almost vegan' but you may very well eat a heavily plant based diet.

[GreenSheep]

I agree with many above who have mentioned that "vegan" may not be the best label for what a lot of us are doing/trying to do. You can be vegan and live on Coke and fries (and yes, I think that's how a lot of ethical vegans get into health problems). I like "whole food plant based, no salt/oil/sugar" because it's more descriptive of what I actually eat, and it doesn't suggest an ethical or philosophical or political stance. However, it's a mouthful to say, and it can sound smug, especially given the fact that the first two words of that phrase are the same as the name of a very expensive grocery store. But on the other hand, why should doing your best to take care of your own body seem smug, any more than driving a beater into retirement while your neighbor drives his brand new SUV into more debt?

It would be nice to do away with labels entirely. Unless they are truly curious, like arebelspy, I wish people would just accept "no thank you" as an answer when food is offered.

Since I mentioned Whole Foods, I think part of the push against those of us who eat plants is the idea that it has to be expensive. I hear that a lot. I very rarely set foot in WF despite the fact that it's my closest grocery store. Beans and rice are cheap, and it's a lot cheaper/easier to grown your own produce than it is to grow your own meat. There's a raw food proponent in Texas with whom I don't agree on everything, but she makes a good point about the cost of healthy eating. Her dad is from Ecuador, and when she first started eating only plants, he was very sad and wanted to know why she was eating like a poor person... because in Ecuador, when he was young, only poor people didn't eat meat. In the US, with our meat subsidies, it seems that things have been reversed.

[Metta]

I'm assuming that his stance is that he's found a balance between his priorities of personal health and environmental impact.  And definitely not vegan.

I'm assuming he's a raging hypocrite on this issue, like me and virtually everyone else here.

Guilty.

Actually, I think not being vegan is the biggest moral failing I have (among many candidates), and the only one I don't try to improve on. In fact, I do the opposite, and actively try to avoid thinking about it. 

For example, I try to be more honest, more generous, etc. every year.  But I don't try to eat no meat.

I'm such an asshole.

Thanks for calling it like it is, as always, Sol.

My approach of late has just been to reduce the amount of meat I'm eating.  Rather than have meat every day, we average two meat free days a week and try to limit meals with meat to less than six a week.  That way I can rationalize that I'm working on it without having to face the fact that although it's not good for me or the environment, I just enjoy eating meat.

As far as veganism goes, I'm not wholly convinced that there's significant benefit (to me, or to the rest of the world) made by cutting all milk products, fish, and honey out of your life.

(Emphasis added.)

This depends on your reasoning for being vegan.

Yours sounds environmental.

That paragraph has zero weight for someone doing it for ethical reasons related to animal treatment/exploitation.

That's why I find the "why" for each individual so fascinating.  Tells you a lot about them.

Part of the problem in engaging in this type of discussion is that for a long-time vegan or vegetarian, the "why" shifts around a lot. I became a vegetarian about 42 years ago and my reason at the time was because I wanted to help alleviate world hunger. I couldn't stand the thought of some other person dying of starvation because we feed our grain to cows in order to indulge our appetites while other people starved. However, in the  space of 42 years as a vegetarian and 32 years as a vegan, other reasons have become more prominent.

Health, environmentalism, human welfare, animal welfare, economics, deliciousness: all of these things are important. Sometimes health seems like a bigger reason, especially when someone I know is suffering from something less common in vegans. Sometimes environmentalism is more important (when I've just watched a documentary on global warming or when the news is bad). Sometimes I find myself happy when I look at an animal and realize that I am not the cause of suffering.

It's all one big ball of happiness for me. But when people ask, they want the ONE TRUE REASON I am vegan and I don't have it. Just as for most people there is not ONE TRUE REASON why they are Christian or Buddhist or Jewish or whatever they are, there is not one true reason for being vegan for most long-time vegans. It's all wrapped up in a way of life we find good.

This is certainly not the five-minute answer anyone wants when they ask someone in a restaurant why they just ordered the vegan option on the menu.

[mikefixac]

"It's all one big ball of happiness for me."

Metta, I love your attitude.

Merry Christmas everyone, wishing all Mustachians the best New Year.

[Zikoris]

As for my reasons for being vegan, it's really simple - I don't think it's morally right to kill animals when you have other options. It should be a last effort in times of need, not "Oh, I feel like killing something today and finding some way to rationalize it". Starving in the wilderness? Rock on and go eat whatever you can catch. Living in a prosperous country with every option imaginable at your fingertips? Oh hell no.

But honestly, a lot of the best vegan food I've ever had is in poorer countries, because surprise! non-meat dishes are way cheaper, and hence tend to make up a large part of normal people's diets. Malaysia and Hungary in particular had AMAZING vegan food, and I hope to spend more time in both in the future to load up on more of it.

[arebelspy]

I'm assuming that his stance is that he's found a balance between his priorities of personal health and environmental impact.  And definitely not vegan.

I'm assuming he's a raging hypocrite on this issue, like me and virtually everyone else here.

Guilty.

Actually, I think not being vegan is the biggest moral failing I have (among many candidates), and the only one I don't try to improve on. In fact, I do the opposite, and actively try to avoid thinking about it. 

For example, I try to be more honest, more generous, etc. every year.  But I don't try to eat no meat.

I'm such an asshole.

Thanks for calling it like it is, as always, Sol.

My approach of late has just been to reduce the amount of meat I'm eating.  Rather than have meat every day, we average two meat free days a week and try to limit meals with meat to less than six a week.  That way I can rationalize that I'm working on it without having to face the fact that although it's not good for me or the environment, I just enjoy eating meat.

As far as veganism goes, I'm not wholly convinced that there's significant benefit (to me, or to the rest of the world) made by cutting all milk products, fish, and honey out of your life.

(Emphasis added.)

This depends on your reasoning for being vegan.

Yours sounds environmental.

That paragraph has zero weight for someone doing it for ethical reasons related to animal treatment/exploitation.

That's why I find the "why" for each individual so fascinating.  Tells you a lot about them.

