The Omnivore’s Delusion: Against the Agri-intellectuals

arthurdent

AMERICAN.COM
A Magazine of Ideas


By Blake Hurst Thursday, July 30, 2009

Filed under: Lifestyle, Big Ideas, Culture, Science & Technology
Farming has always been messy and painful, and bloody and dirty. It still is. This is something the critics of industrial farming never seem to understand.

I’m dozing, as I often do on airplanes, but the guy behind me has been broadcasting nonstop for nearly three hours. I finally admit defeat and start some serious eavesdropping. He’s talking about food, damning farming, particularly livestock farming, compensating for his lack of knowledge with volume.

I’m so tired of people who wouldn’t visit a doctor who used a stethoscope instead of an MRI demanding that farmers like me use 1930s technology to raise food. Farming has always been messy and painful, and bloody and dirty. It still is.

But now we have to listen to self-appointed experts on airplanes frightening their seatmates about the profession I have practiced for more than 30 years. I’d had enough. I turned around and politely told the lecturer that he ought not believe everything he reads. He quieted and asked me what kind of farming I do. I told him, and when he asked if I used organic farming, I said no, and left it at that. I didn’t answer with the first thought that came to mind, which is simply this: I deal in the real world, not superstitions, and unless the consumer absolutely forces my hand, I am about as likely to adopt organic methods as the Wall Street Journal is to publish their next edition by setting the type by hand.

Young turkeys aren't smart enough to come in out of the rain, and will stand outside in a downpour, with beaks open and eyes skyward, until they drown.

He was a businessman, and I’m sure spends his days with spreadsheets, projections, and marketing studies. He hasn’t used a slide rule in his career and wouldn’t make projections with tea leaves or soothsayers. He does not blame witchcraft for a bad quarter, or expect the factory that makes his product to use steam power instead of electricity, or horses and wagons to deliver his products instead of trucks and trains. But he expects me to farm like my grandfather, and not incidentally, I suppose, to live like him as well. He thinks farmers are too stupid to farm sustainably, too cruel to treat their animals well, and too careless to worry about their communities, their health, and their families. I would not presume to criticize his car, or the size of his house, or the way he runs his business. But he is an expert about me, on the strength of one book, and is sharing that expertise with captive audiences every time he gets the chance. Enough, enough, enough.

Industrial Farming and Its Critics

Critics of “industrial farming” spend most of their time concerned with the processes by which food is raised. This is because the results of organic production are so, well, troublesome. With the subtraction of every “unnatural” additive, molds, fungus, and bugs increase. Since it is difficult to sell a religion with so many readily quantifiable bad results, the trusty family farmer has to be thrown into the breach, saving the whole organic movement by his saintly presence, chewing on his straw, plodding along, at one with his environment, his community, his neighborhood. Except that some of the largest farms in the country are organic—and are giant organizations dependent upon lots of hired stoop labor doing the most backbreaking of tasks in order to save the sensitive conscience of my fellow passenger the merest whiff of pesticide contamination. They do not spend much time talking about that at the Whole Foods store.

The most delicious irony is this: the parts of farming that are the most “industrial” are the most likely to be owned by the kind of family farmers that elicit such a positive response from the consumer. Corn farms are almost all owned and managed by small family farmers. But corn farmers salivate at the thought of one more biotech breakthrough, use vast amounts of energy to increase production, and raise large quantities of an indistinguishable commodity to sell to huge corporations that turn that corn into thousands of industrial products.

The biggest environmental harm I’ve done as a farmer is the topsoil (and nutrients) I used to send down the Missouri River to the Gulf of Mexico before we began to practice no-till farming, made possible only by the use of herbicides.

Most livestock is produced by family farms, and even the poultry industry, with its contracts and vertical integration, relies on family farms to contract for the production of the birds. Despite the obvious change in scale over time, family farms, like ours, still meet around the kitchen table, send their kids to the same small schools, sit in the same church pew, and belong to the same civic organizations our parents and grandparents did. We may be industrial by some definition, but not our own. Reality is messier than it appears in the book my tormentor was reading, and farming more complicated than a simple morality play.

On the desk in front of me are a dozen books, all hugely critical of present-day farming. Farmers are often given a pass in these books, painted as either naïve tools of corporate greed, or economic nullities forced into their present circumstances by the unrelenting forces of the twin grindstones of corporate greed and unfeeling markets. To the farmer on the ground, though, a farmer blessed with free choice and hard won experience, the moral choices aren’t quite so easy. Biotech crops actually cut the use of chemicals, and increase food safety. Are people who refuse to use them my moral superiors? Herbicides cut the need for tillage, which decreases soil erosion by millions of tons. The biggest environmental harm I have done as a farmer is the topsoil (and nutrients) I used to send down the Missouri River to the Gulf of Mexico before we began to practice no-till farming, made possible only by the use of herbicides. The combination of herbicides and genetically modified seed has made my farm more sustainable, not less, and actually reduces the pollution I send down the river.

