Is grilled cheese even close to a hamburger? Lumping all this stuff in the same category is seems risible.

Full props, Ezra.

I love reading your blog -- there's always something to think about. But your recent drum-banging for vegetarianism (apropos of environmentalism) oversimplifies, I think. Equating meat with higher emissions and vegetarianism with lower emissions is constructing a false choice, or at least an uniformed one.

Consider Gary Taubes's argument in _Good Calories, Bad Calories_, that carbohydrates drive obesity (and thus many other health problems). It's a great wonk read, and organized such that you can easily skim where you want to. Perhaps vegetarianism won't increase the fraction of carbs in the diet, but I doubt it. Truly, I think the problem in the U.S. regarding food consumption (and the associated emissions) is the quantity, not the type. Americans eat nearly 4,000 calories a day -- remove meat from this equation, and they might eat even more (or so Taubes's literature review seems to suggest). More calories = more farmland = more emissions, at least under conventional farming methodology.

On another note, our ability to estimate emissions for various food sources is not well developed. The studies I've read on the subject often are vague about n-th degree relationships: the carbon emitted in transporting meat, dairy, or vegetable foods; the carbon emitted in feedlots vs tofu processing plants; the carbon emitted in growing feed corn, in gathering fertilizers, etc. Like EROEI studies, it's relatively easy to see how the results could be skewed based upon your underlying assumptions. For example, what about the cows I raise (in the northeast)? They're on land that's not suitable for farming (it's too hilly). I suppose I could grow trees (for carbon sequestration) instead, but around here, they'd just be burned as firewood. Is my meat (and more generally, any meat raised on agriculturally marginal land) a net gain or loss when compared with conventionally farmed soybeans, for example? Beats me.

Either way, I hope this gives you something to think about, as you've often given me. Keep up the good work!

“[E]missions from electricity generation accounted for the largest portion (34 percent) of
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2006. Transportation activities, in aggregate, accounted for the second largest portion (28 percent). Emissions from industry accounted for 19 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions in 2006. . . . The remaining 19 percent of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions were contributed by the residential, agriculture, and commercial sectors, plus emissions from U.S. territories. The residential sector accounted for about 5 percent, and primarily consisted of CO2 emissions from fossil fuel combustion. Activities related to agriculture accounted for roughly 8 percent of U.S. emissions; unlike other economic sectors, agricultural sector emissions were dominated by N2O emissions from agricultural soil management and CH4 emissions from enteric fermentation, rather than CO2 from fossil fuel combustion. The commercial sector accounted for about 6 percent of emissions, while U.S. territories accounted for 1 percent.” Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2006 at ES-16 (emphasis added).

There's a good article in the July New Yorker called 'The Island in the Wind' about Samsø, a Danish island that has transformed itself to carbon neutral and then to carbon negative as it began to sell it's surplus renewable energy.

One bit stood out to me - “People on Samsø started thinking about energy,” Ingvar Jørgensen, a farmer who heats his house with solar hot water and a straw-burning furnace, told me. “It became a kind of sport.”

The idea that it's fun to change, to participate in something new together, is something that needs to be part of the debate.

Things like the PB&J club are important as educational campaigns but more importantly because they are fun. "Prius Butter & Jelly" is a good way to explain the real effects of green tech and consumption.

Also, a carbon tax would make a PB&J A LOT more appealing on a price basis.

Here's the link to the EPA report: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/downloads/08_ES.pdf

Out of curiosity, why the inconsistency, Ezra? You pushed very hard to say that being carbon neutral shouldn't be a matter of "personal virtue" but should just be a matter of pricing in the true cost.

Why the change of heart with this anti-meat campaign? I don't have a problem removing subsidies (your post a while back with the food pyramid side by side with subsidies was extremely good). However, this general push for "we should all be healthier and eat less meat" seems very ... well it just feels the similar to the "we should all be moral and not be gay".

Sorry, but Gore really is doing his movement a favor by not pushing this one. You want to talk about "culture war" this is a good way to start it again.

(And for the record, I cut back on my own meat consumption (notably burgers) a while back for health reasons... but I hate being preached at.)

A key reason that you have far fewer smokers today than you did 50 years ago is not just the number of people who quit smoking, but the larger number of people who never became smokers.

