The Truth About Vegetarianism
I just finished reading Lierre Keith’s new book, Vegetarianism is Moronic, and I’m speechless. It’s passionate, brilliant, and amazingly well written—a must-read.
Well okay, that’s not the real title. It’s what I would have called it. But Keith is far more sympathetic to the dietary philosophy she is addressing, because she spent most of her life embracing it. The Vegetarian Myth: Food, Justice, and Sustainability is, to me, a perfect followup to Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes, which I waxed ecstatic about a couple years ago. Such a powerfully as well as sympathetically stated case against all the arguments underlying vegetarianism is long, long overdue.
Keith, a former, very committed vegan, takes the reader through her own long journey and ultimate disillusionments, considering carefully the full range of initially compelling reasons why idealistic people, especially young women, become seduced by the vegetarian lifestyle: the desire to not kill, the desire to be better to the planet, and the belief that eating only vegetables is the best thing for the human body. She beautifully chronicles her own acceptance of these arguments and how, in the end, all of them fell apart—along with her body, which was devastated by this lifestyle. Women who have drunk or are in danger of drinking the kool-aid of vegetarian thinking should be captured and forced to read this book.
The symbolism and psychology behind vegetarianism has always interested me. A huge force behind the modern vegetarian movement was feminism. Vegetarianism became popular when women became empowered. After the hippies died out, the major demographic duped into eating only vegetables was women. Don’t deny it: Most of the vegetarians you know are women.
The reason for this link between womanhood and vegetarian ideals is simple: In our society, as in most if not all societies around the world, vegetables (and by extension grains) are symbolically linked to femininity, and meat to masculinity. There’s the obvious male/hunting, female/gathering thing. It’s not a myth. Anthropology pretty much bears out this division of labor for most societies. Even in a modern, urban world, stereotypes of food gathering break along the same gender lines: Men hunt or ranch; women (and sort of “metro” men) garden and shop (when they aren’t doing yoga, which is the most ineffectual martial art after Tai Chi—but that’s another post).
It was no accident that the idea of putting lots of veggies on our plates came to dominate nutritional thinking exactly when women were struggling for equality, during the sixties and seventies. Vegetables were empowered along with women: The same way women took back the night, vegetables took over our plates. Suddenly, coincidentally or not so coincidentally, meat started to be viewed by nutritionists as unhealthy.
I grew up during this period, in a household dominated by the belief in vegetables. We weren’t vegetarian, and my mother was a little too old to be a “feminist” per se, but she gardened heavily and made my dad and I eat lots of really boring and tasteless vegetables–squash, tough fibrous beans, more squash, sweet potatoes, and so on—because they were good for us.
I’m not denying that some vegetables are good for you, and a healthy diet makes a place for them, and always has. But the symbolic nature of food sometimes trumps nutritional reality, and during the period I grew up—the period of female empowerment—the reputation of meat eroded right along with male self-esteem, and that wasn’t a good thing. The problem was, the basic rationale for vegetarianism had nothing to do with nutrition. It had to do with changing our symbolic constitution. Even today, vegetarians are not eating vegetables. They are eating symbols of all things moral and peaceful and wholesome and nonviolent and loving toward the planet.
Don’t underestimate the symbolic power of food. Among the other food insults I endured during the seventies was wheat bran. Every morning we had to stir a tablespoon or so of bran in water until it dissolved and drink it down. LOL. I just made a joke there, but you probably didn’t get it. Bran doesn’t dissolve. We had to stir vigorously to get the brown flakes suspended in the water, then chug it down fast before it could settle to the bottom. It always made a big lump in our throats. Sometimes I choked.
Bran tastes like sawdust, because that’s basically what it is. I suppose it cleansed our bowels, scouring them bright shiny healthy pink. I saw my colon in live action once, during a colonoscopy; it was like a big twisty cavern, and besides the amazing paleolithic artwork, its walls were indeed nice and clean and pink. But the main benefit of all that bran was symbolic: Bran was a way of getting trees into our bodies. Trees, those symbols of ecology and purity and all things good and wholesome and peaceful and feminine. Things to be hugged and not shot. Getting lots of fiber in your diet is really the ultimate form of tree hugging.
(Yeah, I know bran is not actually wood. But you know what I mean.)
The fact is, any nutritional argument for vegetarianism has been shown to be baseless. Research studies supposedly supporting it, such as The China Study, have been blown out of the water—the authors fudged their interpretations of the data and were card-carrying members of PETA. They were bad scientists because they were biased. If you don’t believe me, just do a bit of research. And I’ve already written about the physical and mental advantages of a Paleolithic diet (i.e., high-protein and fat, no grains), so I won’t repeat.
