They say food is a great binder of people - after all, everyone's got to eat ever so often.
But there are also times when a unifier like food can rouse people's deepest sentiments and passions and bring about conflicts. For a long time now, I have faced this gulf between two major groups of people when it came to their choice of food. These days, despite the increasing numbers of new groupings, those two early divisions still hold their stead and rouse deep sentiments. Vegetarians and Non-vegetarians are two major groups of people as they segregate according to what they consume. Vegetarians - I now realize are a dying breed and for a variety of reasons.
Personally, I am a vegetarian and I feel no need to justify my dietary habits to anyone and this in my mind applies to both groups of people. But over the years, particularly so for the past few years, I have been subjected to a lot of questioning about this choice of mine. The questions I have been asked have varied from the innocuous "why" to the hyper-rational?
"Why are you a vegetarian? You know, it was eating meat that allowed us to grow our brains - evolutionarily?"
"How do you manage?"
"So, you think plants don't feel any pain?"
"You know vegetarians miss out on a lot of protein and some of the vitamins."
"You know, you must think about it rationally - we have always been meat eaters, we are built for that."
"Meat is tasty - how do you guys subsist on just leaves and fruits?"
"We are the top of the food chain and this carnivory is essential for a balanced ecosystem."
This and more are the questions that I have faced ever since I came to the US.
It is not that I was never asked these questions back home in India, but there my simple answer of "I grew up like that" carried a whole lot more weight than it does here. Justifying with statements of culture and upbringing to a group of hyper-rational scientists is difficult and almost ineffective. But living in the US has also made me reflect on my choice more seriously. After all, in most places, vegetarian food implies removing the floating pieces of meat from a gravy or including everything except red meat.
Now for the uninitiated, that is not vegetarianism as I grew up with. For a quick background, I was born in a traditional brahmin family in India and we were strict vegetarians (no animal products except milk and milk products included in our diet). But as times changed and as nutritional requirements became a concern, I was introduced to egg but this was done only during the growing up years. My parents consciously stay away from eggs too. I and my brother however grew up as ovo-lactovegetarians which implies that we eat milk products and eggs but no meat. Now surviving in India on a vegetarian diet is not very difficult since there are many options and the Indian definition of vegetarianism is most relaxed when it includes eggs. The other vegetarian diets only get stricter and narrower with abstinence from root vegetables, garlic, ginger etc. Now, having never been introduced to meat as a child, I always did find the process of procuring, cooking and eating meat a little repulsive. But with age, I have lost that instinctive repulsion for a non-vegetarian diet or that prejudice against one.
When I came to the US, there began this new process of foraging for vegetarian food at meetings, conferences, dinners and restaurants. The city where I stay is actually a heaven for most vegetarians as the proximity to the fad-driven LA keeps people aware and conscious of vegans, vegetarians and the likes; but even here, there are times, when I have been compelled to eat a bun-sandwich or opt for a salad. In most of my encounters with non-vegetarians, I can get by without much explanation but then sometimes, being a scientist, I encounter other scientists for whom non-vegetarianism is the rational choice and opting for a vegetarian diet is an irrational mistake that is deleterious for the mind and the body.
And so, today, I decided to just stand up for my kind and justify the rationality behind a vegetarian diet. And while people may opt for a vegetarian diet on a more emotional and seemingly less rational ground, it is ultimately a sensible choice. Mind you, my aim is not to criticize a non-vegetarian diet, but simply to show that vegetarianism is not an irrational choice.
Here is the rationality underlying my choice that I have uncovered over the years:
1) This is my fundamental argument for a vegetarian diet and it is something I have often used since the first time I was taught about this law in my environmental sciences class in the sixth grade (I think).
Lindemann's law of 10% energy transfer across trophic levels is something almost everyone has heard of but failed to apply to their everyday choices. For those who have forgotten, the law states that along every food chain, as energy is transferred from one trophic level to another, almost 90% of the energy is lost and only 10% gets carried over. Which clearly implies that the higher you go in the food chain the more is the energy lost - i.e., eating plants is more energy efficient (ecologically of course) than eating herbivores like goat, cow which in turn is more efficient on a relative scale than eating carnivores or omnivores. Considering the food and the energy crisis looming over the entire planet, vegetarianism is rationally - the better choice.
2) Another common argument that people have presented is that meat is necessary for us to meet our protein requirements.
Well, protein is an essential component of our diet but there are many sources of protein other than just meat. Lentils, Soyabean and some cereals like quinoa are good sources of protein and there are large communities that subsist on a vegetarian diet with no signs of malnourishment. Sources like eggs and milk can also be readily incorporated to supplement the standard diet without compromising on energy efficiency.
3) The next argument, I have often heard is that human meat consumption is an important balancing factor in the environment. This is an argument that often cracks me up simply because most of the meat consumption in the world comes from animals that are bred exclusively for the purpose. There is no correlation between the meats available in the super market and the population density of these animals in nature. In years gone by, when game hunting was the only source of animal meat, perhaps, man did play a role as a top carnivore, but today we are far, far away from such a role in the ecosystem.
