Help! Term for politically/socially-motivated responsible carnivore?

[pickypicky]

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!

[POAndrea]

But why does there have to be a label? I generally steer clear of conversations that contain any utterance resembling "I'm a Vegetarian/Republican/Episcopalian/(fill in the blank). What are YOU?" Some of these labels (or the people using them) smack of pretension, self-righteousness, and zealotry to such a degree it becomes objectionable.

[invinotheresverde]

+1,000

[RandyRouladen]

"Conscientious omnivore" comes from Peter Singer, I think. I was looking into this myself a couple months ago when I came across this term. It's what I would use if I ever talked about my eating habits generally (and I haven't had any reason to).

You'll also find a lot of people--particularly vegans--use the term "happy meat" to mock the concept.

[haggisdragon]

I love the term 'happy meat'. I bought my sister a happy haggis over the holidays. My dad and I enjoyed a few jokes at the happy sheep's expense.

[Paulustrious]

<< So what's the term for us? >>

Omnivore.

There are still the two - vegetarian and omnivore. A number of the vegetarians I have met held a holier-than-thou position; they believed their motives left them on a higher plane. It seems to me that you wish to join that higher plane while still eating meat. Personally, I don't need a new label. If it helps you be happy with yourself then that's fine by me.

[jfood]

Jfood guesses that when he eats his organic steak and creamed organic spinach he becomes a consciovegetomnivore. Oh crap, just call him happy.

[cheesemonger]

Interesting comments. I too struggle with the ethics of meat eating, especially being horrified by the treatment of animals from industrial sources. I don't have a problem with eating meat, I have a problem supporting animal suffering and torture. I have been able to source local farms and farm markets that have good practices.

I think that for you, picky, this is also a location question- where do you live? I know there are small chains/markets all over the US that have rules about the humane treatment of the animals intended for slaughter.

I applaud anyone who gives more thought to the source and provenance of ALL things they consume.

[AnneBird]

I don't believe the OP asked for help in coming up with a shorthand label for her eating habits to antagonize others. I presume that the OP was simply asking for help! Personally, I'm torn between flexitarian and conscious omnivore... I tried out flexitarian today and people understood it!

[invinotheresverde]

Why a term, though?

Flexitarians eat meat when they feel like it, and don't when they feel like it. They're omnivores, plain and simple. Is the label really that important? Does it really define you?

[jfood]

Please, when you use the word "conscious" you are specifically placing a line in the sand between you and others and that line is that you have a conscious and others do not. And since you are on the same side of the line and using the term...there are plenty of reasons for individual eating habits, no need to use conscious vs. w/o a conscious as the separator..

[Dave MP]

I would argue that until recently, the line in the sand was really between being a vegetarian and being an omnivore. If you weren't a vegetarian, it was often implied (at least by some vegetarians) that you weren't conscious.

So I guess I see the "separator" word "conscious" as more of a tool to differentiate from the vegetarians. I eat meat, but that does not mean that I don't care about animal rights, ethics of eating, etc.

A lot of my friends who are "conscious omnivores," or whatever we want to call it, used to be vegetarians. So in a sense they are shifting BACK across the line in the sand by eating meat again, and the labeling justifies this move back.

It's easy to argue that nobody needs to justify what they eat, and that there are plenty of reasons for individual eating habits. I completely agree. But the fact is that in many circles, especially those that include different degrees of vegetarians, the terminology can be useful.

[jfood]

And jfood's point is people should not define what they are by adding a word of superiority to a different class. An vegetarian that goes back to eating meat is either an omnivore or an ex-vegetarian, KISS.

And your reasoning in para 2 is just silly. "Hey guys I do not like veggies 100% but I'm not as bad as those meat-eaters"...ketchup or mustard on the cheeseburger. Gotta love that halfway house mentality...Thanks for the laugh.

[haggisdragon]

Is it the case that jfood does think it is important to be thoughtful about what one puts in his mouth? Does jfood simply object to the op's apparent need for a label? Or does jfood in fact not think it is important to be thoughtful about what one puts in his mouth?