Part of the problem in engaging in this type of discussion is that for a long-time vegan or vegetarian, the "why" shifts around a lot. I became a vegetarian about 42 years ago and my reason at the time was because I wanted to help alleviate world hunger. I couldn't stand the thought of some other person dying of starvation because we feed our grain to cows in order to indulge our appetites while other people starved. However, in the  space of 42 years as a vegetarian and 32 years as a vegan, other reasons have become more prominent.

Health, environmentalism, human welfare, animal welfare, economics, deliciousness: all of these things are important. Sometimes health seems like a bigger reason, especially when someone I know is suffering from something less common in vegans. Sometimes environmentalism is more important (when I've just watched a documentary on global warming or when the news is bad). Sometimes I find myself happy when I look at an animal and realize that I am not the cause of suffering.

It's all one big ball of happiness for me. But when people ask, they want the ONE TRUE REASON I am vegan and I don't have it. Just as for most people there is not ONE TRUE REASON why they are Christian or Buddhist or Jewish or whatever they are, there is not one true reason for being vegan for most long-time vegans. It's all wrapped up in a way of life we find good.

This is certainly not the five-minute answer anyone wants when they ask someone in a restaurant why they just ordered the vegan option on the menu.

1) Why the heck wants "one true answer"? Your progression and shifting answer was way more interesting.
2) Who wants a short answer? A long discussion is more interesting.

(Note: Not argument. Arguing with someone over their good choices is stupid. Asking why interests me. Maybe is stupid to others.)

You sound exactly like the type of person I'd love to hear talk about food (and ethics). :)

[mm1970]

Getting a full, balanced diet as a vegan is possible, but non-trivial.

I don't agree with that at all. I'm a 42 year old 100% plant based eater for years. I have no weird health problems that require a big mac every 6 months of fix, lol! This week I've got 5 hours of biking, 2 snowboard sessions and 3 lifting sessions. I literally have no eating plan at all. I just keep whole foods around the house and get enough calories by feel. I get my bloodwork done yearly, doc always tells me whatever I'm doing, just keep doing it. I wonder what the folks with deficiencies are eating daily, vegan junk food?

shlivesthedream: I'm of the opinion that the world is a better place when people adopt the 'least harm' principal and it's awesome when people do what they feel they can reasonably do towards that goal. I don't think it has to be black and white at all. I have a friend that hunts deer, doesn't approve of factory farmed meat and tries to avoid overeating animal products even though he's clearly not morally opposed to it. I'm totally down with that!

Arebelspy: I'm sure vegans or plant based eaters are happy to talk about it if asked. I just don't think it's cool to aggressively preach to people about it. It's so obviously a turn off and how many people have you ever argued over to your way of thinking? :D

You realize that you are n=1, right?  And that you cannot extrapolate your experiences to others.  We are all our very special snowflakes.

Who knows why people get deficiencies?  The folks I know who have had problems were NOT eating junk food (the vegan was literally the healthiest eater I know, and served me one of the best meals I've eaten in my life).  She's also the one with a degree in nutrition.

The vegetarian friend got so sick she ended up in the hospital.  Lost her job, lost her fiance.  Kept working with a doctor who was very willing to work with her diet.  But she was dangerously low on iron and B12 and COULD NOT absorb them with supplements OR injections.  After several months and just getting sicker, her doctor finally just said: "this isn't working, you need to try something else".

[mm1970]

I personally don't consider being "not vegan" a personal failing.  I don't think a vegan diet is "right" and "natural".

I never understand the not "natural" argument. One could argue many things are natural yet not good, e.g. rape, murder, taking a shit in a public area people frequent. There are also many things that are not natural yet good e.g. technology.

Even if being a vegan is not natural, why does it follow that being a vegan is therefore not good?

Teeth, digestive system, growth of the brain during evolution (eating meat made us human), and the fact that vegans are recommended to take a B12 supplement (and are often also deficient in iron and Vit D).  Among other things.  Like the fact that there is not a SINGLE vegan "society" in all of history.

That doesn't mean that there is anything "wrong" with being vegan - there isn't.  I think it can (and does) work for many. But it's not a diet that will work for everyone. I'm personally a fan of a happy medium.

[arebelspy]

The vegetarian friend ... lost her fiance.

Damn that plant based diet, always breaking up relationships!

[big_slacker]

Getting a full, balanced diet as a vegan is possible, but non-trivial.

I don't agree with that at all. I'm a 42 year old 100% plant based eater for years. I have no weird health problems that require a big mac every 6 months of fix, lol! This week I've got 5 hours of biking, 2 snowboard sessions and 3 lifting sessions. I literally have no eating plan at all. I just keep whole foods around the house and get enough calories by feel. I get my bloodwork done yearly, doc always tells me whatever I'm doing, just keep doing it. I wonder what the folks with deficiencies are eating daily, vegan junk food?

shlivesthedream: I'm of the opinion that the world is a better place when people adopt the 'least harm' principal and it's awesome when people do what they feel they can reasonably do towards that goal. I don't think it has to be black and white at all. I have a friend that hunts deer, doesn't approve of factory farmed meat and tries to avoid overeating animal products even though he's clearly not morally opposed to it. I'm totally down with that!

Arebelspy: I'm sure vegans or plant based eaters are happy to talk about it if asked. I just don't think it's cool to aggressively preach to people about it. It's so obviously a turn off and how many people have you ever argued over to your way of thinking? :D

You realize that you are n=1, right?  And that you cannot extrapolate your experiences to others.  We are all our very special snowflakes.

Who knows why people get deficiencies?  The folks I know who have had problems were NOT eating junk food (the vegan was literally the healthiest eater I know, and served me one of the best meals I've eaten in my life).  She's also the one with a degree in nutrition.

The vegetarian friend got so sick she ended up in the hospital.  Lost her job, lost her fiance.  Kept working with a doctor who was very willing to work with her diet.  But she was dangerously low on iron and B12 and COULD NOT absorb them with supplements OR injections.  After several months and just getting sicker, her doctor finally just said: "this isn't working, you need to try something else".

Yep, I'm one dude, but you're citing a few personal experiences and extrapolating about an entire diet's health so I figured fair game. :D

I might know a few more plant based eaters that your average man on the street as well, and I don't know any that have had serious nutritional deficiencies. Someone that can't absorb b12 even by injection has a serious medical condition but that isn't anything like common in plant based eaters. If it were you'd see next to no long terms adherents to this type of diet, and there are many.

