Hi, I'm Steve and I now call myself a vegan too.

[Steve Wagar]

Folks, I joined this forum because I have lots of opinions about food and I like to get to the truth of things. I'm 55, I was a computer programmer for many years, and I am now trying to become a science writer. My interest in veganism is almost entirely health related. At my age, with heart disease in my family history, I felt it was time to stop eating healthy in an approximate way and to get serious about it. So 9 years ago I started out with the CR Way (Calorie Restriction), which then migrated into Raw Foodism, which then led to The 80/10/10 Diet, which is fruitarian. I've been a fruitarian for 8.5 years and a vegan for 1 month. Cowspiracy inspired me to go all the way vegan where Forks over Knives and What the Health didn't, because I think a fruitarian diet (mostly fruits with leafy green and other vegetables) with small amounts of animal products is healthier than non-fruitarian vegan diets anyway. However, Cowspiracy made me realize that the planet will die if we don't change fast, and so going the extra mile to root out all use of animal products is the message we have to get out there, so I cut out the last of the animal foods.

I realize that the Vegan movement was started to promote animal welfare. I don't agree with this moral absolutism. I see no moral problem with raising pasture-fed animals for pet food. And while meat is not our natural food, if a small percentage of people want a small amount of meat in their diet from naturally raised sources, I don't see the harm in that, either. However, because 99% of animals are no longer pasture fed and it leads to abuse of them and the planet, I think we should aim to get everyone completely off animal products until such time as the whole industry can be run ethically. China has pledged to reduce meat consumption by 50% by 2030, which is a great start. What can we get the US to do? We'll only find out if we try. 10% of millennials vegan already shows that progress is possible.

[Red]

Hey there Steve! Can you elaborate on your stance on raising pasture-fed animals for pet food?

[Jebus]

Welcome Steve,

I think a fruitarian diet (mostly fruits with leafy green and other vegetables) with small amounts of animal products is healthier than non-fruitarian vegan diets anyway.

I would love to know how you reached the conclusion that small amounts of animal products are healthful. All the research I have read indicate that the risk of common affluence illnesses are positively correlated to the amount of animal protein consumed.

I realize that the Vegan movement was started to promote animal welfare. I don't agree with this moral absolutism. I see no moral problem with raising pasture-fed animals for pet food.

Please elaborate on this as well. Are you ok with sentient beings suffering or do you mean that the suffering is unnecessary in food production?

[Steve Wagar]

Jebus, I am not saying that small amounts of animal products are healthful, I am saying that small amounts of animal products are not sufficiently unhealthful for us to worry about them. I would say 2 oz organic animal food per week is fine. It is not going to be the thing that kills you or gets you sick. There are lots of other things you should probably be doing before worrying about that.

I am not ok with sentient beings suffering; I am saying that suffering is unnecessary to food production. Killing is generally necessary, and that is unfortunate and brings momentary suffering, but can be done quickly. I think that can be equated to animals killing animals in the wild; not evil.

RedAppleGP, I don't know what more I can do to elaborate on my stance on raising pasture-fed animals for pet food. If you have a specific question, let me know.

[brimstoneSalad]

Welcome Steve!

I've been a fruitarian for 8.5 years and a vegan for 1 month.

I'm not sure what you mean by fruitarian. You said you include leafy greens. Do you eat beans and nuts?
Are you raw, or do you cook some of your food?

However, Cowspiracy made me realize that the planet will die if we don't change fast, and so going the extra mile to root out all use of animal products is the message we have to get out there, so I cut out the last of the animal foods.

I agree that it takes an ethical message, whether saving our world or reducing animal suffering, to inspire a 100% vegan diet.
Like smoking once a week, a tiny amount of animal product probably won't be the thing that does people in, but if we want to be consistent with our ethics that's a good reason to avoid it.

I see no moral problem with raising pasture-fed animals for pet food.

There would still be serious environmental issues with billions of pets eating meat when it's not necessary. Dogs, for example, are omnivorous and evolved with humans for a long time, and can thrive on a well planned vegan diet. Just because they evolved from more carnivorous animals doesn't mean it's the best diet for them (look at Red Pandas).

And while meat is not our natural food, if a small percentage of people want a small amount of meat in their diet from naturally raised sources, I don't see the harm in that, either.

I think there's still harm in it, but it's a smaller harm and should be the focus of activism. Reducetarians and even hunters can be allies against factory farming and large scale animal agriculture. We have to pick our battles, and I look forward to the day when that's the biggest issue we have to worry about.

However, because 99% of animals are no longer pasture fed and it leads to abuse of them and the planet,

100% pasture fed isn't the answer, though: it actually requires more land. I think Cowspiracy covered this pretty well. We'd have no forests left.

In-vitro meat may be a good solution.

[Jebus]

I am saying that small amounts of animal products are not sufficiently unhealthful for us to worry about them.

Are you suggesting that there is a cut off point between harmful and not harmful amounts rather than a linear correlation?

I would say 2 oz organic animal food per week is fine.

