The Ethics of Eating Meat

In a recent article for the Sunday Business Post (14th Dec 2014), the science writer David Robert Grimes advises us not to be taken in by simple answers to cancer. In particular, he argues we should be highly sceptical of those who claim there’s evidence a plant based diet cures patients from the disease.  “Simplistic narratives may be alluring,” he says, “but when we seek simple answers to complex conditions like cancer, we run a serious risk of detrimental self-delusion.” 

Grimes’ piece was largely in response to a new book—Stop Feeding Your Cancer—by Dr John Kelly, a Dublin based GP, who claims that the consumption of animal protein exacerbates cancer. Kelly’s evidence, according to a book review that appeared in the Irish Independent, was derived from the testimonies of over half a dozen cases—nothing, to be sure, that resembles a clinical trial. Also in response, Grimes, rightly, said that “a physician may attribute patient recovery to a special diet while underestimating or ignoring the conventional medical treatment which is the most likely cause of their recovery. To avoid this, large trials with adequate controls and robust statistical analysis are required.”              

He goes on to discuss some of the flaws with T. Colin Campbell’s The China Study, the book that inspired Kelly to carry out his research in the area. The conclusions drawn from the China Study, Grimes argues, “are scientifically contentious, with commentators pointing out instances of data cherry-picking and questionable statistical inference.” Whatever the merits or otherwise of Cambell’s study, I’m not going to make any comments on it here as I’m not over familiar with his work, nor the other scientists in the field who have commented on it. 

What I find interesting, however, is that Grimes’ account, as we can see from the following, leaves the impression that there isn’t much, if indeed any, evidence of a relationship between animal protein and cancer: “It is a dramatic misunderstanding of the limited evidence available to us to imply that ceasing to eat animal protein will haul cancer, or whether there’s even a relationship between the two.” Adding to this point, Grimes goes on to quote the Harvard School of Public Health: “There’s no good evidence that eating a little protein or a lot of it influences cancer risk.” Rather curiously, though, he omits the next line: “Eating a lot of red meat is linked to an increased risk of colon cancer, however, as is eating processed meat.” [Emphasis added]. (You can read the full quote here).   Furthermore, a World Cancer Research Fund report claims “the evidence that red meat is a cause of colorectal cancer is convincing.” In Britain both Cancer Research UK and the NHS agree with these conclusions.

Grimes not only fails to mention this important detail, he also doesn’t mention anything about other several high-quality, carefully controlled and prospective cohort studies that have frequently found relationships between red meat and processed meat consumption and risks of breast cancer, colorectal cancer, and overall risk of death. The relationships in these studies, it should also be noted, were independent of major dietary and lifestyle risk factors.  Moreover, another major study, which was published in the Archives of Internal Medicine in 2012, and included more than 121,000 subjects followed for an average of 24 years, concluded that “[r]ed meat consumption is associated with an increased risk of total, CVD, and cancer mortality.” The Harvard Health Publications said that “[b]ecause this was the largest, longest study to date on the connection between eating red meat and survival, the findings are worth paying attention to.” One is tempted to say Grimes himself is also guilty of cherry-picking the evidence to support his own sentiments.  

Now, it’s important to note many of the recommendations merely request people to limit red meat intake and avoid processed meats. Also it would be stretching the evidence to say there is the same level of connection with other kinds of meat and animal products—although admittedly there is some limited evident to suggest this as well. Additionally, we can take nothing from these studies to suggest that avoiding red meat or other forms of animal protein will cure cancer patients. Nevertheless, the association between meat consumption and cancer, taken as a whole, appears to be more widely accepted within the scientific community than Grimes’ article suggests.    

Vegetarian and vegan campaigners, at the same time, should not willingly entertain every study which says meat increases the risk of cancer. And, moreover, merely wanting something to be true does not make it true. Therefore I believe it’s important for campaigners not to uncritically champion studies which are highly contentious, tentative, or are predicated on outdated pseudoscience. In short, bad science equates to bad advocacy.

*****

However, I don’t think this is where the debate should end. It’s all well and good to question and challenge those who perform or refer to poor quality research, but then to ignore or downplay the more fundamental issue—namely, the ethics of eating meat. Despite being happy to recommend animal protein, not once in his article did Grimes consider any of the ethical implications of consuming animal flesh. I don’t want to single him out, as animal food products are part of the everyday public and media discourse and are rarely questioned; it is generally assumed to be a relatively benign practice.

Nevertheless, I did try and raise the issue with Grimes on Twitter a couple of weeks ago: I suggested that our widespread consumption of meat is a more fundamental ethical concern than someone recommending a vegan diet to cure cancer. He said there’s no comparison between the two, and for me to take my ideas elsewhere, as there's no debate on the issue. Clearly, in Grimes’ view, my question was preposterous. Needless to say, the discussion didn’t go far beyond this point. On reflection, I find it puzzling that a scientist and sceptic could respond so dogmatically to a seemingly reasonable question.

Non-human animals on intensive factory farms lead truly horrible lives—they experience considerable pain, fear, boredom and anxiety. The practice is undeniably cruel. Suffering is thrust upon sows that spend their entire lives in crates that are too small for them to turn around.  Hens are kept in sheds, which become increasingly crowded as the birds grow, and are then transported and killed in dreadful conditions. Dairy cows are regularly impregnated (usually by artificial insemination) to produce milk and also are separated from their young sometime after birth. And, of course, the moment of slaughter, for all these animals, is likely to also include suffering. These practices will exist as long as we continue buying animal products from the farms they are produced on. In terms of the scale, the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that around 60 billion land animals are killed annually in food production—a large proportion of these come from intensive factory farms—and they calculate this figure could rise to 120 billion by 2050.

You might say, in response, that animal suffering is regrettable, and isn’t really that significant—certainly not as significant or as bad as human suffering anyway. In contrast to the animals we use for food, humans are psychologically more complex; they can reason, and have the ability to use language.  But why should any of these qualities be worthy of moral consideration? The capacity to suffer, surely, is a more morally relevant criterion. As Peter Singer put it: “All the arguments to prove man's superiority cannot shatter this hard fact: in suffering the animals are our equals.” However, if we insist that more complex qualities is what is essential for moral consideration, we will then have to concede that there wouldn’t be any moral objection to inflicting harm, in the same way, on young children or those with profound intellectual disabilities.

And even if animal suffering is completely discounted from our moral concern, there are several other ethical problems with eating meat. The FAO livestock report in 2006 found that raising animals for food was responsible for 18 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions—more than the emissions that come from the entire global transport sector each year. Another study earlier this year found that the dietary green house gas emissions of the average meat eater are almost twice that of the average vegan.  

The use of antibiotics in animal agriculture is also widespread: despite the fact the EU banned antibiotics for enhancing the growth of animals around nine years ago, their use probably remains high; in the US, also, it’s estimated that around 80 percent of the antibiotics sold are used in 'livestock'. A consequence of this is our growing immunity to antibiotics, and, according to a recent report, the prospect of 300 million premature deaths by 2050. We also know of other public health concerns surrounding animal agriculture: mad cow disease eliminated the notion of beef production as a safe and healthy operation. Finally, farm animals consume about one third of global cereal production and 90 percent of soya meal. If we didn’t have to feed animals on farms, the grains could be reserved for an additional 1.3 billion people—enough to feed everyone in the world. Just last week, George Monbiot in the Guardian  said “[m]eat is bad news, in almost all circumstances.”

We ought to question and challenge those who put forward simple answers to conditions like cancer, no doubt. But when we compare it with the broader concerns of meat consumption, it’s only the sideshow.