[Metta]

Buy quality ingredients, sure.  Cook healthy food for yourself...definitely.  Beyond that "veganism" starts sounding like a religion with all the usual illogical accoutrements, including rationalizations based on  generalizations of social norms.

First, I've noticed that when people compare veganism to a religion, they don't do it in a way that compliments either. I personally have no problem seeing veganism as fulfilling part of the space in my heart that religion or philosophy occupies for other people. It helps me live a more thoughtful and meaningful life by actualizing compassion in my daily choices. It is good in the way that religion is good.

Second, I'm not sure I see how social norms play much of a part in my life (except that I am outside of the prevailing norms for the area I live in and this causes problems for me). Vegans account for about 0.5% of Americans. So unless one lives in San Francisco, Denver, or a few other places in the US, chances are vegans don't meet up with enough vegans on a regular basis to create social norms. Last time I had a meal with fellow vegans was at DragonCon in September and before that it was... I don't  know, maybe 5-6 years ago. Not enough social contact for norms to form.

1) Why the heck wants "one true answer"? Your progression and shifting answer was way more interesting.
2) Who wants a short answer? A long discussion is more interesting.

(Note: Not argument. Arguing with someone over their good choices is stupid. Asking why interests me. Maybe is stupid to others.)

You sound exactly like the type of person I'd love to hear talk about food (and ethics). :)

Interesting. I think that you would be very interesting to talk to as well. But it would probably be better done over drinks than over food. (Most people who ask vegans about our diets ask their questions at meal time.) I lose my appetite when I think about starving people or abused animals and I certainly wouldn't want to impose those horrors on others while they are eating. Meals, I think, should be made as beautiful and pleasurable as possible. Some topics of conversation do not add to the joy of eating and should be avoided. Now over drinks, that's another matter. A bit of wine or coffee and engaging conversation is one of life's great joys.

"It's all one big ball of happiness for me."

Metta, I love your attitude.

Merry Christmas everyone, wishing all Mustachians the best New Year.

:)  May your holidays be bright as well! I hope your year is filled with prosperity and all sorts of good things.

[arebelspy]

I don't drink coffee or tea or alcoholic beverages. But a cold glass of water for a discussion would be great. :D

[Mustachio Bashio]

Have to say this has been one of the least troll ish conversations I've seen between people of all different dieting perspectives.  Me personally, I'm always down to explain the reasoning as to why I decided to go vegan.  If something I share makes that person consider their own consumption choices, or interests them enough to just look into it more, I think that's awesome.  What generally is awkward is that this conversation tends to happen mid meal, so explaining my reasoning as to why I'm not consuming what they are just really isn't that comfortable. 

For me, I've been plant based for almost 6 years now.  My last meal before going cold turkey was a big cheeseburger.  I had decided to go vegan for health reasons.  I was always getting sick, had no energy, and there's a ton of cancer in my family.  I will say that my diet before was really not the best.  I never was a huge meat eater, but dairy was pretty much the main attraction of my every meal.  Since going vegan, I haven't really gotten any sort of major flu like sickness, and I had some blood work done a couple weeks ago with some pretty decent numbers.  I think had it not been for transitioning my reasoning to being more about animal welfare and the environment, I probably would have gone back to eating the standard diet.  It's just not worth the cost to the environment and the pain of the animals to me when I'm totally satisfied eating plant based.  There's a mean vegan mac and cheese I make with my meat eating boyfriend every week with cashew cheese that tastes just as good as the real deal, so I'm still able to satisfy that cheesy craving from time to time.  I've eaten eggs in other countries when I was sure the chicken that they came from wasn't from a hatchery and that it had a decent situation going on.  I eat honey, but try to make it only from local farms so that I'm not contributing to colony collapse.

I think there are some people with allergies to certain foods that would make it a lot harder for them to be vegan, and that's cool.  They shouldn't just be vegan while their body breaks down just for the cause.  And it's definitely possible to eat vegan and be super unhealthy.  I just know for me personally, it's made me a much healthier person.  I agree that someone who eats a cheeseburger on the weekend while eating vegan the rest of the time is not vegan.  You wouldn't call someone who eats kosher most of the time but eats bacon from time to time kosher.  Plant based seems more like an accurate description. 

[coppertop]

85% of the time I say I'm vegetarian (when I'm actually at a dinner table or some other situation where I have to say it) someone just immediately shouts "bacon" at me. I see it only happened in two responses here, not too bad.

When I was vegetarian, I got so tired of people telling me they could never become vegetarian due to bacon. After that, they would ask where I get "my protein." This ranked high as one of the most boring conversations I ever had to have.

The "bacon" thing can be so obnoxious, particularly as bacon is just about pure fat and one of the worst things an omnivore can eat.  People get their backs up when others mention not eating meat because somehow they seem to think they are going to get their meat taken away from them, so they come back with their dukes up ready for a fight.  I am an Omni married to a vegetarian (not a vegan), and my husband hates to mention that he doesn't eat meat in a gathering because of the rude responses he gets. 

[Hotstreak]

I think it's because there are some really convincing environmental, ethical, financial, and health arguments in support of veganism, but animals are just so damn tasty that we resist the logic.

Is a vegan diet really the best for each of those? 

Environmental: Raising ruminants on un-farmable pasture land requires less extraneous water than plant farms, minimal industrial equipment, sequesters carbon in the soil and promotes a bio diverse landscape.

Ethical: Killing one cow raised in such a manner can provide 500lbs of meat or more, which is enough to support a lot of people for a long time.  Needs to be compared to eating the types of beans and other plants that can also provide protein, counting field death that occurs, due to plowing, pesticides, etc., loss of habitat that comes with converting existing prairie or forests to farmland that results in permanent death of local populations.  The fact that someone doesn't put these animals in their mouth does not mean they didn't suffer, unfortunately.  Ethics is highly personal though.

Financial: Beans, rice, and vitamin supplements are definitely cheaper than eating quality meat all the time.  However, I don't think including a modest amount of ruminant in the diet will break the bank.