Finally, consumers benefit from cheap food. If you think they don’t, just remember the headlines after food prices began increasing in 2007 and 2008, including the study by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations announcing that 50 million additional people are now hungry because of increasing food prices. Only “industrial farming” can possibly meet the demands of an increasing population and increased demand for food as a result of growing incomes.

The distance between the farmer and what he grows has certainly increased, but, believe me, if we weren't closely connected, we wouldn't still be farming.

So the stakes in this argument are even higher. Farmers can raise food in different ways if that is what the market wants. It is important, though, that even people riding in airplanes know that there are environmental and food safety costs to whatever kind of farming we choose.

Pigs in a Pen

In his book Dominion, author Mathew Scully calls “factory farming” an “obvious moral evil so sickening and horrendous it would leave us ashen.” Scully, a speechwriter for the second President Bush, can hardly be called a man of the left. Just to make sure the point is not lost, he quotes the conservative historian Paul Johnson a page later:

The rise of factory farming, whereby food producers cannot remain competitive except by subjecting animals to unspeakable deprivation, has hastened this process. The human spirit revolts at what we have been doing.

Arizona and Florida have outlawed pig gestation crates, and California recently passed, overwhelmingly, a ballot initiative doing the same. There is no doubt that Scully and Johnson have the wind at their backs, and confinement raising of livestock may well be outlawed everywhere. And only a person so callous as to have a spirit that cannot be revolted, or so hardened to any kind of morality that he could countenance an obvious moral evil, could say a word in defense of caging animals during their production. In the quote above, Paul Johnson is forecasting a move toward vegetarianism. But if we assume, at least for the present, that most of us will continue to eat meat, let me dive in where most fear to tread.

Lynn Niemann was a neighbor of my family’s, a farmer with a vision. He began raising turkeys on a field near his house around 1956. They were, I suppose, what we would now call “free range” turkeys. Turkeys raised in a natural manner, with no roof over their heads, just gamboling around in the pasture, as God surely intended. Free to eat grasshoppers, and grass, and scratch for grubs and worms. And also free to serve as prey for weasels, who kill turkeys by slitting their necks and practicing exsanguination. Weasels were a problem, but not as much a threat as one of our typically violent early summer thunderstorms. It seems that turkeys, at least young ones, are not smart enough to come in out of the rain, and will stand outside in a downpour, with beaks open and eyes skyward, until they drown. One night Niemann lost 4,000 turkeys to drowning, along with his dream, and his farm.

Food production will have a claim on fossil fuels long after we've learned how to use renewables and nuclear power to handle many of our other energy needs.

Now, turkeys are raised in large open sheds. Chickens and turkeys raised for meat are not grown in cages. As the critics of "industrial farming" like to point out, the sheds get quite crowded by the time Thanksgiving rolls around and the turkeys are fully grown. And yes, the birds are bedded in sawdust, so the turkeys do walk around in their own waste. Although the turkeys don't seem to mind, this quite clearly disgusts the various authors I've read whom have actually visited a turkey farm. But none of those authors, whose descriptions of the horrors of modern poultry production have a certain sameness, were there when Neimann picked up those 4,000 dead turkeys. Sheds are expensive, and it was easier to raise turkeys in open, inexpensive pastures. But that type of production really was hard on the turkeys. Protected from the weather and predators, today's turkeys may not be aware that they are a part of a morally reprehensible system.

Like most young people in my part of the world, I was a 4-H member. Raising cattle and hogs, showing them at the county fair, and then sending to slaughter those animals that we had spent the summer feeding, washing, and training. We would then tour the packing house, where our friend was hung on a rail, with his loin eye measured and his carcass evaluated. We farm kids got an early start on dulling our moral sensibilities. I'm still proud of my win in the Atchison County Carcass competition of 1969, as it is the only trophy I have ever received. We raised the hogs in a shed, or farrowing (birthing) house. On one side were eight crates of the kind that the good citizens of California have outlawed. On the other were the kind of wooden pens that our critics would have us use, where the sow could turn around, lie down, and presumably act in a natural way. Which included lying down on my 4-H project, killing several piglets, and forcing me to clean up the mess when I did my chores before school. The crates protect the piglets from their mothers. Farmers do not cage their hogs because of sadism, but because dead pigs are a drag on the profit margin, and because being crushed by your mother really is an awful way to go. As is being eaten by your mother, which I've seen sows do to newborn pigs as well.

I warned you that farming is still dirty and bloody, and I wasn't kidding. So let's talk about manure. It is an article of faith amongst the agri-intellectuals that we no longer use manure as fertilizer. To quote Dr. Michael Fox in his book Eating with a Conscience, "The animal waste is not going back to the land from which he animal feed originated." Or Bill McKibben, in his book Deep Economy, writing about modern livestock production: "But this concentrates the waste in one place, where instead of being useful fertilizer to spread on crop fields it becomes a toxic threat."

