FOOD FOR THOUGHT: THE DEBATE OVER EATING MEAT
By Steve Sapontzis
Reviewed by Pam Ahern From Edgar’s (the pig) Mission.

As animal advocates we all acknowledge that we should treat animals with empathy and respect, understanding that the kindest thing you can do to an animal is not eat it, but alas this alone will not advance our cause. In our arsenal of advocacy we must be well versed with the arguments our detractors will proffer. Steve Sapontzis tosses many of these at the reader, some arguments are extremely frustrating but reflect many that we will encounter on our journey of vegan/vegetarianism and animal activism and therefore ones we must consider and further be prepared to counter. Sapontzis rightly points out to the reader that "unlike abortion, gun control, capital punishment, and so many other of our most hotly debated issues; meat eating versus vegetarianism is an issue on which you cannot avoid taking a position." In fact many unwittingly decide this position each time they sit down to eat. Sapontzis succinctly sums up the agenda of this book in his introduction, "...we become aware of these extended implications and consequences of our actions so that, at the very least, we know that we are not going about our lives in ignorance of what we're doing and so that, more hopefully, knowing what we're doing we can do our best."

While I am not totally convinced the book will see many meat eaters converting to vegetarianism it certainly provides plenty of fodder for them to chew upon while considering the issue. I found the sections dealing with predation very worthwhile and challenging tossing up some issues that animal advocates espousing vegetarianism need to consider and possibly hasn’t done so yet.

The book is divided into seven sections starting out with a brief history of philosophical vegetarianism, leading onto what anthropology and medicine have to tell us about eating meat. While both these topics in themselves could more than adequately fill an entire book the essays provide the reader with a brief introduction to the issues. As always I find Neal Barnard to be an excellent and articulate medical doctor advocating unquestionably why we should leave meat off our plate. His section, "Vegetarianism, the healthy alternative" penned with Kristine Kieswer doesn't disappoint. After reading this well researched and referenced piece one is left with little reason for continuing to "lay the groundwork for chronic disease" by partaking in a diet based on animal products.

Section 3 covers the philosophical debate over eating animals, starting out with James Rachels, "The basic argument for vegetarianism". Rachels credits (as many of us do) Peter Singer with his shift to vegetarianism citing "a fundamental change in our attitude towards animals was necessary" as the first step. Some may find the chapters arguing in favour of meat eating rather irritating, as I did but again we need to be aware of such and further have the countenance ready should we encounter similar in dialogue. Roger Scrutons chapter, "The Conscientious Carnivore" may leave many a vegetarian tearing their hair out, especially when we read "A great number of animals owe their lives to our intention to eat them. If we value animal life, therefore, we should endorse our carnivorous habits, provided it really is life, and not living death, on which those habits feed." I find it hard to credit the logic of such a statement. Thankfully sanity returns in the next chapter by Evelyn B Pluhar as she argues "The right not to be eaten" and concludes, "Once I saw the victims of these practices as living suffering centres of consciousness, I realized that making meals of them, regardless of how 'humane' our methods are, is morally unacceptable". Naturally enough no discussion on this topic would be complete without an offering from Peter Singer simply titled "Animal liberation, vegetarianism as protest". R G Freys chapter "Utilitarianism and moral vegetarianism again- protest or effectiveness?" left me scratching my head pondering, “what is this guy on?”

Section 4 tackles the weighty issue of traditional and contemporary religious teachings about our relation to animals. Roberta Kalechofsky looks at "The Jewish diet and vegetarianism" and argues admirably the religious basis for Jews adopting a vegetarian diet. Tom Regan follows this up advocating the Christian basis for abstaining from eating animals with "Christians are what Christians eat". Andrew Linzey provides an insightful read with "The theological debate about meat eating", doing what he does best and that is providing adequate food for thought for all theologians to question the practice of eating meat. Not knowing much about Islam I was pleasantly pleased to read Richard C Foltzs "Is vegetarianism un-Islamic?" and his conclusion that "..from the standpoints of human health, social justice, ecological stewardship, and compassion toward nonhuman creation, it can be seen that a vegetarian lifestyle may in fact be preferable for Muslims."

Section 5, "The feminist debate over the relation between the treatment of animals and of women" would not be complete without an offering from Carol J Adams, who in fact is first up with "The sexual politics of meat". Those who have read Adams’ book by the same name will know what the chapter has in store for them, an extremely thought provoking argument of the connection between animals and women in a patriarchal society and how current attitudes toward women as second class citizens sees them routinely and habitually subjected to abuse that is entirely “their lot” in much the same way as animals, both referred to as the "absent referents". Be warned other chapters in this section provide heavy reading and consideration on the part of the reader hopefully who will emerge concluding as Lori Gruen does in her chapter "The feminist debate" that "There are many reasons to think hard about what one is contributing to when purchasing the products of modern factory farming and many reasons to stop eating animals".

The environmental debate over respecting predatory nature and protecting animals, section 6 provided me with the most thought provoking challenge of the book. Rationalizing the predatory behaviour of some animals and how this all neatly fits into the scheme of things however uncomfortable it may cause some of us to feel. Often I have heard the justification for eating animals based on the premise that other animals do it and likewise why don't you condemn the predator species for this world, such taunts are addressed by Jennifer Everetts "Vegetarianism, predation, and respect for nature" as she states "without imposing the norms appropriate to human culture on a realm that proceeds according to nonhuman standards”. Other contributors to this section had me again scratching my head at their less than water tight arguments such as Frederick Ferre in "Moderation, morals and meat". Ferre tells us that "My conclusion is that we may, if we desire, eat meat from humanely raised and slaughtered animals in moderation and with appreciation”. I am at a loss to see how concern for the well being of an animal is mutually inclusive with cutting its healthy natural life short. I trust many, like me, will enjoy Marti Kheels offering "Vegetarianism and ecofeminism-toppling patriarchy with a fork".

Sapontzis concludes this exploration of eating meat with section 7, "Which is more important, respecting cultural diversity or protecting animals?" Lines such as Val Plumwoods "A similarly ethnocentric and inadequately contextualized methodology is applied by ontological vegans to the issue of the ecological consequences of animal food" had me not only racing for the dictionary but thinking Plumwood had just eaten one! Certainly calling for distractionless reading time. All in all Sapontzis’ tome "Food for thought, the debate over eating meat" certainly lived up to its name and was a roller coaster read, oft times causing this reader to think, and that’s not such a bad thing!

Contributors to this book include Carol J. Adams, Neal Barnard, John Berkman, Stephen R. L. Clark, Carl Cohen, Randall Collura, Gary L. Comstock, Deane Curtin, Daniel Dombrowski, Johanna T. Dwyer, Jennifer Everett, Fredrick Ferre, Richard Foltz, R.G. Frey, James Gaffney, Kathryn Paxton George, Lori Gruen, Bart Gruzalski, Ned Hettinger, Roberta Kalechofsky, Marti Kheel, Kristine Kieswer, Andrew Linzey, Franklin M. Loew, Evelyn Pluhar, Val Plumwood, Rod Preece, James Rachels, Tom Regan, Roger Scruton, and Peter Singer.

About the Author

Steve F. Sapontzis is professor emeritus of philosophy at California State University at Hayward, where he taught for twenty-five years. He is the author of MORALS, REASON, AND ANIMALS, and numerous articles on animal rights.