Health:  The health benefits come from eating vegetables, not from forgoing meat.  If someone eats hamburgers and replaces that with salads, they will be healthier, whether those salads are topped with plant protein or animal protein.

The issue I have with veganism is how dogmatic it comes across, as if it is the only way to accomplish these goals.  They seem convinced of one or more reasons why it's the best lifestyle, and the rest of the thinking comes along with the package.  They are just as immune to logic as non-vegans (as Sol said in his quote, above, talking about non-vegans).

I think the actual "best diets" for any specific goal (such as health, financial, environment, ethics) isn't black and white.  It I were to draw it, it would be a sort of Venn diagram created by placing two freeform objects over each other, not two neat groups that are easily separated.

[Digital Dogma]

I've changed my approach to eating meat in the last couple years for two reasons -

1- The resurgence of back yard small to medium scale farming
2- Personal reward (health benefit of eating less meat, environmental impact, ethical concerns)

The availability of local farmed meat has increased since the late 90s when the dairy farms bit the dust and farmers finally folded in my part of New England. Dairy was big, then got crushed by big companies who could manipulate milk prices. Many of the farms simply went inactive, and it hasn't been till recently that people saw more value in putting cows in the field than subdividing and selling the land for house plots.

I've gotten to the point where ~50% of the meat we eat at home comes from a friend's pig farm, pretty soon that will increase to more like 75% once we purchase a large portion of beef from another local farm. The remaining calories and space that used to be occupied with meat in my diet has been replaced with beans and veggies as much as possible.

I'll never become vegan, or for that matter vegetarian, but I'm perfectly happy to eat a vegan or vegetarian meal at this point in my life.

[partgypsy]

Getting a full, balanced diet as a vegan is possible, but non-trivial.

I don't agree with that at all. I'm a 42 year old 100% plant based eater for years. I have no weird health problems that require a big mac every 6 months of fix, lol! This week I've got 5 hours of biking, 2 snowboard sessions and 3 lifting sessions. I literally have no eating plan at all. I just keep whole foods around the house and get enough calories by feel. I get my bloodwork done yearly, doc always tells me whatever I'm doing, just keep doing it. I wonder what the folks with deficiencies are eating daily, vegan junk food?

shlivesthedream: I'm of the opinion that the world is a better place when people adopt the 'least harm' principal and it's awesome when people do what they feel they can reasonably do towards that goal. I don't think it has to be black and white at all. I have a friend that hunts deer, doesn't approve of factory farmed meat and tries to avoid overeating animal products even though he's clearly not morally opposed to it. I'm totally down with that!

Arebelspy: I'm sure vegans or plant based eaters are happy to talk about it if asked. I just don't think it's cool to aggressively preach to people about it. It's so obviously a turn off and how many people have you ever argued over to your way of thinking? :D

I think that quote, it really depends on the person. There are some people who seem to do really well on a vegan diet. There are others who "flunk". I think there may be individual differences in how well some people can absorb non-animal based vitamins and minerals, even if they are eating a well-balanced diet. So I think people who preach veganism should be aware of that, that not everyone can do a vegan, or maybe even a completely vegetarian diet. I'm one example, I went vegetarian, ate a very good diet, still became severely iron-deficient anemia. A co-worker who was either vegetarian or vegan  (did not eat any meat), was having health problems. I was shocked when I saw her eating some meat and she let me know it was based on her doctor's orders, she needed to re-introduce meat into her diet. I do lent, which is practically a vegan diet for about 6 weeks. No matter how well I plan I still end up losing around 5 pounds and having less energy by the end, and I don't really stand to lose weight. For me it is good practice to do it and worth it to me, but I don't think I could do it year-round.

[aceyou]

Ignorant question here. 

I'm trying to find a balance for my family(of four) of reducing my family's meat consumption in a way that still let's us eat some meat.  My family basically never buys pork or beef any more (maybe 10 pounds per year?), but we consume a chicken on average every 3 weeks or so. 

Anyway, we buy whole chickens at a farm down the road that basically acts as a petting zoo, and they have lots of chickens and kill/do whatever they do to get them defeathered and what not.  They let the chickens run around they look very healthy/happy when they are alive from what I can tell (I'm not an expert on assessing happiness levels of poultry though).

So basically, about 15 to 20 chickens die each year so that my family can get it's meat fix. 

From an environmental perspective, anyone know how much better this is environmentally, if any, than just buying a chicken at the supermarket? 

[Hotstreak]

Eating plant based foods has been scientifically proven to increase longevity - but the meat and dairy industry fund studies to cloud the issue (similar to global warming). 

The benefit comes from eating more vegetables and eating less processed foods.  Comparing folks who follow a plant based diet including meat, versus those who follow a plant based diet with no meat, the health outcomes are similar.

Read "The China Study" - countries with more vegetable based diets and less meat/dairy have better health outcomes.  Specific links have been found between meat and heart disease / cancer.

That book is based on a correlation!  Correlation!  The thing that's not causation!  You can't draw conclusions from that, folks!  Even worse, it's only loosely based on the underlying work.  The authors make a lot of claims that weren't well supported at the time, and haven't held up to further testing.

[Zikoris]

Ignorant question here. 

I'm trying to find a balance for my family(of four) of reducing my family's meat consumption in a way that still let's us eat some meat.  My family basically never buys pork or beef any more (maybe 10 pounds per year?), but we consume a chicken on average every 3 weeks or so. 

Anyway, we buy whole chickens at a farm down the road that basically acts as a petting zoo, and they have lots of chickens and kill/do whatever they do to get them defeathered and what not.  They let the chickens run around they look very healthy/happy when they are alive from what I can tell (I'm not an expert on assessing happiness levels of poultry though).

So basically, about 15 to 20 chickens die each year so that my family can get it's meat fix. 

From an environmental perspective, anyone know how much better this is environmentally, if any, than just buying a chicken at the supermarket?

Quite a bit better. To my understanding, the environmental damage from chicken farming mostly comes from

1. Dealing with mass amounts of toxic chicken crap
2. Having to grow massive amounts of feed, with all the problems associated with that

On a little family farm, the crap would get "naturally distributed" around the property in a way that it could break down and fertilize the soil, rather than amass. Their diets would also be made up of a much higher percentage of bugs and random seeds than commercially produced feed.