In my inbox is an email from our farm's neighbor, who raises thousands of hogs in close proximity to our farm, and several of my family member's houses as well. The email outlines the amount and chemical analysis of the manure that will be spread on our fields this fall, manure that will replace dozens of tons of commercial fertilizer. The manure is captured underneath the hog houses in cement pits, and is knifed into the soil after the crops are harvested. At no time is it exposed to erosion, and it is an extremely valuable resource, one which farmers use to its fullest extent, just as they have since agriculture began.

Pollan thinks farmers use commercial fertilizer because it's easier, and because it's cheap. Pollan is right. But those are perfectly defensible reasons.

In the southern part of Missouri, there is an extensive poultry industry in areas of the state where the soil is poor. The farmers there spread the poultry litter on pasture, and the advent of poultry barns made cattle production possible in areas that used to be waste ground. The "industrial" poultry houses are owned by family farmers, who have then used the byproducts to produce beef in areas where cattle couldn't survive before. McKibben is certain that the contracts these farmers sign with companies like Tyson are unfair, and the farmers might agree. But they like those cows, so there is a waiting list for new chicken barns. In some areas, there is indeed more manure than available cropland. But the trend in the industry, thankfully, is toward a dispersion of animals and manure, as the value of the manure increases, and the cost of transporting the manure becomes prohibitive.

We Can’t Change Nature

The largest producer of pigs in the United States has promised to gradually end the use of hog crates. The Humane Society promises to take their initiative drive to outlaw farrowing crates and poultry cages to more states. Many of the counties in my own state of Missouri have chosen to outlaw the the building of confinement facilities. Barack Obama has been harshly critical of animal agriculture. We are clearly in the process of deciding that we will not continue to raise animals the way we do now. Because other countries may not share our sensibilities, we'll have to withdraw or amend free trade agreements to keep any semblance of a livestock industry.

We can do that, and we may be a better society for it, but we can't change nature. Pigs will be allowed to "return to their mire," as Kipling had it, but they'll also be crushed and eaten by their mothers. Chickens will provide lunch to any number of predators, and some number of chickens will die as flocks establish their pecking order.

In recent years, the cost of producing pork dropped as farmers increased feed efficiency (the amount of feed needed to produce a pound of pork) by 20 percent. Free-range chickens and pigs will increase the price of food, using more energy and water to produce the extra grain required for the same amount of meat, and some people will go hungry. It is also instructive that the first company to move away from farrowing crates is the largest producer of pigs. Changing the way we raise animals will not necessarily change the scale of the companies involved in the industry. If we are about to require more expensive ways of producing food, the largest and most well-capitalized farms will have the least trouble adapting.

The Omnivores’ Delusions

Michael Pollan, in an 8,000-word essay in the New York Times Magazine, took the expected swipes at animal agriculture. But his truly radical prescriptions had to do with raising of crops. Pollan, who seemed to be aware of the nitrogen problem in his book The Omnivore's Dilemma, left nuance behind, as well as the laws of chemistry, in his recommendations. The nitrogen problem is this: without nitrogen, we do not have life. Until we learned to produce nitrogen from natural gas early in the last century, the only way to get nitrogen was through nitrogen produced by plants called legumes, or from small amounts of nitrogen that are produced by lightning strikes. The amount of life the earth could support was limited by the amount of nitrogen available for crop production.

In his book, Pollan quotes geographer Vaclav Smil to the effect that 40 percent of the people alive today would not be alive without the ability to artificially synthesize nitrogen. But in his directive on food policy, Pollan damns agriculture's dependence on fossil fuels, and urges the president to encourage agriculture to move away from expensive and declining supplies of natural gas toward the unlimited sunshine that supported life, and agriculture, as recently as the 1940s. Now, why didn't I think of that?

Well, I did. I've raised clover and alfalfa for the nitrogen they produce, and half the time my land is planted to soybeans, another nitrogen producing legume. Pollan writes as if all of his ideas are new, but my father tells of agriculture extension meetings in the late 1950s entitled "Clover and Corn, the Road to Profitability." Farmers know that organic farming was the default position of agriculture for thousands of years, years when hunger was just around the corner for even advanced societies. I use all the animal manure available to me, and do everything I can to reduce the amount of commercial fertilizers I use. When corn genetically modified to use nitrogen more efficiently enters the market, as it soon will, I will use it as well. But none of those things will completely replace commercial fertilizer.