On what do you base that estimation?

It is not going to be the thing that kills you or gets you sick.

How do you know that? How could any lung cancer patient know if it was the ten thousandth or ten thousand and first cigarette that did them in?

There are lots of other things you should probably be doing before worrying about that.

That was a fallacy of relative privation.

Killing is generally necessary, and that is unfortunate and brings momentary suffering, but can be done quickly.

Killing almost always causes direct and indirect suffering. My personal belief is that when given two choices one should choose the ones that causes the least total amount of suffering.

[brimstoneSalad]

I am not ok with sentient beings suffering; I am saying that suffering is unnecessary to food production. Killing is generally necessary, and that is unfortunate and brings momentary suffering, but can be done quickly.

It comes down to the question of whether we value hedonism, or interests.
I would prefer not to be killed painlessly, even if I didn't know it was coming. Most sentient beings want to live; it's not just about experiencing pain, but about having that inherent desire to live violated. I would experience quite a bit of pain to keep living, because my life has value to me. We see the same in other species too.

While harmful, killing can be justified to save a life, but if it's not necessary why do it?

I think that can be equated to animals killing animals in the wild; not evil.

Those animals are not evil for two reasons:
1. They aren't really moral agents and they don't understand the harm they're causing.
2. They have to do it to survive, so it's justified by that (We can kill our shipmates if we're stranded on a desert island too, to survive, it's not considered evil).

But it's somewhat of a myth that nature is that savage. Most animals humans would eat will not die from predation; after they mature, it's usually age and disease that do them in. Being in the wild is not the horror most people imagine, and being hunted isn't that traumatic.
Still, it would be nice to help wild animals suffer less, for example, by eradicating some diseases like rabies, and AIDS (in its respective species).
A wild life can probably be very worth living, and they live much longer and more fulfilled lives than farmed animals.

[brimstoneSalad]

Are you suggesting that there is a cut off point between harmful and not harmful amounts rather than a linear correlation?

I think he's saying there's a point at which the risk is so small it's not worth it for people to worry about.
Like if you go somewhere there's granite tiles or counter tops; you're probably being exposed to extra radiation. But micro-managing your life that much may not be worth the few extra days you (statistically) get at the end of it. Diminishing returns.

It is not going to be the thing that kills you or gets you sick.

How do you know that? How could any lung cancer patient know if it was the ten thousandth or ten thousand and first cigarette that did them in?

I think people often misunderstand cumulative effects and random ones.
With heart disease, it's a slow buildup that you can watch and even reverse. Moderating exposure makes you pretty safe.
With carcinogens, it might be the one cigarette you ever smoked, or even walking by somebody who is smoking, that did it. Random effects are much more frightening and can't be completely avoided through moderation of exposure.

[Red]

RedAppleGP, I don't know what more I can do to elaborate on my stance on raising pasture-fed animals for pet food. If you have a specific question, let me know.

Ah, don't worry about it, your response to Jebus answered my question, and the others will have a better discussion with you about it than I ever will. Thanks!

[Steve Wagar]

Welcome Steve!

Thanks!

I'm not sure what you mean by fruitarian. You said you include leafy greens. Do you eat beans and nuts?
Are you raw, or do you cook some of your food?

Right, there are a million variations. For me, fruitarian means 80% of calories from fruit. Beans and nuts are not fruit, so they are not in that 80%. However, I do eat beans and nuts in the other 20%. I was raw originally, but not anymore, though I eat most of the fruit raw. Nearly always I have a smoothie for breakfast, salad/raw foods for lunch, cooked foods for dinner.

I agree that it takes an ethical message, whether saving our world or reducing animal suffering, to inspire a 100% vegan diet.
Like smoking once a week, a tiny amount of animal product probably won't be the thing that does people in, but if we want to be consistent with our ethics that's a good reason to avoid it.

Yes, ethical consistency is a bitch.

There would still be serious environmental issues with billions of pets eating meat when it's not necessary. Dogs, for example, are omnivorous and evolved with humans for a long time, and can thrive on a well planned vegan diet. Just because they evolved from more carnivorous animals doesn't mean it's the best diet for them (look at Red Pandas).

Fascinating, and I will. I can't agree with the language "evolved from more carnivorous animals"; they are still the same animals from a metabolic standpoint. But if they can eat with less environmental impact at no cost to their health, all the better.

Reducetarians and even hunters can be allies against factory farming and large scale animal agriculture. We have to pick our battles, and I look forward to the day when that's the biggest issue we have to worry about.

Amen.

100% pasture fed isn't the answer, though: it actually requires more land. I think Cowspiracy covered this pretty well. We'd have no forests left.

It doesn't require more land if we are eating 0.1% as much meat.

In-vitro meat may be a good solution.

Definitely, and this is right around the corner. From a practical standpoint, factory-grown food will take over during the next century and environmental destruction and animal cruelty will become a thing of the past out of sheer economic need regardless of what we do. Which is a lucky thing because it is the only hope we have right now.