Ethical Meat and Bourdieu's Distinction

A recent news article caught my eye about "frankenmeat" or "ethical meat" which is meat created from stem cells. The positives are overwhelming: less damage to the environment, people can enjoy steak without harming animals, and vegetarians no longer have to abstain from their favorites making the switch more palatable for many people. My initial reaction to this article was one of disgust, as the consumption of flesh is forever linked in my mind to the harming of animals. Eating flesh, no matter its origins, would literally make those who have adopted a vegetarian lifestyle ill, as bodies over time lose the enzymes needed for the consumption of meat. These enzymes can be restored through slowly adopting the eating habit, but one might ask, "why bother?". The article above makes the argument that vegetarians have the obligation to eat this meat in order to drive down prices to compete with animal-producing meat, thus creating a viable alternative. My response to such audacity is to question why the onus of purchasing this "ethical meat" is on the vegetarians, those who have already made a conscious decision to improve their dietary habits for the sake of others. Are those who are consuming meat getting a free ride? They are allowed to continue their harmful consumption while vegetarians are burdened with changing the entire food market on our stomachs alone? This type of argumentation allows for regular meat-consuming people to ignore the scientific advances and play ignorant to other possibilities. Instead of dumping responsibility onto vegetarians, this article should be encouraging everyone to consume the "ethical meat" to drive down prices and save the environment. Are these not values that everyone should share?

The most offensive part of the second article is the conclusion that vegetarians simultaneously refuse to eat meat on the subject of "taste" as well as values, as if children everywhere have the obligation to eat "frankenvegetables" because they don't like the taste of regular ones. The matter of food preference should not be minimized merely to taste, but should be recognized for what it is: a commitment to a healthier lifestyle that is better for the environment and animals. To do otherwise reinforces the stereotype of the "snobby" vegetarian who is trying to convert everyone to vegetarianism. In fact, eating and food is a personal choice, often laden with cultural, social, and class distinctions. Bourdieu wrote in "Distinction" that food preferences, as well as cultural and artistic preferences, are directly linked with educational and economic status. Many cultures engage in dietary habits based off of traditions such as sacrificing red meat during lent for Catholics or refraining from non-kosher meats for Jews. This aspect of vegetarianism, as the adoption of a lifestyle in line with traditional and societal values, and the subsequent importance, is forgotten. Many vegetarians, even though they might approve of "ethical meat", such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) does, do not have any obligation to consume it themselves. There is no requirement for being a vegetarian to convert others to the cause, nor to carry on those same values in other aspects of their life (such as recycling or volunteering at an animal shelter). Everyone decides their own values and adjusts their behavior accordingly, and that is exactly why this is a personal decision, not for any politician, journalist, or scientist to decide. If there are more options available for people to enjoy meat and not to harm animals, I would be hard-pressed to think of people (besides perhaps avid hunters) who would be opposed to an abandonment of violence towards animals. Thus, the onus of consumption falls to no one, it is merely a choice, another option, that most everyone could agree is preferable to harming animals and the environment. The greatest ability for change, then, is to target those who are currently consuming meat and changing their habits, creating government subsidies for this meat, or investing more in its development for cheaper methods of production, instead of force-feeding it down the throats of vegetarians already helping the cause.

In conclusion, no one, not even those who currently eat meat have any obligation to consume "ethical meat". Dietary habits are personal choices that should be decided as such, without economic, social, or political pressures. Even if it were as easy to change markets as the article suggests, there is no reason to isolate vegetarians as carrying that burden. Everyone should consider their own habits and determine whether "ethical meat" is right for them. Just as economic class influences taste preferences in food (Bourdieu, 1984), the high price of the "ethical meat" most likely prohibits most people from trying it or adopting it as a common dietary addition. In time, however, the prices may fall and become more accessible to all economic classes. This change in price, however, does not need to be assigned to a portion of the population to achieve. Instead, the focus on scientific advancement and governmental support can help create better, more appetizing, and cheaper forms for global consumption.