Food for thought, thanks Norman.

I can accept fattened duck liver as traditional delicacy in France, as one has to accept Halal and Kosher butchering practises (i.e. slaughtered not stunned) but should it be as freely available in the rest of the world to be consumed on a whim as it's become over the last decade? (I also have less issue with force feeding than having these birds cooped up for the last 2 weeks of it's life to prevent any movement). Conspicuous consumption has never been nastier and hopefully the ban in California is the start of a domino effect.

Veal on the other hand is a tricky issue, since it's a "natural waste product" of the dairy industry, wretched a notion as that may sound.

The SPCA equivalent in some European countries have devised a star system whereby meat as rated according to the quality of life the animal was afforded. Some conscious easing in that too.

I applaud Norman McFarlane's article on ethical eating. He reminds us that our most intimate contact with our environment is what we put down our throats and, as Compassion in World Farming (SA)'s slogan goes: I am what I eat and I don't swallow misery.
Foie Gras is one of the cruellest foods around and cannot be excused on the grounds of culture or anything else. In South Africa, veal is not high on our consumers' 'to eat' list and generally, the calves are not caged nor are they fed on a diet to make them anaemic. But they are slaughtered at about 6 months or younger. I would like to take issue with Norman about eating pork with a 'clear conscience'. Go to our website www.animal-voice.org and see video footage of pigs in a typical industrialised farm in SA. I am pleased to say that last year, negotiations between Compassion in World Farming (SA) and the South African Pork Producers Organisation (SAPPO), resulted in SAPPO agreeing to a partial phase-out of sow stalls by 2020.
Best wishes to Norman - and thanks for his superb writing abilities.
Signed Louise van der Merwe, SA Co-Representative: Compassion in World Farming.

While I am delighted that the authour will never eat foie gras or veal (again), with specific reference to foie gras, the issue of Foie Gras is simply that Foie Gras defines the worst excesses of human greed and self indulgence of the few for fleeting taste, regardless who may suffer. 40 million birds suffer and die annually on Foie Gras farms. Can you imagine how many starving humans could be fed with the more than 840 million kgs of food fed to these birds each year? But paying for the killing of others is not a personal choice, when that choice affects other lives, both human and non- human and the planet on which we live, especially when we have a vast range of healthy, available, delicious options that do not require mutilation, systematic rape, confinement, the unnatural seperation of mothers and their children and death. There is no such thing as happy meat - no animal goes willingly to their death and a supposed free ranging existence does not justify the terrifying and terrible death the animals endure! We might say the same about human murder victims which would doubtless cause outrage. As it should. Eating ethically is immensely easy and satisfying as many vegan foodies will tell you. Vegan living means no guilt, lower risk of health problems, and should one so wish, glorious gluttonous gastronomy!

In reply to Toni's post.
My decision to continue to eat animals is a personal one, and I believe, an ethical one, taken after reading and digesting Jonathan Safran Foer's book "Eating Animals".
After an exhaustive interrogation of the animal protein industry spanning some three years, Safran Foer arrived at the conclusion that whilst he personally would no longer eat animal protein, he considers it morally justifiable to eat animal protein, provided the animals that supply the protein are humanely and ethically bred, reared, husbanded and slaughtered.
My reading and research suggest that veganism, and to a lesser extent vegetarianism, have potential negative health consequences.
My ancestors have eaten meat for millions of years, which perhaps explains why I, and so many others do so, and why it plays an important role in the human diet.
By way of example, carbohydrate consumption without a measure of accompanying complete protein (most non-animal proteins are not complete proteins), results in seesawing blood glucose levels, and also fosters weight gain.
Building muscle mass is virtually impossible without the consumption of animal protein.
Whilst I respect the decisions of those who choose to be either vegetarian or vegan, I expect reciprocal respect for my decision to continue to eat animal protein, provided that it is ethically and humanely produced.

