to think parents shouldn't bring their child up vegetarian?

[Picante]

Unless for religious reasons.

Yes this is a thread about a thread but I think I was annoying too many people over there so I've started my very own for people to get annoyed with me here!

I just think it's mean. Meat is such a huge part of our culture and fair enough if you're old enough to decide that you don't want to kill animals... but children should be given all sorts of food in the early years, including meat, until they are old enough to make that decision for themselves!

And stop talking about what is 'natural' FGS. If any of you really believe that we should live by what is 'natural' i.e. what we are born being able to do then presumably you don't have houses, cars, antibiotics, anaesthetic ... And you better stop Mumsnetting right now. The Internet is certainly 'unnatural'. Stupid argument. Most of us here are not Eskimos etc etc and can live quite easily without eating meat.

There are very good health, ethical and environmental reasons for being veggie and bringing up your children as veggies. It's a choice that should be respected and we would all benefit if more people ate less meat.

'I would like someone to explain to me what happens to the farm animals, and who pays the huge vets bills if they die a natural death and are cremated or do we let them become extinct?'

Could someone answer this question for me please?
Also those of you who are vegetarian but not vegan-if your vegetarianism is born from the animal welfare point of view-do you just gloss over the distress of the cow and the calf-or did you not realise how your milk is produced?

Please show me the moron who is suggesting that everybody stops eating meat tomorrow and starts cremating animals?

As opposed to the people with common sense who are saying that there are good ethical, environmental and health reasons for eating less meat?

If someone tells you that children should eat less sweets do you start worrying about the fate of sweet manufacturers? Weird.

pisces do you only do extremes?

Just because there are other ethical dilemmas involving animals - leather shoes? milk drinking? Gelatine in sweets?

doesn't make eating no meat or less meat or giving your kids a vegeterian diet any less of a valid choice.

People don't make 'perfect' or black and white choices all of the time. We might drive to the supermarket because we're tired but then shop local. We might buy fair trade bananas but then unsustainable fish because it's cheap ...

The main thing is that we're conscious of the choices we make and their consequences and, where possible, health, environment and ethnics should come into this. Although of course even these can be conflicting. And then cost can undermine all of these.

Noone is going to stop eating meat tomorrow!! In fact they are never going to.

However vegetarians are being very emotive about 'dead flesh'-the underlying message is that it is morally wrong. I don't see what is wrong with my question. If everyone was to stop eating meat what woulf happen to the farm animals. If they get old they get ailments and a vet would be needed or they would suffer dreadfully-who pays? Or are vegetarians just a privileged group because they don't have to consider it?
Why is it ethically wrong to kill a pig quickly, but OK cause distress to cow and calf so that we can have the milk?

I think everyone has pretty bizarre personal choices. My vegan relations wear leather shoes. It is up to the individual. However I think that if people are being very emotive about 'blood and dead flesh' they should be able to answer the question.

fivecandles, the "natural" argument was brought up by the vegetarian side, not by the meat-eaters; they are just responding

as it so happens, some of my relatives still live in places where hunting and fishing are natural parts of the economy, and most vegetables will not grow; you don't have to go to Greenland to find countryside which is simply not suitable for raising crops

Welsh mountainsides are another example

I think being a vegetarian is a perfectly valid choice

but I see why the people at home need to be fishermen; it's harder to be a farmer if you happen to live on a granite rock

the important thing is that they must now become sustainable fishermen or their livelihood will be gone very shortly

and any meat farming needs to be drastically reduced and restricted to those areas which are naturally suited to it- i.e. not the Amazonian rainforest, as is currently happening

and that means that most of us, here, in urban settings, will need to eat less meat and fish

in fact, what I think we will have to do if we want to save the planet is getting used to the idea of eating less varied food, trying to stay more local

my ancestors may have had a dull time on their boiled spuds and salted herrings

but heck! they were sustainable

"do you only do extremes?"

but pisces since nobody is arguing that everybody should stop eating meat tomorrow what's the point in thinking about what hypothetically would happen if we did? How odd.

However, there are few people who would argue against the fact that there are good environmental, ethnical and health reasons for people to eat LESS meat and esp. red meat and esp westerners.

Eating meat, drinking milk, eating fish are different choices. Not doing one does not negate the validity of doing the other. That's not logical.

It's like saying, 'Oh, well since I drove to the shops instead of walking yesterday I might as well drive again today since I obviously don't care about the environment'. Instead of 'I'll make choices which may or may not take in environmental, ethical, economical and health factors but which also suit me and my family practically on any given day as far as possible'

What is 'natural' is that humans can survive on a diet of meat or non-meat, but that most of our diet was got from foraging not hunting, which brought meat as a treat but which could not be relied upon as a staple for much of human existance.

