Unnecessary Fear, Nutrition, and Vegetarianism Lliegaccy Steven F

Sapontzis: Reply to Weir

Reply to Weir: Unnecessary Fear, Nutrition, and Vegetarianism lLIEGACCY Steven F. Sapontzis There was only a jigsaw puzzle of dry California State University, Hayward ground; Professor Weir contends that "the vegetarian A shroud of unfinished power lines argument from unnecessary pain fails" because: dangling in silence. (1) "the Empirical Argument from Nutrition Shadow cows wandered equivocat[es] regarding what is meant by 'vegetarian,' 'adequate for human nutrition,' over broken fence pieces, and 'unnecessary for nutrition,' " prodding memories of grass. (2) "animals can be raised humanely and killed I asked a hungry man, mercifully," and Where is the beautiful land I came to see? (3) "the primajacie obligation not to inflict pain is overridden by the nutritional risk of This is her legacy, vegetarianism (especially veganism)." he told me sadly. Weir fails to establish any ofthese points as compelling The legend you seek is dead. criticisms ofa moral obligation to become vegetarians. She was once virgin bride to the world. We shall discuss each of his arguments in turn.

Her dowry was a sea of zebra. The Empirical Argument from Nutrition Her wildebeest thundered Weir begins his attack on the proposition that "a like a summer storm. vegetarian diet is adequate for human nutrition" by She was jungle, mountain, and river. claiming that attempting to justify it by referring to "the large numbers ofvegetarians who are 'hale and thriving' " Long ago her lxxly throbbed "obviously is an inductive hasty generalization, with blood and breath. [because] the empirical fact that some vegetarians are healthy does not prove that all human!l-{)r even most She was warm and alive. humans-will be healthy on a vegetarian diet." However, far from being obvious, this charge of fallacious reasoning is false. We called her Africa.

Kathleen Malley DISCUSSION

Winter 1991 27 Between the Species Sapontzis: Reply to Weir ------

An inductive generalization is hasty when the vegetarian diet is risky, he argues, because of the sample upon which the generalization is based is too following "facts:" small. Now, recent estimates place the number of "Vitamin B-12 is an essential nutrient and naturally vegetarians in the United States at around 10 million, occurs only in animals products," with a similar number in the United Kingdom. There "only 5-10 percent of the iron in vegetables is are many more millions of vegetarians around the absorbed during digestion," world. This is not a small sample. Additionally, these "infants and preschool children need animal millions of vegetarians come from both sexes, all protein," stages of life, and a wide variety of ethnic, cultural, "vegan diets are also especially susceptible to and sO'cio-economic backgrounds. They are a diverse deficiencies in calcium, riboflavin, Vitamin A, as well as a large sample. and Vitamin D," and But are these people healthy? Books advocating different people and people at different periods of vegetarianism cite numerous, recent, scientific their lives have increased need of these studies indicating they are. Common sensically, it is nutrients. difficult to believe that tens of millions of people would voluntarily continue with a diet they found Incredibly, after presenting this litany ofdangers, Weir adversely affected their health. But that is what totally undermines his argument about the risks of vegetarians who have the option of eating meat are vegetarianism by conceding that "supplements can doing and have been doing for many years, even make virtually any diet 'adequate.'.. So, all these generations. Indeed, my experience has been that the fearsome "facts" about the risks of a vegetarian diet majority of American vegetarians are "health can be overcome by popping an occasional vitamin pilL vegetarians" rather than "ethical vegetarians;" that is, Would that all the risks of life could be so easily most American vegetarians are vegetarians because conquered! they find that diet to be healthier for them. Nonetheless, let us spend a moment on some of Consequently, although no inductive generalization Weir's specific "facts." In the same paragraph where could "prove," in some conclusive, deductive sense, he says that Vitamin B-12 "naturally occurs only in that every person would find a vegetarian diet healthy, animal products," Weir acknowledges that vegans, who the generalization from the number of health eat no animal products, can get B-12 from "tempeh or vegetarians to the conclusion that "a vegetarian diet miso (soy) fermented with the Klebsiella bacteria" or is adequate for human nutrition" is a reliable one. The "yeast grown on media rich in B-12," as well as from considerable amount of empirical evidence for that vitamin pills and "fortified" foods. Since B-12 can be generalization puts a considerable burden ofproof on readily obtained in a variety of ways, even without those, like Weir, who wish to deny the adequacy of a supplements and even by vegans, how does our need vegetarian diet. That burden is not met by his for B-12 put vegetarians of either sort at risk? The fallacious charge of fallacious reasoning. reassuring truth ofthe matter is that we need only small Weir's substantive effort to shoulder this burden is quantities ofthis vitamin, that it can be obtained readily his contention that that proposition is ambiguous about and inexpensively from plant sources, and that the surest what "vegetarian" covers and what "adequate" means. and easiest way of doing this is via a so-called "dietary His concern with "vegetarian" is that this term is used supplement." One such supplement, picked at random, to refer to both those who merely avoid eating meat contains 833% of the recommended daily allowance of and those who eat neither meat nor other animal B-12 in one little pill. So, one pill a week, and the products. The importance of this distinction for Weir "facts" about B-12 which frighten Weir are irrelevant lies in the possibility of obtaining nutrients necessary As to the iron issue, the relevant fact is not what for human health from eggs and dairy products. So, percentage of available iron is absorbed but whether the possible ambiguity of "vegetarianism" is really a the individual obtains the iron he needs. According to secondary matter; it is basically the requirements of an John Robbins, in Diet for a New America (Walpole, "adequate" diet that concern him. NH: Stillpoint Publishing, 1987), "long-term studies Weir claims that "the vegetarian diet is so risky that show no iron deficiencies arising from lacto-ovo or pure no one should impose it on another person." The vegetarian diets" (p. 300). Apparently absorbing 5-10%

