Flexitarian, Fanatical, or Fair?
A recent article in The Daily World suggested that we “learn flexibility with meat eating.” The scenario posited was this: imagine you have decided to go vegetarian, have tossed out all meat, poultry and fish, and stocked up on plant foods. Then you are invited out to a romantic steak dinner. Do you throw your ethics out the window or decline the invitation? According to proponents of flexitarianism, you can hold on to you ethics and your steak by being flexitarian. For anyone who is an omnivore, this might seem reasonable. But the real kicker for vegans who care about animals is this: Bruce Friederich, Vice President of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, is right there saying:
“If people influenced by health consequently cut back on fish and meat consumption, that helps animals. If two people cut their meat in half, it helps as much as one person going completely vegetarian.”*
Suddenly, Flexitarianism now has the PeTA stamp of approval, so it must be ethical, right? First of all, vegetarianism does not improve the situation for animals; in fact, it may exacerbate things. How many newborn chicks die for the eggs, and how many babies (calves) die for the milk, cheese and yogurt that a vegetarian consumes? Then there is the horrific life of a dairy animal, which includes rape, long hours of standing, mastitis, and hugely enlarged udders which become encrusted with sores. If you have ever seen a video of those newborn calves taken from their mothers, you are not likely to ever forget it. And then there is the ultimate trip to the abattoir for the calf and mother alike, of course. Telling the public that going vegetarian or flexitarian helps animals sends a very muddled message.
This seems to be a new position for PeTA, whose director of research said in a Newsweek article circa 2009:
“Given the environmental, cruelty and health impact of a meat-based diet, going vegan is best, going vegetarian is good, and being a flexitarian is like smoking two packs of cigarettes instead of ten, beating one pig down the slaughter ramp instead of two, and pouring a pint of gasoline down a drain instead of pouring down a gallon.”**
Mark Bittman, noted author of Food Matters suggests much the same. After all, it is just too hard to go vegan, right? Usually those making that statement have never even tried; they are looking for an easy way out. But it is no easy way for the animals that must endure horrendous lives of illness, discomfort, pain, and misery. It does not help those that must suffer the terror and callous treatment at the end of the line at the slaughterhouse. And the truth is, there are thousands upon thousands of vegans who beg to differ: we find it extremely easy to be vegan. For most of us, one bit of information about the lives of animals, one video of the slaughterhouse, and we were done. It was easy, because every time we think of animal products, we see those images and we refuse to budge. We will NOT participate.
Earlier this year, Wayne Pacelle offered the following:
“It doesn’t take an all-or-nothing approach to make a major impact, and giving customers more meat-free meal choices will improve health, reduce the impact of global warming, and help animals,” Pacelle said.***
Pacelle, CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, is not known for taking all-or-nothing approaches to protecting animals. HSUS has owned stock in some of the worst animal exploitative industries, allowing them to profit from the consumption and slaughter of animals. This fact alone weakens any moral stance Mr. Pacelle could take. Coupled with the fact that many if not most HSUS members consume animal products themselves, this appears to be one very flexible animal protection organization: for some of the animals, some of the time. While Mr. Pacelle is himself a vegan, he must as CEO of a large animal welfare organization protect the donations which come is to the tune of millions of dollars per year.
Standing in opposition to child abuse, human trafficking, rape, incest and domestic violence somehow does not make a person fanatical. Standing in opposition to abject cruelty and torture of animals does. Call me fanatical, but all this talk of flexibility and flexitarianism offends me, coming from supposed animal rights folks. Sounds like a lack of spine to me.
*“Learning flexibility with meat eating,” Daily World, July 14, 2010
**”Part-time Vegetarians”, Newsweek, September 29, 2008, by Karen Springen
***“Compass Launches Landmark ‘Flexitarian’ Initiative”, HSUS website
facebook 
twitter 
email Tags: Bruce Friederich, dairy abuse, flexitarian, HSUS, Mark Bittner, PETA, vegan, vegetarian, Wayne Pacelle
Subscribe RSS
I’m a fairly new vegan (not quite a year yet), so take this for what it’s worth. If the goal is to get the maximum number of people to give up meat, then you need to think in terms of tactics, not purity tests.
If someone’s gone from eating meat every night to eating meat one night a week, you should praise them, support them, and pat them on the back. Maybe, after a while, you could gently suggest they could go even further. But if soemone’s made that big a change (to them), and in response they get, “Oh, yeah, well, you’re still a murderer,” they’re going to chuck the thought of going totally vegan right out the window.
