Food Police vs. Meat Eating Vegans

For years, I struggled with my weight and diabetes. But it wasn't my DNA, it was my dinner.

Healthy choices can save your life and @NYCHealthSystem's Lifestyle Medicine Clinics will help New Yorkers make those choices in every zip code. pic.twitter.com/msUv0bXcsj

— Mayor Eric Adams (@NYCMayor) February 7, 2022

The overall sentiment put forth here by Mayor Adams is good. 

The complication was when it came out that Mayor Vegan (he has self-represented as one, which is his own choice) with a "plant based" diet was discovered to have a loose understanding of such terms.  He called out "food police" who was overly concerned about specifics.  

 Guy emphasized been vegan and so on himself.  He easily could have used more loose terminology.  I personally think ethically it is appropriate to not eat animals products, at least (see a book by Michael Dorf and Sherry Colb) those that result in harm/killing of animals with a certain degree of consciousness.  So, eating worms, for instance, might not be morally problematic, depending on environmental concerns and so on.

And, people sometimes have lapses.  A person is human and whatever their beliefs, they are not going to absolute about it in practice.  It is a stupid parlor game to pretend otherwise and/or pay gotcha games.  There are lines. So, for instance, if you are against abortion, having one because it will conflict with college plans is a tad bit hypocritical.

The term "vegan" suggests a certain degree of wholeheartedness. Maybe, if you have honey or something, you can quibble.  It is not the same thing as "vegetarian," which is more flexible -- people who are vegetarians sometimes eat dairy products (which he, showing his tendency to run off his mouth, compared to drugs).  Vegan?  That isn't what I would think of when people eat fish.  At least, it is not a "food police" moment. 

And, how timely with "vegan Fridays"* beginning in city public schools, there is a suggestion he might even go beyond the occasional fish.  He might occasionally have meat and chicken.  Again, fine, if we grant that no one is totally consistent.  Adams, however, suddenly is coy, while once being against (according to one article cited) "balanced moderation."  

(One wag suggested his shot at "food police" is a bit curious since Adams is usually pro-police, inclined to give them more power.)

Bottom line, it's fine to take a moderate path here. At least, on some level.  Don't go overboard, especially if it is a lapse or a limited thing that doesn't negate a general practice. It is another matter to take potshots like this when caught.  I fear, however, we will see him doing this regularly. 

One final thing. Someone I sometimes read for legal commentary noted he opposes adults to become vegetarians since they are likely to lapse.  Eat less meat instead. That's rather lame, even without noting many don't even think of chicken as meat. 

I myself became a vegetarian in my 20s.  I never completely became a vegan, though I rarely eat products with eggs and dairy these days [generally some dessert with them, not something like ice cream or cheese].  Cutting down is better than nothing, but my suggestion would be to try to go at it in installments. 

ETA:  Prof. Colb, a vegan, adds another supportive commentary in response to "fish-gate."  I understand the concern that people will miss the forest for the trees here, including that overall Mayor Adams has done a good thing to promote veganism.  

I would note even there that it is unclear to me how much criticism he is actually getting, "food police" comments and so forth.  It sounds to me that his own theatrics is half the story.  He made his veganism a story, people saw he went off the wagon, and called him on it.  So what?  That happens.   From my vantage point, it wasn't done to some silly degree.

Anyway, I still am annoyed to some degree (I want to underline that last part) at the response here.  First, she is "excited" about him being mayor because he is openly a vegan.  The fact he is suspect in certain ways (see, e.g., support of solitary confinement) over other options is not even mentioned.  I was not "excited" in that sense, in part since to be "vegan" is an overall life ethic ala Victoria Moran's book. 

And, it is not like "oh no one is perfect."  First, it isn't just fish, apparently, from some accounts.  Second, he is a public figure.  As a public advocate, he has additional responsibilities.  The response here is not surprising; it is plain unsurprising.  He messed up there.  I think people like Colb is giving him too much of a pass.

I don't want to belabor the issue too much, but a final thing is that Prof. Colb is a strong advocate.  Temple Grandin states she believes animals deserve respect and works toward making how they are killed less traumatic.  Colb in the past sneered at the value of this, arguing that it makes meat eaters just feel better.  But, as long as we have to deal with the reality of meat eating, such harm reduction MATTERS.

Now, a major advocate of veganism slips up in a public way and we don't even get a reminder of the importance of being careful as a public figure.  And, we do not even get a full accounting of what he actually did (granted the meat/chicken eating has received less play), as if he had fish once or twice.  It's a bit too generous.  

Oh well.

---

* Having one day a week without animal products seems to be a perfectly sane approach, especially since they have to include some dairy pursuant to federal rules or something.  

It's one day a week, and there are surely some non-animal product foods that most children like.  An easy approach would be usage of animal substitutes, such as a taco with meat substitute crumbles.