Between the Species 28 Winter 1991 Sapontzis: Reply to Weir

of the iron available in vegetables is all we need. So, ooce an argument showing the relevance of whatever it is he again, where's the risk from vegetManism ofeither sat? does have to his claim that vegetarianism is risky. Again, Weir contends that "susceptible to osteo­ Thus, Weir's "facts" about nutrition are dubious and porosis, all vegan women must carefully monitor their do not entail that a vegetarian diet ofeither sort is risky. calcium intake since they consume no dairy products." Nordoes his analysis entail whatWeir ought (logically) However, according to the August 1, 1986, issue of to be trying to prove but never mentions: that a Science, there is a "large body of evidence indicating vegetarian diet is more risky than a meat-eating diet. no relationship between calcium intake and bone After all, if a meat-eating diet is more risky than a density." Apparently, it is low levels of estrogen, not vegetarian diet, then Weir's argument based on therisks ofcalcium, that are the source ofosteoporosis. Further­ of vegetarianism is irrelevant in yet another way. more, according to Neal Barnard, M. D., "studies now Perhaps Weir does not undertake this comparative show that high levels of protein-particularly animal analysis because he afraid of what it would show. protein-drain calcium from the body" (The Animals' Judging from the massive size of the vitamin industry Agenda, November, 1989, p. 7). He also notes that and its advertisements, which do not even suggest that broccoli, kale, spinach, almonds, sunflower seeds, and it is only or primarily vegetarians who should be other green vegetables and fruits are good sources of buying these products, meat-eaters must feel a great calcium, while "milk is probably the poorest choice for need to supplement their diets. Also, vegetarian diets a calcium supplement." Thus, far from showing reduce many kinds of health risk, such as trichinosis, vegetarians, including vegans, at risk, the facts about salmonella, and mercury poisoning, various kinds of osteoporosis indicate that it is meat-eaters who are most cancer, osteoporosis, arteriosclerosis, and other at risk to this disease. conditions associated with saturated fats and Weir does not elaborate on why "infants and cholesterol, which are more prevalent in meat than preschool children need animal protein," and that vegetables. The United States Department of statement looks more like a conclusion than a statement Agriculture spends a lot of money on inspecting meat offact At the recentWorld Vegetarian Day celebration for health hazards, and a lot of questions have recently at Stanford University, Dr. Michael Klaper, a been raised about the adequacy of those inspections. pediatrician and author ofPregnancy, Children and the Vegetarians do not have to fear all those hazards meat Vegan Diet (Umatilla, FL: Gentle World, 1988), inspectors are supposed to be guarding against, nor asserted that "there is nothing found exclusively in do they have to fear that these inspectors are not doing animal products that is essential for children's health their job. Thus, an unbiased review of the risks and growth." Apparently, this practicing pediatrician actually run by vegetarians vs. those actually run by has not encountered Weir's "facts." Also, Dr. Klaper's meat-eaters-rather than a one-sided listing of risks presentation suggested that vegan parents do not need supposedly, possibly run by vegetarians-might well to pay closer attention to their children's diets than do leave the vegetarians far ahead on Weir's risk criterion meat-eating parents to ensure that their children receive for choosing or imposing a diet. all needed nutrients. Turning to Weir's charges of ambiguity concerning Weir asserts without citing studies that "vegan an "adequate" diet, he legitimately points out that infants and children are usually malnourished, nutritional needs vary, so that what is adequate for one underweight, and neurologically underdeveloped." group of people may not be so for another. However, Might this be a hasty generalization? Even if other than his totally unsubstantiated claim that statistically true, might there be socio-economic and children need animal protein, his "facts" do not educational reasons for this sad condition that have indicate that there are people who cannot, based on nothing to do with the adequacy of vegetable protein their physiological needs, obtain adequate nutrients from for children? For example, it's doubtless true that vegetable products. Consequently, whatever ambiguity impoverished "infants and children are malnourished, may be involved here is irrelevant to the substantive underweight. and neurologically underdeveloped," and issue of an obligation not to exploit animals for food. it may be that a considerable number of vegans in third In addition to that ambiguity, Weir seems to be world countries are impoverished. Once again, it is bothered by the ideaofrelying on dietary "supplements," doubtful that Weir has facts here, and he fails to provide i. e., pills and liquids consumed just to insure adequate