And lest you think that vegetarianism saves animal lives, guess again. Keith devotes a section of her book to how how cultivation of plants and grains kills animals, kills whole species, and kills ecosystems.
But the one argument for vegetarianism that always seemed persuasive to me was that meat eating is unsustainable and basically unfair. The argument is that you can yield more calories by cultivating vegetables, and better yet grains, from an acre of land than by pasturing livestock on it, and thus meat eating is ecologically irresponsible in a world full of hunger. It’s the whole Francis Moore Lappe Diet for a Small Planet idea, which progressives embraced during the seventies.
I always assumed Lappe was right, and so resigned myself to the possibility that the human dietary optimum might not be optimal for an overpopulated planet. Nutrition vs. ecology could, I figured, present us with a choice as insoluble as the fiber my mom made us drink. But the great thing about Keith’s book is that she shoots the nonsustainability argument out of the water too. This was the eye-opener for me. She makes a persuasive case that our diet of refined grains and factory farmed vegetables is as destructive and unsustainable in planetary terms as it is for our bodies, and that pasturing animals on grasses is the best remedy for both (an argument that dovetails well with that of Michael Pollan in The Omnivore’s Dilemma). Factory farming of grain is horribly destructive to the environment; just think of all the petroleum and chemicals it floods the environment with–creating for instance a dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico the size of New Jersey. I’m still not 100% convinced that pasturage and the whole food movement could sustain the world’s population, but Keith makes a strong case, and provides a much needed corrective to Lappe. I’d say this argument is the most important and unique contribution her book makes to current debates about diet.
There’s a reason that the walls of my perfectly healthy colon are covered with ancient paintings having hunting themes: hunters with bows and arrows chasing herds of bison and woolly mammoths, shamans dressed in the skins of animals, just like the fingerpainted images that come alive in the flickering torchlight in the caves at Lascaux, France. Humans evolved to eat animal protein and fat. Meat and fat are good for you. If you want to be healthy and happy and not beset by inflammatory bowel disease, vitamin deficiencies, acne, and tooth decay, you should eat meat and fat. And if you want to do a favor for the planet, you should stop eating grains. However much vegetarians want it to be true that their diet is making them pure and healthy, all it gives them is gas and bad skin, and in the long run makes them fat and diabetic (from all the grains, rice, and potatoes they eat instead of meat).
You know this—you just haven’t admitted or acknowledged it to yourself. Consider this post (and The Vegetarian Myth) an intervention. I’m not against feminism, obviously. But sorry, gals. A diet based solely on veggies and grains is bad for your bodies, and it’s bad for Mother Earth.
Well, it seems there are a few ideas to consider in your summary and the book mentioned. You have to admit though, that humans eat too much meat. There’s no real need to as we lead a substantially different lifestyle to our ancestors. I don’t eat meat and I admit that it is a selfish decision. I feel better about myself not eating an animal I wouldn’t want to kill with my own hands. This is not moral or absolute – just personal. I see some things in terms of black and white i.e. music and literature but where ethics are concerned there are only shades of grey. Hah, but we humans like simplicity – good/bad, black/white. Gombrowicz spent his life railing against such unimaginative attitudes.
I’m sympathetic to the not wanting to eat an animal you wouldn’t be able to kill argument. I’ve come along way in my own life in accepting hunting–when it is done in reverence and for food, not for sport. I was brought up in gun-hating, hunting-hating family; it is the realization that, as Keith says, life is eating and being eaten (on every level, including the cellular), and that it is part of who we are, that has changed my mind. But yes, I would have a hard time doing it myself, unless forced. So you’re right, there are no easy answers. But I sense that meat-eating peoples living close to nature do have a reverent, not exploitative, relationship to their food, and certainly the whole food movement is trying to get closer to that.
Wonderful post, Eric. I especially liked the tour of your colon. It almost inspires me to get a colonoscopy. As it is I’m due for an MRI from chronic back pain, possibly due to all the minerals being leached out of my system by grain? The good news is that I just finished Keith’s book as well and I have officially renounced my former veg ways after a dozen years. My mind is still reeling with my former belief system having been capsized but my energy soars. Now I just pray that I haven’t screwed up my kids with all the soy I’d been feeding them. Looking forward to reading Taubes’s book as well. Thank you!
Thank you, Elise! It’s inspiring when people are able to let go of long-held and cherished beliefs. I hope I didn’t come off as too condescending toward vegetarians — I too have given that diet a shot (although never could stick with it). It’s just that we’ve been bombarded by so much wrong science and wrong ecology for so many years. I think you’ll really like Taubes’ book. It can be a bit of slog at times, but it too was a serious eye-opener for me. I quickly gave up the “low fat” idea (as well as giving up most grains), and I’ve never felt better, not only physically but also mentally. I’ve started to think the brain fog effect of grains has been as destructive of our civilization as the physical and ecological degradation.