4) Another argument against breeding animals for their meat is the large increase in global warming and green house effect. This might seem like a far fetched argument, but, in fact, a 2006 report by the Food and Agricultural organization clearly states that livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming - more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together. Each liter of milk is also very expensive in terms of the water currency we invest. Estimates say that it takes a staggering 990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk. So, in this light - how is non-vegetarianism the rationally, better choice?
5) Another common retort I encounter is the following - "So you think plants don't experience any pain? And what will you do if plants also experience pain?".
Well, firstly, it is fairly well established that plants lack a nervous system and experience any sensations of pain or angst. Also, if we have to inflict pain, then we might as well, do it to the least numbers in the mildest possible way - right?
And this boils down to how energy efficient we can be by harvesting plants instead of animals.
More importantly, it only takes a glimpse of the atrocious and unhygienic conditions in which animals are usually bred for even the staunchest of non-vegetarians to feel some sympathy and regret.
Chickens bred in cramped, narrow cages, wallowing in their own filth, prohibiting them from even walking (forget flying); cattle being fed the meat of their own kind; goats being kept in pens small enough to prevent movement are just some of the real-world examples of how economics and the drive for resource optimization has led us to exploit these farm animals.
As the farms give way to super markets, the final consumers are also becoming more and more distant from the animals - unable to realize the value of each life and the investment that went into it. They also become that much more unconcerned with the plight of these animals and the value for food as a limited resource in itself is lost. While traditional asian cooking involved the consumption of every part of a butchered animal - from its hooves to its entrails, today, most people in the western world only consume the calorie laden muscle mass. This dramatically cuts down on the efficiency of animal consumption in addition to being a bigger energy drain.
6) Now, being a scientist, I also encounter other hyper-rational scientists who believe that meat consumption was an evolutionary adaptation and was essential for the evolution of our brains. By extension, non-vegetarianism is the better, more rational choice.
Now, I understand the argument, because evolutionarily, in the absence of agriculture and food storage, meat consumption was an important source of calories. I say important because there is a lot of evidence from modern day hunter gatherer tribes that even then tuber, fruits, vegetables and honey were a bigger component of everyday diet than meat which was critical but never abundant enough to be a reliable caloric source.
But today, when we have agriculture and availability of food is not an issue for a significant number of people - meat consumption is certainly not a necessity. It is a choice that people make and this provides higher quality diet to the select few at the expense of many others in third world countries who are forced to sell their produce to the developed countries for monetary gains.
Considering that a large population in the world today is subsistent on meat and animal products, a large proportion of the solar energy fixed by plants is also being wasted. In fact, numbers would show that if we stopped cultivating corn and fodder for our cattle and redirected these lands to other crops, starvation can be dramatically reduced and we, as a planet, will become more energy efficient.
And finally even though history might have supported a non-vegetarian diet, it can also support polygamy or cannibalism but like we have "evolved" out of these latter choices, the former too is a choice to be made, not a mandate we have to live with. I believe, we have progressed far enough to be able to afford the choice of staying vegetarian and I am glad I ended up making that choice.
7) Now, this last point is a rare possibility but is still not an impossible scenario.
Thanks to the prominent perception of meat as a healthy option, most non-vegetarians also fail to realize the inherent risks it poses to human health.
It is no secret that red meat consumption has tremendously increased our cholesterol levels and the risk of heart attacks.
Meats and animal products are also a leading cause of food poisoning. Bacterial infections are a common enough possibility that meats are regularly tested in the western world for them. However, despite these strict measures there are frequent reports of deaths caused by consumption of contaminated meat.
Another less considered threat is that of disease spread like in the case of the avian flu and bovine spongiform encephalopathy. BSE is a fatal neurodegenerative disease that causes a spongy degeneration in the Spinal cord and the brain. The disease may be most easily transmitted to human_beings by eating food contaminated with the brain, spinal cord or digestive tract of infected carcasses. The human variant of this disease of bovine origin is called Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD or nvCJD) and by October 2009, it has killed 166 people in the UK and 44 elsewhere. A British and Irish inquiry into BSE concluded that the disease was caused by cattle, which are normally herbivores being fed the remains of other cattle in the form of meat and bone meal(MBM), which allowed the infectious agent to spread. While, the origin of the disease itself remains unknown, we do know that the infectious agent is distinctive for the high temperatures at which it remains viable thus increasing the inherent risk.
Many other pathogens like the viral strain of avian flu find a convenient route for migrating across species through human consumption of animal meat. These are emerging concerns that are only becoming stronger and more realistic as we understand the intricacies of host specificity and pathogenicity.
And finally, let me assure you that this was not an temperamental outburst or a vitriolic attempt to point fingers or blame someone. Rather, I am trying to build a case for my choice and I hope that it will be respected if not wholeheartedly agreed to or followed.
