The Conscious Case Against Another Foolish Article.

Some of you may have gotten wind of an article posted a few days back on Ecosalon.com, entertainingly entitled "The Conscious Case Against Veganism." In it, the author Abigail Wick lays out eight of the most tired and trite arguments against veganism. She does so after first explaining that while she is no longer vegan, she spent all her vegan years (months, perhaps?) being that vegan - the one everyone dreads to meet.

Well, here are the responses that popped instantaneously into my head as I read her "article" - answers that are likely obvious to pretty much every actual conscious vegan on the planet.

Argument 1: Vegans also eat processed foods and therefore a vegan diet is no better than the Standard American Diet; we should all be slow foodies instead.
Response: Well, duh. Vegans are people too. But we don't eat any more processed foods than anyone else, and in fact we're a lot more likely to be aware of food issues - because we tend to actually be educated about the food we eat. The inference in this paragraph that we are separated from the "local, sustainable, slow food" movement is laughable. I can't count how many discussions I've seen (and begun) about farmer's markets, CSA's, and backyard vegetable gardening. Not to mention that we're OBSESSED with cooking! In short, this argument is a joke.

Argument 2: The oyster argument.
Response: First of all, are you kidding? You really couldn't pull out anything better? When are you folks going to get sick of trotting this one out? Anyway. We don't eat oysters because they are animals, and because we've drawn a line. And just as importantly, it's basically impossible to purchase oysters without monetarily supporting the people who also kill and sell shrimp, crabs, lobsters, fish, those other bivalves you're so concerned about, and (accidentally but just as brutally) turtles, dolphins, and any other number of aquatic life. So no, we don't eat oysters. And we don't put money into the pockets of the people who are completely destroying the aquatic ecosystems of the world. Next?

Argument 3: No one wants to eat food that has to be put in quotation marks.
Response: OK, so we say "chicken." Big deal. Are you telling me that non-vegans aren't eating mock food? (Doesn't that directly contradict the major point in Argument 1?) I have long considered about 90% of what gets sold in any grocery store in the United States to be "food." Have a look at a bottle of Nantucket Nectars or a package of Kraft American Singles lately? If these aren't "juice" and "cheese," I don't know what they are. The author here seems to be laboring under some delusion that vegans eat nothing but processed fake "meat" products all day long. Maybe she never got past that extremely novice phase of veganism, who knows. But personally, I don't know any vegans who eat that way. Those foods are occasional treats, not staples. What I do know is that every time I'm at the grocery store I see plenty of people buying hot dogs and Kool Whip - what is that made of again? Petroleum products?

Argument 4: Not all wool farmers are bad.
Response: Ummm... wha? OK, so maybe there are a relative handful of sheep scattered across the globe that aren't suffering from maggott infested sores so that you can have a snazzy winter coat. But here's the thing: how can you be sure? Have you actually been to the farms, witnessed the conditions and seen the harvest? We make it easy. We just don't buy wool. That way we can be sure that we are not contributing to the cruelty that is behind the vast majority of this favorite fiber. How else is it possible to be certain? Claims of "ethical sourcing" are a dime a dozen for every animal product you can name - that doesn't make it so. Don't *even* get me started on "free range." This is just more of the same. Not to mention the bottom line is that you're still keeping animals in captivity for your own purposes - something that many-to-most vegans consider morally wrong. Finally, I've been living in NYC for the past six winters, and I've done just fine without wool.

Argument 5: Chickens are happy in backyards, and they lay eggs anyway...
Response: Uh, yeah. So, should we talk numbers here? How many BILLIONS of eggs are sold each year in the U.S.? And exactly how many of those come from chickens... that were raised in people's backyards?? Oh, right, none. If they were hanging out in backyards, we wouldn't constantly be battling an enormous industry known as "factory farming" now would we? "...a nice plot of green grass for scratching and pecking, room to roost, and cruelty-free living in a halcyon idyll. Wouldn’t it be tragic to deny a chicken such luxury?" Hello? I've never met a vegan who wants anything else for every chicken on the planet. What does that have to do with you eating their eggs? Is that somehow critical to their backyard survival? But let's get to why our author *really* isn't vegan anymore: "Plus, a fried egg on whole-wheat toast with a side of steamed collard greens is a heaven unto itself – just don’t forget the hot sauce!" Translation: Who needs morals or ethics when you can have a yummy sandwich!