[Hotstreak]

Ignorant question here. 

I'm trying to find a balance for my family(of four) of reducing my family's meat consumption in a way that still let's us eat some meat.  My family basically never buys pork or beef any more (maybe 10 pounds per year?), but we consume a chicken on average every 3 weeks or so. 

Anyway, we buy whole chickens at a farm down the road that basically acts as a petting zoo, and they have lots of chickens and kill/do whatever they do to get them defeathered and what not.  They let the chickens run around they look very healthy/happy when they are alive from what I can tell (I'm not an expert on assessing happiness levels of poultry though).

So basically, about 15 to 20 chickens die each year so that my family can get it's meat fix. 

From an environmental perspective, anyone know how much better this is environmentally, if any, than just buying a chicken at the supermarket?

Quite a bit better. To my understanding, the environmental damage from chicken farming mostly comes from

1. Dealing with mass amounts of toxic chicken crap
2. Having to grow massive amounts of feed, with all the problems associated with that

On a little family farm, the crap would get "naturally distributed" around the property in a way that it could break down and fertilize the soil, rather than amass. Their diets would also be made up of a much higher percentage of bugs and random seeds than commercially produced feed.

Yep, the damage is in the feed.  Without trucking food in, chickens are essentially a flock of birds, which most people wouldn't consider environmentally damaging.

aceyou since you talked about how many chickens die per year for your families meat fix, is it safe to assume you want to minimize the loss of life, while being environmentally conscious?  If so I would recommend you take another look at pasture raised ruminants (aka grass fed/free range beef & lamb).  You would only need to kill one cow every several years to have access to the amount of meat your family consumes (one cow can easily be 500+ lbs).  These animals eat entirely grass, or cut grass (hay), and little non-rain water inputs.

[mm1970]

The vegetarian friend ... lost her fiance.

Damn that plant based diet, always breaking up relationships!

I know!  Well, I mean she got so sick that she couldn't work and her fiance decided he was over having a sick unemployed significant other.  In retrospect, good riddance?  At the time, way to crap on someone when she's down.

[mm1970]

Getting a full, balanced diet as a vegan is possible, but non-trivial.

I don't agree with that at all. I'm a 42 year old 100% plant based eater for years. I have no weird health problems that require a big mac every 6 months of fix, lol! This week I've got 5 hours of biking, 2 snowboard sessions and 3 lifting sessions. I literally have no eating plan at all. I just keep whole foods around the house and get enough calories by feel. I get my bloodwork done yearly, doc always tells me whatever I'm doing, just keep doing it. I wonder what the folks with deficiencies are eating daily, vegan junk food?

shlivesthedream: I'm of the opinion that the world is a better place when people adopt the 'least harm' principal and it's awesome when people do what they feel they can reasonably do towards that goal. I don't think it has to be black and white at all. I have a friend that hunts deer, doesn't approve of factory farmed meat and tries to avoid overeating animal products even though he's clearly not morally opposed to it. I'm totally down with that!

Arebelspy: I'm sure vegans or plant based eaters are happy to talk about it if asked. I just don't think it's cool to aggressively preach to people about it. It's so obviously a turn off and how many people have you ever argued over to your way of thinking? :D

I think that quote, it really depends on the person. There are some people who seem to do really well on a vegan diet. There are others who "flunk". I think there may be individual differences in how well some people can absorb non-animal based vitamins and minerals, even if they are eating a well-balanced diet. So I think people who preach veganism should be aware of that, that not everyone can do a vegan, or maybe even a completely vegetarian diet. I'm one example, I went vegetarian, ate a very good diet, still became severely iron-deficient anemia. A co-worker who was either vegetarian or vegan  (did not eat any meat), was having health problems. I was shocked when I saw her eating some meat and she let me know it was based on her doctor's orders, she needed to re-introduce meat into her diet. I do lent, which is practically a vegan diet for about 6 weeks. No matter how well I plan I still end up losing around 5 pounds and having less energy by the end, and I don't really stand to lose weight. For me it is good practice to do it and worth it to me, but I don't think I could do it year-round.

This is pretty much how I feel, and what I've seen.  I think it's awesome if it works for someone.  But it's not going to work for everyone.  "There's got to be something really wrong with someone who cannot even keep up their B12 with injections!"  I mean, really, how many people have been vegan for decades?  It's not very common.  It stands to reason that there just isn't a lot of information on large scale veganism to KNOW.

[KelStache]

Interesting discussion here.

Personally I've been vegan for 4 years, primarily for ethical and environmental reasons and I feel really great- tracked my nutrition on Cronometer in the beginning and get regular blood tests.

I figure that it's easy to argue about the semantics of the environmental and health impacts, but I feel great, it's no extra effort now that I'm used to it (and have tons of delicious alternatives), and I feel really happy that I don't have to harm others to live my life.

I know quite a few vegans in real life (5 men & 6 women) and to be honest I've never seen anyone bring it up randomly in conversation or argue with people in real life.  I try to hide it a lot because people make jokes and try to argue which makes me really uncomfortable.

Just wanted to share this graph too for people saying that plant farming kills more animals than meat.

Thanks again to everyone for the discussion :)

[aceyou]

Ignorant question here. 

I'm trying to find a balance for my family(of four) of reducing my family's meat consumption in a way that still let's us eat some meat.  My family basically never buys pork or beef any more (maybe 10 pounds per year?), but we consume a chicken on average every 3 weeks or so. 

Anyway, we buy whole chickens at a farm down the road that basically acts as a petting zoo, and they have lots of chickens and kill/do whatever they do to get them defeathered and what not.  They let the chickens run around they look very healthy/happy when they are alive from what I can tell (I'm not an expert on assessing happiness levels of poultry though).

So basically, about 15 to 20 chickens die each year so that my family can get it's meat fix. 

From an environmental perspective, anyone know how much better this is environmentally, if any, than just buying a chicken at the supermarket?

Quite a bit better. To my understanding, the environmental damage from chicken farming mostly comes from

1. Dealing with mass amounts of toxic chicken crap
2. Having to grow massive amounts of feed, with all the problems associated with that

On a little family farm, the crap would get "naturally distributed" around the property in a way that it could break down and fertilize the soil, rather than amass. Their diets would also be made up of a much higher percentage of bugs and random seeds than commercially produced feed.