4) Another argument against breeding animals for their meat is the large increase in global warming and green house effect. This might seem like a far fetched argument, but, in fact, a 2006 report by the Food and Agricultural organization clearly states that livestock are responsible for 18 per cent of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming - more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together. Each liter of milk is also very expensive in terms of the water currency we invest. Estimates say that it takes a staggering 990 litres of water to produce one litre of milk. So, in this light - how is non-vegetarianism the rationally, better choice?
5) Another common retort I encounter is the following - "So you think plants don't experience any pain? And what will you do if plants also experience pain?".
Well, firstly, it is fairly well established that plants lack a nervous system and experience any sensations of pain or angst. Also, if we have to inflict pain, then we might as well, do it to the least numbers in the mildest possible way - right?
And this boils down to how energy efficient we can be by harvesting plants instead of animals.
More importantly, it only takes a glimpse of the atrocious and unhygienic conditions in which animals are usually bred for even the staunchest of non-vegetarians to feel some sympathy and regret.
Chickens bred in cramped, narrow cages, wallowing in their own filth, prohibiting them from even walking (forget flying); cattle being fed the meat of their own kind; goats being kept in pens small enough to prevent movement are just some of the real-world examples of how economics and the drive for resource optimization has led us to exploit these farm animals.
As the farms give way to super markets, the final consumers are also becoming more and more distant from the animals - unable to realize the value of each life and the investment that went into it. They also become that much more unconcerned with the plight of these animals and the value for food as a limited resource in itself is lost. While traditional asian cooking involved the consumption of every part of a butchered animal - from its hooves to its entrails, today, most people in the western world only consume the calorie laden muscle mass. This dramatically cuts down on the efficiency of animal consumption in addition to being a bigger energy drain.
6) Now, being a scientist, I also encounter other hyper-rational scientists who believe that meat consumption was an evolutionary adaptation and was essential for the evolution of our brains. By extension, non-vegetarianism is the better, more rational choice.
Now, I understand the argument, because evolutionarily, in the absence of agriculture and food storage, meat consumption was an important source of calories. I say important because there is a lot of evidence from modern day hunter gatherer tribes that even then tuber, fruits, vegetables and honey were a bigger component of everyday diet than meat which was critical but never abundant enough to be a reliable caloric source.
But today, when we have agriculture and availability of food is not an issue for a significant number of people - meat consumption is certainly not a necessity. It is a choice that people make and this provides higher quality diet to the select few at the expense of many others in third world countries who are forced to sell their produce to the developed countries for monetary gains.
Considering that a large population in the world today is subsistent on meat and animal products, a large proportion of the solar energy fixed by plants is also being wasted. In fact, numbers would show that if we stopped cultivating corn and fodder for our cattle and redirected these lands to other crops, starvation can be dramatically reduced and we, as a planet, will become more energy efficient.
And finally even though history might have supported a non-vegetarian diet, it can also support polygamy or cannibalism but like we have "evolved" out of these latter choices, the former too is a choice to be made, not a mandate we have to live with. I believe, we have progressed far enough to be able to afford the choice of staying vegetarian and I am glad I ended up making that choice.
7) Now, this last point is a rare possibility but is still not an impossible scenario.
Thanks to the prominent perception of meat as a healthy option, most non-vegetarians also fail to realize the inherent risks it poses to human health.
It is no secret that red meat consumption has tremendously increased our cholesterol levels and the risk of heart attacks.
Meats and animal products are also a leading cause of food poisoning. Bacterial infections are a common enough possibility that meats are regularly tested in the western world for them. However, despite these strict measures there are frequent reports of deaths caused by consumption of contaminated meat.
Another less considered threat is that of disease spread like in the case of the avian flu and bovine spongiform encephalopathy. BSE is a fatal neurodegenerative disease that causes a spongy degeneration in the Spinal cord and the brain. The disease may be most easily transmitted to human_beings by eating food contaminated with the brain, spinal cord or digestive tract of infected carcasses. The human variant of this disease of bovine origin is called Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD or nvCJD) and by October 2009, it has killed 166 people in the UK and 44 elsewhere. A British and Irish inquiry into BSE concluded that the disease was caused by cattle, which are normally herbivores being fed the remains of other cattle in the form of meat and bone meal(MBM), which allowed the infectious agent to spread. While, the origin of the disease itself remains unknown, we do know that the infectious agent is distinctive for the high temperatures at which it remains viable thus increasing the inherent risk.
Many other pathogens like the viral strain of avian flu find a convenient route for migrating across species through human consumption of animal meat. These are emerging concerns that are only becoming stronger and more realistic as we understand the intricacies of host specificity and pathogenicity.
And finally, let me assure you that this was not an temperamental outburst or a vitriolic attempt to point fingers or blame someone. Rather, I am trying to build a case for my choice and I hope that it will be respected if not wholeheartedly agreed to or followed.
