Erik Marcus and The Omnivore's Dilemma

[Dandelion]

Eric Marcus is asking people to vote his review (previously published in VegNews) of The Omnivore's Dilemma : A Natural History of Four Meals over at amazon. (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594200823/sr=8-1/qid=1146599548/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-8649733-8424969?%5Fencoding=UTF8)

[Daniel]

I did vote, as asked. However, I took issue with the premise of the review, and, thus, I voted the review not helpful.

[hazelfaern]

Is it just me, or did anyone else have a hard time reading the place-name Polyface Farm without an underlying satirical edge? It's almost as though the farm's owner is half-way to acknowledging his "products" have faces -- or is the name a weakened analogy to the notion that every philosophy has multiple facets? In any case, that lone nomenclature struck me as outright Orwellian.

I like Eric Marcus' review -- I gather he's attempting to simply add context to a popular book on food issues without alienating the omnivore audience in attendance. I like that he alluded to the point that while reforming our animal products industry may be feasable, the theoretical model of sustainable animal agriculture is prohibitive for most farmers and would almost certainly wind up being too expensive for the average consumer. I think that's a notion which deserves more coverage in any discussion with a meat-eater in which current conditions in factory farms are openly acknowledged as deplorable. I tend to believe that the concept of humanely and organically raised food animals is a romatic fallacy which fails to consider the impact of our burgeoning presence, as consumer-driven humans, on this planet.

[mountainvegan]

Good post, hazelfaern. Polyface is a rather ironic name for the pre-slaughter home of these innocent beings.

I agree that Erik Marcus is trying to reach omnivores without saying anything too “daring.” He is also trying to sell his own book (a good thing) by having its title in his popular review. :) Hopefully, more people will read Erik’s book, which obviously romps The O’s Dilemma in getting closer to the truth.

The “nuanced crowd” (over-analytical intellectuals) Erik is trying to reach would reflexively dismiss any bold statement of the obvious facts of the matter (like, millions of humans consuming animal flesh and fluids is inherently cruel and environmentally ugly and irresponsible no matter how much you over-analyze it or try to make and market it “free-range” or “organic”), so he is trying to soft-sell his point.

[Daniel]

If you're correct, and Marcus is simply being duplicitous, than that is even a stronger reason to vote the review unhelpful. I prefer a review that is straightforward, rather than a ruse to boost readership for a book -- and I mean Marcus' -- that is likely to be equally pretentious.

Pollan's book is propaganda for the exploitation of other animals, and Marcus promotes the book with a glowing four-star review, calling it "a celebration of alternative agriculture that every vegetarian should read"; "easily among the most important books on food written this decade"; "The Omnivore's Dilemma deserves the attention of everyone who cares about animal cruelty"; "Nowhere is the case for eating animal products made so persuasively and thoughtfully"; and, tellingly, "Michael Pollan is a talented writer, and had he only put this manuscript out for proper review this book could have been a masterpiece." I'm sorry, but, to me, the review comes off as a pathetic attempt to suck up to a writer for the The New York Times.

Even worse is Marcus soliciting people to vote (positively) for the review, as if promoting pro-animal agriculture propaganda is vegan advocacy. A soft-sell still needs to be based on a persuasive argument for a the object you wish to sell. So, I ask, besides Pollan's book, what is Marcus trying to sell? It isn't veganism. Oh yeah, it's Marcus.

[grog]

Yeah, I hear Marcus made millions on his book. :blank:

[Dandelion]

Even worse is Marcus soliciting people to vote (positively) for the review, as if promoting pro-animal agriculture propaganda is vegan advocacy. A soft-sell still needs to be based on a persuasive argument for a the object you wish to sell. So, I ask, besides Pollan's book, what is Marcus trying to sell? It isn't veganism. Oh yeah, it's Marcus.
In fact erik in his podcast asked to 'give his review a read and click if it is helpful... or unhelpful' so to assume he is soliciting vegans to vote positively is erroneous. Thanks for voting anyway and helping him out. :) Erik often sells himself but that's because a) he really believes his books can make a difference and b) he strives to have his activist work support him so he can continue to do so. Obviously you don't agree with anything marcus says but you could certainly appreciate his effort to continue his work as an activist.

