The nutrition blog over at Women's Health references a study published by the Journal of Consumer Research back in August.  We wrote about it back then...  Perception Is Reality, but it certainly bears repeating (especially for those of you considering going vegan for the new year).  The study basically states that people believe meat tastes better than vegetarian fare, but that is more a case of expectations rather than actual taste.

I'd love to run this taste test, but I'd never be able to actually replicate it myself as no one would expect me to serve meat!

"Heavy meat eaters claim that they eat meat because it tastes better than other foods, such as meat substitutes. Our results challenge that claim. Participants who ate the vegetarian alternative did not rate the taste and aroma less favorably than those who ate the beef product. Instead, what influenced taste evaluation was what they thought they had eaten and whether that food symbolized values that they personally supported ... strategies that might persuade heavy meat eaters to change their diet include changing the cultural associations of fruits and vegetables to encompass values that meat eaters endorse (e.g., power and strength), or challenging heavy meat eaters' assumptions about what tastes good by using in-store (blind) taste tests or showing them results of studies such as this one."

From:  Michael W. Allen, Richa Gupta, and Arnaud Monnier. "The Interactive Effect of Cultural Symbols and Human Values on Taste Evaluation" Journal of Consumer Research: August 2008.

Thanks to Gary of Animal Writings for pointing us to the WH blog posting.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

I don't consider myself a "hippie," nor was I raised by hippies.  My parents were average middle class Americans, far from hippie.  But I do have a fond memory of my childhood that could be characterized as "hippie."  My mom used to collect cans and bottles for recycling, and when we had a bunch we would ride our bicycles to the recycling center.  This was way before recycling was popular, and no one had even had a thought of curbside recycling.  I credit my mom for my environmental bent.

I was having a discussion today with someone about carbon-offset credits.  The person I was chatting with thinks they're a great idea and will be buying them as holiday gifts for all his friends/family members.  For many reasons, I am not a fan (not the least of which is the lack of oversight).  The person was going on and on about how important it was for me to buy these things especially every time I travelled (I fly more than he does).  I finally reached a point where I got impatient with the conversation and asked him if he ate steak (knowing full well he does).  I then told him that since I am vegan my carbon footprint is a tiny fraction of his.  That effectively ended the conversation.

Everyone needs to make their own decisions, and hopefully there will be some thought behind the decision making process.  I strongly believe that veganism has a much more positive impact than most any other "environmental behavior."  That's not to say that I won't do other things that I consider important to the environment.  I collect rainwater.  I compost.  I recycle.  I am not a "consumer."  But the thing that will make the most impact over the course of my lifetime, is that I don't consume animal products.

Then I got me to wondering which is better for the environment, recycling or veganism, both of which are behaviors I believe in.  Well, it looks like recycling is becoming cost prohibitive because of the current recession.

So my environmental slogan is now:  reduce your consumption, reuse what you can, and don't eat animals!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Okay, I'd like a little clarification here.  First let me say that this is NOT an attack on anyone; I am looking to understand other peoples' thought processes around the issue of the turkey...

Jane and I have read a number of things recently in which people proclaim that they will not sit down at a table on which a turkey will take center stage.  As vegans, the pride of place at our table will be shared by a Tofurky and a Celebration Roast.  However, if we were heading to a non-vegan household, we wouldn't have a problem with a turkey at the table, we'd just make sure to bring something we could eat, and enough to share with anyone curious enough to try an alternative.  (If you haven't tried it already, you might be surprized at how effective this tactic can be.)

Now before you start criticizing me, let me explain my thinking...  If 5% of the U.S. population (and I'm being generous here) is vegetarian, then 95% of the population eats meat. Even if they are "wrong" in eating turkey, it is pretty much the norm.  To expect people to stop practicing "normal" behaviors because you want them to (or even because these practices are wrong) is a bit unrealistic.  I'm not saying advocacy doesn't have it's place.  I'm simply stating that people who are engaging in behavior that is deemed normal are not necessarily going to be aware that their behavior could/should be modified.