Yep, the damage is in the feed.  Without trucking food in, chickens are essentially a flock of birds, which most people wouldn't consider environmentally damaging.

aceyou since you talked about how many chickens die per year for your families meat fix, is it safe to assume you want to minimize the loss of life, while being environmentally conscious?  If so I would recommend you take another look at pasture raised ruminants (aka grass fed/free range beef & lamb).  You would only need to kill one cow every several years to have access to the amount of meat your family consumes (one cow can easily be 500+ lbs).  These animals eat entirely grass, or cut grass (hay), and little non-rain water inputs.

Thanks Zikoris and Hotstreak.

Hotstreak, you're right that I'd prefer kill fewer animals.  I've never considered that perspective.  However, I also would prefer to limit red meat due to heart health concerns.  So, it's kind of a trade off there.  I think I'm leaning on the side of self interest there and am choosing to go with the 15-20 chickens for now:) 

[shelivesthedream]

Ignorant question here. 

I'm trying to find a balance for my family(of four) of reducing my family's meat consumption in a way that still let's us eat some meat.  My family basically never buys pork or beef any more (maybe 10 pounds per year?), but we consume a chicken on average every 3 weeks or so. 

Anyway, we buy whole chickens at a farm down the road that basically acts as a petting zoo, and they have lots of chickens and kill/do whatever they do to get them defeathered and what not.  They let the chickens run around they look very healthy/happy when they are alive from what I can tell (I'm not an expert on assessing happiness levels of poultry though).

So basically, about 15 to 20 chickens die each year so that my family can get it's meat fix. 

From an environmental perspective, anyone know how much better this is environmentally, if any, than just buying a chicken at the supermarket?

Quite a bit better. To my understanding, the environmental damage from chicken farming mostly comes from

1. Dealing with mass amounts of toxic chicken crap
2. Having to grow massive amounts of feed, with all the problems associated with that

On a little family farm, the crap would get "naturally distributed" around the property in a way that it could break down and fertilize the soil, rather than amass. Their diets would also be made up of a much higher percentage of bugs and random seeds than commercially produced feed.

Yep, the damage is in the feed.  Without trucking food in, chickens are essentially a flock of birds, which most people wouldn't consider environmentally damaging.

aceyou since you talked about how many chickens die per year for your families meat fix, is it safe to assume you want to minimize the loss of life, while being environmentally conscious?  If so I would recommend you take another look at pasture raised ruminants (aka grass fed/free range beef & lamb).  You would only need to kill one cow every several years to have access to the amount of meat your family consumes (one cow can easily be 500+ lbs).  These animals eat entirely grass, or cut grass (hay), and little non-rain water inputs.

Thanks Zikoris and Hotstreak.

Hotstreak, you're right that I'd prefer kill fewer animals.  I've never considered that perspective.  However, I also would prefer to limit red meat due to heart health concerns.  So, it's kind of a trade off there.  I think I'm leaning on the side of self interest there and am choosing to go with the 15-20 chickens for now:)

You might be interested in reading the works of John Seymour. Pioneering self-sufficiency advocate in the 60s/70s. I don't think he has written anything specifically about meat, but in his book 'The Fat of the Land', he talks a lot about the decisions he and his wife made to bring animals onto their smallholding. Small-scale, multi-crop, traditional, integrated farming is very sustainable and environmentally friendly. Mono-cropping on a large scale is where the environmental evils are. I believe that this is as much the case for animal farming as it is for exclusively arable farming. I believe that supporting small-scale, integrated animal farming has a positive impact on the environment, enriching the soil and promoting a local 'closed loop' of nutrients.

Unfortunately, I live quite a way from any farms and my husband will not countenance the idea of keeping chickens ever. *sigh* So I do my best to try and buy from butchers rather than supermarkets and hope that they care about the animals they are selling. Fish is actually more complicated for me, because I live so far from the sea.

[Cromacster]

Quite a bit better. To my understanding, the environmental damage from chicken farming mostly comes from

1. Dealing with mass amounts of toxic chicken crap
2. Having to grow massive amounts of feed, with all the problems associated with that

A family friend is a large scale egg producer (700k chickens total I think).  He makes a pretty good chunk of change processing and selling the chicken crap as fertilizer.  I will have to ask if he converts all of it or if he doesn't what he does with the rest of it.

[Hotstreak]

Eating plant based foods has been scientifically proven to increase longevity - but the meat and dairy industry fund studies to cloud the issue (similar to global warming). 

The benefit comes from eating more vegetables and eating less processed foods.  Comparing folks who follow a plant based diet including meat, versus those who follow a plant based diet with no meat, the health outcomes are similar.

Read "The China Study" - countries with more vegetable based diets and less meat/dairy have better health outcomes.  Specific links have been found between meat and heart disease / cancer.

That book is based on a correlation!  Correlation!  The thing that's not causation!  You can't draw conclusions from that, folks!  Even worse, it's only loosely based on the underlying work.  The authors make a lot of claims that weren't well supported at the time, and haven't held up to further testing.

I'd like to review a source for your claim that processed foods are the culprit instead of meat.  The original study was based on comparing counties in China in the 1970's that had more meat / less meat consumption, and I doubt that either group ate much processed food back then.

The book is not entirely based on correlation.  There are other portions of the book that get into the chemical reactions within the human body, and specifically mentions certain proteins within dairy that were tied to increased cancer.

I found the book convincing.

I don't have a list of links to drop on you, maybe someone can dig it up.  I'm referring to a study that was done examining omnivores vs vegetarians who all shop at health food stores.  Vegans or vegetarians are generally more health conscious than the general population of omnivores, less likely to smoke, more likely to exercise.  However, that health consciousness is not caused by eating no meat, it's part of an entire lifestyle package.  The purpose of only looking at health food store customers (think Whole Foods, Natural Grocers) was to eliminate as many of those lifestyle factors as possible, we can see what the effect of meat consumption is, assuming the rest of their food and activities are similar.  The two groups were similarly healthy.