[Miso Vegan]

Self-promotion is a tricky game. Authors, speakers, activists, etc - often have to self-promote to get their message out. Just because some of us, for example, think it'd be cool to hear Dr. Gregor speak doesn't mean non-vegans are beating a path to his door and filling his pockets from their book purchases.

So people have to be creative to promote themselves, to get their message out. I for one have to self-promote as a sales rep now, and previously as a yoga teacher (unattached to a studio), and it makes me very uncomfortable. I hated thinking that there were people who discounted me because I was "guilty" of self-promotion, but I know people do that.

I'm not saying that you, Daniel, are discounting him solely on that, just that it seems a bit unforgiving to expect all vegans to have exactly the same views/goals, and to find it "even worse" that he's promoting himself in a way that can still spread the vegan message (if people start with Pollan and then go on to Marcus, we may still have some converts on our hand).
It takes many ways to reach people, sometimes rather round-about.

[VegeTexan]

I can't think of any vegan book writer who doesn't self promote. They have to and I hope one day I will have to too.

I know Erik, he is a nice guy and we have had several long conversations about his beliefs. He thinks enough of our Vegetarian Society of El Paso to have included our story as told by our founder in his book "Meat Market."

Frankly I preferred his first book, "Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating," better.

At FARM's annual animal rights conference last year in L.A., Erik spoke about certain ideas in "Meat Market" that a lot of our information about the health and environmental aspects of veg*ism are based on irroneous information, that our facts are faulty and that we should be using the animal abuse reasons for veganism as our main focus.

This disturbed many people at AR2005, those of us who speak for the environment and for health.

BTW....(shameless plug follows)
Think about attending the Farm Animal Reform Movement's annual conference, AR2006, August 10-14 in D.C. I am one of the speakers.
www.arconference.org

[Miso Vegan]

BTW....(shameless plug follows)
Think about attending the Farm Animal Reform Movement's annual conference, AR2006, August 10-14 in D.C. I am one of the speakers.


HEY! NO SELF-PROMOTING!!!

:silly:

[Dandelion]

Frankly I preferred his first book, "Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating," better.

At FARM's annual animal rights conference last year in L.A., Erik spoke about certain ideas in "Meat Market" that a lot of our information about the health and environmental aspects of veg*ism are based on irroneous information, that our facts are faulty and that we should be using the animal abuse reasons for veganism as our main focus.

This disturbed many people at AR2005, those of us who speak for the environment and for health.


Hee. i preferred Meat Market because i thought the new ethics of eating was misleading when i felt it should been more 'the new ethics of living'. i think Erik has matured alot since then as an activist and has done some deep thinking on his own. This is perhaps why his views seem radical within the community. Indeed when he talked here about Meat Market i felt the tension in the air as old skoolers got offended as he challenged Robbins. He had enough guts to do so where Robbins is god to many. Frankly Robbins does nothin for me. I don't want to make a Robbins vs. Marcus debate yet again especially now that i'm OT. ;)

[hazelfaern]

Hee. i preferred Meat Market because i thought the new ethics of eating was misleading when i felt it should been more 'the new ethics of living'. i think Erik has matured alot since then as an activist and has done some deep thinking on his own. This is perhaps why his views seem radical within the community. Indeed when he talked here about Meat Market i felt the tension in the air as old skoolers got offended as he challenged Robbins. He had enough guts to do so where Robbins is god to many. Frankly Robbins does nothin for me. I don't want to make a Robbins vs. Marcus debate yet again especially now that i'm OT. ;)

Heeey, but if a gal were interested in reading up on AR philosophy, where would such a gal find an old thread where a Robbins vs. Marcus match took place?

I remember reading that statement before that "a lot of our information is erroneous or misleading..." huh, what, where? Which statements? I'm confus-ed. :confused:

[mountainvegan]

Yeah, I hear Marcus made millions on his book. :blank:

I don't know if he did or not, but if he did, I think that's awesome for a few reasons. 1) A book against and exposing animal agribusiness making millions is great news by itself, regardless of other factors. 2) Like Dandelion said, activists need to support themselves. 3) If you (or anyone) can make a million or so BY promoting a genuinely good cause and perhaps invest that million back into the cause over your life and via your estate after you die, what else is there to do in life (other than ski mountains)?

I don't agree with everything Erik says, but Big Thumbs Up to Erik for achieving something I sure wouldn't mind achieving someday (no, that's definitely not a prediction or even in my plans to attempt).

