"Calling All (Former) Carnivores"

Awhile back, The New York Times invited meat-eaters to defend their dietary choices in 600 words or less. The deadline for this essay has now passed, and the winners will soon be announced, but the author of an article written for Drovers cattle network is calling shenanigans.

Lisa Henderson, a sophomore at Kansas State University, read a little further into the contest description than I did, and found some interesting information.

“We have assembled a veritable murderer’s row of judges – some of the most influential thinkers to question or condemn the eating of meat,” said Ariel Kaminer, the author of the original article (Calling All Carnivores) for The New York Times.

That’s right. Vegetarians and vegans are judging a meat-eating essay contest.

Sounds fair, yeah?

The judges of the contest are fairly notable names. Michael Pollan, author of the popular The Omnivore’s Dilemma (who incidentally appeared in the anti-agriculture documentary, Food, Inc.), and Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation (a book considered the crux of the animal liberation movement) are among the many judges looking over these essays.

The Times announced the six finalists in the essay contest last week. What do you think of these phrases, drawn from a few of the finalists’ essays?

“In 1989 I decided that I could no longer justify the slaughter of animals on my behalf.”

“We would be foolish to deny that there are strong moral considerations against eating meat.”

I feel that I can hardly put it better than Ms. Henderson did in her article: “It’s obvious The New York Times doesn’t want to hear our story. What they wanted was another opportunity to call for an end to livestock and meat production – your livelihood.”

I highly doubt that the winner of this essay contest will be one in favor of eating meat or of modern agriculture. In my opinion, it’s far more likely that a “reformed” meat-eater will come out on top.

I very strongly considered entering the contest. I’d drafted several entries in my head, and was revisiting the article to get more information when I scrolled through the comments.

Vegetarians and vegans had certainly “dominated” the discussion, extolling the virtues of vegetarianism and condemning meat-eaters. I decided then that it wasn’t even worth my time to enter the contest.

People like those commenters, who are so concrete in their opinions, will not be swayed by a contest which discusses why eating meat is ethical. There is nothing – nothing – that can change their opinions. The idea of a vegan reading the winning pro-meat article and immediately going out to eat their first burger in 20 years is laughable.

With “contests” like this, it’s no wonder that vegetarians and vegans have “dominated the discussion about the ethics of eating.”

It’s because the rest of us don’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of getting a fair, unbiased way to share our opinions.