I picked up this from the paleofood list.

Peter

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

COMMENTARY: Great Debate Builds the Rationale for Eating Meat
by Dan Murphy on 8/11/00 for www.meatingplace.com
(Editor's note: This week’s commentary discusses the results of a
live,
on-air debate carried by a Virginia public radio station between Dan
Murphy,
MM&T Editor, and a member of the notorious anti-industry group People
for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals on the subject -- naturally -- of eating
meat).

Vince Lombardi might not approve, but sometimes, the best defense
is a good offense.  When it comes to the radical animal activists and
their
preposterous allegations about animal welfare and the nutritional
impact of
meat eating, it’s virtually impossible to defend the industry against
the
litany of accusations they have memorized in a tidy, sound-bite
format.
"Factory farmers cage their livestock in pens so small they can’t even
turn around."

"Slaughter workers chain the cows by their legs and drag them to the
plant
behind a tractor." Eating meat causes obesity, heart disease, strokes
and cancer
-- and it destroys your sex drive. The list is endless -- and
ridiculous. To be
sure, the outrageous nature of the  activists’ accusations about
meatpacking and
livestock production is a big part  of the reason many industry
officials choose
not to take them on.  In fact, I myself got some unsolicited advice
along those
lines prior to a radio debate against PETA in which I just
participated. The
broadcast occurred on Aug. 5, happily for me during the American
Association of
Meat Processors Convention that I was attending. (The PETA person and
the talk-show
moderator  were in studio, while I phoned in from the convention site
in Lancaster, Pa.)

"You shouldn’t be on the same program with these nut jobs," one
industry veteran
scolded me. You’re just giving them a forum to spew their (expletive
deleted)."
"I wouldn’t do it if I were you," another official urged. "There’s no
way to win with
these people, because they won’t deal with the facts." Well, I’m here
to tell you that
in fact you can take on these activists, and you  can beat them at
their own game. You
can force them to deal with the facts, and with a little positioning,
you can turn the
debate into a forum for the industry’s point of view -- not theirs.
But that wouldn’t
have happened had I prepared myself to try to counter every allegation
PETA makes.
Staying on the defensive all but guarantees that no matter what you
say, the animal
activist gets to occupy the moral high ground, and you end up sounding
like an apologist
for a bunch of bad actors (at best) in the business.  Nor does it work
to get emotional
and try to play PETA’s game of "smear the other guy." That’s
definitely a no-win situation.
Here’s how I handled the debate.  First, you have to make the point
that meat production
and meat consumption have been a part of every culture and every
civilization throughout
history, using examples such as Native Americans, whom these PETA
types worship as being
spiritually attuned to Nature and dedicated guardians of Mother Earth.
Which I acknowledge
as well. I was married to a Native American woman, and they are a very
spiritually
enlightened people. But they were (and are) also active meat-eaters,
who trapped and
fished and hunted deer, elk, bear, rabbits, squirrels, birds, fish,
clams -- you name
the animal, it was part of their diet. Why? It’s called survival, and
up until very
recently, the inclusion of animal protein in the human diet just about
anywhere in the
world was by necessity, not by choice.  The point is that our modern
food production
and distribution system gives us the luxury of deciding, "Gee, I think
I’ll give up
meat." That simply wasn’t the case historically, and in fact, it isn’t
the case right
now for much of the world’s population.  Of course, along with the
history lesson, it
doesn’t hurt to throw in a few jabs, such as: "So you're saying that
the native Innuit
people living north of the Arctic Circle should simply stop hunting
seals and start
growing soybeans, which they can then grind into tofu inside their
huts to live on,
right?" Or: "Well, maybe you’d like to suggest to those starving
nomads in  Somalia
that they shouldn’t be milking goats for a bit of nourishment, because
domesticating
animals is akin to slavery, and besides, milk isn’t very healthy for
you anyway." That
puts THEM on the defensive, because they have no good answer to either
of those scenarios.
They can’t slam Native Americans. They’re role models for these veggie
types on issues
like the saving the environment  and pursuing a counter-cultural
lifestyle, which
permeates everything they believe. And they can’t crack on Third World
countries,
because people of color are their rothers in bondage to heartless,
oppressive
governments and the mega-corporations they serve.  All they can offer
is a lame response
like, "Well, they could buy foods produced elsewhere and still go
veggie," which then
allows me to hammer home the point that it’s our modern, Western food
production and
distribution systems that even allow us the luxury of thinking about
vegetarianism.
(Important note: When debating PETA types, constantly interject
phrases such as
"Western civilization," or "Western food production system." The word
"Western" is
like kryptonite to a veggie. They start sputtering and stuttering
whenever they hear
it, because it symbolizes everything they hate. And that makes getting
over on them
that much easier.)  After establishing the rationale for meat
consumption, the next
target is so-called factory farming. For a PETA person, describing (in
detail) the
abuses in meat production is like having sex for the rest of us. It’s
one of the most
thrilling parts of their "business."  But that position is effectively
countered by
emphasizing the responsibility we all have to investigate the source
of any type of
purchase we make, whether it’s food, clothing, or whatever.
"You wouldn’t buy clothing from a company that you felt was exploiting
children in
some Third World sweat shop, would you?" I like to ask them. Of course
the answer
has to be no. (Ripping on Nike and other clothing and sporting goods
manufacturers
is one of the biggest preoccupations of veggies everywhere). "I
agree," I tell them,
"and I think that we all have a responsibility to check out the source
of everything
we buy, so that we’re not supporting companies we feel are acting
irresponsibly."
Who can disagree with that?  Then I launch into a discussion of all
the small meat
processors in the industry, who operate shops and stores and plants in
small towns
and rural areas, who support the family farmers trying to stay in
business in the
face of competition from giant agri-business conglomerates, and how we
need to
support these small business people if we care about the thousands of
families
dependent on farming for a living. "If those values are important to
you, then
don’t patronize the big supermarkets. Don’t buy meat from a big
packing plant.
Spend your money at a small company that specializes in quality
products
made by people fighting to survive in our capitalistic society," I
suggest.
Sure, you can almost smell the cynicism. So what? The whole point is
to
marginalize the debate, get it off of a scenario where people feel bad
about
abusing animals and eating meat and onto a discussion of supporting
small business
and promoting stewardship in livestock production and following the
example of
spiritually enlightened people such as Native Americans.  Veggies
can’t battle back
on those issues because they touch at the core of their
anti-corporate, anti-big
business, anti-Western civilization philosophy.  For my closing
argument, I always
make sure to sound accommodating. "I don’t think there’s anything
wrong with giving
up meat," I say. "I think it’s perfectly acceptable, and I respect
anyone who believes
in it. But it’s an individual choice, not something that we all should
somehow pursue."
Then for the clincher. "To me, choosing vegetarianism is like choosing
celibacy.
There’s nothing wrong with it . . . but don’t expect everyone else to
go along with
the program." I like to leave ’em feeling just a little bit anxious.