[grog]

I was being sarcastic ;)

[mountainvegan]

I wonder how much he did make (or is making)? $5,000? $25,000? $100,000?

OT, but I also wonder how much Peter Singer and Matthew Scully made on Animal Liberation and Dominion (respectively)? I do see their books quite often at the big book stores.

ETA re my last post: Everyone is permitted a surprisingly stupid, thoughtless post every now and then. I'll try not to abuse the privilege. :p

[mountainvegan]

I suppose the only way to make millions on writing about AR (or any ethical issue) is to write a best-selling fiction novel which is laced with the ethical topic but sells for another reason.

[VegeTexan]

Yes, MV, and lace it with steamy sex scenes, not too explicit.

[mountainvegan]

Yep, that would do it.

[VegeTexan]

(a fictional novel with some reality overtones)

Spirit Bear
by me

He stopped and sat by the waterfall on his patrol of the West entrance to Yellowstone National Park. Ranger Moore thought once again about the girl who had broken his heart, and he worried about his job with the National Park Service.

After twenty years of expressing his opinions about the mismanagement of the bison and the grizzlies, and being thwarted by his boss at every turn, he was tired. Moore was ready to give up his career for a girl who seemed to have some serious relationship problems.

It was a hard choice, finishing his twenty year career with a bureaucracy which killed hundreds of bison each year, the very symbol of the National Park Service, or quitting the service and moving in with a sociopathic girl just because she was a vegan and had a nice tight body....

to be continued....

(oops, sorry, slightly drifting off topic here. Just going with the flow.)

[Dandelion]

Ummm not sure but here's some related (http://www.veganrepresent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5042) & threads (http://www.veganrepresent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5043)

Heeey, but if a gal were interested in reading up on AR philosophy, where would such a gal find an old thread where a Robbins vs. Marcus match took place?

I remember reading that statement before that "a lot of our information is erroneous or misleading..." huh, what, where? Which statements? I'm confus-ed. :confused:

[THX-1138]

Hee. i preferred Meat Market because i thought the new ethics of eating was misleading when i felt it should been more 'the new ethics of living'. i think Erik has matured alot since then as an activist and has done some deep thinking on his own. This is perhaps why his views seem radical within the community. Indeed when he talked here about Meat Market i felt the tension in the air as old skoolers got offended as he challenged Robbins. He had enough guts to do so where Robbins is god to many. Frankly Robbins does nothin for me. I don't want to make a Robbins vs. Marcus debate yet again especially now that i'm OT. ;)

I haven't read Meat Market yet but I do agree that Robbin's does need challenging, especially on the health side of things. Many of his claims in Diet for a New America and Food Revolution are simply not supported by science. And they don't even make animal products more healthy in a new light but actually are still unhealthy for different reasons.

[VegeTexan]

I haven't read Meat Market yet but I do agree that Robbin's does need challenging, especially on the health side of things. Many of his claims in Diet for a New America and Food Revolution are simply not supported by science. And they don't even make animal products more healthy in a new light but actually are still unhealthy for different reasons.

True, THX, not only the health claims but also the environmental statistics. Dr. Michael Gregor has done some work challenging the health claims, i.e., vegans and vegetarians have about the same rate of heart disease as omnis. That's why it is important for us to take our sublingual B-12 or B-12 injections and regularly take a good non-animal source of omega-3.

I have to agree with Erik that we need to get our facts straight about the environmental stats and the health stats and his idea that people seem not to care about the environment or even their own personal health, but....
(long run-on sentence)
the fact that animals suffer incredibly is irrefutable, and perhaps our most convincing argument.

[atouria]

Do i need to quit reading the food revolution now? Does he have fake sources or something? How are the heart disease statistics wrong? Do we not eat wayy less or zero cholesterol compared to omnis???

[VegeTexan]

Do i need to quit reading the food revolution now? Does he have fake sources or something? How are the heart disease statistics wrong? Do we not eat wayy less or zero cholesterol compared to omnis???

Gosh no, Atouria,
I would not suggest that people not read John Robbins....too many people, including me, have gone vegan because of his books.

What I suggest is that you read Robbins and many other sources and compare and contrast. We need to get our facts straight to best represent.

reprinted article from the Vegetarian Voice website follows....