[jfood]

jfood is thoughtful 24/7, whether it is eating, drinking, conversations, giving his seat inthe subway to someone. It is not something he believes is an outlier and needs specific recognition, but should be part of the person's DNA.

Jood, for the third or fourth time, objects to the adjective that attempts to separate these so-called epiphanated conscious-finding folks from the rest as some special, look at me mommy I'm special description.

[BiscuitBoy]

Here, here!

[SeaSide Tomato]

Jfood- enjoy your posts in general.

Must ask re: this thread, with all due respect--do you really mean "conscious-finding" or *conscience*-finding?

In previous readings of the above posts-yours and others- I often thought folks might be referring to "conscience" rather than what was written--"concious".

I can certainly see taking issue with someone calling their food-choices conscientious (thereby implying they are more conscientious) than others' food-choices.

I definitely see a difference in (what one would think means) the holier than thou "conscientious" vs conscious ( which I read to mean as aware of it's back ground, how it's raised, etc.) i.e. making a choice with deliberate, informed awareness.

I'm not looking to enter the fray of whether the term is necessary, right , wrong or whatever--just want to claroify what you and others are debating, as I see the two terms as very different.

Many thanks!

[jfood]

SST

late nights, too many flights and grew up in NJ...all reasons for the verbiage challenged responses.

Jfood objects to the use of conscience as the qualifier since it gives an air of superiority and condescension:

conscience - the inner sense of what is right or wrong in one's conduct or motives, impelling one toward right action:

Jfood has no problem with the qualifier conscientious since he is looks for great meats:

conscientious - meticulous; careful; painstaking; particular

likewise jfood has no objection to conscious, since he tries to eat while awake and does not drink alcohol.

conscious - fully aware of or sensitive to something or having the mental faculties fully active

Hope that helps and thanks for pointing out his verbiage issues.

[SeaSide Tomato]

My pleasure ;)

[Bill Hunt]

Actually, I would typify myself as an unconscious omnivore.

Hunt

[BobB]

Is that a sleepwalker who heads straight for the refrigerator? ;-)

[chowser]

ASA Ambien users.;-)

[jfood]

Jfood just read the side effects and they left out that one as a positive. That could move the stock $1.

[Bill Hunt]

Hm-m-m, since the 'fridge is near-by, could they be a sonambu-locavore?

Inquiring minds [SIC] want to know.

Hunt

[duck833]

I just buy as much of my stuff from local markets and producers. More in the summer and less in the winter. I support my local butchers, growers etc as best as I can. If I want a great steak I usually get them at Costco.

I call myself just a hungry wino Duck. Smelling the primb rib cooking right now and I am having a nice glass of 06 Pinot Noir.

I think this label stuff is stupid and rather pompus. Just eat and drink as local as you can and enjoy the stuff.

Cheers!

Go Ducks!

[Dave MP]

I like the term "Conscious Omnivore"

[jfood]

totally condescending

[BobB]

Well, yes. But THEY feel good about themselves so what else is necessary? ;-)

[jfood]

nice bobbo...some need to put down others to makethmselves feel good. Another NY resolution in the works.

Happy Holiday to you and yours.

[BobB]

And to you, my friend. For me it's off to a night of games and take-out Chinese. Tomorrow: Jews Day Off!

[Dave MP]

i mean, the whole concept is totally condescending, so as long as you say it with a bit of irony, I think it's okay :) But I think what is interesting in this whole discussion is *why* it feels condescending.

I agree with what you wrote above, about respecting other peoples diets. But in practice, I am sure that many people (including myself) do draw the line somewhere.

For example, if I host a dinner party, and I invite a new friend, I usually ask him/her if she has any eating restrictions. If he/she says she is a vegetarian, I say "okay, great" and I prepare something vegetarian.

But if my new friend were to say "I am mostly vegetarian, but I do eat meat if it's organic and free range, etc" then I would probably just chuckle....and either splurge on more expensive meat if i felt like it (which I wouldn't necessarily buy for myself) or I'd cook something vegetarian. But the point is that currently, it wouldn't really be acceptable to say something like this when invited to a dinner party. So it is not really acceptable to label yourself as a "conscious omnivore" or anything else.....even though maybe it should be.

