Apr
6
As both an animal lover and an aspiring environmental steward, I am often troubled by the way that I eat. Much of my food travels hundreds of miles before reaching my table, and some of it represents a phenomenal commitment of resources and much animal suffering. Most often, people focus on meat eating as the most relevant intersection of diet and ethics. However, there are equally interesting moral questions about eating vegetables, grains, and dairy products. My hope is to consider a common moral question related to eating habits, as well as two less common questions, and conclude by providing some feasible alternatives that don’t require as much effort as you may think.
Meat eating is the most glaring ethical question related to our diets. Animals suffer horribly in our modern confinement agriculture system, and there is no moral justification for such pain. Sadly, much of the justification for confinement practices is economic, and moral questions remain on the sidelines. In addition, meat production uses a huge amount of resources, specifically land and grain that could be more efficiently utilized for better purposes. The most obvious solution is to stop eating meat.
However, this issue is far more complicated than the standard vegetarian response would suggest. For example, many individuals who chastise eaters of beef, pork, and other agricultural animals will happily dine on fish and crustaceans. Consider the following example, offered by Professor Bernard Rollin. Dr. Rollin was eating dinner with a Buddhist monk at a local restaurant here in Fort Collins, Colorado. Dr. Rollin ordered a shrimp dish, while the monk feasted on steak. Dr. Rollin found it odd for someone who is so interested in the cessation of suffering to eat beef. The monk wisely pointed out that the cow from whom his steak came can feed many individuals, while Dr. Rollin’s platter of shrimp represented the loss of twenty lives for a single meal. It seems that if animal suffering is a moral issue, the size of the animals that we eat is also significant.
The vegetarian still feels justified, because his diet ends no lives at all. Sadly, this is a failure to recognize how agriculture works. Each time a field is plowed so that it can be reseeded, numerous animals die. Just because they are mostly rodents does not make their suffering less important than cow and pig suffering, unless the vegetarian can identify some morally relevant difference between these animals. The idea that animals do not suffer so that you can eat tofu is simply untrue, and it leads to a false sense of moral superiority.
What is the solution to this conundrum, where both vegetarian and omnivorous diets cause immense animal pain? First, we can recognize these realities so that we are clear about what is really happening with regard to the production of our food. Second, we can make a distinction between what morality suggests, and what we have to do in order to survive and also meet certain ends that are important to us.
Morality seems to suggest that we should minimize pain for sentient beings, but in reality, we must eat. Not everyone can tend a hydroponic garden in their home, so if we are to have the other goods in life that we want, some amount of suffering is inevitable. However, we can make good choices about where our meat comes from, choosing to limit meat consumption and avoid mass produced meat products in favor of meat that has been produced responsibly and with consideration for the animals involved. We can also encourage hydroponic agriculture, which I personally don’t hear much about, but which seems to avoid some of the concerns regarding animal death associated with field tillage.
Finally, we can share our knowledge with others, especially those who advance the false notions that vegetarian diets don’t promote animal suffering or that meat animals don’t really suffer in a morally relevant way. Much of our failed practices are the result of false beliefs, and if one truly cares about being an ethical eater, challenging these beliefs is arguably the most productive strategy
Jan
29
Stopping When You’re Full: A Guide to Eating In
Filed Under Mindful Food, Mindful Living | Leave a Comment
Read the first post in this series - Stopping When You’re Full: A Guide to Eating Out
Stopping when you are full is definitely easier at home than it is in a restaurant, but it is still not easy, by any stretch of the imagination. Especially when it comes to snacking.
Don’t do anything else while you are eating. It’s been proven that people will eat up to 30% more if they are eating while they are distracted. Put the book down, put the phone down, and step away from the TV and the Computer. Don’t snack while you are cooking, driving, walking, riding, swimming, or singing. Even if it’s just a snack, sit down and taste your food for a change.
Use smaller plates. This is a trick that everybody knows, and we probably have excuses for. At any thrift store there are usually lots of sets of china in a multitude of sizes and shapes. It is no longer necessary to have all the same plates. Get some to mix and match for a set of 2 to 6.
Put your soup in a mug. My bowls look so empty with a cup of soup in them, but my coffee mug looks full! Also, a cup of soup is literally a cup of soup, so the portion is right. Tons of these at thrift stores too if you can’t stand the idea of having soup and coffee in the same cup (even if it’s not at the same time, which I don’t recommend).
Always have soup or salad. Low in fat and calories, high in nutrition a cup of soup or salad is the best way to start a meal off right. Also, they are designed in a way that forces you to eat more slowly, aiding in digestion and helping you recognize the “you’re full, stop now” signals.
Drink Water. Even if you’re not thirsty, drinking water keeps you from eating when you think that you might be hungry but really you aren’t. And it keeps you from eating when you are full and you think you might want more just because.