bridges, not borders

I just shipped off my application to start a local chapter of the Weston A. Price Foundation. (If you're not familiar with the WAPF, here's a rundown of their Principles of Healthy Diets. Price's research was seriously flawed, but these principles neatly align with my own approach.) I mentioned the forming of this local chapter to a friend who said she used to be a member, but now she often eats vegetarian meals and has even considered a raw vegan fast, so she'd be reluctant to attend meetings. "Especially," she said, lowering her voice, "because some of those people are really just... mean."

I assured her that I'd want this chapter to be a welcoming, inclusive place for people whose bottom-line approach to health is Eat Real Food, however they interpret that individually. After all, Weston Price saw a wide range of dietary approaches during his travels. A grass-fed London broil is not the emblematic meal of Real Food, nor is raw milk or cod liver oil or half-rotted calf brains. Veganism in any form will never be promoted by the WAPF, but I think we could have vegan or vegetarian participants if they are curious and open-minded and respectful (and of course the same would be expected of us). Nevertheless, my friend seemed skeptical that my approach could work, convinced that I'd be steamrolled by more dogmatic attendants.

And she might be right. My first introductions to the tenets of the WAPF were seriously unpleasant. I was put off by the aggressive nature of some writers. Of course, I was similarly condescending and dogmatic as a vegan. But whatever spark of inspiration or recognition I experienced was quickly squelched by the hostile extremism of the members I met along the way. And I don't mean simply in one-on-one interactions, which could be blamed on my own hostile extremism at the time. I am referring primarily to first-person commentary from WAPF adherents, which can be painfully derisive and dictatorial -- to such a degree that even if I agree with the basic thesis now, I might be too troubled by the stridency to disseminate the information. 

Eventually, what really brought me around to WAPF tenets was the book The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith. This book is overflowing with logical fallacies and a lack of appropriate research and yet, it convinced me. Lierre managed, somehow, to speak compassionately to vegetarians like me, and that turned my heart to her message. I was able to receive it because I didn't feel defensive or self-righteous as a knee-jerk response to her position.

This compassion is missing, sadly, in most of the messages coming from the "real food" position. Somehow we forget that we, too, were once a USDA lap-dog, or a well-intentioned Tofurkey vegetarian, or the girl dutifully eating Yoplait for lunch. Vegetarians and especially vegans are ripped apart in almost every post or article written from a traditional food perspective. It's great sport to point out the flabby, deficient nature of vegetarianism, to pounce upon every small example of its deficits, completely forgetting that we, too, are evolving.

Are these two positions really the diametrical opposites they are assumed to be? Isn't it possible that we have more in common than not? Assuming that most are vegetarian for ethical reasons, let's see what perspectives they might share with someone coming from a "real food" perspective such as mine.

• absolute rejection of the factory farming system
• support of local agriculture (this isn't a given, but vegetarians commonly aspire to support local food)
• preference for organic and other sustainable methods of agriculture (some vegans don't pay much attention to the animal byproducts required for sustainable food)
• disgust for the Standard Industrial Diet (again, not necessarily a philosophical necessity, but in my experience it applies to most)
• the desire to "vote with one's dollars"
• the ardent belief that one can experience a completely turnaround in health through food
• a cautious, conscious approach to food that honors animals and the Earth

Of course, there are differences. Some vegetarians are willing to consume fake food if it means they don't have to eat an animal, a practice that horrifies real food advocates and is a common target for derision. Some vegetarians are anti-fat (though increasingly less so), while one of the central tenets of the WAPF is the inherent healthfulness of good fats, including saturated fat. Some vegetarians eat much more soy and grain than a WAPF person, although many are growing in awareness of the detrimental effects of large amounts of soy and, to a lesser extent, grain. Some are discovering they are gluten-intolerant and some are allergic or intolerant to soy as well, and somehow they make it work.

Perhaps the greatest disagreement between a vegetarian and a WAPF supporter is that an ethical vegetarian is inclined to believe that slaughtering an animal under any circumstances is wrong. Consumption of eggs and dairy products may also be considered immoral because of the living environments for these animals, the fact of byproduct death, or the simple concept that keeping an animal for food is tantamount to slavery. A real food advocate, on the other hand, is more likely to believe that slaughter is acceptable if the animal lived a good life. Animal foods are considered essential from this perspective, so the question of absolute morality is somewhat irrelevant.