Winter 1991 29 Between the Species Sapontzis: Reply to Weir

nutnlJon. The phrase "dietary supplement" suggests a threat to the rural way of life he prefers. Weir that a diet should be defined without reference to these acknowledges that he has lived on a family farm and products. However, advocates of vegetarianism, such waxes idyllic about the possibilities of such farming. as John Robbins, do not hesitate to recommend that Of course, that Weir likes to think of himself as a these products be included as a part of one's diet to steak chewer rather than a vitamin swallower does not insure that we get all the nutrients we need. So there is count for much when the question is whether we have an ambiguity here. Also, the need to "supplement" a a moral obligation to stop exploiting animals for food. diet may suggest that the diet itself is inadequate. Furthennore, Weir may well be mistaken about what Morally, these issues are trivial. People who do humans are "by nature." According to the president of not eat meat or who avoid eating animal products the Medical Students Association at Stanford altogether can obtain all needed nutrients without University, who is a vegetarian, our dentition, facial supplements, and this is true whether they are young structure, and digestive tracts do not closely resemble or old, male or female, pregnant or not, and so forth. those of natural omnivores, such as bears. Rather, our The supplementary pills or liquids simply make it physiology suggests that we are herbivores by nature. easier and more certain that this is accomplished. Perhaps meat and other animal products were the easy, These supplements would raise a significant, secure dietary supplements of our herbivorous compromising issue for a vegetarian diet if they always ancestors, supplements on which they came to place involved animal products, but Weir does not suggest ever greater reliance as they developed the unnatural this-and for good reason, for there are non-animal technologies of domestication and ranching. produced supplements. If Weir wants to tackle a substantive issue of Since they are trivial matters, we can easily answer ambiguity in moral philosophy, he should question, Weir's concerns about ambiguity regarding "vege­ rather than uncritically use, the term "natural." For tarianism" and "adequacy" by saying that the questioo is: example, even it if is "natural" for us (humans) to Can a diet that contains no meat or even animal products exercise our vastly superior power to exploit and kill at all provide all the nutrients needed for robust human animals for a compact source of nutrients, does that health, and is this the case for women as well as men, make it right? I should think not, for the fact that it is the young as well as the old, those who are pregnant as "natural" for males of our species to exploit females well as those who are not, and so forth? Thus defining does not make that right. However, Weir's uncritical, a vegetarian diet by what it excludes leaves open the repeated reliance on the term "natural" suggests that possibility that it includes "supplements." And if what (he thinks) is "natural" for humans is right. including "supplements" in the diet offends anyone's Again, to say that we are something "by nature" conceptual sensitivities, just call them "dietary suggests that is is not a matter ofchoice. Btit it is people enhancers" rather than supplements. The substantive who choose to be vegetarians. So, even if we were point is that the answer to that question is "Yes" in both omnivores "by nature," that could not entail that we the meat-free and vegan cases and for young and old, cannot choose to be otherwise. Furthermore, one of male and female, etc. The evidence for that answer is the things Weir cites as making humans especially the tens of millions of young and old, male and female, worthy is our autonomy. It would seem that his idea of etc., healthy vegetarians and the many scientific studies human "nature" is a very convenient one: it excuses of them that conflI1l1 their health. our exploiting animals as inevitable but does not A final word on Weir's comments concerning interfere with our congratulating ourselves on being nutrition: he may well have a hidden agenda here. Weir superior to animals because we are autonomous. frequently raises environmental concerns, uses the word Again, Weir, like many environmentalists, seems to "natural" repeatedly (as in his "fact" aboutB-12),asserts view doing what's "natural" as returning to a simpler, several times that we are omnivores "by nature," seems non-technological, rural way of life. But ifbiology has offended by the idea ofbeing dependent on technology taught us anything for the past century and a half, it is (e. g., vitamin pills) for nutrients, and sees "plastic that change is what nature is all about. What we, like meals" at the bottom of the slippery slope of all creatures, are "by nature" is in a process ofevolution. vegetarianism. So, perhaps his opposition to vegetar­ Consequently, appeals to what we are "by nature" ianism really lies in his feeling that is is unnatural and cannot entail that we must or even ought to remain as