Best of luck and good health to you.
I’m glad you read the book.
I did the vegan thing for a very long time myself, and there nothing but bad health outcomes from that experiment – acne, depression, thyroid dusfunction from all the soy, eczema, brand new allergies…
I wish I had this book back when I was 15, I could have prevented a lot of damage to myself.
theres a reason why ancient india, and much of europe imposed vegetarianism on its people by force, its because it keeps you docile , feeble minded, and physically weak, in other words, the perfect subject, eh? i hate the world, so full of ignorance, which is exploited by those in power.
The vegetarian/vegan “kill argument” is kind of funny. It seems like no one is concerned about taking the life of plants which provide oxygen to everyone. They move with the sunlight and respond to water, shade, and all sorts of things. That matches the definition of living.
You really don’t know much about Tai Chi. Do some research. It’s a real martial art and extremely effective. (Trust me on this.) There is also Tai Chi that people do for health which has the forms but not the fighting techniques. (Most but not all of what I do. And it’s extremely difficult if you’re doing the long form and doing it right.) And then… There is the new age crap that isn’t really Tai Chi but moving snake oil.
Ancient peoples respected the life and animals they killed for food. They knew and understood that they were taking lives and were thankful and respectful toward this natural cycle. Vegetarianism will continue to be spurred on by this disconnect which is furthered by the horrors of industrial farming.
Hi David, I was actually kidding about Tai Chi — a joke aimed at my friends who practice it. You’re absolutely right, it is a formidable martial art.
Kyndi — you need to read “Nutrition and Physical Degeneration” by Weston A. Price. You’ll never believe in vegetarianism again.
Oh, and by the way, we do NOT have all the characteristics of plant-eaters. A physiologically comparable organism that was designed to live as a preagricultural vegetarian would require a much larger gut volume for digestion; the gorilla is a perfect case in point. Our smaller, more compact body — supporting a large fat rich brain — is possible only for a species that, absent agriculture, ate a lot of concentrated nutrients from animals, the only year round source of such in the wild. Human vegetarianism is very much an agricultural luxury, as the seed based foods (wheat, beans, lentils,etc) needed to provide sufficently protein/calorie dense intake were not available on a consistent basis until farming began. Before that, we HAD to hunt, at least most of the year.
That said, and although I do love hunting, I’m the first to admit that meat, especially grassfed organic stuff from Whole Paycheck market, is expensive. (And so are hunting trips.) Also, I’m quite fond of lentils, black beans, brown rice,etc, So I’d be perfectly content to subsist on a diet of mainly grains and beans, with meat relegated to the status of an occasional treat, for both culinary and economic reasons. But I’ve learned the hard way that I feel absolutely horrible on such a diet, and it puts me on the fast track to type 2 diabetes. Whether I like it or not, whether my wallet likes it or not, and whether you and your kind like it or not, I need to eat lots of meat. Other people have a different physiology and can get by on relatively limited animal foods. But going to zero is a bad idea for anyone.
As for “sharp pointy teeth” (for some reason that phrase called to mind a scene from the Grail…), you fall victim to a common misconception that our ancestors couldn’t be carnivores because we don’t have fangs. Well, you’re confusing two issues: our teeth are indeeed well adapted for CHEWING meat… just not for KILLING it: our ancestors invented spears instead of evolving fangs. We invented poisoned darts and arrows, instead of evolving venom. And we invented clothes when we moved to the cold zones, instead of evolving fur. And so on. Remember, we’re tool users — we copy animal adaptations with technology rather than waiting around for natural selection.
Amazingly well written? I must have read a different book. There were no scientific facts to support his claims and not much logic. If all it takes is to write opinions that you agree with to make a great book, then maybe you should just read fiction.
Anything in extreme is bad. Period.
I’m not against meat per se, but against the current way meat is provided to the masses. When we eat meat in our family, it is certified to be free of herbicides (from the grains), pesticides, antibiotics, and artificial hormones. In short, when we eat meat it must be certified organic. Not everyone agrees with this philosophy, and that’s ok too.
Americans as a whole eat an EXCESSIVE amount of meat, which is what leads to sustainability problems, not simply because they eat meat. We’ve also been conditioned to believe we need huge amount of animal-protein in our diets, which is simply not true. Some, possibly. But not the 1g per pound of body weight many like to espouse in the athletic community.
As with most things, everything in moderation.
being vegetarian actually makes the body healthier because of low fat diet:~`