I am two! or: Veganniversary

On the second anniversary of my veganism – my veganniversary – I have been noticing how my understanding has changed since mid-September 2007, when I had a Skinny Bitch-inspired epiphany at my desk.

I have broadened, and somewhat deepened, my understanding of animal rights and welfarism; I have read and read about food equity and down-the-chain cruelties to humans and animals alike. I am better informed and more widely read – and so I suppose it is inevitable that I have noticed changes in how I feel.

I am, two years on, both more and less committed to mainstreaming. I began with the firm conviction that I would do best if I was open and calm, and I still believe wholeheartedly that if I am the only vegan many of my friends know, then the example I set is especially important. I can be most influential when I am most approachable. To this end, I try to be reasonable, rational and intelligent about my positions, and relaxed about social eatering situations. I try bring food to share, and not put my hosts out. I try to adopt an equitable discussion style and I believe very much that although I decry the happy meat-schmappy schmeat movement, that when someone is proud enough of the changes they have made in their lives to buy organic meat or free-range eggs, that I should tell them that I am proud of them too. I believe that to critique someone else’s choices in these situations is counter-productive and plain rude. When they are ready to talk more, I will be ready to talk with them.

I want veganism to become mainstream so that it is accessible and understandable, and a market force. I want veganism to be normalised and demystified and I want it to become as widespread as possible. I see this as the way in which what was originally such a tiny, fringe movement can spread its message and practices to people who may otherwise have no understanding or knowledge of what we do and why we do it.

But I have also noticed that I have developed a small resistance. I find it harder and harder to be silent and I find that my thoughts as I watch someone devour their meaty dinner are more and more filled with disbelief and frustration. I feel this more keenly and more often that I did two years ago. I am more aware, and I am more committed, and I think this has lowered my tolerance threshold.

I have also found friends. Through blogging, potlucking and writing I have found a whole community, spread beyond the Veganville of Brunswick to Perth, Sydney, Brisbane, Townsville, Chicago and those who I know only through their comments. I have found people who I both like and admire, and to meet people who you not only respect but whose company you enjoy is a pleasure.

Although my primary motivation is animals, I know and believe that I am also doing the right thing for the environment and for my health, and that sustains my belief in veganism as a lifestyle, not a diet like locavism or a practice like recycling. It is an everything. There is nothing that would make me want to go back, and there is nothing that would make me feel that I had to.

This is especially relevant as I look towards the next few years of my life which I hope will contain babies and little creatures running around a noisy house. I am certain that having a vegan pregnancy will only benefit both me and my baby, which stems from my deep conviction that a typical vegan diet is three quadzillion times better for you than a typical omnivorous one, and that a consciously healthy vegan diet (the one in which I give up BBQ shapes, beer, chips and spring rolls) will give me the healthiest pregnancy possible, and my babies the healthiest body and mind I can give.

I like to think that I spread a little understanding amongst those I know who don’t know any other vegans. If I can at least cause one omnivore to say to another “Oh, I know a vegan. She’s ok”, then I’ve done a little dance and made a little love, and next time, one omnivore might say to another “Oh, she’s not a pain in the arse”, and the time after that, one omnivore might say to another “I don’t agree with her, but maybe she’s got something sensible to say”, and the time after that, one omnivore might say to another “Let’s not order steak tonight”.

At least, I like to think that I debunk a stereotype. That is, there is a place for the peace-loving, mung-bean-eating, hemp-wearing, loopy-doopy hippie, and there is a place for the activist, militant ALF types. But their place is where they are, and my place is here.

I have never doubted nor wavered in my knowledge that this is it, forever.

Shoot 'em, cut off their heads.

This is what this story is not about:

• country-bashing;
• kangaroos as vermin;
• whether roo culls are necessary;
• whether farmers are cruel and inhuman; and
  
• whether city people are naive, cossetted lily-livered sooks.
  

This is what this article is about:

• that there is no such thing as happy meat;
• that there is no such thing as environmental meat;
• a legal cull (problematic in itself) being carried out and what its consequences for joeys are;
• what the flow-on consequences of roo killing are and whether consumers are aware of them; and
  
• that people are in general entirely unaware of what happens to animals before they appear shrink-wrapped on platters in the supermarket. One commenter with his heart in the right place but his brains apparently somewhere in the clouds said: "Why do we need to kill all these lovely animals when all we have to do is go to the shops for all our food. Surely getting food from supermarkets is not as cruel as this mass murder. I think it's time we took action against these cruel farmers.".

There is no such thing as cruelty-free meat. It's meat. It's great that this is getting attention. But it's terrifying how little people really know about what happens to all the animals who become their dinner.

