the naked bun
I first saw livestock slaughtered at the movies. It was the crescendo of Francis Coppola’s Apocalypse Now: An ox was virtually halved by a machete in a tribal rite that seared an image in my mind that I’ve never been able to shake.
When the movie was over, a bunch of us grabbed some burgers and fries and talked about Coppola’s brilliant use of music and light and the futility of war. Talk about an ethics lesson.
Truth is, just because you chow down on sirloin doesn’t mean you support the cruel or inhumane treatment of animals. Whether it’s Coppola’s unfortunate art, meatpacking as chronicled in Schlosser’s best selling Fast Food Nation, or YouTube videos featuring vicious displays of animal cruelty, the very fact that this exposure exists at all reminds us that when it comes to barbarianism on display, we’re all carnivores.
But if this is truly a debate about whether it’s ethical to kill a cow for a cheeseburger, then the real question is whether it’s ethical to destroy anything when it’s not needed for survival. A sockeye salmon, suffocating in a gillnet after being plucked from its Bristol Bay spawning ground – later to be served on a cedar plank at Freddy’s Fish Shack – certainly “suffers” more than a cow executed by bolt pistol. And if survival is the rub, the cedar tree should be spared as well lest the environment suffer. (I shall never see a BLT as lovely as a tree).
A world of scared cows means no buttons (from cow horns), nothing to extinguish fires (hooves are used for fire fighting foam), less cardiac care (some heart patients benefit from pig valves) and plenty more. And the beef from a single steer equals 720 quarter-pound hamburgers, enough for a family of 4 to enjoy burgers each day for nearly 6 months. For some populations in this world, how ethical is starving to death instead?
The real absurdity of discussing ethics and red meat is the implication that 95% of the U.S. population, for instance – those 296 million Americans who are not vegetarians, don’t have any ethics in the first place. As if not feeling guilty about cutting into a slab of filet mignon or gnawing on a rack of baby back ribs means we’re all dishonorable, perhaps victims of mass hypnosis. Are we really all that twisted? What happened to the wisdom of crowds?
Finally, consider that there is not a nutritionist worth their salt who doesn’t first and foremost prescribe to the concept of a “balanced” diet. Nor is there an economist who is ready to bid adieu to the $74 billion cattle industry, a rancher who is proud of pink slime, or a psychologist who recommends strict deprivation instead of moderation. This is about understanding that red meat is but one food we consume, not a defining act or our only choice. Devouring a pastrami sandwich doesn’t preclude us from enjoying steamed broccoli or sharing butternut squash. Munching on the occasional strip of bacon doesn’t mean we stand up for the rights of nitrates everywhere.
By all means, serve some quinoa with your meatballs. Support the ASPCA and (at the least the left wing of) PETA. No animal should suffer an inhumane fate, be pumped with hormones or raised in conditions that don’t hold up to scrutiny, let alone sautéed in anything less than real butter. But don’t lose any sleep over the occasional pot roast. It’s no more unethical than eating just about anything. And besides, a baseball game without a hot-dog… now that’s unethical.