Argument 6: Honey is more sustainable than "cash crop" sugar and agave and bees are important to the environment.
Response: Yes, no bees means no fruit or veggies. Who EVER proposed getting rid of bees?!?! They are absolutely fundamental to plant ecosystems. We actually just want to let them KEEP their honey - their food source that they work very, very hard to collect and create and store. The food source that you want to take away from them, that will be replaced with an artificial food that will shorten their lifespans, so that you can have sweetened tea. Reality check: sweeteners are not a necessity! So if you're so worried about the ramifications of unsustainable cash crops or unfairly treated workers, maybe you should just go without?

Argument 7: Goats are awesome pets who produce delicious milk.
Response: Mmm kay. So, how do so many people just not grasp this point? OK ladies, work with me here. You are a mammal. You have breasts. And yet you know that they will not produce milk unless you have a baby. NEWSFLASH! This is how all mammals work! They do not produce milk unless they've had babies! Which means - stay with me now - that if your goat, or cow for that matter, is giving milk, and you're milking her and taking that milk, you're taking the milk away from her baby. Get it? Ohhh, it's all OK? You already sent the calf off to be fattened up for a nice veal steak? Well nevermind then. Problem solved.

Argument 8: Vegans are pretentious jerks who judge others for buying vintage leather.
Response: Doing some self reflection there Ms. Wick? Maybe you were the kind of vegan who vociferously judged other vegans for buying secondhand leather, but I'm not. I don't agree with it personally, because I - and many others - feel that it sends the wrong message. Namely, that it sends the message that it's OK to wear animal flesh. Also, ew? Why would you want to wear animal flesh? If you think about it for about two seconds you realize how hideous that is. But why won't you just be honest? You don't want to buy leather thrift store goods to "support re-use, rather than contributing to a modern-day economy of mass-consumerism." You want these things because you want them on the cheap, because you think they look cool and you don't care where they came from. We do care. We would rather find things that look cool AND aren't made of animals AND weren't made in sweatshops - it's entirely possible you know. You just have to put in the effort.

In the end, this article isn't about why not to be vegan. It's about how to not be an ignorant vegan. These are issues that all vegans should think about and have answers to. In the first paragraph, Ms. Wick states that she "fiercely guarded [her] inflexible morality, never daring to reexamine the orthodoxy’s most illogical presuppositions." Well that was her first mistake, wasn't it? I examine and re-examine the choices I make every day. And every day I come to the same conclusions. I have reasons for everything I do - I don't have to "fiercely guard" anything. The day this article was published was my fifth veganniversary. Have I had questions? Sure. But I've never doubted that I made the right choice.

Thank you and goodnight.

Sustainable fish sticks? I think not.

Earlier this week I received a truly perplexing email. Rather than describe it to you, I think I really just need to give it to you whole:

Hi Melissa,

I would like to invite you to join a group of food writers, bloggers and chefs for a Food Revolution Roundtable next Tuesday, 12/14. With your passion for food and your influential talent for writing/blogging about food, you would be the perfect addition to this group!

The details are listed below. Please say yes!

An invitation to a Food Revolution Roundtable

Bird’s Eye, in partnership with their Ad Agency Chiat/Day, is hosting a 2-hour Food Revolution Roundtable in NYC on Tuesday, 12/14. They want explore the edges of the Food Revolution among people who are really passionate about food -- chefs and/or writers like you. Bird’s Eye wants to bring revolutionary thinking to their brand at every step, from sourcing to prep to recipes to packaging. The roundtable will be approximately 10-12 influential people (including you, we hope) and will be really energizing and fun… full of projective exercises and invigorating chat.

For your time, you will be paid $350.

Also, if you would like to recommend a friend or two who fits this description, and would enjoy participating, let us know!

WHERE: Wine Shop, NYC, NY
WHEN: Tuesday 12/14, from 11 a.m. - 1 p.m.
WHAT: 2 hours of ideation, and yummy food!

If this sounds like something you’d like to do, please email me back, or call me at 555-555-5555.

I look forward to hearing from you soon!