The same with the over consumption of meat. If we start kids out with a nutritious diet of mostly fruits, vegetables, whole grains and small amounts of meat (or non-meat protein) rather than huge portions of McNuggets, Whoppers, McRibs we'll all be better off.

It's not just carbon -- it's arable land, topsoil, water, the price of food, and your own health. Not to mention the inhumane methods of the industrial meat production system, pollution of waterways, stench, and a slaughterhouse and meat processing workforce even more exploited than farm laborers -- I don't have any moral problem with sustainable hunting or even free range husbandry, but the way we produce meat is completely unethical as well as wasteful and destructive of the earth and our selves.

Per Roger Chittum, you'd be far more effective advocating for change jumping on Gore's renewable electricity proposal or at the very least sticking to a sensible cap -n-trade and/or a carbon tax. The rest is fluff-n-nutter.

I love reading your blog -- there's always something to think about. But your recent drum-banging for vegetarianism (apropos of environmentalism) oversimplifies, I think.

Ezra has consistently talked about reducing meat consumption, not eliminating it. In other words, he's not talking about vegetarianism. For instance, take this sentence from this very post:

There will be no biological retribution for eating less meat, save better health.

If he were talking vegetarianism, he'd say zero, not less.

Does this calculation take into account the fact that a hamburger or tuna sandwich will give you more energy than a PB&J sandwich?

Anonymous wrote:
There will be no biological retribution for eating less meat, save better health.

If he were talking vegetarianism, he'd say zero, not less.

True. But the stated motivation for reducing meat consumption is reducing carbon emissions. As other commentators have noted, that's attempting to use ethics rather than economics to solve a fundamentally economic problem.

Also, I'm not sure Ezra's correct in asserting that there's no biological retribution for eating less meat. Meat, particularly organ meat, is one of the most nutrient-dense foods available to the omnivore. Obesity and other negative presumably diet-related health problems have been rising with increased messaging about low-fat, low-meat diets. People that eat traditional diets, based generally on animal product, were among the most healthy. I write 'were' because the Western white flour, corn, and soy diet has become standard almost world-wide, for people as well as the animals they eat.

Of course, the main benefit is living an ethical life -- supporting positive production, rather than the cruelties of factory farms and industrial slaughterhouses.

So far as squaring this with my distaste for personal virtue arguments goes, the base point is that there's a difference between what independent writers should do and what political movements should do. My argument against virtue was about the Democratic Party having a carbon neutral convention -- that seems to muddle their message.

That said, I'm glad folks are aware that SUVs are wasteful, and I'm glad lots of people won't buy one for that reason. Conversely, I don't think a lot of people realize meat has a substantial carbon impact, and one of the things I can do with this blog is push that information, such that more people understand it. I still believe the right policies are policies that bring economic costs into line with environmental damage, and that personal virtue responses aren't nearly large enough to the task at hand. But if we're going to have good policy responses, people are going to need to understand the underlying connection between carbon and cows.

PB & J used to be a an excellent candidate for school lunches. However, most schools outlaw it these days because of the rise in peanut allergies (and fear of sharing). So while the peanut butter council thanks you for your attempt to return them their lost business, I do not see this being adopted anytime soon.

"""you'll reduce your carbon footprint by the equivalent of 2.5 pounds of carbon dioxide """

But were going to need those greenhouse gases to combat the coming ice age.

I love how totally ridiculous this is...eat a PBJ, save the world. It must be a great self esteem boost.

Meanwhile, China is starting another coal burning power plant every week.
But heh, enjoy that PBJ...

For some reason a lot of people get really touchy when you say that it would be a good idea to reduce or eliminate meat from their diets. There does not seem to be a comparable reaction when you tell people that, say, it would be a good idea to drive an electric car and produce their electricity from wind or solar and also to recycle as much as possible.

I'm not sure why this is. My feeling is that there is a latent sense of guilt and willful ignorance within a lot of people who consume a lot of meat. They know meat eating is ethically dubious but they have contented themselves with their own personal meat consumption. When this world-view is challenged, people get worked up in a "methinks he doth protest too much" kind of way.

Actually, that kind of discussion is largely absent from this thread, but it's something I've noticed a lot.

I think any sort of movement or argument in favor of vegetarianism has to be very conscious of this kind of reaction. Challenging people's consumption of meat is far trickier than challenging their smoking, drinking, or SUV driving. Challenging meat consumption is almost like trying to convince the religious that there is no God. Logic and reasoning are not going to do it.