Despite these differences, I choose to believe that I have more in common with a vegan than a person who considers margarine a health food. I consume copious amounts of butter, eggs, and yogurt, and my freezer is full of a cow named Yo-Yo, but if your favorite meal is a tofu & broccoli stir-fry over brown rice, we share a spectrum, my friend. Because you care about food, and I care about food. You care about animals, and I care about animals. You care about agriculture's effect on the environment, and I do, too. And if you were sitting in this coffee shop with me, I would say that I'd like to see fewer animals slaughtered, and you would agree. You would say that CAFOs should be banned for their impact on the environment, and I would agree. We have different approaches to these problems, and that's where the spectrum comes in. But neither of us is in collusion with a person sitting in front of the television with a carton of generic-brand ice cream.

The approaches themselves represent a spectrum, not a divergence. Both diets are unfairly promoted as absolutes. It's not necessarily the case that adopting one approach or the other will completely prevent or reverse common health conditions. You might eat tons of vegetables and still find yourself exhausted and depressed. You might eat lots of butter and still struggle with infertility or acne. And neither approach is absolutely superior for animals or the Earth. When a WAPF supporter can't find or afford grass-fed beef she might make excuses about buying chicken from the grocery store, whereas a vegetarian will simply reach for a bag of beans. And a vegetarian might congratulate himself for eating tempeh instead of meat when a grass-fed steak would both preserve life and keep a local farmer on her land.

There is no black and white. There is only intention, and a community to support it. It's my wish that we could share this community, united in a common goal. For this reason, I support the concept of the Vegan-Omnivore Alliance Against Factory Farming. But check out the comments: squabbling. Like chickens, pecking at each other. Seeing the weakness and digging at it until the thing collapses.

I'm right. 

No, I'm right. 

No, I am. 

No, me.

This is human nature. This is unequivocal. But in my meetings, I'd like to teach peace. Because there's still a vegan inside me saying, "But what about tail docking? What about roosters? What about the stun tank?" There's nothing in me that cannot recognize and identify with a vegetarian's angst about animal agriculture. That angst is a good thing. It's a moral impulse. It's neither ignorant nor self-destructive. It deserves respect, perhaps even admiration.

Vegetarians, and especially vegans, represent a tiny minority. A minority within a minority. Maybe a minority within a minority within a minority of people who actually give a shit about what they eat. Statistically, vegans barely register as a blip, while vegetarianism as a whole is largely unsustainable for the vast majority of those who experiment with it. So when I see article after article after article about vegans killing their babies, developing man-boobs, missing B-12, razing the Amazon, and destroying our evolutionary destiny, and they all seem just a bit too self-congratulatory, I feel not inspired, but impatient. Why should we, as real food advocates and agriculture activists, expend even an ounce of our energy making vegetarians feel bad about themselves? How is this justifiable, except that it makes us feel righteous?

After all, who is most responsible for the vast majority of the environmental degradation and ill health that are the province of an industrialized population? Is it a Portland hipster eating rice-based cheese on top of a head of broccoli? Or is that corporation promoting breakfast cereal laced with corn syrup as "heart-healthy"? Or that dietitian saying it's acceptable for 20% of our calories to come from added sugars? Or that economist promoting the subsidization of corn and wheat by corporate welfare? Or that slaughterhouse treating animals like machines? Or that government supposing that the peak of democracy is a McDonald's in every ecosystem?

Where should we focus our positive energy? At vegetarians, who have landed on one method of boycotting industrial meat? I think not. Our efforts must be more radical. We must turn aside from the fundamental injustice and destructiveness of our food system. We must embrace the positive, the wholesome, the generous, and that includes an ethical vegetarianism that refuses to submit to a culture that disregards our significant responsibility to other animals.

So this is my call for civility. A vegan may refer to eggs as "chicken periods," she may paint a picture of slaughterhouse abuse that we've gone out of our way to avoid, he might consider us functionally lacking in morality, but we can respond with compassion. We can teach peace. And I'd say that we must, not because vegetarians are large in number, but because they are large in heart, and that's the energy we need to fuel our agricultural revolution. We share that passion, that impulse, and that's what is required to change this world.

(This post is shared at Simple Lives.)