A lot of folks are cautious about engaging the conversation around meat because culinary decisions seems so deeply woven into the fabric of our everyday lives. It’s one thing to ask people to change their minds about Democrats; it’s a whole other to ask them to change their approach to dinner. But in this, it’s much like two other extremely hard, extremely personal fights that progressives have engaged in recent years: Tobacco and transportation. In fact, it’s easier than they were.
[…]
Which gets us to meat. There will be no biological retribution for eating less meat, save better health. It is not impossible for folks in Montana to add more vegetables and grains into their diet. Meat is cheap, but it is cheap because of tremendous corn and land subsidies, subsidies that could be redirected towards making things like fruits, vegetables, and whole grains cheap. So it is neither a question of biological addiction or structural necessity. It is just that arguing against meat consumption is culturally alien.
Someone outside of the animal rights movement at last connecting the dots about meat, tobacco and oil consumption.