Norman Borlaug, founder of the green revolution, estimates that the amount of nitrogen available naturally would only support a worldwide population of 4 billion souls or so. He further remarks that we would need another 5 billion cows to produce enough manure to fertilize our present crops with "natural" fertilizer. That would play havoc with global warming. And cows do not produce nitrogen from the air, but only from the forages they eat, so to produce more manure we will have to plant more forages. Most of the critics of industrial farming maintain the contradictory positions that we should increase the use of manure as a fertilizer, and decrease our consumption of meat. Pollan would solve the problem with cover crops, planted after the corn crop is harvested, and with mandatory composting. Pollan should talk to some actual farmers before he presumes to advise a president.

Pollan tells of flying over the upper Midwest in the winter, and seeing the black, fallow soil. I suppose one sees what one wants to see, but we have not had the kind of tillage implement on our farm that would produce black soil in nearly 20 years. Pollan would provide our nitrogen by planting those black fields to nitrogen-producing cover crops after the cash crops are harvested. This is a fine plan, one that farmers have known about for generations. And sometimes it would even work. But not last year, as we finished harvest in November in a freezing rain. It is hard to think of a legume that would have done its thing between then and corn planting time. Plants do not grow very well in freezing weather, a fact that would evidently surprise Pollan.

And even if we could have gotten a legume established last fall, it would not have fixed any nitrogen before planting time. We used to plant corn in late May, plowing down our green manure and killing the first flush of weeds. But that meant the corn would enter its crucial growing period during the hottest, driest parts of the summer, and that soil erosion would be increased because the land was bare during drenching spring rains. Now we plant in early April, best utilizing our spring rains, and ensuring that pollination occurs before the dog days of August.

A few other problems come to mind. The last time I planted a cover crop, the clover provided a perfect habitat in early spring for bugs, bugs that I had to kill with an insecticide. We do not normally apply insecticides, but we did that year. Of course, you can provide nitrogen with legumes by using a longer crop rotation, growing clover one year and corn the next. But that uses twice as much water to produce a corn crop, and takes twice as much land to produce the same number of bushels. We are producing twice the food we did in 1960 on less land, and commercial nitrogen is one of the main reasons why. It may be that we decide we would rather spend land and water than energy, but Pollan never mentions that we are faced with that choice.

His other grand idea is mandatory household composting, with the compost delivered to farmers free of charge. Why not? Compost is a valuable soil amendment, and if somebody else is paying to deliver it to my farm, then bring it on. But it will not do much to solve the nitrogen problem. Household compost has somewhere between 1 and 5 percent nitrogen, and not all that nitrogen is available to crops the first year. Presently, we are applying about 150 pounds of nitrogen per acre to corn, and crediting about 40 pounds per acre from the preceding years soybean crop. Let's assume a 5 percent nitrogen rate, or about 100 pounds of nitrogen per ton of compost. That would require 3,000 pounds of compost per acre. Or about 150,000 tons for the corn raised in our county. The average truck carries about 20 tons. Picture 7,500 trucks traveling from New York City to our small county here in the Midwest, delivering compost. Five million truckloads to fertilize the country's corn crop. Now, that would be a carbon footprint!

Pollan thinks farmers use commercial fertilizer because it is easier, and because it is cheap. Pollan is right. But those are perfectly defensible reasons. Nitrogen quadrupled in price over the last several years, and farmers are still using it, albeit more cautiously. We are using GPS monitors on all of our equipment to ensure that we do not use too much, and our production of corn per pound of nitrogen is rapidly increasing. On our farm, we have increased yields about 50 percent during my career, while applying about the same amount of nitrogen we did when I began farming. That fortunate trend will increase even faster with the advent of new GMO hybrids. But as much as Pollan might desire it, even President Obama cannot reshuffle the chemical deck that nature has dealt. Energy may well get much more expensive, and peak oil production may have been reached. But food production will have a claim on fossil fuels long after we have learned how to use renewables and nuclear power to handle many of our other energy needs.

Farming and Connectedness

Much of farming is more "industrial," more technical, and more complex than it used to be. Farmers farm more acres, and are less close to the ground and their animals than they were in the past. Almost all critics of industrial agriculture bemoan this loss of closeness, this "connectedness," to use author Rod Dreher's term. It is a given in most of the writing about agriculture that the knowledge and experience of the organic farmer is what makes him so unique and so important. The "industrial farmer," on the other hand, is a mere pawn of Cargill, backed into his ignorant way of life by forces too large, too far from the farm, and too powerful to resist. Concern about this alienation, both between farmers and the land, and between consumers and their food supply, is what drives much of the literature about agriculture.

The distance between the farmer and what he grows has certainly increased, but, believe me, if we weren't closely connected, we wouldn't still be farming. It's important to our critics that they emphasize this alienation, because they have to ignore the "industrial" farmer's experience and knowledge to say the things they do about farming.