Its kind of like Obamas declaring that upon receiving enough delegates for the party nomination declared:

"""this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal …"""

Guess I wasn't convinced until I heard about this secret PBJ Plan. Now I feel better....

The GOP coalition makes all sorts of virtue arguments - abortion, gay marriage, abstinence etc. And they gain a lot of support through pulling people's strings that way. Why should the Dems not make virtue arguments on progressive grounds? Are we not ceding the ground and passing up voters by sticking to boring policy arguments all the time? Are we afraid of Limbaugh calling us girlies if we point out that eating less meat and driving smaller cars is good for us and the planet?

I just did a post on my food blog referencing your posts Ezra. We in the food blogosphere speak about these issues too.

Two points - one, beyond farm subsidies there are a variety of other contributing factors including "lawn worship" and even Brown v. Board of Education. You can connect.

The second point goes to the possible good of higher priced meat. I addition to a lower carbon footprint and health benefits, consumers might demand meat that tastes like something. That wouldn't be so bad, would it?

I'm not sure why this is. My feeling is that there is a latent sense of guilt and willful ignorance within a lot of people who consume a lot of meat. They know meat eating is ethically dubious but they have contented themselves with their own personal meat consumption.

Wow. As if the smug self-righteousness of the people using pushing this crap wasn't enough, now you claim that we're just in denial, and actually feel guilty for eating meat. Had you ever considered that maybe we just disagree with you on the ethical status of meat consumption, and are tired of self-righteous do-gooders trying to tell us we're evil people?

People like you are no different than Christians who just can't understand why everyone doesn't think gay people are immoral like they do.

"People like you are no different than Christians who just can't understand why everyone doesn't think gay people are immoral like they do."

Exactly. And it's the same because all those scientific studies show how being gay has a huge carbon footprint and is abetting global warming and deforestation.

Actually, AB, my experience with people who describe themselves as "carnivores" and "meat-lovers" is that they're generally smug jerks about it. It's also why they get so defensive when anyone like Ezra points out the obvious problems with diets excessively focused on meat. It's because meat has turned into a fetish among people (granted, a fetish that developed in the face of societal changes that opened up discussion of alternatives to meat eating).

I like vegetarian food as much as the next healthy guy, but you don't see me proudly talking about my love for chickpeas.

Exactly. And it's the same because all those scientific studies show how being gay has a huge carbon footprint and is abetting global warming and deforestation.

Way to completely miss the point John. If you think eating meat is in and of itself immoral, then that's fine. I don't begrudge anyone the right believe what they want, and I expect the same courtesy, not an accusation of dishonesty. Plenty of intelligent people disagree with you, and Rob's "meat eaters know it's immoral, they just won't admit it" is ridiculous on its face. It comes down to a moral judgment of whether it's OK to kill animals for food, and none of us is in a position to say who is right, though your side is trying to. Arguing from authority will get you nowhere.

It comes down to a moral judgment of whether it's OK to kill animals for food

That's not what Ezra has been talking about at all. Have you been paying attention to anything he's written?

Tyro, I won't claim to speak for all "meat-lovers", but I don't think one can honestly claim they were defensive and smug about it until the anti-meat eaters were smug and self-righteous about the morality of eating meat. It's not as if meat eaters just stood up one day and decided to be smug about their love of a good steak, it's only after people like Rob and John tell them they are evil Bambi-killers who are destroying the planet. They practice the very type of judgmental, heavy-handed moralizing that they hate so much when it comes from the religious right.

I like vegetarian food as much as the next healthy guy, but you don't see me proudly talking about my love for chickpeas.

I don't think you want to make it a contest over which side is more pleased with themselves for their choice of food. Vegetarians LOVE to tell you all about it, and love to tell you how much healthier (they think) it is.

That's not what Ezra has been talking about at all. Have you been paying attention to anything he's written?

I wasn't addressing Ezra's post, I was addressing Rob's accusation of meat-lovers knowing that they are immoral but refusing to admit it. I understand Ezra's point about the true cost, and while I may disagree on how important this is in the bigger scheme of things I am 100% in favor of eliminating ag subsidies, so it's all good with me. But what I can't stand are the self-righteous busybodies who think it is their place to tell the rest of us we're evil because we eat meat, and then have the gall to question our moral integrity as well.