(i agree with the line of thought that goes "why label yourself at all?" but I think sometimes it's helpful to have a label to define your eating practices)

So in my mind, this raises a very interesting question. Why ISN'T the notion of conscious omnivore acceptable? Wouldn't it be a good thing if everyone actually WAS a conscious omnivore - someone who considered where their meat came from before eating it, and didn't choose their chicken or beef based on price alone? Is the problem that it's too privileged and hoity-toity? Is it the practice or the label that is actually bothersome?

[greygarious]

Conscientious Omnivore - unless you sleep-eat.

[Dave MP]

Both words work, but conscious sounds better (fewer syllables)

Conscious - used in the same sense as "deliberate." So you are deliberate and fully aware of the meat you are eating (and it's implied that this consciousness refers to your conscientious meat choices)

So I guess the best term might be "conscious conscientious omnivore."

:)

[taos]

Well ... I eat meat, but a little more than sparingly. I eat it pretty much every day. I feel fortunate to be able to afford to do that. I eat it thoughtfully. In fact, I hope I do everything in my life thoughtfully. I often buy grass-fed meat but not always and I don't always know or more importantly believe what the "provenance" of the meat I eat is.

These words -- conscious, sparingly, provenance -- by the way, are all taken from the original post, way up at the top of the thread.

So tell me, am I conscious or unconscious? Am I conscientious or just a big dumb ignorant meat-eating slob?

Because it's the implication that I'm an unconscious slob blinding stuff food in my face that I think is sticking in a lot of folks' craws about this topic.

Merry Christmas y'all. Pass the ham.

[raisingirl]

Unless you eat a 100% meat and meat-based-products diet, what you're describing is an omnivore isn't it?

[Erika RollerGirl]

Flexitarian. http://www.newsweek.com/id/161559

I got the term from Mark Bittman actually. I fully identify as a flexitarian, as a former vegan and vegetarian who now eats meat sparingly - only when i know that it was raised humanely and as naturally as possible, the term makes perfect sense.

I think we are a growing portion of the population who will begin to make a real impact in the marketplace soon. More and more people are following food politics and want to know where their food came from and how it was raised before eating it blindly like we've done for too long.

[Ideefixed]

Humanitarian.

[jfood]

So people who eat meat can not be humanitarian. Got it. Are you kidding?

[haggisdragon]

Come on jfood, don't play dumb. First, the OP is clearly not a vegetarian, so nobody is talking about not eating meat, as I'm sure you were aware of. Second, when Ideefixed chose 'humanitarian' as their label, I'm sure you are aware that Ideefixed was referring to the large scale health issues, environmental issues that will inevitably affect our well being, and political issues; all of which are caused by our industrial food production system. I'm sure you are aware that Ideefixed was suggesting that an individual who makes an effort to be conscious of these issues, and perhaps adjust their behaviour, with consideration to their own health, and the ultimate health of the planet, may aptly be described as a humanitarian.

I'm sure you knew that. Why the need for your deliberate obtusity?

[jfood]

Nope, and Jfood is not playing dumb whatsoever.

Your post is like 8 degrees of separation. Jfood does not agree with your proposition which you seem to take as gospel versus opinion. C'mon Haggis, "...large scale health issues, environmental issues that will inevitably affect our well being, and political issues; all of which are caused by our industrial food production system." Are you kidding? Jfood is not a Chicken Little (n pun intended) believer and the idea that all of this is caused by the way we grow food is not something jfood buys into.

Jfood basically resents someone calling themselves a "carnivore with a conscience" thereby suggesting that he has found the light from the conscience-less carnivore of old and then to be humanitarian you need to be in their boat. People can be humanitarian and still disagree with this premise.

Sorry, but Jfood cannot by into this if-then analysis.

[lulubelle]

If a vegetarian is someone who eats vegetables, wouldn't a humanitarian be someone who eats humans?

[jfood]

game, set, match

[Ideefixed]

Thank you. I can't believe that these boards are so populated by the humor-impaired.

[Bill Hunt]

Hey, I resemble that remark!

You can call me whatever you want, but just do not call me late for dinner...