But farmers have reasons for their actions, and society should listen to them as we embark upon this reappraisal of our agricultural system. I use chemicals and diesel fuel to accomplish the tasks my grandfather used to do with sweat, and I use a computer instead of a lined notebook and a pencil, but I'm still farming the same land he did 80 years ago, and the fund of knowledge that our family has accumulated about our small part of Missouri is valuable. And everything I know and I have learned tells me this: we have to farm "industrially" to feed the world, and by using those "industrial" tools sensibly, we can accomplish that task and leave my grandchildren a prosperous and productive farm, while protecting the land, water, and air around us.

Blake Hurst is a farmer in Missouri. In a few days he will spend the next six weeks on a combine.

decides2dream

that was a good read.
however, i do think a 'middle ground' can be found, if we want it enough. just like most things.

tybird

The middle ground is going to be higher food prices....farming is bloody....if you believe it isn't, then you have never spent any time at a real, working farm....there is no one good or perfect way to do things with this vast of a nature...it's tit for tat...to get something, you are going to have to give up something.

domestic turkey as the author stated....have been bred to the point where 1) They are as dumb as a box of rocks 2) Their breast muscles are too large for flight....so, you have to spend extra money to prevent them from doing stupid things to kill themselves...and they can't be re-introduced to the wild. Wild Turkeys are one of the smartest birds not in the Corvid family...and once airborne, can fly like it's nobody's business.

Remember all of the other factors that farmers must face.....weather, up and down markets for their products and the encroachment of the suburbs.....which bring a multitude of problems with them...traffic, storm run-off, higher land costs, complaining neighbors, loose dogs that harass livestock, loose cats that kill chickens and other fowl...a domestic cat is just like a weasel...if it gets into a chicken coop it will kill every chicken that it can regardless of whether it has a full belly or not

The odds are already stacked against the farmer

decides2dream

tybird wrote:

The middle ground is going to be higher food prices....farming is bloody....if you believe it isn't, then you have never spent any time at a real, working farm....there is no one good or perfect way to do things with this vast of a nature...it's tit for tat...to get something, you are going to have to give up something.

domestic turkey as the author stated....have been bred to the point where 1) They are as dumb as a box of rocks 2) Their breast muscles are too large for flight....so, you have to spend extra money to prevent them from doing stupid things to kill themselves...and they can't be re-introduced to the wild. Wild Turkeys are one of the smartest birds not in the Corvid family...and once airborne, can fly like it's nobody's business.

Remember all of the other factors that farmers must face.....weather, up and down markets for their products and the encroachment of the suburbs.....which bring a multitude of problems with them...traffic, storm run-off, higher land costs, complaining neighbors, loose dogs that harass livestock, loose cats that kill chickens and other fowl...a domestic cat is just like a weasel...if it gets into a chicken coop it will kill every chicken that it can regardless of whether it has a full belly or not

The odds are already stacked against the farmer

agreed. i do realize all this and yet, i still believe a middle ground is a good place to be.


and as to the wild turkey, wasn't it ben franklin who wanted that bird as our national symbol before we settled on the eagle?

tybird

decides2dream wrote:

tybird wrote:

The middle ground is going to be higher food prices....farming is bloody....if you believe it isn't, then you have never spent any time at a real, working farm....there is no one good or perfect way to do things with this vast of a nature...it's tit for tat...to get something, you are going to have to give up something.

domestic turkey as the author stated....have been bred to the point where 1) They are as dumb as a box of rocks 2) Their breast muscles are too large for flight....so, you have to spend extra money to prevent them from doing stupid things to kill themselves...and they can't be re-introduced to the wild. Wild Turkeys are one of the smartest birds not in the Corvid family...and once airborne, can fly like it's nobody's business.

Remember all of the other factors that farmers must face.....weather, up and down markets for their products and the encroachment of the suburbs.....which bring a multitude of problems with them...traffic, storm run-off, higher land costs, complaining neighbors, loose dogs that harass livestock, loose cats that kill chickens and other fowl...a domestic cat is just like a weasel...if it gets into a chicken coop it will kill every chicken that it can regardless of whether it has a full belly or not

The odds are already stacked against the farmer

agreed. i do realize all this and yet, i still believe a middle ground is a good place to be.


and as to the wild turkey, wasn't it ben franklin who wanted that bird as our national symbol before we settled on the eagle?

Yes, any turkey hunter will tell that the Wild Turkey is one of the smartest beasts on two legs and a pair of wings.....on the flip side, most serious birders will tell you that we regard the Bald Eagle as a "fish thief"...they tend, at times, to be too lazy to fish for themselves, so they stalk Ospreys and attempt to steal their catches.....and the Bald Eagle has a weird call....the bird you hear on TV is almost always a Red-tailed Hawk.

