The Rational Anthem

Aren't happy cows cute?

I recently finished reading both Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer and The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan.  If it isn’t obvious from the title, both books deal with food, and they begin similarly enough: as the authors’ quests to find out where their food comes from.  The books cover a lot of the same ground – factory farming, sustainable agriculture, etc – but there are important differences.

Foer’s book strikes a more personal note from the start.  The first chapters are devoted to stories about the role of food in the author’s childhood, stories to which he returns often throughout the book when discussing his personal relationship with food.  Soon, though, Foer launches into a vicious indictment of factory farming of livestock.  He focuses primarily on animal welfare and demonstrates vividly how factory farming fails to meet the standard of any definition of that term.  The examples are nauseating to say the least – cows knee deep in shit, pigs sodomized with electrodes, chickens with bones broken under their own weight – and it’s hard to imagine actually wanting to eat meat produced the way he describes.  By the time you reach the end of the book you know that what you’ve read is more than a polemic; it’s a battle cry against the unethical treatment of animals, and, according to Foer, the greatest weapon you wield is vegetarianism.

For everything Foer does well – his presentation of pieces written by advocates of all sides of the argument is especially prescient – there’s something unsatisfying, or perhaps disingenuous, about his conclusion.  As I mentioned above, his concern with factory farms is centered on unethical treatment of animals, but his comments about environmental concerns throughout the book suggests his antipathy is not limited strictly to the realm of quadrupeds.  Thus his failure to comment on the environmental degradation caused by industrial crops somewhat weakens his argument for vegetarianism and leaves the reader pondering what it is he is really trying to say.

This is where Pollan shines.  While The Omnivore’s Dilemma more or less gives a pass to the industry with respect to animal welfare, but it presents a more holistic view of agriculture.  It takes on the issues of monoculture and leech fields.  It lets you know that simple vegetarianism is not a solution.  Sure, it saves energy, but eating food produced on the other side of the equator cannot really be considered sustainable, nor can the dead zones the size of New Jersey that result from agricultural runoff.  Pollan’s argument is less prescriptive than Foer’s; while he certainly pursues an agenda, he doesn’t tell you what to do.  Rather, he presents you with several options, and ultimately with the burden of choice without the cover of excuses.

Thus we arrive at what for me is the real crux of the matter.  It’s not about vegan vs. vegetarian.  It’s not about meat vs. no meat.  It’s not even about organic vs. non-organic.  It’s about choice.  It’s about responsibility.  It’s about respect.  Choosing to eat meat produced in a way that ignores the suffering of animals and encourages human depravity is not respectful.  Choosing to eat crops produced in a way that destroys ecosystems and poisons the planet is not responsible.   The choice of that or something better should not a be a choice at all.