666087 Tue Nov 10 10:34:03 -0800 2009 41 29 Not About Food 0 5170307 Used to be two choices: vegetarian or carnivore. I've been both. Now, what I am seems to be a carnivore with a conscience. I eat meat sparingly, thoughtfully. Don't order it out unless its provenance is listed. Buy organic or humanely-raised. But I also oblige my inner-Texan-raised-on beef-lovin' inner child. So what's the term for us? Seems to me, if we join up with the vegetarians and vegans-- there's lots more clout. Imagine a chain like Chili's sales of meat go down while revenue stays steady! Tue Nov 10 10:34:04 -0800 2009 154091 pickypicky 1 5170456 "Consciovore" ? adam Tue Nov 10 11:17:13 -0800 2009 5170307 154787 adamshoe 1 5170748 As long as there's a dead animal involved, you're a carnivore. Sorry. But thanks for the ethics. Tue Nov 10 12:53:52 -0800 2009 5170307 249467 bob96 1 5170836 Why should one have to apologize or feel guilty because one is a meatitarian?? Tue Nov 10 13:23:54 -0800 2009 5170307 63153 MNLisaB 1 5170956 A carnivore eats only meat. A herbivore eats only plant matter. An omnivore eats meat and plant matter. A label is a just a name; it does not define who you are. If you must, call yourself an multi-cultural omnivore, and let everyone else sort out what it means to them. Tue Nov 10 14:09:08 -0800 2009 5170307 17644 raytamsgv 2 5171938 Thank you for the correction. Just being an omnivore feels better. Tue Nov 10 22:38:27 -0800 2009 5170956 154091 pickypicky 1 5171918 I wouldn't strain to find a catchy label or category. Just live your philosophy respectfully and quietly, asking the necessary provenance questions. Tue Nov 10 22:18:54 -0800 2009 5170307 18222 maria lorraine 2 5182795 I ditto maria lorraine. I also admire her economy of words. Sun Nov 15 06:27:27 -0800 2009 5171918 270888 shaogo 1 5172377 I agree....Omnivore would be the best term. And it sounds as if you're a little squimish labeling yourself as a meat eater, say it proudly! If people choose to be self righteous fringe vegans, et al, so be it, but don't you dare look down your nose at me. Provenance? Organic? Humane? These terms are marketing-speak on menus and store shelves, in my opinion. Enjoy your meat, just don't waste it Wed Nov 11 06:53:22 -0800 2009 5170307 178131 BiscuitBoy 2 5172736 It's really not self-righteous to be concerned about how the food we eat has been raised. It's not just marketing, it has a huge effect on your health and the health of the planet. Wed Nov 11 09:02:38 -0800 2009 5172377 257067 General Knowledge 3 5173671 Pa-Lease! The human body just isn't designed for a meatless diet....And why do non-meat eaters go to such extremes to make weird stuff look and taste like meat? Eat what you want, but I for one, will not be dictated to from some city-dwelling ecobully, as irresponsible. All things in moderation Wed Nov 11 13:55:18 -0800 2009 5172736 178131 BiscuitBoy 4 5173679 I'm not sure it's the non-meat eaters coming up with stuff like tofurkey- I think it's the marketing departments of food producers. Wed Nov 11 13:58:39 -0800 2009 5173671 105625 EWSflash 4 5180056 I'm an unapologetic meat eater, but I want it raised humanely, and grass fed and finished and I don't want it around chemicals that end up stored in its fat. Provenance, organic and humane all matter to a lot of unrepentant meat eaters. It just so happens that what's best for food animals while they're alive is also best and healthiest for us and the resources we share with them. Fri Nov 13 16:39:13 -0800 2009 5173671 133381 mcf 4 5188710 I'm not sure why you responded to my comment by arguing against vegetarianism. I'm not a vegetarian, and I didn't say you should be. I'm against factory farms, because they're extremely bad for the environment, the animals, the farmer, and for me. Tue Nov 17 10:00:33 -0800 2009 5173671 257067 General Knowledge 2 5183022 When the food goes directly from the farm to our kitchen, which we try to do whenever it is possible and always in the case of meat, then these terms actually carry a lot of weight. Menus and store shelves aren't part of the equation at all. If all other things were equal..price, availability, taste...would you make a conscious choice to eat a cow or chicken that has been cooped up, hurt, stressed out, medicated and/or filled with chemicals over one that hasn't? Some meat eaters just don't know or don't care, for others it's a cost/availability issue. Label or no label, in my opinion there's only good to come out of not patronizing factory farms. Sun Nov 15 08:41:29 -0800 2009 5172377 186821 16crab 3 5190678 Completely agree, and all carnivores should make whatever effort they can to encourage and support these more ethical