Between the Species 30 Winter 1991 Sapontzis: Reply to Weir

we are or return to what we were. As Sartre would say, First, Weir totally undermines his argument for the such inferences are exercises in bad faith. utility ofexploiting animals by admitting that ifpeople Finally, some of the environmental concerns raised would maintain animals in good condition and not by Weir are bogus. For example, in the United States slaughter them for food, such a world wouldbe hedonis­ and United Kingdom we already produce more eggs, tically superior to animal-exploiting worlds. He goes dairy products, and plant protein than we can consume on to say, however, that we should not consider such a or sell abroad for food. Also, most of the plant protein world, because humans are not unselfish enough to we raise is currently fed to cattle. So, it is far from mainIain it. TIisresram ill mjtldied W'mlrunning moral obvious that turning to these resources to replace tIxlught experiments, we are entitled to consider altruistic ,. nutrients presently obtained from meat would threaten options. Especially where utilitarian hedonistic •• environmental havoc. Weir's legitimate environmental calculations provide the test, we are entitled to envisage concerns indicate only that implementing world-wide worlds in which humans act on the basis of utilitarian, vegetarianism would have to incorporate environmental hedonistic calculations. Such worlds can at least define protection caveats and socio-economic reforms. That guiding ideal obligations for our real world of less than this is so does not show that we are not obligated to perfect, utilitarian altruism. It follows that Weir's become vegetarians; it shows only that fulfilling that analysis ofpossible worlds fails to show that hedonistic, obligation may be more complicated than some people utilitarian calculations require exploiting animals. may have thought. Second, Weir insists on being tough-minded about Thus, it is Weir's "reasons" for doubting the adequacy the suffering that would be imposed on animals by ofa vegetarian diet that are anemic and in need of supple­ massive dependence on eggs and dairy products for mentsbefore they can povidea:leqWlle fare for an impartial nutrients. But his talk of animals being "raised mind. However, in this case the evidence indicates that humanely and killed mercifully" for massive supplements do not exist. The evidence indicates that dependence on meat for nutrients goes beyond a the claim that "a vegetarian diet is adequate for human romanticized view of traditional farming to a see-no­ nutrition" is neither false nor substantively ambiguous. evil refusal to acknowledge the massive animal suffering involved in the production ofmassive amounts The Empirical Argument from Pain ofmeat to feed billions ofhumans. Weir's idyllic vision extends even to "tax breaks and legislation [which will] Weir contends that "a pleasure-pain calculus taken help insure that lands near cities will be reserved for by itself would require that we eat meat" However, small farms." I hesitate to startle a sweet dreamer, but the basic thrust ofhis discussion seems to be to discredit the lands near cities have already been developed into hedonistic utilitarianism altogether. For example, he suburbs. And in northern California, I am sure, argues that a hedonistic calculus may entail "a duty to agribusiness interests in the Sacramento and San bring about the extinction of the human species" and Joaquin Valleys are no more ready to turn over their contends that even "the mere plausibility" of this land to family farmers than millions and millions of conclusion "is a reductio adabsurdum for