For cancer, there is new information being released all the time correlating increased dairy or meat consumption with increased rates of cancer.  I guess I'm just not that concerned with the chances of cancer as a standalone, I'm more interested in how long I will live, aka all-cause mortality.  Again I don't have any links to drop, but my understanding is that with otherwise similar lifestyle and food choice, the vegan & omnivore shouldn't expect to have significantly different lifespans.  While a meat eater may have a greater risk of cancer, that risk is still very low, and balanced by the positive health impact of eating meat.

As for the book The China Study, I do believe it is based on correlation.  The authors then tried to find evidence to support their beliefs, while ignoring evidence to the contrary (or not presenting it fairly in their book).  This isn't surprising at all!  They have a point of view and they are trying to show it's right, they're also trying to sell books.

[Hotstreak]

Ignorant question here. 

I'm trying to find a balance for my family(of four) of reducing my family's meat consumption in a way that still let's us eat some meat.  My family basically never buys pork or beef any more (maybe 10 pounds per year?), but we consume a chicken on average every 3 weeks or so. 

Anyway, we buy whole chickens at a farm down the road that basically acts as a petting zoo, and they have lots of chickens and kill/do whatever they do to get them defeathered and what not.  They let the chickens run around they look very healthy/happy when they are alive from what I can tell (I'm not an expert on assessing happiness levels of poultry though).

So basically, about 15 to 20 chickens die each year so that my family can get it's meat fix. 

From an environmental perspective, anyone know how much better this is environmentally, if any, than just buying a chicken at the supermarket?

Quite a bit better. To my understanding, the environmental damage from chicken farming mostly comes from

1. Dealing with mass amounts of toxic chicken crap
2. Having to grow massive amounts of feed, with all the problems associated with that

On a little family farm, the crap would get "naturally distributed" around the property in a way that it could break down and fertilize the soil, rather than amass. Their diets would also be made up of a much higher percentage of bugs and random seeds than commercially produced feed.

Yep, the damage is in the feed.  Without trucking food in, chickens are essentially a flock of birds, which most people wouldn't consider environmentally damaging.

aceyou since you talked about how many chickens die per year for your families meat fix, is it safe to assume you want to minimize the loss of life, while being environmentally conscious?  If so I would recommend you take another look at pasture raised ruminants (aka grass fed/free range beef & lamb).  You would only need to kill one cow every several years to have access to the amount of meat your family consumes (one cow can easily be 500+ lbs).  These animals eat entirely grass, or cut grass (hay), and little non-rain water inputs.

Thanks Zikoris and Hotstreak.

Hotstreak, you're right that I'd prefer kill fewer animals.  I've never considered that perspective.  However, I also would prefer to limit red meat due to heart health concerns.  So, it's kind of a trade off there.  I think I'm leaning on the side of self interest there and am choosing to go with the 15-20 chickens for now:)

I think you're referring to the fact that red meat contains saturated fat & cholesterol, is that right?  That's what people are normally talking about when avoiding red meat for heart health.  Fortunately, dietary consumption of saturated fat & cholesterol don't lead to negative changes in cardiovascular health.  That idea was strongly believed for a long time, but was never well supported with science, and has been thoroughly discredited.  At this point it's about as supported as "eating carrots will turn you orange" and "if you don't spit those out you're going to have a watermelon plant growing out of your nose" :)

[GreenSheep]

I happen to be in the group of people who think there is a lot of truth in "The China Study," but for those who are looking for something more recent and in which every single point is supported by a specific study or group of studies, Dr. Michael Greger's "How Not to Die" would be a great place to start. Literally half the book is the bibliography, for those who want to see where he gets his facts. It's also good for those who want to focus on the big picture ("How can I avoid dying prematurely from the top 15 killers of Americans?") rather than get down on a cellular level. (There has been some confusion about the title. It's not "How to Not Die," meaning "how to avoid dying at all" it's "How Not to Die," meaning "here's how you avoid dying in these common ways.")

His website, nutritionfacts.org, is also an excellent resource. I like it because I can search for a quick 4-minute video or short article when I want to know, for example, whether eating spirulina is a good idea, or what's the latest research on the health risks and benefits of eating fish. He's good at filtering out bad studies (just about anyone can get anything published, but that doesn't mean it's good science) and explaining why they're worthless, while also examining the results of well-done studies.

Putting all of that aside, and attempting to relate this somewhat to Mustachianism, I've learned a ton lately about nutrition guidelines and cultural norms. There are so many things people do and believe because of marketing, pressure on government from big industries, and, most amazingly to me, "powers that be" who establish guidelines that fall short of where we really should be because, "Aw, shucks, that's so extreme that almost all Americans will just say it's not possible to exercise that much or to get their cholesterol that low, and they won't even bother, so we might as well just give them an easier goal to aim for." Seriously, that is insulting. That's like someone telling me I'll be fine if I just set aside 5% of my income every year. I would so much rather know what "optimal" is and then decide for myself whether I can/should aim for it or not. Just like finances, you really can't let the world tell you what you should know about taking care of your own body. You have to do your own research and challenge the status quo.

[Hotstreak]

I happen to be in the group of people who think there is a lot of truth in "The China Study," . . .

I think there's an issue trying to ascribe "truth" or "non-truth" to the book, since that's not the goal of the authors.  They're presenting their opinions based on a specific piece of research, and those opinions may turn out to be accurate or not (I happen to think not), but there's certainly evidence on either side.

. . . I would so much rather know what "optimal" is and then decide for myself whether I can/should aim for it or not. Just like finances, you really can't let the world tell you what you should know about taking care of your own body. You have to do your own research and challenge the status quo.

Totally agree! 

[aceyou]

I think you're referring to the fact that red meat contains saturated fat & cholesterol, is that right?  That's what people are normally talking about when avoiding red meat for heart health.  Fortunately, dietary consumption of saturated fat & cholesterol don't lead to negative changes in cardiovascular health.  That idea was strongly believed for a long time, but was never well supported with science, and has been thoroughly discredited.  At this point it's about as supported as "eating carrots will turn you orange" and "if you don't spit those out you're going to have a watermelon plant growing out of your nose" :)

Wait, consuming watermelon seeds won't turn me into a walking watermelon plant!?!?!?! 