Hi Tim! Congratulations on going vegan. I understand what you are saying, but would never agree that it is okay to sell out the rights of other beings. I also would never say something like “you are still a murderer.” I come from a place of peace and trying to understand others. But when organizations are supposed to be standing up for the rights of animals and then sell out, it gives a mixed message to the public. You can always encourage positive changes, but still keep the baseline a no-harm approach to eating, a non-violent lifestyle.
It seems to me that the people who will choose to be vegan or vegetarian will regardless of PETA’s stand. The concept of flexitarian is more to remind the omnivores to eat less meat and in the process they may educate themselves and eventually choose to be vegetarian. As soon as you cut off someone’s options they are less likely to change.
Most people are coming from a lifetime of eating meat. It is a habit supported by many communities. It is an addiction and many can not imagine a life without it. These are the people who fear vegetarianism, who ridicule vegans and also fear change of any kind. They need to be eased into this lifestyle or they will turn their noses at it and in some cases eat more meat.
I would rather see someone feel supported in their choice to eat less meat than not change their diet at all. And in time they will see there is nothing to fear.
But being an abolitionist I respect that you probably won’t agree.
Hi Catherine! The point of the post was not to disparage anyone who is making positive changes, but rather to call out groups that are supposed to be committed to taking a stand for the animals, and then sell out these same animals by promoting an “easier” choice. If we keep the baseline veganism, which means non-violence to nonhuman animals, then anyone who is working towards that goal is making positive steps. For instance, try going vegan for breakfasts at first, then include lunch, then dinner. It is when the animal protection groups lower the bar to something that still harms the rights of others that it raises my ire – and often allows people to mistakenly believe they are helping animals by violating and killing less of them, rather than moving towards a no-harm position in their own time frame.
Excellent essay!
It goes in a similar line as Tim Gier’s recent essay. Both explain to great extents the simple but extremely difficult line to cross between Utilitarianism and Deontological ethics!
Regards,
Thank you! I couldn’t agree more. The opening scenario: Why is it a choice between steak dinner and refusing the invitation? How about choice C–suggesting a vegan or vegan-friendly restaurant. There! Problem solved. Hard-schmard. It’s a shame PeTA and HSUS are endorsing the wishy-washy approach.
Great post. This is the argument I hear the most often from people who think I’m being inflexible, trying to reach perfection, or unable to relax about food. The truth is this: yes, technically, eating a little bit of meat is better than eating a lot of meat. However, as a society, we are generally unaccepting of exceptions to rules related to rights issues. For example, very few people say it’s ok to beat your kids some of the time, if it affords you some convenience or makes it easier on your child-abusing host.
That may be a bit of a gruesome or extreme example, but it highlights the point that PeTA’s stance confuses the issue, plain and simple. At its core, veganism is a rights issues, and to the dismay of flexitarians everywhere, there is no middle ground when it comes to the violation of the fundamental right not to be owned, used, abused, and killed.
On the topic of T-shirts, a good slogan for one might be:
“There is no such thing as a part-time vegan”.
Great post. I’ve just started listening to your podcast and have very much enjoyed it so far. I don’t believe we can have flexibility on this issue. To those who support a flexible approach, imagine if you had been wrongfully convicted of a crime and had been imprisoned in a horrible dingey cell in solitary confinement. Would you prefer people to be campaigning for better conditions in that cell, maybe even a bigger cell with outdoor access or would you prefer people to campaign for your complete release? I know which one I’d pick.
We don’t need to attack or degrade people who have adopted vegetarianism. Just keep a consistent message that veganism is the only baseline that is consistent with animal rights.
Barbara,
Could you give some background or links on the statement “HSUS has owned stock in some of the worst animal exploitative industries, allowing them to profit from the consumption and slaughter of animals.”
As you know, I am learning. Well, hopefully we all are!
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
– Walt Whitman
give people grace and mercy though we dont deserve it!!! I would extend this to either extremes like vegan or meat-eater( omnivore who overeats meat)0r even the middle ground: the omnivore who want toeat more veggies!! by nature man has known to contradict himself through his lifestyle their is no need to stone him to to death!!
To Anika:
Here is HSUS link – http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2009/09/tyson_resolution_090109.html.
Here is another: http://givinuthefacts.blogspot.com/2010/01/hu-stock-portfolio-spidey-thought-hed.html
There are many references online, and many articles about this phenomenon. It would appear to be a conflict of animal interests for an animal protection organization to own stock in companies that exploit animals, yet PETA and HSUS both do so.
Sorry for the delay – somehow missed the earlier posting of your comment.