Food politics are a hot topic lately. With documentaries like Food, Inc., Farmageddon and Urban Roots raising the public's awareness of food sources and the struggles that farmers, fishermen and ranchers face when getting food to our dinner tables, it's a wonder that anyone with a conscience can comfortably consume anything at all. But no matter your personal culinary political agenda, the one thing that we can all agree on is this: We all have to eat.
Since I like to wrap things up in neat little packages in order to see the bigger picture, I decided to compile a list of different types of eaters, and the pros and cons that come with each lifestyle.
The Carnivore: The flesh eaters.
Pros: Can eat any and all meats unabashedly, and will not apologize for shunning anything green or remotely vegetable-like, with the exception of potatoes.
Cons: May be subjected to harassment for being unsympathetic to the plight of the once-living creatures that they are consuming. Most carnivores, when eagerly eyeing their 32-oz. porterhouse, do not, in their mind's eye, see the cow of which it was once part.
The Omnivore: The meat and vegetable eaters.
Pros: These people enjoy a well-balanced diet with a wide variety of foods to choose from. Meat and vegetables play well together and are equally appreciated.
Cons: Omnivores are often viewed as hypocrites. They will shop at the farmers' market for freshly harvested, organic local produce and pair it with a roasted chicken (source unknown) that was most likely raised inhumanly in a cramped cage with hundreds of other growth hormone-injected and diseased chickens.
The Lacto-Ovo Vegetarian: Consumes no animal flesh, but will eat animal by-products like milk and eggs.
Pros: Without the guilt of eating meat, lacto-ovos can indulge in culinary delights such as six-egg cheese omelets and ice cream sundaes.
Cons: A noncommittal stance. One is either sympathetic to the plight of the animals, or not. The chickens that lay the eggs and the cows that are kept in a perpetually lactative state are suffering from mistreatment, too. Pick a side and go with it.
The Pescatarian: Eats seafood but no other animal flesh.
Pros: Can scarf down a Fisherman's Platter at Red Lobster with no regrets due to the belief that if an animal is not furry, feathery, cuddly or lacks a cute face, then its rights can be disregarded.
Cons: Perhaps worse than the Lacto-Ovos, Pescatarians choose not to view our oceans as another facet of our living planet. The practice of over-fishing said oceans and destroying the ecosystem is not as important as satiating their need for a grouper sandwich.
The Vegan: Eats only plant-based foods. Some vegans will not eat honey, as it's produced by bees, and therefore exploitative of them.
Pros: The most saint-like of all eaters, Vegans are regarded as ethically above the rest of us. They get to strut around waving their tofu in our faces and making non-vegans feel bad.
Cons: Limited food choices. Since tofu can be manipulated into only so many bad forms of imitation meat, some Vegans will exist on a diet of Red Bull and potato chips, but this is not healthy in the long run. Because of the smugness that comes with a Vegan lifestyle, others often view them with disdain.
Dear fellow eaters, please take this breakdown of our consumerism with a grain of salt; we are all hypocrites occasionally, and contradict ourselves despite our best intentions.
Perhaps the category we should all try to fit into is "Locavore." Yes, another buzzword, but it's a philosophy we can all embrace. Educating ourselves about our food sources, trying to eat with the seasons and eating what's available locally and sustainably can contribute to the greater good, no matter what kind of foods we consume.
This article appears in Oct 20-26, 2011.