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.