The ethics of eating

The three choices we have on food ethics, outlined by Joseph Mahon.

Eating doesn't usually give us cause for moral concern; stealing, lying, and hurting people all do. Other practices, such as capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia and war are morally suspect, and we argue endlessly about their correct moral status. But eating, as Peter Singer and Jim Mason observe in their book The Way We Eat:Why Our Food Choices Matter [ Rodale, 2006 ], "is generally seen quite differently. Try to think of a politician whose prospects have been damaged by what he or she eats."1

It was not always so. As Singer and Mason report, "Many indigenous hunter-gatherers have elaborate codes about who may kill which animals and when. Some have rituals in which they ask forgiveness of the animals for killing them. In Ancient Greece and Rome, ethical choices about food were considered at least as significant as ethical choices about sex. Temperance and self-restraint in diet, as elsewhere in life, were seen as virtues. Socrates, in Plato's Republic, advocates a simple diet of bread, cheese, vegetables, and olives, with figs for dessert, and wine in moderation. In traditional Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist ethics, discussions of what should and should not be eaten occupy a prominent place. In the Christian era, however, less attention was paid to what we eat - the major concern being to avoid gluttony, which, according to Catholic teaching, is one of the seven cardinal sins."2 The Catholic Church, of course, was never indifferent to what the faithful ate, though it was, and remains, much more obsessed by the sins of concupiscence. The prohibition on eating meat on Friday was imposed on Irish Catholics with great severity during the high tide of the Catholic era in this country, while the privations associated with Lent also imposed a culture of considerable austerity.

But over the last 30 years, there has been a developing moral or ethical concern - as distinct from a medical concern - about the food choices that we make. "Many people," report Singer and Mason, "have stopped eating veal after learning that veal calves are separated from their mothers soon after birth, deliberately made anemic, denied roughage or the possibility of exercise, and kept in stalls so narrow they cannot turn round. In the United States, veal consumption has fallen to less than a quarter of what it was in 1975. Consumers also increasingly seek out organically produced food, for reasons that range from an ethical concern for the environment to a desire to avoid ingesting pesticides and the conviction that organic food tastes better than food from conventional sources."3

Vegetarians and vegans go even further, of course: "Buying organic isn't enough, however, for the millions of vegetarians all over the world who refuse to eat any meat or fish. In the US, a 2003 Harris poll found that almost 3% of the population say they never eat meat, poultry, fish, or other seafood. Avoiding meat and fish used to be as far as anyone went. Now vegans, who eat no animal products at all, are as common as vegetarians once were. In fact, the same Harris poll found that half of those who said they never eat meat, poultry, fish, or other seafood also said they never eat dairy products, eggs, or honey. And it's not just the vegans who are conscious of food. Throughout developed countries, people are learning to ask tough questions about where their food comes from and how it was produced. Is the food grown without pesticides or herbicides? Are the farm workers paid a living wage? Do the animals involved suffer needlessly?"4

In their book The Way We Eat, Singer and Mason search for answers to the following questions: [i] What is ethical food consumption? [ii] Are all forms of food consumption ethically good? [iii] Are some forms of food consumption ethically superior to others?

[iv] At the end of the day, which form of food consumption should we adopt?

Singer and Mason distinguish between the following types of food consumers:

[a] the everyday omnivores;

[b] the conscientious omnivores;

[c] the locavores;

[d] the vegetarians, and [e] the vegans. The basic thesis of their book is that we should all be vegans, but, failing that, we should at least be conscientious omnivores.

In defence of their thesis, they analyse, in great detail, the food consumption practices of three American families, who illustrate, between them, the three basic categories of food consumption as they see it, namely, everyday omniovorism, conscientious omnivorism, and veganism.