Lauri

This is all really interesting. From an environmental perspective, organic farming is not necessarily the best choice. There is definitely a trade-off there. Organic farming, is of course, less efficient and requires more land, and even when used for organic farming, agricultural land is not great for the environment. You still get runoff, erosion, clear cutting, etc.

weenie

I don't want to argue about what I'm about to say because I already KNOW it's a totally idealistic philosophy that would only occur in a utopian society. But I can't help but feel that all these valid points about the horror and the difficulties with animal farming just strengthen the value of becoming vegetarian. If nothing else, they reinforce MY CHOICE not to support the animal food industry.

I'm not being self-righteous, I'm just really glad that all this information is here for people to read and consider. The first step towards any kind of positive change occurs when people internalize all of the information available. I happen to think that Pearl Jam fans are some of the most socially and environmentally aware people in this country. Personally, I'm happy when just one person makes the decision to become vegetarian.

arthurdent

weenie wrote:

I don't want to argue about what I'm about to say because I already KNOW it's a totally idealistic philosophy that would only occur in a utopian society. But I can't help but feel that all these valid points about the horror and the difficulties with animal farming just strengthen the value of becoming vegetarian. If nothing else, they reinforce MY CHOICE not to support the animal food industry.

I'm not being self-righteous, I'm just really glad that all this information is here for people to read and consider. The first step towards any kind of positive change occurs when people internalize all of the information available. I happen to think that Pearl Jam fans are some of the most socially and environmentally aware people in this country. Personally, I'm happy when just one person makes the decision to become vegetarian.

nothing personal, but the thing that disgusts me most about PETA, and vegetarians in general, is that when you get right down to it, they really aren't that much different from Operation Rescue. Both are trying to push their narrow viewpoints onto the rest of society, violently, if necessary.

Oh, and something like 70% of the world's soybean crop is Monsanto GMO. so don't start whining when your tofu causes you to horribly mutate and start growing extra limbs.

tybird

arthurdent wrote:

weenie wrote:

I don't want to argue about what I'm about to say because I already KNOW it's a totally idealistic philosophy that would only occur in a utopian society. But I can't help but feel that all these valid points about the horror and the difficulties with animal farming just strengthen the value of becoming vegetarian. If nothing else, they reinforce MY CHOICE not to support the animal food industry.

I'm not being self-righteous, I'm just really glad that all this information is here for people to read and consider. The first step towards any kind of positive change occurs when people internalize all of the information available. I happen to think that Pearl Jam fans are some of the most socially and environmentally aware people in this country. Personally, I'm happy when just one person makes the decision to become vegetarian.

nothing personal, but the thing that disgusts me most about PETA, and vegetarians in general, is that when you get right down to it, they really aren't that much different from Operation Rescue. Both are trying to push their narrow viewpoints onto the rest of society, violently, if necessary.

Oh, and something like 70% of the world's soybean crop is Monsanto GMO. so don't start whining when your tofu causes you to horribly mutate and start growing extra limbs.

You are mirroring my thoughts on PETA, the militant vegans, Operation Rescue and their ilk exactly....noticed I bunched them all together in one big pile..... Cultural Imperialism is the M.O. of all these groups...."We're right...you're wrong....do it our way...if not, we will attempt to legislate our way as the way. This is no different at its roots than the Islamic warriors sweeping across the known world or the European Crusaders attempting to "free" the Holy Land...same shit, different day.

Why do I want to become a vegan or vegetarian? I don't.....I am physically unable to eat three of the basic items that make up the lion's share of vegan gourmet....I can not eat mushrooms, peppers and tree nuts...why limit what I can eat just to make you feel warm and fuzzy on the inside? Give one good reason....other than it makes you feel warm and fuzzy on the inside.

In PETA's dream of utopia....what happens to all the farm animals??? Is somebody going to pay people to feed and house them? Turn them loose in the wild, you say.....the wild cow has been extinct for thousands of years....we have noted the domestic turkey's problems earlier in the thread....does anyone not realize the ecological disaster that turning millions of domestic goats, pigs, cows and chickens loose would incur???

And don't try to tell me that if we ended livestock production how much more farming of crops could take place....saving the masses from starvation....a lot of land used for livestock is not what the big-brains call arable land....look the word up.

weenie

arthurdent wrote:

weenie wrote:

I don't want to argue about what I'm about to say because I already KNOW it's a totally idealistic philosophy that would only occur in a utopian society. But I can't help but feel that all these valid points about the horror and the difficulties with animal farming just strengthen the value of becoming vegetarian. If nothing else, they reinforce MY CHOICE not to support the animal food industry.

I'm not being self-righteous, I'm just really glad that all this information is here for people to read and consider. The first step towards any kind of positive change occurs when people internalize all of the information available. I happen to think that Pearl Jam fans are some of the most socially and environmentally aware people in this country. Personally, I'm happy when just one person makes the decision to become vegetarian.

nothing personal, but the thing that disgusts me most about PETA, and vegetarians in general, is that when you get right down to it, they really aren't that much different from Operation Rescue. Both are trying to push their narrow viewpoints onto the rest of society, violently, if necessary.

