I came across this here article on The Huffington Post this morning. It's ridiculous on several levels, including that I felt like the person is not completely comfortable eating animals, but this is her half-witted attempt to try and justify it.
She "claims" she was a vegetarian. Yet she also said she was sneaking bites of meat along the way. Sorry, but that's not a vegetarian in my book.
Beyond that, it was ridiculous in that anyone who is a real environmentalist is well aware of the environmental problems caused by the meat industry. To try to make a case for the idea that "real environmentalists" eat meat is again trying to justify behavior that doesn't really jive with what she wants to consider herself.
But the part in this article that really got me was this line: "Instead, Pollan advocates for eating meat born, raised and killed in a humane environment."
Is it just me or do other people not fully get it yet?
"Meat" is not born. It's not raised. And it's not killed (despite its environment).
To say that meat is born, raised and killed, is to act as if it is an ear of corn or a tomato off the vine. That's not the case with "meat."
Animals are born, raised and killed for their flesh. And it doesn't matter if you were feeding them snacks, brushing their hair, and reading to them before slaughtering and cooking them (or whatever you would consider being humane to them is).
Animals are sentient beings. They are not meat. Using the word "meat" is just easier for people so they are not constantly reminded that they are eating flesh and dining on the misery of other beings.
Try to justify your dining on them all you want. But the harder you try to grasp at straws (e.g., it's environmentally friendly, it's humane, most peopel want it, the husband insists on it, it's what we have always done, it tastes good, etc.), the more obvious it is that you are trying to convince yourself that it is okay to keep doing something you are not all that comfortable with.