The Hillard-Nierstheimers, from Arkansas, are ( or represent ) the everyday omnivores: "Their food choices exemplify the Standard Americn Diet. Jake, who does the family shopping, generally goes to her local Wal-Mart Supercenter, because it is hard to beat their prices, and she can get everything in one stop. When they want to go out to eat, the family picks one of the many fast food chains in the area."5

The Masarch-Motavalli family from Connecticut are ( or represent )the conscientious omnivores:"they are concerned about their family's health and about the impact their food purchases have on the environment. Much of the food they buy is organically produced, so they know it is relatively free of pesticides, and has not been grown with synthetic fertilizer. In the summer and fall they like to go to a local farm to get fresh, locally grown vegetables. But they lead busy lives, and convenience is a factor too, so their purchases don't always match up to their ideals."6

Finally, there is the Farb family, who live in an outer suburb of Kansas City: "Of our three families, the Farbs follow the strictest ethical principles. Theirs is a vegan household; everything they eat is purely plant-based, and nothing comes from an animal. The Farbs also seek out organically grown food whenever possible."7

At this stage, Singer and Mason adopt the following threefold approach to their topic:

[1] They give a breakdown of the diet of each of these families.

[2] They research, and show, what is involved in the production of the main food components of each diet.

[3] They draw ethical conclusions, and invite their readers to draw the same conclusions.

The Standard American Diet [SAD] of the everyday omnivores is described as follows:

"The Standard American Diet is high in meat, eggs, and dairy products. Carbohydrates such as bread, sugar and rice are usually eaten in refined form, which, combined with a low intake of fruit and vegetables, means that the diet is low in fiber. Frequent consumption of fried foods contributes to a high intake of fat, with as much as 35% of calories coming from fat, most of it saturated and much of it animal fat. A burger on a bun with a serving of French fries followed by an ice cream sundae and washed down with a can of cola, fits squarely in this American tradition. It's a quick and easy way of putting enough food in your stomach to feel satisfied. With America's low prices for meat, eggs and dairy products, it's not expensive either."8

A similar story emerged during the first episode of Jamie's American Food Revolution

[ Ch.4, 13.9.2010 ]. Central City Elementary School in Huntington, West Virginia, provided its toddlers with a hot breakfast consisting mostly of pizza, while lunch consisted variously of chicken nuggets, sloppy Joes, nachos, French fries, instant potato, donuts dipped in chocolate icing, and chocolate or strawberry-flavoured milk. The Edwards family - whose cooking and eating habits Jamie has set about transforming - lived on pizzas, burgers, chips, corndogs, pancakes, sausages, and cola.

Yet contrary to what one might expect from this description of the Standard American Diet, and unlike the line of argument driven relentlessly in the film Supersize Me, Singer and Mason pay no attention (at this juncture ) to the health consequences of this diet. Instead, they focus entirely on the circumstances surrounding the production of chicken, pork, beef and eggs - the mainstays of this diet. The story in each case - so grim at times that it is printed on darkened paper - is a stomach-turning narrative of pain, discomfort, fear, incarceration, death and dismemberment; in short, one that depicts a torture inferno.

The conscientious omnivores are, among other things, conscientious carnivores; they eat meat and animal products from humane and organic farms. In a sentence, their food choices lean to green, and are coupled with a concern for animal welfare. The same principles of food selection operate in a Philadelphia restaurant called The White Dog Cafe, which is singled out for detailed and enthusiastic attention in ch.12. The White Dog publishes a brochure explaining the provenance of its ingredients. It selects meat and poultry only from " 'humane agriculture'" that " 'recognizes an animal's right to clean water, fresh air and sunshine, a healthy diet free of chemicals and hormones, appropriate shelter, freedom to move out of doors, and the opportunity to socialize and live in family groups.'"9 There are also standards for humane handling, transportation, and slaughter.

The vegans in the Singer and Mason study "eat no meat, poultry, fish, eggs, or dairy, and they avoid any food that contains derivatives of any animal product."10 However, as Singer and Mason themselves admit, the vegan diet is controversial. They offer the following defence of the vegan diet: "The American Dietetic Association says that 'Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence,' adding that vegetarians have lower rates of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, and prostrate and colon cancer. Many vegetarians and vegans are adamant that vegetarian and vegan diets are not only nutritionally adequate, but actually healthier than conventional diets; they counter that parents who raise their children on the conventional Western diet, heavy on animal products, are harming their children. After all, vegetarian diets are usually lower in fat and higher in fiber than conventional diets, and experts tell us fat is bad and fiber is good. Furthermore, vegan food won't pass on infections like the rare but fatal variant of Creutzfeld- Jacob disease caused by eating beef from animals infected with mad cow disease, and vegans are much less likely to get the more common but still dangerous salmonella and E.coli infections."11

They concede that what a purely plant-based diet will not provide is vitamin B12. For this reason, they report, "Responsible vegan organizations recommend that vegans and near-vegans take B12 supplement. Another vitamin that is not abundant in a vegan diet is vitamin D, but most people get enough vitamin D by going out in the sun."12

Singer and Mason advance three basic arguments for veganism:

[a] It doesn't involve the mass torture and slaughter of animals.