Best,
Sarah

I swear to you, I have only changed this to take out identifying details. "explore the edges of the Food Revolution", "ideation", and "yummy food" are all straight from the horse's mouth. When I first skimmed the email, I assumed that I'd just gotten stuck on some mailing list, and that it was a workshop that I'd have to pay through the nose to attend. Upon more thorough reading, I realized that they were actually offering to pay me. That's when I got really suspicious.

So I turned to tha internets. I know who Bird's Eye is - who doesn't? Frozen corn, right? Ah yes, but also major players in many frozen meats - particularly in the fish stick market, apparently. Who knew. What about Chiat\Day? A positively ENORMOUS advertising agency. We'll call that strike two - anyone know why I don't own a television?

And then, exactly what I'd been suspecting: I started finding articles like this one. Since July, Bird's Eye has been working on an initiative it is calling "Forever Food". Supposedly the company's effort to make its food production more "sustainable", this push is pretty much entirely focused on reducing energy usage during production. They're quite proud of figuring out how to use less energy while flash freezing their fish sticks, for instance.

Uh huh.

So, after a day or so of careful consideration, I sent the following reply:

Dear Sarah,

Your offer is both flattering and intriguing. However, I must decline for two reasons. The first is logistical: I work a 9 to 5 and am not available mid day on a Tuesday. The second, though, outweighs the first: I do not feel comfortable contributing to "ideation" with a company that sells a proliferation of animal products.

Honestly, it strikes me that this "Food Revolution Roundtable" is part of the company's ongoing effort to engage in greenwashing - via the so called "Forever Food" initiative. While cutting resource use is of course necessary for all, from my perspective the project is essentially wrong-minded. Personally I'm far more interested in supporting the small, independently owned vegan businesses already in existence than helping to create more fake "natural" brands or products. Encouraging "sustainable fish sticks" is simply not something I will do.

If Bird's Eye truly wants to bring "revolutionary thinking to their brand at every step", it should take this revolutionary step: Consider the number of animals it currently kills; the environmental destruction caused by raising (or "harvesting") those animals; the conditions of the workers who raise, harvest, and slaughter them; and the dozens of other ramifications easily avoided by simply not selling meat. And please note, fish and marine invertebrates are animals too.

Sincerely,
Melissa Bastian

I hope you're not wondering why I'm referring to "Forever Food" as greenwashing. But in case you are, I will briefly explain my problem(s) with it. First of all, there's the name. Forever Food? Really? We'll have food forever and ever because you're putting your damn fish sticks in a smaller box, and meanwhile still pillaging the oceans dry to produce overprocessed junk? Second, there is no such thing as good aquaculture. Even putting animal ethics aside, the environmental ramifications of even the best run captive fish operations are just obscene. Wild harvesting poses completely different problems that are just as awful. Third, why would we put animal ethics aside? And all of that is really just the tip of the iceberg.

Before sending my response and ever since, I've been plagued with the feeling that I'm passing up an opportunity to be heard. But I have a strong sense that Bird's Eye and Chiat\Day do not want to hear me. Or rather, they do want to hear me, but only just enough so that they can figure out how to defeat or defend against the arguments of me and those like me, and/or to exploit the lot of us. (By exploit, I of course mean more effectively market to.)

If they were interested in genuine change, they would be consulting with environmental engineers - not bloggers and chefs. They would be rethinking their factories and processes from the ground up - not asking me what I think about their packaging. They know damn well what they need to do to make genuine change. It's just that that's not what they're interested in. What they want is what all the big food companies want: to appeal to the growing market of people on the "edge of the food revolution" - or those who think they are. The pescatarians, the locavores, the "happy meat" people. Well they can go right ahead and try, but I sure as hell am not going to help them.

And so, while it is my nature to doubt myself, I do believe that I made the right decision by turning the offer down. (Incidentally, I make WAY less than $350 a day at my job! So it would have been a nice little monetary gain 'round x-mas time. But so it goes.)

Surprisingly, Sarah did write back:

Hi Melissa,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. I am sorry you won't be able to weigh in on the panel discussion this Tuesday. Believe it or not, I believe your arguments are points that the Bird's Eye folks would be interested to hear during this session. Feel free to send us any references of vegan bloggers or chefs you know who might be interested in participating in Tuesday's group.

Thank you,
Sarah

I'm sure they would be interested too, but for all the wrong reasons. And that's pretty much the point.

P.S. - If any of my vegan friends also received this offer and have chosen to go, I respect that - and I hope they hear you.