Further to Schmappy Schmeat - schomething I forgot to add

One thing I forgot to write in my post below (it was late, I’d been thrashed at the gym …gimme break!) was that I do see some role for happy meat (or, as I have decided to call it permanently, schmappy schmeat. It's so sch that it deserves two schs). A teensyweensytinywee role, but in existence.

There are some people who are just never going to stop eating meat. Never. Nuparoonie. They just won’t. If they start choosing happy meat then at the very very least they are actively thinking about and making choices with their food, rather than obliviously buying whatever is cheapest or tastiest without regard to the environment, their health or even the origin of their food (obviously no offence intended to people who buy the cheapest cut out of financial necessity. I'm not talking about you really. But you could totally be vegan and not spend more money. More on that another time I think).

Anything that reduces the reliance on CAFOs is something. I would prefer that the obdurate omnivore had some awareness of the context in which they shop and eat, and made a choice that was in some way informed, than condemn all happy meat of out of hand. Babysteps.

In this way, I suppose I am supporting a welfarist approach. I haven’t yet written about my position on the AR/welfare split, suffice it to say that I am AR supporting welfare. Although my own decisions are based on a simple AR position (that I have no right to take life and that each creature has the right to their own, rather than a more complex argument encompassing liberation theology or opposition to welfare measures), I support welfare initiatives and believe that they are worthy and useful. They are worthy because they reduce suffering. They are useful because they do raise awareness within people who may not otherwise stop to think, and I do not believe that they are placatory and thus anti-animal. Oaks, acorns, and all that.

I also find a welfare position the most effective when trying to explain my veganism to people unfamiliar with it – while most people reject the idea that we have no right to kill animals (even if we can bring ourselves to do it ourselves! An argument I abhor), they will respond to a discussion about cruel treatment of animals as it is less confrontational to their own choices, and connects with their own experience of pets. I don’t think this is a cop out at all – it is using the best form of dialogue in the circumstances to encourage thought and connection.

So back to the point – happy meat has some benefits when linked to a welfare perspective, which when used in a particular way can be effective, and that’s better than a slap in the face with a wet fish.

But it doesn’t make it right. Or happy.

Happy meat, schmappy schmeat, or: No such thing!

The Age has continued its slightly right but mostly wrong series on non-meat eating. Today's offering, "Who Needs Meat" by Nikki Fisher, gives the impression that vegetarianism is a grand new adventure, something a little bit craaaazy that the general public might be amused to read about. Those craaaazy kids! Next they'll be stuffing phone booths and having midnight feasts on campus and driving down to the lake in that old jalopy! Gee whiz!

The article begins promisingly, with:

WHEN trainee book editor Jane Winning first stopped eating meat eight years ago, she was motivated by a concern for animals and the way they died. Today it is a way of life for Winning, a keen cook who lives in Melbourne's inner north and shops for fresh produce regularly at Footscray and Preston markets.

Snaps to Jane! Jane continued the good work:

More recently, she has become aware of the toll that meat consumption takes on the environment. She says that after being a vegetarian for a couple of years, she discovered the work of Australian ethicist Peter Singer, who wrote the influential book Animal Liberation and later co-wrote The Ethics of What We Eat.

So far, so good. The article sets up the animal rights/welfare concerns like a flick of a left jab, follows it up with a solid right hook of the environment, and finishes off with a one-two combo of globalism and health benefits. That there's some teeth on the floor!

Winning typifies a growing awareness of how our food choices have a global impact. Coupled with the health benefits of reducing meat consumption, it is changing perceptions of vegetarian cuisine and who eats it. The mung-bean-munching whiff of hippiedom has gone; today's vegetarians match pinot gris with terrine of baby heritage tomatoes and sage and goat's cheese mousse. And they satisfy their consciences to boot.

And floating like a butterfly, stinging like a bee, Fisher delivers this one:

For those who have made the change or are moving towards it, the sophisticated vegetarian palate is well sated. Take Jacques Reymond's restaurant, for example, where you might sit down to a zucchini flower spiced with Japanese sancho pepper and cooked in lighter-than-air tempura batter, enhanced by the contrasting textures and flavours of cauliflower and horseradish dressing and sweet, slightly acidic beetroot glaze. Or perhaps tender white asparagus paired with green pea and mint puree and citrus emulsion.Hungry?

My goodness lordy lordy me, yes. Following comments from Vue du Monde echo the commitments of some of Melbourne's best dining rooms to non-meat cooking.