The most recent Vegetarian Voice featured a long report on Dr. Michael Klaper’s ongoing Vegan Health Study. And it seems that a certain fraction of vegans could use some advice. For the responses thus far, which include 900 or so questionnaires submitted as well as blood and urine samples, indicate that while many vegans are healthfully eating a diet of (primarily) fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes, others are not eating healthily at all, and need to know that just avoiding animal foods is not enough for long term health.

Thus, while all the health benefits of vegetarian and vegan diets that have already been mentioned do hold, vegan diets that have too much refined grains and sugars and hydrogenated fats (think fried foods) are just as bad as those ingredients are in any other diet – just as devoid of nutrients and just as bad for the heart; furthermore, eating much refined sugar seems to cause one to age faster than necessary.

Vegans are not exempt from needing to take care of their bones, which means eating magnesium, boron, zinc, and manganese as well as calcium and vitmins D and K and getting regular weight-bearing exercise. Also, it’s important for vegans to make sure they’re taking a B-12 supplement, and to eat a vitamin C food along with foods that supply iron (such as legumes and dark green leafies) since it is harder to absorb plant-based iron than the form of iron found in meat and eggs, and vitamin C helps.

Dr. Klaper also found that vegans must make a point of eating omega-3 sources (mentioned above) and of getting enough protein (from beans, soy foods, nuts and seeds). Nor is it enough merely to ingest the sources of trace minerals; they must also be absorbed to be useful – and should therefore be broken up either in preparation or by thorough chewing. It is a real service to the vegan community that such a study is underway, which can let every-one interested in a vegan diet know how to do it in a way which is healthy in the long term, both for one’s own sake and to help convince the rest of the world that veganism is in fact a reasonable and healthy dietary option.

But it does not surprise me to find that vegans turn out to be subject to the same nutritional needs as everyone else, and the same need to make sure that all good nutrients are present in the diet and that bad ones are excluded.

[VegeTexan]

having said that, I am going to chow down on vegan fruit loops in a bowl of wine for dinner, and later munch on some cheezy cheatOs while watching the ABC movie tonight on bird flu....
I know, I'm bad.
Hey, do any of you want me to name you in my will?

[Dandelion]

having said that, I am going to chow down on vegan fruit loops in a bowl of wine for dinner
:sick: do you know something i don't?
and
Hey, do any of you want me to name you in my will?
VeganRepresent Inc. We could use a new server. ;)

[THX-1138]

True, THX, not only the health claims but also the environmental statistics. Dr. Michael Gregor has done some work challenging the health claims, i.e., vegans and vegetarians have about the same rate of heart disease as omnis. That's why it is important for us to take our sublingual B-12 or B-12 injections and regularly take a good non-animal source of omega-3.

I have to agree with Erik that we need to get our facts straight about the environmental stats and the health stats and his idea that people seem not to care about the environment or even their own personal health, but....
(long run-on sentence)
the fact that animals suffer incredibly is irrefutable, and perhaps our most convincing argument.

What environmental statistics specifically? I would contend that the arguments for veganism based on health and environmental protection aren't wrong, but merely misplaced. In another words, Robbins is right but for the wrong reasons. Would you agree?

[VegeTexan]

What environmental statistics specifically? I would contend that the arguments for veganism based on health and environmental protection aren't wrong, but merely misplaced. In another words, Robbins is right but for the wrong reasons. Would you agree?

Yes, Robbins is right, but I doubt his stats.
I think the numbers are wrong...I think Robbins is right but the stats are in question....I don't think animal agriculture uses the oil and water he and Earthsave quotes as facts. I will still use environmental reasons, that is one of my main concerns....the fact that over 900 bison were killed at Yellowstone National Park, by the park service, this last winter to appease the concerns of cattle ranchers who grave, opps, I mean graze their cattle on federal lands in the national forests.

I will continue to use environment reasons, but we have to be sure of our facts.

[hazelfaern]

Yes, Robbins is right, but I doubt his stats.
I think the numbers are wrong...I think Robbins is right but the stats are in question....I don't think animal agriculture uses the oil and water he and Earthsave quotes as facts. I will still use environmental reasons, that is one of my main concerns....the fact that over 900 bison were killed at Yellowstone National Park, by the park service, this last winter to appease the concerns of cattle ranchers who grave, opps, I mean graze their cattle on federal lands in the national forests.

I will continue to use environment reasons, but we have to be sure of our facts.