I guess that's what I get for paying attention to anonymous imbeciles posting on a blog (not directed at you Tyro).

Not by banning cigarettes, but by working to educate folks about their effects, and eventually by reorienting public policy such that smoking became less convenient

Take the anti-smoking movement (please.) It's gone from an educational endeavor on the dangers of smoking - which, since cavemen were apparently aware that smoke is harmful, should really be put in a filmstrip titled "stuff you should already know" - to an effort as you euphemistically define it, "make it less convenient."

What I call it is 'telling private property owners what they can and can't do on their property.' So if the vegetarianism movement follows the model of the anti smoking movement as you wish we will go from

"meat ain't so good for you"

to

"meat may not be so good for others"

to

"you need to have make sure you have separate non-meat alternatives"

to

"your restaurant may not serve meat anymore"

So excuse me for being cautious when I see moralizing about meat. I remember reading that the same tune was sung by the temperance people during the last Progressive movement. The only reason no one really comes out with a call to ban cigarettes outright is some vestigial memory that prohibition was somewhat flawed - but if it weren't for this 'great experiment,' the extremely hard, extremely personal fight would be all about bannin' among progressives.

I think its a good thing to raise the issues regarding meat and resource use since, as you point out, the public info on this has been almost invisible.

The current and likely reaction to calls for less meat consumption sort of remind me of the early reaction to the Surgeon General's calls for people to stop smoking. It took a fair amount of time for the info to sink in, but ultimately social pressure led to the real reductions in use - particularly amoung young folks where social pressure is a dominant force in shaping behavior.

As to the economics, I'm all for trying to determine, even roughly at first, the 'externalities' of the cost of choices - in this case food. I realize that a carbon tax would greatly help in making personal choices bear the true, full burden of things that are unpriced, but one other way is to pick some high resource use items like coal and meat (and what?) and apply a market cost to what is today unpriced (carbon emissions and land use costs). In regard to beef, much of the land in the west used to graze cattle (before the feedlot for finishing) is on public lands owned by the US government and essentially free to the ranchers. But those ranchers also are leading critics of endangered species restrictions (I'm thinking grizzly bears, wolves, etc.) because their free land is in US forests adjacent to US national parks. They get free land to use for ranching, but complain because the protected animals don't recognize park boundaries. My answer: charge for that land use, and beef prices will rise to reflect the true costs - and as the prices rise, smaller amounts will be consumed.

I think again some are missing the point... it's not about eliminating meat and animal-based products from your diet entirely, it's about using less of them.

There are plenty of great vegetarian and vegan recipes around, and adding them to your meal rotation isn't hard at all. Once you start looking for non-animal-based options, they really are plentiful. It's not about going Vegan or Vegetarian totally, but maybe having two days a week like that...

"But what I can't stand are the self-righteous busybodies who think it is their place to tell the rest of us we're evil because we eat meat, and then have the gall to question our moral integrity as well."

Personally, I think that anyone who wears an undershirt is evil. And watching the news on television is evil. And if you eat peanut-butter sandwiches, you lack moral integrity.

There. I assume everyone reading this is now thoroughly irritated, even angry, at my smug, holier-than-thou attitude. No? Strange. Okay, suppose there were lots of people like me, posting on blogs and perhaps even standing at street corners with signs: "Peanut butter is evil!" "Undershirt wearers, change your perverted ways!" I guess you'd be super-upset then. You'd respond heatedly to their blog posts, telling them you were really ticked off. No? So how come even a hint that consuming meat is less than virtuous sets so many people off?

I think Ezra is basically right about the prospects for change. Only a small minority will act on this issue from a sense of moral duty regarding animals. Many more people are likely to change their ways for more narrowly personal reasons: cost, health, and thoughts of the environment their grandchildren will have to live with.

I'm already light on the meat for health reasons. I would not eliminate meat completely because that wouldn't be healthy either. In my fridge, currently, there are 2 lbs of chicken drumsticks, 1 lb of turkey slices, several sticks of butter, less than 1 lb of cheese, only soy milk, and no eggs. The rest of my food is plenty of whole grains, rice, fruit, vegetables. If I were to create a new fad diet it would focus on the foods a person buys rather than meals one consumes. For me it's ten times more simple that way.