Hunting parties could be away for days. Kids need to eat regular meals throughout the day.

This is why too much meat, fat, sugar and salt can do you harm - but the same isn't true of fruit, nuts and legumes.

I do 'extremes' because people saying they would rather die if roasting a chicken was the only food availabe are pretty extreme!
Cory's summing up is excellent.
I do my bit! I eat very little meat and I bet I have more vegetarian cookbooks and do more meals from them than a lot of vegetarians!! I could quite easily be one.
I just think that making a 2 yr old feel that it is disgusting is a step too far. Don't feed them meat at home, but let them make up their own mind from quiet example.

"I bet I have more vegetarian cookbooks and do more meals from them than a lot of vegetarians!! "

I bet you do. Go for it!

Maybe other people here are being emotive. That's their prerogative. Not me although I am a veggie as are my children. However, it's hard to object to 'dead flesh' since that is exactly what meat is! Perhaps if people find that 'emotive' then they should think more carefully about eating meat.

To answer your question:

IF (hypothetically) everyone were to chosoe to become vegetarian/vegan then it wouldn't happen overnight. A gradual market force diminishing of livestock would occur.

Agree, Cory. But again, I don't think there are many people who would argue for a blanket world-wide meat eating ban tomorrow.

Sorry available.
I am off out now. I still wish that someone would answer my question-even if it is 'odd' or won't happen. I don't think it fair to say that it is absolutely disgusting, and then not say what will happen to the geriatric animals -if they exist-or whether it matters if they don't exist.

its a daft question. would never happen. If you eat meat but also want to make ethical choices, support ethical farming. That's the only way.

My decision to be vegetarian after an unsucessful period of veganism was a pragmatic one pieces. I am finding your antagonistic attitude toward vegetarians very irritating. Since when does anyone have the right to tell me it is ok to bring my dc up veggie as long as I don't stop them eating meat outside my house FFs!

If meat products are consumed by my dc I will not freak out. But I will ensure that people know they are veggie so not to offer them a sausage or whatever, I expect my wishes to be respcted even if they don't agree.

How very dare anyone suggest otherwise - vegetarianism isn't some bizarre sexual pecadillo only to be practiced in your own home with consenting adults y'know!

PM, people on MN might not say, but there are a lot of scientists who do study this. Look up Peter Singer.

I have no problem with the concept of dead flesh. I'd quite happily dump an (organic) chicken in front of dcs and tell them to get on with their dead flesh. I have taken them fishing (when visiting relatives) which naturally involves killing animals; if the opportunity arose I expect I would be happy for them to be taken hunting. Doesn't worry me at all.

What does worry me is the cutting down of the Amazonian rainforest, the destruction of irreplacable habitats, the extinction of species, the displacement of indigenous peoples- all because we in the affluent parts of the world think we have to have meat every day.

And I have no problem with vegetarian guests: I own a cookery book.

When I mentioned extremes I was talking about the way you seem to be arguing that either you have nothing to do with animal products or you are a full blown carnivore when there are many positions in between. I accept that there are ethical and other dilemmas in my choice to drink milk but the fact that we do drink milk does not make our choice not to eat meat any less valid IYSWIM.

On another issue as others have pointed out the whole 'let them make their own choices' when talking about young children is ridiculous. Until our kids are quite old then the choices about their diet are made by us. We do the buying, the choosing, the preparing. So I have no qualms about not choosing, buying or preparing meat for my kids just as I would have no qualms about giving them porridge or not giving them alcohol or too many sweets. When they are old enough to make their own choices of course they can. Right now it's my house, my money, my rules. And my kids have never, ever questioned not eating meat. I do explain and I am not emotive. I explain that meat comes from animals and we don't eat animals together with a little bit of the health and enivonmental reasons. They probably do find the idea of eating meat a bit disgusting but only because of the barest facts (they know nothing about farming conditions or how anyimals are killed etc).

sounds a reasonable stance to me, fivecandles

we all have things we don't give our kids; mine won't be getting any Nestle products, and no cod or other fish that is not sustainable, and no battery chickens

I don't think being a vegetarian means you have to be hugely deprived; lots of affluent Indian families manage it

Perhaps if people find the concept of eating animals disgusting it's because it IS a bit disgusting. Perhaps if people find the way animals are farmed and eaten emotive it's because it IS emotive. Just a thought ...

Quite, Cory.