So how did it end up with our hero being KOd? Unfortunately Fisher appears to have wandered astray and taken the environmental route to the detriment of any meaningful discussion of why else people may choose to avoid meat. Like previous articles in The Age, this one completely fails to interrogate the assumption (or even recognise its existence) about the validity of eating meat in the first place. This is compounded by the linking of otherwise valid environmental concerns to the 'happy meat' argument:

Book editor Winning agrees. She says she knows several people who had been vegetarian for environmental reasons but now eat kangaroo meat and free-range organic chicken because "the farming of these animals doesn't have nearly as negative an effect on the environment as the farming of cattle does".

and:

CARMEN Bateson, part-time food co-ordinator at Friends of the Earth cafe in Collingwood, eats meat occasionally, but it must be wild, organic or biodynamic.

I am always naively shocked by things like this. I know that many people's prime reason for being veg*n is environmental. For many animal or health issues come second, and I'm cool with that. But to feel that 'happy meat' so ameliorates all those ethical concerns that it's ok to chow down on kangaroos whose joeys may have been clubbed to death in the pouch, or on cows who may have led exactly the same existence as the ones who ended up in Big Macs except for the lack of chemicals in their feed, astonishes me. Happy meat is not ethical. It may be environmentally nicer, but the fact remains it doesn't guarantee any humanity in the life or death of creature killed, it still requires the death of living being, and I think that if you care enough about the environment to want to eat flesh that when alive hadn't consumed chemical feed, you should probably care a bit about the animal too. Eating happy meat means that you don't. At all. So just call yourself a chemical-free eater, not an 'ethical meat eater'.

I also found that the article presented vegetarianism like I imagine it was sometime in the early 1980s - tricky, unusual and at odds with the general population (oops, that's veganism!). Comments like these ones don't really do much to embed vegetarianism in the normal operaiton of society:

Winton cites gastro-pubs as being the worst offenders for offering the vegetarian little beyond a bowl of chips.

Winton again:

"Unfortunately some vegetarian restaurants give vegetarian food a bad name by serving bland food with no texture," Winton says. "I wouldn't expect my friends, who all eat meat, to go to a vegetarian restaurant - even a good one - so I go to a lot of non-vegetarian restaurants and wish their menus were more balanced."

In 17 years of vegetarianism across three continents I never, ever had to eat just a bowl of chips (and again ... that's veganism!). Sure, many pubs have little to offer, and many restaurants appear not to have let the 1980s with their veggie dishes, but just chips? Surely not. More to the point, though, is that these comments are not exactly welcoming or encouraging. A lot of would-be veggies are apprehensive about how they would manage their new choices in environments where they have previously relied on, say, a parma. Hearing that there's a lot of bad food out there (as though every meat dish necessarily tastes like manna mixed with ambrosia) and that friends shouldn't be expected to visit vegetarian restaurants - even good ones! - could be pretty disheartening.

Some sensible comments about health, such as this one by Dave Hughes:

Hughes says his motivations for abandoning meat were health and the environment. "I read that red meat can be linked to bowel problems. I haven't studied all the science, of course,but it made sense to me. Some of my family members had issues with bowel cancer ... once I get something in my head I just go with it."

were great. But some others made me gnash my teeth in grrrargh frustration:

"I'm no purist though," says Gowing. "If I feel like I need to eat some meat, I do."

In my year 8 Commerce class Mrs Eng taught us the difference between a need and a want. Guess which is which. Just admit you want it because you want it.

Nonetheless, the article presented a number of positive comments, although I note that most were made by people who have been involved in the vegetarian world for some time, or who really consider the beauty of cooking:

Paul Mathis, who opened Soulmama in St Kilda in 2002, has seen big changes in the business, especially in the diners at his dedicated vegetarian restaurant. "We get big, brutish men coming in now; we didn't have that six years ago," he says.

Mathis believes environmental concerns have sparked the shift. "Reasons to eat less meat are becoming clearer to more and more people through the general media..."

and

Beh Kim Un, chef and co-owner of Carlton's Shakahari, attributes the restaurant's success over more than three decades (it is the only vegetarian restaurant consistently included in The Age Good Food Guide) to its light-hearted approach to vegetarianism and food that balances vegetarian protein and texture in a mainstream way.

"Today 80 per cent of our customers are non-vegetarian; they come to Shakahari to supplement their meat diets," he says. This includes more men and people with environmental concerns.

Un brings produce from his organic farm outside Kyneton to the Shakahari kitchen. "If you have a good apple or beans you don't have to do much, and you don't crave anything else when you eat nutritious food," he says.

This is the other thing that Beh Kim Un said, and I think it deserves italics:

"The food touches people's psyche and they don't know why it is so good."

I might suggest that people who choose not to eat meat do know why, but that the universality of eating food that is as good for you as it is simply good, is a powerful thing.

So, let's get over the happy meat thing. It's okeydokey to be a veg*n whose prime motivator is the environment or health rather than the animals. But this doesn't mean that happy meat is cool. Or that vegetrianism is hard. Or that you should get all pretendy about.