@mijnheer

What utter nonsense. Yes, the chorus of do-gooders lambasting people for daring to eat an animal is the equivalent of crazies on the corner warning us of the evils of undershirts. No one should care at all about a movement that wants to control what we are allowed to eat.

There is a very large and vocal group of people who feel this way, and they find it necessary to repeatedly question the morality of those who disagree, yet they fail to recognize the irony of the fact that they are for the most part the same group that gets so righteously indignant when the religious right does the same thing. I would prefer it if both groups stopped trying to tell us how to live our lives. They think killing animals for food is immoral, well most Christians think it is wrong to abort a baby. Both of them should STFU and mind their own business. Yes, meat is artificially cheap because of ag subsidies, and we should correct that. But these morons who feel it is their duty to inform us all of our despicable moral failings because we eat meat need to stay out of people's personal lives.

Also:
So how come even a hint that consuming meat is less than virtuous

That's quite the understatement. Read any post by "John McCain more of the same" on any of Ezra's meat related posts.

And substitute "aborting a baby" for "consuming meat" in your sentence and see if you still think your post made a valid point.

Since I am quite comfortable with my pro-choice position on abortion, I am not in the least bothered by the claims of pro-lifers. I don't get hot under the collar when they make their moral position clear. I'm not even bothered by the rationally defective claims of meat-eaters. Let a hundred flowers bloom, let a hundred schools of thought contend!

"And substitute "aborting a baby" for "consuming meat""

Geez, these fad diets get wackier every day.
------

Anyway, AB, I think you're almost making (part of) Rob's argument for him. It's not like this thread is congested with vegetarians going on about how meat=murder, etc. (as I admit, some of us can get a bit preachy about, as with any such movement). Besides that argument, there's just McCain/Same and cervantes - both making fairly modest claims about the unethical nature of factory farming (the latter stressing the mistreatment of human workers) not meat-eating per se. Now granted, Rob's point is going to be somewhat provocative. See also Carol Adams, who argues in her book Living Among Meat Eaters that said meat eaters are all really "blocked vegetarians" filled with fear and insecurity - which seems pretty absurd to me. At the same time, many vegetarians are familiar with folks getting all hostile and overreacting to them, personally, apparently completely regardless of the preachiness level. It's really kinda odd. I think Tyro's point about meat-eating as oppositional lifestyle makes a lot of sense, esp given the general suite of attitudes that vegetarianism often associates with. There's also the tremendous symbolic and social significance of food&diet, which makes it easy to read vegetarianism (though incorrectly) as a rejection of fellowship, community, culture, etc. Difference is often threatening, and when it's difference on such a fundamental level . . . And of course, just by virtue of existing we're making an ethical challenge - and while it seems doubtful, AB, that you or most other folks are secretly consumed by guilt, Rob's observations on how people react is sometimes pretty accurate.

But again, the post is about reducing meat consumption as one way to help cut CO2 emissions.

Why not just cause mass human extinction and be done and over with all this?

It's my feeling that soy ginger sauce is the key to getting people to introduce more vegetables to their diet.

Wow, AB seems to veer somewhere besides paranoid and psychotic in his arguments. Christ, man, I've never once seen anyone argue that meat eating should be made illegal (in fact, the last I heard anything about the legality of meat-eating concerned a Meiji Japanese law that legalized it for Zen monks). Get a grip.

As for me, I'm a vegetarian who takes the Catholic approach of proselytizing by action, not words. I answer questions when asked, and I cook a meal that easily outdoes 80% of meat-eaters, which isn't hard to do, considering how they treat even the object of their veneration (it's pretty painful to watch people cook a steak to well-done and then bath it in some high fructose corn syrup sauce).

But pointing out the environmental advantages of minimizing meat consumption does tend to bring out the crazy. Perhaps if it were phrased as "replacing beef with chicken and vegetable protein" people would get less riled up--cows being the worst culprit on the carbon front by far.

Dan S, it is not just this one thread, but every post about meat that Ezra has made lately a (admittedly small) number of people feel the need to chime in about how we're all evil murderers for eating animals. Is it everyone? Of course not, and I never claimed as such, but it's still quite annoying whether it's in real life or here. There's a need to say "We get it, you think eating animals is wrong, that's great, here's a cookie. Now shut up and let the rest of us discuss the matter at hand, how to handle the externalities of meat consumption and eliminate the subsidies." To use the abortion analogy again, imagine that Ezra posted multiple threads over a few weeks about how to handle late-term abortions and medical exceptions, and each and every time a few regular commenters who were religious nuts chimed in to say "How about no abortions at all you baby murderers." The first time you'd probably ignore it, the 2nd time you'd think it was a little annoying, the 10th time you'd say "I get it, you think abortion is murder, that's not the point here, STFU." And then imagine one of them claims that you actually believe abortion is wrong, but you're just in denial.