But here is where Jane and I become confused.  What's so special about the turkey?  Would you make the same distinction for a pot roast?  Or a rack of lamb?  Or a pork chop?  Or a hamburger?  Or a whole fish?  Okay, you don't "see" the dead animal in a hamburger, but you do in a rack of lamb... or a roasted chicken...or the whole fish (they often come entirely intact... face included).

Yes, 45 million turkeys are killed and sold for Thanksgiving here in the US (according to the USDA).  That accounts for 1/6 of all the turkeys sold in the US.  However, those turkeys represent multiple meals, for multiple people, so it's not as bad as it sounds.  But how many heads of cattle are slaughtered for consumption annually?  How many pigs?  How many chickens?  Is a turkey more important than any other animal?

I guess I don't understand why the Thanksgiving turkey is where the line is often drawn.  Yes, turkeys are intelligent and have personalities.  But pigs exhibit the intelligence equivalent to a 3 year old human.  (Wow!)  And pigs raised for foodstock don't live pleasant lives either; and they certainly don't have humane deaths!

So my questions are these:

• If you can't sit at a table with a Thanksgiving turkey, can you eat at any non-vegan restaurant?  Because animal product is being prepared there, and consumed in proximity to your seat as well?
• If you can't stand the sight of the turkey carcass at your table, what about that rack of lamb?  Or any other animal-based meal presented with pride?
• If you can't stand the sight of the turkey carcass at your table, how do you handle the grocery store with lots of animal parts lined up, some of them readily identifiable as animals?
• If you can't stand the sight of the turkey carcass, what do you do at the sight of a lobster tank?

(Remember, I'm not attacking anyone...  I'm pointing out what I see as inconsistencies and looking for clarification.)

So if I don't understand this reasoning, and I'm a vegan too... is it not reasonable to expect that your non-vegan loved ones will also miss the point?  And, if that's the case, perhaps a bit of tolerance will go further in helping to promote the cause than a flat out refusal to be even the slightest bit tolerant, which is my point in writing this post...  Tolerance will probably get you more opportunities for dialogue.  And with dialogue can come change.

Regardless of how you are planning on spending your day... We wish you all a Happy Thanksgiving!  Or simply, a happy Thursday.  (We'll be back with a post-meal post on Friday.)

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

Everyone has their own way of thinking... their own philosophy on how life should be lived, how you should interact with other beings. Personally, I'm not interested in confrontation. I'd rather things be peaceful. Now that doesn't mean that I won't voice my opinion, but I don't understand why people do that in a manner that is antagonistic. I think you can present your point of view without alienating your audience, even if you are passionate about your subject. (But you probably already know that if you've spent any time reading this blog.)

Tonight I was reading The Calgary Herald, and found this in the "Real Life" section:

My three grown daughters all became vegans in their mid-teens. They're also animal-rights activists -- I think they're fanatics, refusing to celebrate Thanksgiving with us, with a "dead bird" (turkey) in our home, though I've prepared a tofu turkey for them.

My husband and I try to accommodate their diet and are sensitive to their activities, but they're increasingly rude and ugly, condemning everything we eat, and that we kill flies and earwigs in our home.

First, let me state that I understand this is only one side of the story. But for arguments sake, let's just assume this account is actually 100% accurate. I don't understand the behavior of the daughters. What is the point of alienating their parents / other people? The parents are not vegan, but they do accommodate their daughters' way of eating. Personally, I think that's wonderful. The parents are preparing some vegan foods for the daughters to eat. Presumably they will taste those foods and, perhaps incorporate them into their food rotation. In any event, they are learning about a vegan diet. They are willing to try!

But what are the daughters attempting to achieve by being antagonistic to their parents? This type of behavior only gives vegans a bad name, and isn't likely to result in anyone changing their thoughts. Typically, it results in people shutting down. Without a dialogue, there can be no change.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!