Oh, and something like 70% of the world's soybean crop is Monsanto GMO. so don't start whining when your tofu causes you to horribly mutate and start growing extra limbs.

Just for the record, I can't stand tofu and I don't eat soy. And I'm not pushing my viewpoint on anyone, I simply expressed pleasure with my own decision to become vegetarian many years ago....which, by the way, was based on several factors, not one alone. I avoid telling people I come in contact with that I am a vegetarian because of the stereotypical viewpoints out there such as those you're espousing.

Everyone is free to make their own choices, just as I am. That doesn't stop me from being pleased when others make the choice to become vegetarian.

weenie

tybird wrote:

[
And don't try to tell me that if we ended livestock production how much more farming of crops could take place....saving the masses from starvation....a lot of land used for livestock is not what the big-brains call arable land....look the word up.

First, I thought I was clear on the fact that I didn't expect the world to become vegetarian. Second, I'm not suggesting that we end livestock production, I KNOW people are going to WANT meat, poultry, pork, fish etc. What I WOULD appreciate is some humanity being incorporated into the greedy industries that find it necessary for living creatures to suffer during their harvesting. And third, it's not necessary for me to "look up" the word arable. I'm fairly-well educated and I know what it means. There's no need to insult me because you disagree with my lifestyle choice. :?

tybird

weenie wrote:

tybird wrote:

[
And don't try to tell me that if we ended livestock production how much more farming of crops could take place....saving the masses from starvation....a lot of land used for livestock is not what the big-brains call arable land....look the word up.

First, I thought I was clear on the fact that I didn't expect the world to become vegetarian. Second, I'm not suggesting that we end livestock production, I KNOW people are going to WANT meat, poultry, pork, fish etc. What I WOULD appreciate is some humanity being incorporated into the greedy industries that find it necessary for living creatures to suffer during their harvesting. And third, it's not necessary for me to "look up" the word arable. I'm fairly-well educated and I know what it means. There's no need to insult me because you disagree with my lifestyle choice. :?

Not aimed at you, Dearie....this goes back a bit to a PETA fanatic that used to post here....Sorry, if I accidentally hit you with a bit of that toss...he had drunk enough of the Kool-aid to regularly broadcast those ideas. Again, I pubically apologize if I offended you .

flywallyfly

weenie wrote:

arthurdent wrote:

weenie wrote:

I don't want to argue about what I'm about to say because I already KNOW it's a totally idealistic philosophy that would only occur in a utopian society. But I can't help but feel that all these valid points about the horror and the difficulties with animal farming just strengthen the value of becoming vegetarian. If nothing else, they reinforce MY CHOICE not to support the animal food industry.

I'm not being self-righteous, I'm just really glad that all this information is here for people to read and consider. The first step towards any kind of positive change occurs when people internalize all of the information available. I happen to think that Pearl Jam fans are some of the most socially and environmentally aware people in this country. Personally, I'm happy when just one person makes the decision to become vegetarian.

nothing personal, but the thing that disgusts me most about PETA, and vegetarians in general, is that when you get right down to it, they really aren't that much different from Operation Rescue. Both are trying to push their narrow viewpoints onto the rest of society, violently, if necessary.

Oh, and something like 70% of the world's soybean crop is Monsanto GMO. so don't start whining when your tofu causes you to horribly mutate and start growing extra limbs.

Just for the record, I can't stand tofu and I don't eat soy. And I'm not pushing my viewpoint on anyone, I simply expressed pleasure with my own decision to become vegetarian many years ago....which, by the way, was based on several factors, not one alone. I avoid telling people I come in contact with that I am a vegetarian because of the stereotypical viewpoints out there such as those you're espousing.

Everyone is free to make their own choices, just as I am. That doesn't stop me from being pleased when others make the choice to become vegetarian.

I do the same about avoiding telling people I'm a vegetarian unless I have to because of the ignorant stereotype attacks like the one in this thread. I do it for me and my beliefs, not to thumb my nose at those who differ from my view. It's kind of funny how the same people on this message board who dont like to be pigeon-holed or broadbrushed use the term "vegetarians in general".

weenie

tybird wrote:

weenie wrote:

tybird wrote:

[
And don't try to tell me that if we ended livestock production how much more farming of crops could take place....saving the masses from starvation....a lot of land used for livestock is not what the big-brains call arable land....look the word up.

First, I thought I was clear on the fact that I didn't expect the world to become vegetarian. Second, I'm not suggesting that we end livestock production, I KNOW people are going to WANT meat, poultry, pork, fish etc. What I WOULD appreciate is some humanity being incorporated into the greedy industries that find it necessary for living creatures to suffer during their harvesting. And third, it's not necessary for me to "look up" the word arable. I'm fairly-well educated and I know what it means. There's no need to insult me because you disagree with my lifestyle choice. :?

