Much to Think About in Food for Thought

On the surface, it would seem the decision to eat meat or not is a simple one. Either you do it or you don’t. But read Food for Thought: The Debate Over Eating Meat (Prometheus Books, 2004), and it’s clear that the issue really is quite complex.

An introduction to the nature of the debate is provided by editor Steve F. Sapontzis ’67, a retired California State University philosophy professor who has authored numerous articles on animal rights. What follows is a compilation of essays from a virtual “who’s who” of philosophers, social critics, environmentalists, feminists, and religious scholars who have participated in the vegetarian debate over the past quarter century.

Just how convoluted the debate has become is clear from Sapontzis’s introduction. He admits there isn’t even a clear-cut definition of “meat” and then launches into a discussion of the different categories of vegetarians. While some people are vegetarians by necessity, not by choice, the book focuses on those who choose to be vegetarians. And within that group, Sapontzis explains, there are health vegetarians and ethical vegetarians.

Sapontzis offers an overview of the different types of vegetarians, writing, “Some people who avoid eating meat also avoid eating animal products; such people are called ‘vegans.’ Vegetarians who eat both eggs and dairy products are ‘lacto-ovo vegetarians.’ A person can also be a ‘lacto vegetarian’ if she eats dairy products but not eggs, or an ‘ovo vegetarian’ if she practices the reverse. Honey is an animal product that could be an issue here, but although vegans don’t eat honey, there is no common label for vegetarians who don’t eat honey. They could be called ‘apiary vegetarians,’ since beekeepers are apiarists.”

Amusing as the terminology and classifications sound, Sapontzis obviously takes them quite seriously. He also poses a series of questions that people close to this debate surely feel strongly about but that may lead some readers to the conclusion that animal rights activists need to lighten up. One such question is, “Is the suffering endured by animals perhaps really much less than it at first sight appears to be, since they are much less sensitive to issues of freedom than we are, don’t have anything else to compare their lives to, lack our emotional attachments to parents, children, and other family members, or are just tougher than we are, so aren’t bothered by living in conditions that would hurt or depress us?”

The essays themselves are divided into seven sections. The first offers a history of philosophical vegetarianism while the second section includes essays dealing with health vegetarians—people who do not eat meat because they believe it is a more healthy lifestyle. Section three contains essays about the moral status of animals and the implications on the human diet of not eating meat. Religious teachings regarding meat-eating and the feminist viewpoint are covered in sections four and five. Section six takes a look at the environmental debate that has arisen between “Bambi lovers” and “tree huggers,” and the final section contains essays on the importance of respecting cultural diversity and protecting animals.

The essays do cover both sides of the fence, but most people who read Food for Thought probably already know which side they come down on. Those who aren’t interested in the debate—and who don’t think too much about what they put in their mouths—probably won’t have much appetite for Food for Thought.

—Dana Benson