the hedonistic urban- and suburbanites are ready to spend additional utilitarian argument." hours and hours on the roads forsaking supermarkets The points Weir makes in this part of his paper have to shop at family farms. been made many times before, from Leslie Stephens' Weir also tough-mindedly emphasizes the \ "If all the world were Jewish, there would be no pigs at environmental dangers of increased egg and dairy I all" to R. G. Frey's elaborate catalog ofthe Armageddon protection. Somehow, he overlooks well-known consequences of vegetarianism in Rights, Killing and environmental benefits of eliminating meat production. Suffering (Oxford: Blackwell, 1983). They have also For example, billions of acres of rain forests and other been refuted many times before; for example, I have native lands have been and are continuing to be discussed questions about the utility of exploiting destroyed to make way for pastures to graze cattle and animals at length in Chapters 6, 10, and 11 of Morals, fields to raise grain to feed to cattle. World-wide Reason, and Animals (philadelphia: Temple University vegetarianism would put an end to this pattern of Press, 1987). Consequently, I will restrict my comments destruction and could even lead to the return of many here to the following. native eco-systems, since we will need less vegetable

Winter 1991 31 Between the Species Sapontzis: Reply to Weir

protein if we eat it ourselves, rather than feeding it to conflicts; no autonomous person can reasonably be animals and then eating them. Thus, Weir's discussion coerced to put their health at risk...As a matter of fact, ofthe environmental effects ofvegetarianism continues the pain inflicted is not wrnecessary." the one-sided pattern of argument begun with his Although Weir believes that he has a third, moral discussion of dietary risks. objection to the vegetarian argument here, this objection Third, Weir suggests that the only remedy for the basically just repeats his empirical contention that inadequacy of hedonistic utilitarianism as a moral vegetarianism is risky. We have already discredited that philosophy is to postulate a non-hedonistic, "intrinsic" contention. value possessed by humans and human-like animals. Weir's one moral claim here is that people cannot However, this is not the only way of coping with that reasonably be coerced into putting their health at risk. inadequacy (if it exists). For example, the following That "coerced" is purple prose, of course; the issue is maxim from William James points to another way: whether people can reasonably be obligated to put their "Take any demand, however slight, which any creature, health at risk. There is a considerable consensus that however weak, may make. Ought it not, for its own they can be. Fa" example, Socrates believed he was under sake, to be satisfied? Ifnot, prove why not" an obligation to serve in the army, thereby putting his Weir begins, as so many moral philosophers have health at risk. He even believed himself to be obligated and still do, with the hierarchical presumption that one to remain faithful to his philosophical convictions, even has to have some special value in order to be worthy of though this put his health more than at risk. Many other not being exploited. James, like other modern moral patriots have sharedatleastSocrates' beliefthatcitizens philosophers who insist on the fundamental importance can reasonably be obligated (even forced) to put their of principles of equality, challenges that aristocratic health at risk in the defense of their community. "Death presumption. In effect, James is contending that from bef

Between the Species 32 Winter 1991