Not aimed at you, Dearie....this goes back a bit to a PETA fanatic that used to post here....Sorry, if I accidentally hit you with a bit of that toss...he had drunk enough of the Kool-aid to regularly broadcast those ideas. Again, I pubically apologize if I offended you .

No worries. I was at a loss to understand what I said that provoked you since it appeared that I was your target. Thanks for clarifying.

tybird

weenie wrote:

No worries. I was at a loss to understand what I said that provoked you since it appeared that I was your target. Thanks for clarifying.

Besides we have the same situation when it comes to certain foods......you eat Food "A", you get physically ill...I eat Food "B", I get physically ill.....we live in the same glass house.

WaveCameCrashin

I'll eat a NY strip cooked med rare over a damn piece of cauliflower any day. and as far as Turkey hunting goes if you never been it's a must if your a hunter.

PearlJain

I look at my own Vegetarian Lifestyle (since 1991) and I know it's my own personal choice. I do it for my own ethical reasons. My husband - on the other hand - is a carnivor....however - he will still eat Vegetarian meals and he enjoys those meals as well.....he is NOT a hunter. He doesn't judge. My friends - they make a point to eat Vegetarian at least one day per week (or so they say). I have no problem telling people that I'm a Vegetarian - as most people respect that...and are curious about it. I answer their questions. I don't push my Vegetarian beliefs onto them- and I expect the same respect in kind. Most people ask if I do it for health reasons or ethical reasons. I've already stated my reasoning. I grow my own vegetables organically - simply because I enjoy it. Growing a garden is really great therapy. Yin and Yang. There's a true sense of accomplishment that derives from it. However - do not confuse Vegetarianism and Animal rights (for the most part) with Leftism. The complete Left (nor Right) own the people of the planet. I (we) are all free thinkers - and I have come to my own conclusions. I do not agree with the Leftists Agenda and I hope you can be defeated in 2012.

WaveCameCrashin

PearlJain wrote:

I do not agree with the Leftists Agenda and I hope you can be defeated in 2012.

Don't worry It's only been 6 months and he's dropping in the polls He will only be a 1 term president . We all wanted change but not this. And what about all these czar's ? We now have more czar's than we have had presidents and they don't have to be accountable to no one.

PearlJain

prfctlefts wrote:

PearlJain wrote:

I do not agree with the Leftists Agenda and I hope you can be defeated in 2012.

Don't worry It's only been 6 months and he's dropping in the polls He will only be a 1 term president . We all wanted change but not this. And what about all these czar's ? We now have more czar's than we have had presidents and they don't have to be accountable to no one.

OMG!!!! The Obama 44 CZAR's thing! I know!!! How Communistic is THAT? Obama has a Czar for everything except wiping his own ass. SCAREY! I NEVER watch The VIEW - but was flipping thru channels and saw where Michille Malkin was one of their guests today. She certainly put Joy Blow-Hard in her place! It's so hard to get a (Conservative) point across on that show - but she did me proud today! I was so nervous for her - but she was great!!!

g under p

PearlJain wrote:

I look at my own Vegetarian Lifestyle (since 1991) and I know it's my own personal choice. I do it for my own ethical reasons. My husband - on the other hand - is a carnivor....however - he will still eat Vegetarian meals and he enjoys those meals as well.....he is NOT a hunter. He doesn't judge. My friends - they make a point to eat Vegetarian at least one day per week (or so they say). I have no problem telling people that I'm a Vegetarian - as most people respect that...and are curious about it. I answer their questions. I don't push my Vegetarian beliefs onto them- and I expect the same respect in kind. Most people ask if I do it for health reasons or ethical reasons. I've already stated my reasoning. I grow my own vegetables organically - simply because I enjoy it. Growing a garden is really great therapy. Yin and Yang. There's a true sense of accomplishment that derives from it. However - do not confuse Vegetarianism and Animal rights (for the most part) with Leftism. The complete Left (nor Right) own the people of the planet. I (we) are all free thinkers - and I have come to my own conclusions. I do not agree with the Leftists Agenda and I hope you can be defeated in 2012.

At one point in my life I became a vegetarian for 3 years and liked myself for doing so. I now enjoy eating a complete vegetarian meal every now and then. I grow my own tomatos, string beans, lima beans, peas, green peppers herbs (various kinds legal and illegal, just kidding ) and something called callaloo. It's like collard greens but not as harsh tasting and can be eaten for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

There's a special feeling knowing you've grown something well and that you can eat it later. something like cooking for yourself, we have way too much processed foods in this country. No many want to see things grown it takes far too long we tend to want things fast and easy. Even in a recession fast food restaurant sales are up. That's why I think our waist lines in this country keep getting bigger and bigger. Grow your own is the way to go, it saves some money and I'll do the same when I move to Palm Beach County Florida.

Peace

Commy

:x