sources. But it's unlikely, without radical change in farm support [policies, that industrial slaughter will diminish. And the fact remains that animals get killed for our needs, either way, no matter how picturesque their pastures may be. Period. I'd only hope that carnivores would be honest about that, always, even those new hipster home butchers who seem to have an inordinate and superior self-regard about handling dead flesh like some Sardinian peasant. Wed Nov 18 01:34:27 -0800 2009 5183022 249467 bob96 1 5172480 Responsivore? Organivore? You can create any label for yourself that you want. In the end, it's what you do that really matters. Sounds like you're making better choices than most people, me included. Wed Nov 11 07:35:22 -0800 2009 5170307 66030 lisavf 1 5172749 Coming up with too fancy of a term for it will probably just piss off the unapologetic factory farm fans (See above!), but I'd go with something simple like "responsible omnivore" Wed Nov 11 09:05:55 -0800 2009 5170307 257067 General Knowledge 2 5173552 You're already come up with the label - "politically/socially-motivated responsible carnivore." That's a bit too much of a mouthful though, so how about you acronymize it to "P/S-MRC." You can pronounce it "pismarck." Wed Nov 11 13:19:09 -0800 2009 5172749 14386 BobB 1 5173560 Wordsmith??? Wed Nov 11 13:20:22 -0800 2009 5170307 105625 EWSflash 1 5180519 Call yourself a good and caring person and be done with it. Fri Nov 13 20:50:22 -0800 2009 5170307 1095104 bushwickgirl 1 5182750 I saw a bumper sticker a while back: "I didn't climb to the top of the food chain to be a vegetarian." Embrace your meat eating ways. You're a human being who eats meat. No need to apologize for eating meat. No need to shout from the rafters the fact that you only eat organic, either. Sun Nov 15 05:52:59 -0800 2009 5170307 248284 taos 1 5182794 Eat what you like PP. The knowing of the "provenance" is mere rationalization. Jfood is not looking for a passport to accompany his chicken or beef. Here is where jfood gets upset. When one side looks down on the other. Jfood is more than willing to have a discussion on the subject but just as he would never force meat on any vegetarian guest he would like the same respect the other way. Jfood has made a decision on his diet and he respects vegetarians and others who have decided on theirs. He dislikes when someone says "they are not true blah-blahs" because they eat "XXX". So choose what you want and stay away from the over-arching what-am-I names. Sun Nov 15 06:26:26 -0800 2009 5170307 11290 jfood 2 5188177 I agree wholeheartedly, jfood. that's why I see value in the vegetarians uniting with the responsible omnivores to impact the marketplace for humane treatment of animals. We all die. But we can live and die with dignity. Tue Nov 17 07:24:22 -0800 2009 5182794 154091 pickypicky 3 5188394 This hypothetical union will never happen. For someone who believes killing animals for food is wrong, the goal is fewer dead animals. Your goal is animals that lead slightly better lives before they are killed. I see no overlap between these goals. Tue Nov 17 08:32:15 -0800 2009 5188177 13722 small h 4 5189656 I don't expect overlap between all vegetarians and all omnivores, but increased participation against factory farming (which contributes to global warming; economic inequities; poor use of resources; massive pollution) and support of sustainable, biodynamic farms-- benefits us all, no matter what we eat. Even the animals of this planet. Tue Nov 17 14:36:21 -0800 2009 5188394 154091 pickypicky 5 5189851 I support your noble quest, don't get me wrong. I try to do some nice things for the planet, myself. But what you seek is "to impact the marketplace for humane treatment of animals." That humane treatment tops out at not eating animals at all. By trying to recruit people who don't eat animals at all, you are asking them to support your practices, which they would see as less ethical than theirs. They have to compromise. You don't. What's in it for them? Tue Nov 17 15:46:19 -0800 2009 5189656 13722 small h 6 5191534 A better planet. Learning to accept people who don't believe as they do. Wed Nov 18 09:26:42 -0800 2009 5189851 154091 pickypicky 7 5194008 I don't think so. I think that hard-core vegetarians are extremely condescending to omnivores. (The comedian Jim Gaffigan has the best line on this: "Ever eat fast food in front of a vegetarian? They look at you like you're barbecuing a kitten.") I am expected to hold my tongue about their lifestyle choice -- which I basically view as an eating disorder --but they can go on and on about the poor animals being killed and eaten all they want. Have you ever spent time around chickens and cows? What other purpose can they have? They ain't great company. Thu Nov 19 08:04:44 -0800 2009 5192676 113176 jmckee 8 5194031 I didn't mean to imply that (some) vegetarians aren't condescending to omnivores. They sure as hell are. I was specifically referring to the statement that pickypicky made, i.e. the reason a vegetarian should unite with a "politically/socially-motivated responsible carnivore" (or whatever s/he comes up with) is "A better planet. Learning to accept people who don't believe as they do." <Have you ever spent time around chickens and cows? What other purpose can they have? They ain't great company.