Greetings - I read your reply with interest. Our ancestors not only ate a range of cooked plant foods, but also understood ithe nutritional and medicinal qualities. New reserach has confirmed that Neanderthals did not live by meat alone, or that it formed the basis of their intake. As far as the observation that building muscle mass without animal products goes, gorillas and other primates who are mostly herbivore, would disagree, as well as several vegan world class body builders, google Robert Cheeke, for one, or ultra-tri athletes and other vegan sportspeople. To suggest that carnists don't have potential negative health consequences beggars belief, (the implication due to the notion that vegan living has negative consequences) as vegans have a far lower risk of diabetes, cholesterol and heart problems and a host of other illnesses linked to animal consumption. I enjoyed the article, don't misunderstand, and i agree with most of it, but to imply there is such a thing as humane slaughter for something as trite as habit and want (and definitely not dietary need, in this day and age) is blinkered. That there is acknowledgement that animals are deserving of life free of suffering indicates the acceptance they are sentient and can suffer; how does one then justify routine rape, forced seperation of mothers and their young, the killing of millions of 'useless' male chicks and other brutalities, all of which is standard farming practice regardless of whether this is so called 'free range' or not; There is a difference between needing to consume body parts and wanting to; and as someone who grew up carnist (as most of us have) i am well aware that it is a want, that is slowly killing the planet. Light and peace

I didn't for one moment suggest that "carnists", (as you so quaintly dub people who choose to eat meat) do not have potential negative heath consequences. That conclusion is entirely yours.
Of course our ancestors consumed fruit and vegetables: that probably explains why the majority of humanity does right now, but they also ate meat, as does most of humanity today.
I have no doubt that it is possible to build muscle mass on a vegan diet, I never suggested to the contrary. I simply pointed out it is much more difficult.
It is disingenuous to suggest that the ability of the giant apes (from whom we are descended) to build muscle mass on a herbivorous diet, implies a similar potential for human beings to do so. There is no science to support that contention.
Your reference to Neanderthals is an interesting one. They to were omnivores by choice, as were other progenitors of Homo sapiens sapiens, such as H.heldergensis and H.rhodesiensis. It is equally plausible therefore to use our ancestors dietary practices to justify the consumption of animal protein. The argument cuts both ways.
And I am afraid that the scientific evidence pertaining to the consumption of animal protein being as the result of a "need or want" as you put it is non-existent.
For every article you cite that concludes animal protein consumption is bad for you, I'll bring you one, equally scholarly, that concludes to the contrary.
It's all about moderation, whether you're an omnivore, vegitarian or vegan.
Excessive consumption of Vitamin A, for example, which is abundant in carrots can have serious health consequences.
And let's not forget the effect of gluten, present in so many grains, on so many people. I for one, have a gluten intolerance, which cuts great swathes out of what I can eat.
And whilst you're quite right that meat consumption is killing the planet (without going into why this is so), suffice it to say, that this is a consequence of unfettered population growth. Ergo, the problem is actually over-population, rather than animal protein consumption. When their were a mere one billion people on the planet, it posed no such problem.
I respect your choice to be vegan: respect my decision to continue to be an omnivore.

Unfortunately, meat eaters, who claim to care about the welfare of the animals they eat, often fall back on the mistaken assumption that free-range farming is humane and ethical. There is no such thing as *humane* slaughter, unless one considers receiving an electric bolt to the head humane and thereafter being hoisted by chains attached to one leg and having one's throat cut! Free-range farming is mistakenly assumed to be humane, but hens living in free-range conditions suffer the same de-beaking and toe clipping as their battery cousins and male chicks are also shredded while still alive, or maybe drowned, smothrered, gassed or eloctrocuted; how *humane* is that? I respect the rights of people as long as other beings are not harmed as a result. That being the case, I do not for one minute *respect* your right to eat meat, as my loyalty and sympathy lies with the animal victims of your dietary choices. One may have the *right* to choose to rape, murder and steal, but one does not have the right to do such things; in the same way you may have a right to choose to eat meat, but you don't have a right to kill other beings to satisfy your tastebuds!