Hunt

[AnneBird]

To the OP, I can relate! I LOVE meat, and I have no qualms about eating steak and talking about how a cow had to die for my meal. However, I also limit the amount of meat I consume, and whenever possible I eat at restaurants that have meat that comes from local farms. That's not a problem at home because I only get stuff that's local and organic, organic, or at the very least from the "all natural" brands. I can relate to the OP because it confuses people that one day I'll ask the waiter for vegetarian options, the next, I'll comment on the awesome steak I had for dinner.

Yes, I'm still an omnivore because I eat everything, but sometimes it would be nice to have a label that will help me sidestep the conversation about when and why I will eat meat, and when I wont'. Personally, it has nothing to do with why other people eat meat, its about why I eat some meat and not other!

[Bill Hunt]

My question would be, why worry about a term to define your dining habits? I can see no purpose. You are, who you are, just as I am, who I am. What we eat might have some consequences, but should define neither of us.

Enjoy,

Hunt

[greenjean527]

I was a vegetarian for over 10 years and sometimes when I'm asked if I eat meat and I say yes, (people must still be able to smell the tofu on me or something!) I have trouble explaining that while I do eat meat now, I'm still not chowing down on quarters pounders.

I usually say that I am a conscious eater who is open to trying new foods. People seem super fascinated and always want to know more. When I was a veggie, there was less room for discussion. Especially when I was an angry teenage vegetarian who made no qualms about my feeling for murderous meat eaters ;-)

[SeaSide Tomato]

There's a website called "Ethicurean" I like that for the description you seek.

[pickypicky]

nice! best so far-- if locavore defined a movement and made at least a few of us aware of our eating choices and the impact they make on the environment (transportation costs for a start) then choosing what we eat on an ethical basis makes sense too. vegetarians have owned this argument all along but now non-vegetarians are finally getting into the act. Ethicurean! My chef husband will hate it. . .but he's a diehard Gluttonous Gourmand who only eats What Tastes Good. Damn everyone else.

[pickypicky]

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.

[taos]

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.

[chowser]

sustainavore

[Bill Hunt]

If one is heavily into "movements," maybe they should start their own. Make up a name, and tread on that. It makes no difference what it is, until the media picks up on it, it basically does not exist. Maybe get a good PR firm?

Good luck,

Hunt

[greygarious]

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.

[pickypicky]

good comment. thank you! I like Carenivore!

[KTFoley]

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.

[greygarious]

As an afterthought, I submitted "care-nivore" to www.addictionary.com, which recently chose it as their "word of the day".

[beevod]

Vegebore.

[haggisdragon]

An unrepentant speciesist?

[Paulustrious]

Enthewsiast

[DiningDiva]

Aquarian

[shaogo]

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).

[jfood]

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.

[pickypicky]

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.

[small h]

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.

[pickypicky]

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.

[small h]

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?

[pickypicky]

A better planet. Learning to accept people who don't believe as they do.

[jmckee]

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.

[small h]

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.

[Paulustrious]

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.

[bushwickgirl]

Don't think me weird but chickens, aside from the smell, can be rather sweet.

[EWSflash]

I agree. I had a little backyard flock several years ago.

[Brandon Nelson]

What other purposes?

Leather and pillows.

[taos]

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.

[bushwickgirl]

Call yourself a good and caring person and be done with it.

[EWSflash]

Wordsmith???

[General Knowledge]

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"

[BobB]

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."

[lisavf]

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.

[BiscuitBoy]

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

[General Knowledge]

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.

[BiscuitBoy]

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

[EWSflash]

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.

[mcf]

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.

[General Knowledge]

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.

[16crab]

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.

[bob96]

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.

[maria lorraine]

I wouldn't strain to find a catchy label or category.
Just live your philosophy respectfully and quietly,
asking the necessary provenance questions.

[shaogo]

I ditto maria lorraine. I also admire her economy of words.

[raytamsgv]

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.

[pickypicky]

Thank you for the correction. Just being an omnivore feels better.

[MNLisaB]

Why should one have to apologize or feel guilty because one is a meatitarian??

[bob96]

As long as there's a dead animal involved, you're a carnivore. Sorry. But thanks for the ethics.

[adamshoe]

"Consciovore" ? adam