I'm really confused at this point. The basic premise of this "get our facts straight" argument is based on the argument put forth by Erik Marcus that John Robbins' stats are wrong, but no one knows what the actual stats should be or even which statistics John Robbins quoted incorrectly?

And the only basis for Erik Marcus' argument is that there are conflicting numbers out there? Not that someone looked into Robbins' original research methods and found them lacking?

It brings to mind the notion that information on global warming is heavily based on statistics and that, within the US, there are varying sets of statistical information on climatology and atmospheric warming trends -- yet no one sufficiently read up on the matter would seriously contend that those varying numbers make either statistical information or the concept of global warming dismissable.

And if someone pointed to George Bush while wearing a cowboy hat and said "He's wearing a cowboy hat, his stats on global warming must be wrong" well, they'd be using a highly fallacious line of reasoning but they'd be correct on the issue of those troublesome climatological statistics.

I'm struggling with this, here -- and just to be perfectly clear I'm trying to nitpick a thought process, not poke at anyone in particular -- but at the moment it seems to me that the real problem is not rooted in statistics but in a common human fallibility to swallow information -- numerical, rhetorical or story-based -- without an initial and thorough examination.

[herbi]

I'm really confused at this point. The basic premise of this "get our facts straight" argument is based on the argument put forth by Erik Marcus that John Robbins' stats are wrong, but no one knows what the actual stats should be or even which statistics John Robbins quoted incorrectly?
.....

I can't speak for everyone here, and I admit I don't even remember exactly which statistic Robbins allegedly throws out there that is inaccurate (though I believe it was "it takes 1000 gallons of water to produce 1 pound of beef"), but here's how I see it.

If you base your vegan outreach arguments on specific detailed environmental aspects such as the comparative water usage of animal foods versus plant foods, you leave yourself open to a lot of frustrating but valid criticisms from the people you are trying to communicate with. If I say (pulling some figures out of thin air here purely for the sake of discussion), "According to my 1996 Animal Science textbook, a Hereford cow & calf need 55 gallons of water per day, multiplied by the number of days it takes to reach average market/slaughter weight, divided by the number of pounds of meat per carcass, equals 375 gallons of water used for every pound of meat. But I can grow a pound of tomatoes for only 2 gallons! So there!" The kinds of people who are impressed by the semblance of math and who accept things on face value might be impressed, but those are the same sorts of people who probably believe that "Milk Does a Body Good" and "Beef: It's What's For Dinner." The intelligent critically thinking omnivore, the one we would most love to convert and the one who could really see what's going on if we could get past the cultural cognitive dissonance, will instead probably use this as an excuse to hold onto that dissonance. "Well, I don't eat Herefords - what about Angus?" "Were those figures for range-raised or feedlot cattle?" "1996? That's ancient history! Todays GMO cows only drink a fraction of the water they did 10 years ago!" "Where did you get the figure for tomatoes? Did it include water used in transport and processing? Were they grown in a greenhouse? Hydroponically? In what climate?" And so on...

I'm sure you COULD look up and memorize or write down every potentially relevant statistic, the better to entertain such a challenge, but (aside from the fact that such research would probably be a very complicated life-long project if you really wanted to be thorough and accurate) more often than not it just bogs down into confusion and stalemate. And the truth is, there ARE individual circumstances where it IS a more calorically efficient use of land and water to "grow" animals than plants, depending on the climate and terrain and species we're talking about. Goats can browse a rocky semi-arid hillside a lot more effectively than you could plant corn, for example. And, slow and inadequate as the changes may be, animal industries ARE becoming more efficient and less environmentally damaging as the public becomes aware of the problems connected to intensive confinement operations.

So I personally don't take this controversy as "Robbins is evil because he used statistics and statistics are inherently malleable". I just think it is easier for the average activist to use alternative debate strategies. As grog mentioned, keep it on a simplified theoretical "big picture" level-- It is inherently inefficient to use land, time, water, and energy to grow and process plant foods and then turn around and use more land, time, water, and energy raising animals to whom we feed those plants, when we could just be eating the plants ourselves. OR, stick to the Cruelty issue. Someone may be able to argue your water usage statistics successfully enough to distract you and get the conversation off-track (or even successfully enough to "win", in factual debating terms!), but there's no arguing with the fact that living feeling conscious creatures with nerves and brains and senses like ours are being tortured and killed. I think the environmental aspects of veganism are valid, and they certainly figure into my own decision, but I understand why it's a trickier selling point. That's what I get out of this whole thing. :)

[herbi]

PS - Just remembered! I think the bad press about Robbins' statistics in particular was due to the fact that he's a crappy researcher. He published the most damning statistic he could find at the time, but when others followed up, they found it was a quote from a single unsubstantiated abstract, in a sea of conflicting statistics that were actually backed up by documented methodology. (If I'm remembering correctly.) The problem is, because he published it, various other people ran away with it far and wide when that particular water usage statistic never had much basis to begin with.