@zephyrus, I think you're taking me a bit too seriously. I'm neither paranoid nor psychotic, just annoyed by repetitive irrelevant preachiness. In my experience a lot of vegetarians are like the guy who doesn't own a TV and constantly needs to tell you so, and remark about how everything on TV is mindless garbage that rots your brain. Self-righteousness in all its forms is annoying, it really has nothing to do with meat/abortion/watching Montel Williams.

but every post about meat that Ezra has made lately a (admittedly small) number of people feel the need to chime in about how we're all evil murderers for eating animals.

That may be true, but the threads always echo the dynamic of real life: one or two people might make some dumb statement like that, but those statements are easily drowned out by the people who were already complaining that Ezra was screaming about banning meat and how meat is awesome and how they love meat, rah! rah! rah!

Even looking at this thread, Rob Mac wasn't even talking about vegetarianism, and you can't definitely infer that the ethical aspects of meat eating he was referring to involve killing animals, but you immediately leaped on that.

I don't think eating meat is immoral -- I have a hard time seeing any separation between the sin, if it is, of killing a cow from the sin of killing a tree and using chopped-up bits of its corpse to build houses out of -- but I do think that running grain through a cow is an awfully inefficient and messy way to produce food. And of course the food isn't all that healthy (especially when the cows are fed grain instead of grass).

I would like to see a society where good beef is a somewhat expensive treat (reasonably affordable for most, but not an everyday thing for most), bad beef is mostly not available, and good produce is less expensive and widely available. Obviously that means reworking the farm bill, and while it's going to take years to build the momentum to do that, I applaud Ezra for beating the drum here.

And yeah, I'll be having PB&J for lunch today -- though I might substitute mashed fresh local raspberries for the J. Thanks for posting this, Ezra.

As a non-preachy vegetarian who still worships the smell of bacon, I think we've all gotten too far away from our food, especially meat. It's one thing to hunt and eat, I can understand that. But the current situation of factory farming -animals full of hormones and anti-biotics (turkeys and chickens so huge they can't walk), the feed situation, ag subsidies, the environmental impacts of this kind of farming - it just seems bad for us, as individuals and as a society. I don't think people feel guilty about eating meat, I just don't think most people think about their food, where it comes from, and what's in it. Frankly, I hope high fuel costs drive the restoration of small local farming, including meat. We'd all be better off being closer to our food, no matter what that food is.

Arguing for more veggies in the average diet does not have to be an argument over ethics. The quality of one's health is not necessarily an ethical argument, although it can be. It can also be a monetary one as well. In the end, Ezra has been simply saying that because meat is heavily subsidized, consumers can't make the choice on price of food based off carbon costs because meat and veggies aren't priced on a level playing field.

For my part, I've been cutting back on meat for both health and monetary reasons, not ethical ones. And to this day, I still think that bacon makes EVERYTHING better.

SIDENOTE: This my monthly bitch to complain about this stupid blog not remembering my personal info in Firefox, in addition to the captcha system being stupid.

Ezra has consistently talked about reducing meat consumption, not eliminating it.

That begs the question as to why? Why *not* advocate for no meat? Wouldn't that reduce the carbon footprint to it's lowest possible? Why just "cut back"?

Could it be that Ezra likes a big ol' steak?

This is a great post, which really nails a big part of the problem we vegetarians have. If we say anything to advocate a veg diet, we're accused of preaching.

So we shut up.

I was reading a DKos diary today about the benefits of "humanely" raised grass-fed beef. If I'd said what I really thought, which is that killing any animal for food is inhumane, I'm sure I would have been troll rated or whatever it is they do over there. So I kept my keyboard silent, and commented instead about the environmental damage that grazing herds do. No one wants to hear that slitting an animal's throat is in any way cruel.

Anyway, it's encouraging to think of it in terms of the cigarette campaign.

What KathyF said.

ed hardy ed hardy clothing
ed hardy clothing