[b] It is a healthier diet for humans.

[c] It is better for the environment.

The evidence for [c] is that feeding huge amounts of grain to animals, who are then consumed by humans, is an inefficient way of feeding humans; that the land should be used directly to produce food for humans; that doing so would save the world's rainforests; that cattle farming depletes the world's water resources; and that overgrazing is the largest single cause of land degradation worldwide.

As Singer and Mason see it, then, the weight of morally relevant evidence against conventional omnivorism is overwhelming. We just should not be everyday omnivores:

omnivorism inflicts endless and appalling torments on animals; it is not a healthy diet, and it is very bad for the environment.

We are left, then, with a choice between being conscientious omnivores, and vegans, since veganism is simply vegetarianism taken to its logical conclusion. In ch.17, "The Ethics of Eating Meat," Singer and Mason try to persuade us against conscientious omnivorism, and towards veganism. They argue, first, that for the reasons already cited, "buying factory-farm products is not the right thing to do."13 They quickly add that you do not need to be a vegetarian to reach this conclusion. They quote the following passage from Hugh Fearnley-Whittingstall's The River Cottage Meat Book, a book devoted to the cooking and eating of meat: " 'The vast majority of our food animals are now raised under methods that are systematically abusive. For them, discomfort is the norm, pain is routine, growth is abnormal, and diet is unnatural. Disease is widespread and stress is almost constant.'"

What, then, about Fearnley-Whittingstall's well-known defence of conscientious carnivorism, that it is all right to kill and eat an animal so long as it has had a happy life? Singer and Mason are not impressed by this argument. They respond to it as follows: "But Fearnley-Whittingstall doesn't consider that his cattle, like all the animals we eat, died while still very young. They might have lived several more years before meeting one of these other forms of death, years in which they matured, experienced sexual intercourse, and, if they were females, cared for their children. We humans, after all, are prepared to pass up many rapid and humane forms of death in order to live a few more years, even if we are then likely to die of a disease that causes us to suffer before we die."14

In conclusion, we have three positions to choose between when it comes to food ethics, to deciding what is the morally correct food choice to make. They are as follows:

[i] The Singer and Mason position: We should all be vegans, but failing that, we should at least be conscientious omnivores.

[ii] The Jay Rayner 15position: Omnivorism is not just not bad, it is morally desirable. Rayner defends this argument as follows. If a choice has to be made between human and animal welfare, between providing humans with an affordable, protein-rich diet, and providing chickens with the much more expensive option of a completely free-range lifestyle, we should give precedence to human welfare. This is because of the role that cheap animal proteins played, in the middle of the 20th century, in the elimination of diseases such as TB and rickets, and its continuing role in preventing the recurrence of these diseases.16

[iii] The author's own position: We should be conscientious omnivores. This is because of the difficulty of otherwise getting a sufficiency of protein, and because a vegan diet needs very high levels of surveillance and medical information to sustain it. Furthermore, children should not be raised on a strict vegan diet. Vegetarianism/veganism is a food choice which should be made, if at all, by adults.

Joseph Mahon teaches at the School of Humanities, National University of Ireland, Galway.

References:

• 1 P. Singer and J. Mason, The Way We Eat, p.3.
• 2 Ibid.
• 3 Ibid., p.4.
• 4 Ibid., pp.4,5.
• 5 Ibid., p.7.
• 6 Ibid.
• 7 Ibid.
• 8 Ibid., p.15.
• 9 Ibid., p.173.
• 10 Ibid., p.187.
• 11 Ibid., pp.224, 225.
• 12 Ibid., p.253.
• 13 Ibid., p.241.
• 14 Ibid., p.253.
• 15 Restaurant and food critic for The Observer.
• 16 See J. Rayner, "Sure, it might be cruel, but intensive farming saves lives," The Observer, 13.1.2008.