I think the problem with his health argument was that he made a claim about vegans living so much longer than meat eaters and being immune to heart disease, etc, when actual long-term clinical studies have recently shown very little difference in average lifespan or mortality from heart disease. I believe this is discussed more thoroughly on Michael Greger's site. www.veganmd.org

[veganshawn]

John Robbins has never been wrong because he doesn't do the research, he takes research and uses it in his books. But the problem with research is anyone can twist and turn to make it right, hell look how many drugs make it to market later to be pulled because they where unhealthy, the people behind those studies twisted alread flawed data (all animal testing is flawed because we are humans not rats, or monkeys or dogs etc...). Cig companies where some of the worst for twisting data over the years to prove how safe their products where.
And no where in a John Robbins book has he said by eatting an unhealthy vegan diet you are going to live longer, he is always talking about a whole food vegan diet not a chips and coke one, so please get your facts straight (not aimed at anyone but everyone)before you bash John Robbins.
And look at all the recent studies showing how much healthier people eatting vegan are, done by non-vegans trying to disprove veganism. The truth is out there.

And doesn't Erik Marcus support animal testing? I know on Vegan Freaks (I think that is where I read it) they had a whole thread on it. I could be wrong and it is not meant as an attack on Erik, but as a vegan I want to know that people who are speaking for me do so from the same veiwpoints as me.

[Miso Vegan]

as a vegan I want to know that people who are speaking for me do so from the same veiwpoints as me.
I think it's impossible to guaratnee this is ever happening. I mean, I'd like to think that all vegans are coming from the same perspective, but it's obvious they don't. If we were all on the same page, what'd we talk about on VRF? :)

I hear your point, shawn, that you want to know the viewpoints of these people who seems to have access to the soapboxes and who seem to speak for All Vegans. Remember, you have to know your enemy to fight him. If you think he's not a good representative of the vegan movement, you can do the research on him and start positing an alternative view. If you really want to know Markus's POV, you'll probably just have to listen to his podcasts/read his writings yourself as no one else is going to be an expert on his POV, and it seems you mention frequently about what you've heard about him, but not from him.

And you seem to be willing to accept (and dish) criticism only about people you already dislike, but do not truck criticism in the slightest of the people you faithfully adore.

[veganshawn]

Miso-
I have read his books, I mention that one thing I heard about him was his pro animal testing stance, which to me is something that all vegans should be against, I listen to that blog. I also read that he looks forward to eating vat grown meat.
As far as John Robbins, the fact that he gave up the Baskin Robbins money for what he believes in speaks volumes to who he is as a person. Is he perfect out course not but has he changed my life and a lot of others for the better yes. I don’t think he is trying to mislead anyone by using studies to back what he feels, as I said he didn’t do the studies so why his he getting the flak? Why not the scientist and doctors who are constantly doing studies that come out wrong, why not put the blame where it belongs.

[nauthiz]

And doesn't Erik Marcus support animal testing?

Wow, where in the world did that come from?

EM is not pro animal testing. As far as I've ever heard, he is as deeply opposed to animal testing as any of us. He's pro choosing battles. He's always very clear on his standpoint, and I don't know why everyone puts words in his mouth considering that he's extremely direct and clear when he states his standpoints on stuff like that. From what I've seen, it seems that mostly it's that a lot of people are deeply offended by his opposition to militant activism, and rather than trying to go through the effort of responding to his arguments they just take the low road and try to discredit him with character assassination.