[little_brown_dog]

Former vegan now vegetarian here…

Wanted to weigh in on why I am no longer vegan for moral reasons. Yup, you heard that right. I think veganism as it is practiced by most people in western industrialized nations is hardly the moral highground that it is portrayed to be. I have come to the conclusion that there is no morally superior diet based on rigid food group exclusions alone. This will be a predominantly philosophical, not pragmatic focus.

1.   Veganism is an extremely privileged ideology – The majority of vegans are highly educated, well off, white people living in urban or suburban centers and yet despite this fact, there is a lot of moralizing about diet and how the vegan diet followed and promoted by this subgroup is the “ideal” and “best” way of eating. Meat eaters are castigated as barbaric, selfish, gluttonous, and generally portrayed as morally deficient, which ironically ends up demonizing everyone from the economically disadvantaged to racial and ethnic minority groups who often use a lot of animal products in their cuisines. Even those vegans who do not flat out claim to dislike or look down on meat eaters will pat themselves on the back privately for their veganism and superior morals. In essence, they take one view of a diet that is overwhelmingly within the realm of only the most privileged segments of society and pass moral judgements on those who do not follow said diet. We already have serious problems with stigmatizing and degrading others in our society, I don't think we need to be adding yet another reason to look down on people.

2.   Cult like behavior, rigid ideology, humiliation of ex members– Many vegan movements and groups are almost cultlike in their moral rigidity. Even if you eat vegan 95% of the time, you still can’t be called vegan or even “mostly” vegan. Worse, if you STOP being vegan for any reason, you are skewered by the vegan community at large. There are websites dedicated to harassing and shaming people who are no longer vegan. People who even “slip up” once and have meat or ice cream are derided and mocked and sometimes even threatened. Shame and stigma are tools used by vegan communities to keep people in line and on the straight and narrow. Relatively mundane things, like cheating and eating your favorite ice cream, are elevated to major-sin status worthy of lecturing or humiliation. Really, once you get involved in many of these vegan groups there is no going back unless you want to risk your friendships and some public humiliation. This is absolutely abhorrent and actually very similar to how cults behave. There is only one right way to be…and that is vegan. Anything less is not acceptable. Not surprisingly, veganism has a horrifically high drop-out rate, with the majority of people attempting veganism never maintaining it for their entire lives. Strangely, none of the groups ever talk about this glaring problem except in terms of people just not trying hard enough, being moral enough, caring enough, or having enough education on how to do veganism correctly. 

3.   Delusion – Veganism as it is practiced by many members and vegan groups is delusional. There is this idea that by being vegan you are avoiding and opting out of killing. This is just absolutely delusional and patently false. Death and killing occur in all agricultural processes, regardless of whether it is meat production or salad production, but the death and pain is obviously more apparent in the meat industries. Countless billions of small animals – rodents, birds, reptiles – are killed every year in grain and soy fields, and millions of deer are killed and poisoned by vegetable growers. The food on the plate may be a plant, but rest assured plenty of innocent animals died to get it there. So when vegans use terms like “cruelty free” and “harmless harvest” to describe their veggie meals, they are either 1) purposefully ignoring the fact that their food is anything but harmless, or 2) they really believe the delusion that one can essentially remain in the food chain without hurting anyone.

4.   Hypocrisy – when confronted with the obvious fact that even plant foods cause widespread killing of animals, most vegans claim that it is a “necessary evil” and generally justify and rationalize this death. There would be no problem with this if it weren’t so hypocritical. The same people who justify the deaths of rodents, birds, and reptiles in the soy fields often turn around and mock and shame those who are eating meat for justifying the deaths of farm animals. They harangue people for eating pigs and not dogs, but can’t seem to identify the exact same behavior in themselves: they arbitrarily assign more value to farm animals than wildlife. To many vegans it is okay to mow  over hundreds of field mice but not okay to kill a single chicken.

5.   Misrepresentation of the wildlife and environmental impacts of veganism vs meat eating – Veganism is often misrepresented as THE diet for reducing harm to wildlife and the environment at large, regardless of where the food sources in the diet come from. In this view, a block of tofu shipped in from thousands of miles away is more climate/wildlife/planet friendly than eating a chicken butchered in your neighbor’s backyard, simply by virtue of being a plant and not an animal food. This is clearly not correct. As I just discussed, billions of animals are killed in the agricultural fields, and that’s before the soy even makes it to the factory. After that there is the processing, packaging, and shipping which creates far more environmental impacts than that locally butchered chicken. The point here is not that vegan foods CANT be the more environmentally friendly choice but that it is naïve to think that they always are. Environmentally friendly choices entail so much more than what the food itself is…like the locale and farming practices. In many cases, eating a locally produced, pastured animal product might be far more environmentally friendly than eating tofu.

All of these reasons and more are why I no longer ascribe to veganism, and why I will not be raising my children vegan. Veganism means well, but it takes extremely complicated issues and boils them down to moral imperatives and extremely oversimplistic explanations and assumptions designed to promote veganism instead of the health and welfare of people, animals, and the planet. People should be vegan because they like vegan food, they love farm animals, or they feel better eating vegan. But I caution against being vegan for moral reasons alone, as the picture is far from black and white.

[KelStache]

Former vegan now vegetarian here…

Wanted to weigh in on why I am no longer vegan for moral reasons....

Hi litte_brown_dog, I definitely applaud you for eating the way you feel comfortable with.  I'm not sure I'm a fan of your reasoning though, as most of your arguments surround what "most vegans" think or do, and this has not been my experience at all.  The vegans I know are very open to discussion on all of the topics you've listed, and basically sum it up as "doing their best".

It is totally cool that you disagree with those topics, but I don't understand why you would change your eating habits based on what other people who eat the same way might think or do?  You don't have to join vegan clubs, or even tell others that you're vegan in order to eat plant based.

I also agree that no diet is harmless, but if you look back in the thread for the graph I posted, animals must eat cultivated crops to live (soy, corn, etc.), so by eating meat it's a "double whammy" in terms of killing the animal you eat as well as the animals in the crop fields. 

Hopefully this doesn't come off poorly, I just don't see any similarities between what you claim 'most vegans' are like, and myself & the people I know who are vegan.