The Vegetarian Fallacy

Wednesday, May 28

Recently, I came across the website of a natural health advocate, an avowed vegetarian, who wrote the following about "The Connection Between Meat and Emotion":

"What you see in meat eaters - -especially beef eaters -- is a lot of internal anger, fear and violence. Just look around. Pick ten people that you know who eat a lot of meat and rate their level of emotional stability, anger, fear, and violence."

"Then take ten people who are vegetarians or vegans and do that same exercise. Then compare those two groups of ten. You will find an amazing correlation. All the people who eat plant-based diets -- vegetarians or vegans -- are non-violent. They are not angry. They do not live in fear. They do not support war and violence. They do not treat others inhumanely."

"Now, compare that to meat eaters, which is what I used to be. Meat eaters are violent, and fearful. They support war. They might own many guns and like to use them. They might go hunting just so they can kill an animal and put its trophy on their wall. That is a classic behavior of meat-eating people. They support all kinds of violent acts by society."

"For example, they typically support the death sentence. They also think that animals can be treated cruelly without any real consequences. They do not believe in animal rights. They do not believe that animals really have to be taken care of. They just rather believe that humans can destroy, kill, torture and maim whatever they want -- even other humans."

"You see, their lack of compassion does not stop with animals. It also extends to other people. That is why people who eat a lot of beef and red meat also support war. They have no problem with the U.S. invading other countries, bombing civilians and killing tens of thousands of people. They have no problem with it at all as long as they can eat their steak and say, 'Oh, we are fighting for freedom.' That is very characteristic of meat eaters."

Whew! You get the idea. To support these dogmatic assertions, this health authority invokes an old theory: that of the "emotional contamination" of meat. According to this hypothesis, the terror of slaughter is somehow imprinted into the tissues of animals which are used in the domesticated food supply, and these "negative emotions" of fear and anger are somehow imparted to the human consumers of the meat.

But there is no scientific explanation for how that might happen, only the assumption of a "vibrational" transfer that defies the rules of biochemistry. When an animal dies, the stress hormones engendered by pain or injury dissipate rapidly. Also, cooking breaks down hormones and polypeptide neurotransmitters.

What about "humane" killing of animals that is practiced in kosher or Halal traditions? Does that mean that orthodox Jews and devout Muslims are more pacific than their infidel carnivores?

What about Eskimos, deemed to be among the most peaceful cultures on the face of the earth? They subsisted almost entirely on a diet of animal protein. And when their native diet was invaded by Western, non-animal foods like flour products and sugar, their rate of violence and suicide skyrocketed.

Having been a past vegetarian, in fact a practicing macrobiotic vegan, I can tell you that one can derive a certain sense of exclusivity and moral superiority from eschewing most of the foods that mainstream society indulges in. We used to call that "vegetarian hubris".

Some of my best friends and favorite patients are hunters, former military people, cops, political conservatives and foreign policy "hawks" and I wouldn't characterize them as violent or angry individuals. They are great family people, fun to be around, and can be very generous and charitable.

While one is playing rhetorical games around the theory that meat begets violence, how about these instances?

Portland, Oregon has had a rash of deer killings in a certain area over the last 2 years and police say they finally found the killer. Recently, state police arrested a 60 year old vegetarian who has admitted to the crime.

Ronald Livermore would take his 22 caliber rifle which he outfitted with a homemade silencer and shine a light in the deers' eyes before shooting them. He then left the carcasses along roadsides to rot. Police say a majority of the deer killed were pregnant or had just given birth. Livermore faces 8 charges which include tampering with evidence, waste of deer, hunting while suspended and aggravated animal abuse. I guess he didn't like meat!

One of the world's most celebrated vegetarians was Adolph Hitler. In "Hitler's Table Talk," a compendium of his conversations, he is recorded as having said:

"One may regret living at a period when it's impossible to form an idea of the shape the world of the future will assume. But there's one thing I can predict to eaters of meat: the world of the future will be vegetarian."

According to the website www.vegetariansareevil.com, the following mass murderers were vegetarian: Pol Pot, the notorious dictator of Cambodia; Charles Manson; and Ghenghis Khan. Additionally, William MacDonald, Australia's most famous serial killer, was said to be vegetarian.

Dutch vegan Volkert van der Graf was a notorious militant animal rights activist convicted in the assassination of Dutch journalist Pym Fortuyn.

From personal experience, while most of my vegetarian acquaintances are mellow and laid back, some are extremely rigid, intolerant and self-righteous.

Off all the hundreds of interviews I've done on Health Talk, the low point was an interview I conducted in the early 90's with a well-known vegan advocate, author of a popular book on how to save the planet. During the course of our conversation, which I felt was very sympathetic to vegetarianism, my guest seemed to become infuriated. While we paused for a commercial break, I asked him if anything was wrong, and he replied that I was constantly "interrupting" him. I had the distinct impression that if the phone were a gun pointed at my head, he would not have hesitated to pull the trigger.

Folks, there is no right or wrong here. All I ask is that both sides in the diet debate maintain scientific objectivity, and open their minds to the possibility that humans can subsist on a wide variety of foods, and that the ideal diet may be a matter of an individual's genetic predisposition and/or their specific health condition. Let's not confuse facts with ideology.