The argument I think is what is being misconstrued is that the focus needs to be on agriculture for a multitude of reasons. I can't remember all the ones he's given, but here are a few: Several orders of magnitude more animals are killed for food and other things than are killed for testing. One person going vegetarian (not even vegan!) does more to prevent animal suffering than even the most spectacular anti-testing actions. There are a greater number of arguments for vegetarianism, and they don't require as much nuance as arguments against testing - it's relatively easy to point out that eating meat hurts all involved individuals, except maybe a few rich cattlemen, while to convince people that vivisection doesn't help humans is quite a mental stretch for most people. Most the population currently cares so little about the welfare of animals that arguing against medical testing might as well be talking to a brick wall; mostly they will think about XXX thing they heard on TV about The Next Big AIDS Cure(TM) and dismiss you as being clueless, and arguing 'till you're blue in the face won't accomplish much because they've already concluded that you're half-baked and your half-baked ideas are worth zilch.

Nowhere in any of these have I seen him claiming that animal testing is anything but unconscienable. He's simply trying to argue that he thinks that, in the current situation, the cost/benefit ratio for acting on the behalf of farmed animals is far greater than the cost/benefit ratio for acting on behalf of lab animals. He's made it clear that his immediate goal is to save as many animals as possible, so from his perspective he can use his time most productively if he focuses on farmed animals.


Also, stepping off testing for a moment, where did you get so fired up on this "EM doesn't like health arguments" thing? It makes me think you should take a look at his first book, Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating Health arguments are the cornerstone of that book.

[veganshawn]

Sorry I can't access Vegan Freaks anymore so I can't find the thread where it is mentioned that Erik Marcus is not oppossed to some animal testing. Maybe you could search for it there and correct me if I am wrong, I hope that I am.
And I don't want to be misunderstood Erik has does some good stuff for Veganism apart from being anti direct action. So I am not trying to discredit some much as I am talking about him much the same way he talks about John Robbins.

As far as John Q Public most people are only pro animal testing because they are being mislead by greedy people who profit from it and they don't know the truth about how harmful it is and really a waste of time. Think about it how many other businesses get away with a 99% failure rate (I might be stretching the number but most "cures" fail). And I think with all the recent high profile recalls most people are more open to discussing other testing because animal testing is so unrealiable.

[nauthiz]

I also read that he looks forward to eating vat grown meat.

Cutting that off from his argument for vat-grown meat really misconstrues his reasoning. EM's explanation (at least the one I've heard from his mouth) is that he cares far more about actual, visceral animal suffering more than he cares about ideals and sybols. He welcomes the idea of vat-grown meat because if cheap, quality vat meat were to appear on the market today, it would probably be incredibly easy to get most people to switch to it. This saves countless billions of actual animals from suffering for food when compared to waiting around for everyone to (in their eyes) radically change their lifestyles for the sake of a fringe ideology.

(I don't think it's much of a stretch to turn things around and attack an attack on his stance on vat meat by claiming that it's un-vegan to be in support of having animal suffering continue on its currently almost limitless scale for the sake of something as petty as worries about maintaining the integrity of some abstraction.)

I can't find the thread where it is mentioned that Erik Marcus is not oppossed to some animal testing.

I wouldn't trust the stuff that's said at That Other Place. I've seen a whole lot of misconstruing him and misrepresenting him, to the point that I rarely trust a thing anyone says against him unless they're willing to cite exactly where he said it.

The closest I've ever seen EM come to claiming to be pro animal testing is his appendix in Meat Market. And all he did there was say that animal advocates should never claim that animal testing has never provided any benefit to humans, because that's obviously false and makes us look stupid. He also explained that he thinks it's a waste of time to try to convince people who think it's OK to inflict suffering on animals for a little bit of food (even every lacto-ovo vegetarian I've met fails to care enough about veal calves to stick to cheese that's made with vegetable rennet) that animal testing is immoral.

Granted, I certainly haven't read/heard everything he's said on the subject, but I'm going to stick with thinking he's never said that animal testing is OK until someone can actually come up with something more than the usual pile of wild accusations.

[grog]

they fear his blondeness.

[veganshawn]

nauthiz- watch it or you will be banned from the pub :)

And you make some really valid and thought out points and once again I look stupid (not that it is hard to make me look stupid.). :)

[Miso Vegan]

nauthiz, thanks for taking the time to type out the long version. :)

[Dandelion]

nauthiz what a lucid and concise assessment, thankyou!
veganshawn thanks for bringing this back up for evaluation. :)

[bluedawg]

they fear his blondeness.
especially the eyebrows! :silly: