As many of you know, the notion of “humane meat” or “humane any kind of animal product” is an oxymoron to me. There is simply no such thing. (See
From Cradle to Grave: The Facts Behind “Humane” Eating.)
Over the years, I have become increasingly distressed by the romantic assertions posited by those who consider themselves “foodies” or “gourmands” or “slow-foodists” or “consumers of sustainable meat or humane meat or organic meat.” Anyone who’s ever been uncomfortable at the thought of killing animals for human consumption but who has resisted taking responsibility for it (i.e. most of us) has always sought to have their meat and eat it, too. That is, they figured if something was labeled in such a way that enabled them to enjoy their steak but still sleep at night, then that was good enough for them. So, they abandon their ideals of compassion, nonviolence, kindness or whatever it is that makes them feel inclined not to eat animals at all and put their trust in the very industries who have the most to gain from such spurious labels and feel-good marketing campaigns.
But alas, it wasn’t until the spring of 2006 with the publication of Michael Pollan’s The Omnivore’s Dilemma that meat-eating was elevated to such a degree that you’d think the very animals themselves gave their blessing. With lyrical language, Pollan turns pig slaughter into poetry and likens the consumption of animals’ bodies to a spiritual transcendence that “transforms the body of the world into our bodies and minds.” The romanticizing of something so ugly belies a desperate attempt to deny what’s true.
A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, they say, and Pollan’s text is awash in all manner of sweeteners. For those who so desperately wanted to rid themselves of their nagging conscience and to wash clean their blood-stained hands, they now had their messiah, their liberator. Pollan became canonized, “ethical ranchers” became idolized, and veganism – the one true response to the violence inherent in turning beautiful beings into butchered bodies – became perceived as a naïve (and even dangerous) ideal. Pollan admits he “pities” the vegetarian, ironically (and arrogantly) asserting that “dreams of innocence are just that; they usually depend on a denial of reality that can be its own form of hubris.”
With that, Pollan completely dismisses the idea of not eating animals at all, not because the arguments for veganism and animal rights aren’t convincing enough or sound enough or compelling enough but, in short, because he wants to keep eating animals. Period. Pure and simple. He says it himself: “If I believe in equality, and equality is based on interests rather than characteristics, then either I have to take the interests of the steer I'm eating into account or concede that I am a speciesist. For the time being, I decided to plead guilty as charged. I finished my steak.”
Throughout the book, he skillfully makes it appear as though he thoughtfully considers an alternative to killing animals for human consumption, but it is all a ruse. He is a meat-eater and wants to defend his meat-eating; his arguments against vegetarianism are unfounded and embarrassingly pedestrian. But for all the praise and accolades he received, not one reviewer ever questioned his logic. He kills a pig to “see if I could,” and not one reviewer or interviewer questioned this unethical decision, which, among other things, breeches the journalist’s code of ethics to “minimize harm.” I suppose, however, that the “harm” refers to human beings – not all beings. He uses the pathetic argument that humans are physically designed to eat animals and even says that we’re denying our heritage by not eating animals.
And nobody questioned any of this. Nobody!
Well, *I* did. And so did like-minded folks who, having no need to spend hundreds of pages defending an unnecessary habit, saw right through Pollan’s lofty language. But my blog posts and
podcasts didn't exactly have the power to overturn the damage Pollan caused.
In my
podcast version of my article:
The Rise of the Excuse-itarians, I read Hans Christian Anderson’s fable,
The Emperor’s New Clothes, because I find it a fitting analogy to the “sustainable meat” phenomenon. In summary, it’s a morality tale whose message is “Just because everyone else believes something is true, doesn't mean it is.” And it takes the voice of innocence, of truth, in the form of a little child to pierce the illusion and lift the veil from everyone’s eyes.
Well, I'm now
thrilled to report that another voice has just pierced the illusion - and what a voice! B.R. Myers, a book critic for the
Atlantic Monthly magazine, has written a fiercely honest criticism of Pollan’s book in the Sept. 2007 issue of the magazine. It’s called “Hard to Swallow: The gourmet’s ongoing failure to think in moral terms.” I ran to my local bookstore, sat down, and almost squealed with delight as I read it. In fact, I did squeal and sigh and cry, and I'm sure my fellow book patrons were wondering what the heck I was reading!
Myers adeptly scrutinizes Pollan’s arguments, chews them up, and spits them out. Though the doublespeak of such “excuse-itarians” as Michael Pollan has always been very clear to me, it was incredibly satisfying to have a respected writer agree that Pollan’s justifications leave as bitter a taste in his mouth as they do in mine. And to have it published in a magazine such as The Atlantic gives me great reason for hope.
I will be reading the article in my next podcast episode, but I highly recommend that everyone get themselves a copy and more importantly write a letter to The Atlantic Monthly magazine. The email address is
letters@theatlantic.com. Thank them for publishing Myers piece, a powerful piece of truth-telling that recognizes that the emperor is indeed wearing no clothes.
Labels: humane meat, michael pollan, omnimores dilemma, organic, pig, slow food, sustainable meat, vegan, vegetarian