> Not much, but plenty of people I meet aren't great company either. I think you're better off asking chickens and cows what the purpose of chickens and cows is. Seems only fair. Thu Nov 19 08:15:25 -0800 2009 5194008 13722 small h 8 5194114 Actually, cows are quite interesting and curious creatures. I used to have cows and sheep in my yard. Pigs are more interesting but they were not allowed. Thu Nov 19 08:50:35 -0800 2009 5194008 154622 Paulustrious 9 5194183 Don't think me weird but chickens, aside from the smell, can be rather sweet. Thu Nov 19 09:23:33 -0800 2009 5194114 1095104 bushwickgirl 1 5182800 It did occur to me that perhaps the OP would like to "get close" to the locavore movement, because they're all about foods sourced locally (and in the case of meats, typically small, local farmers are far more ethical in their treatment of animals). Sun Nov 15 06:30:25 -0800 2009 5170307 270888 shaogo 1 5184377 Aquarian Sun Nov 15 19:26:58 -0800 2009 5170307 10506 DiningDiva 1 5189537 Enthewsiast Tue Nov 17 13:56:17 -0800 2009 5170307 154622 Paulustrious 1 5191296 An unrepentant speciesist? Wed Nov 18 08:13:05 -0800 2009 5170307 259720 haggisdragon 1 5193899 Vegebore. Thu Nov 19 07:22:59 -0800 2009 5170307 12630 beevod 1 5194116 Care-nivore. A lesser-known consideration when choosing to buy your meat from more naturally-reared animals: a friend of mine who is a small animal veterinarian just attended a continuing education seminar which included a presentation by an expert in veterinary parasitology. This person cited an increasing rate of intestinal parasite problems in these animals. Factory farms use more aggressive parasite-control measures than do organic farms, as a whole. Since some of these parasites can also infect humans, it's a concern. Roundworm cysts, for example, form in muscle tissue, so not consuming any of the animal's gastrointestinal tract is no guarantee of safety. Thu Nov 19 08:52:54 -0800 2009 5170307 159317 greygarious 2 5195100 good comment. thank you! I like Carenivore! Thu Nov 19 16:43:06 -0800 2009 5194116 154091 pickypicky 2 5195159 Roundworm (trichnella spriosis) didn't used to be "lesser-known." The infection in humans, trichinosis, was the primary reason that people were advised to cook pork to a high enough internal temperature that the taste & texture resembled sheetrock. According to the CDC, the parasite is killed at 137 degrees. (It can also be killed by extended deep freezing, if you've got the sub-zero and the time.) Common recommendations are to cook pork to an internal temperature of 145-155 degrees. Cautious by nature, the USDA recommends 160 degrees. People will weigh the need for those internal temperatures against the occurance of antibiotics in the food chain as they choose their food. That's fine, so long as they're working from complete and accurate information. As for the OP's question -- no label, no statements, no baggage. Maria Lorraine had it right the first time: to draw people into an action, act in a way worth emulating. Thu Nov 19 17:07:27 -0800 2009 5194116 10514 KTFoley 1 5199793 To repeat: I don't NEED a label. I was asking if one existed because so many books have come out recently. Someone invented "locavore" and it has helped define and promote an important movement in eating and in growing food. words matter. Sun Nov 22 07:17:23 -0800 2009 5170307 154091 pickypicky 2 5199925 Here's the problem. Your premise assumes that some, maybe most, people who eat meat are uncaring, unthoughtful, and lack a conscience (using words from your original post). And that it is a rare meat eater who does not embody these traits. So rare, that a new term must be coined for these unusual kind-hearted folks who live amidst the sea of evil cold-hearted meat eaters. The search for labels aside, your premise is flawed and even perhaps insulting. People who eat meat do so simply because they believe the human body was made to subsist on meat and because they like meat. Sun Nov 22 08:30:09 -0800 2009 5199793 248284 taos