OK. I just lost a daughter, half my friends and three-quarters of my readers, no doubt. And all I'm doing is drawing attention to an article in this week's New Yorker (Dec 3, "Red, White, and Bleu: What do we eat when we eat meat?"). Bill Buford's piece is a book review in the sense that it's actually a fact-filled article about three books written by meat-cooker-eaters. Which Buford claims is finally--and again--OK having reclaimed some "moral ground" taken in the siege of the food chain by the truly good people of the world (the vegetables).
Two reasons I'm posting this:
1. Because Buford says near the beginning: "...no one has really come up with a persuasive rejoinder to the claim that a warm-blooded, pain-feeling creature’s life shouldn’t be taken for your supper" and;
2. Because he identifies one of the two co-founders of the famous River Cafe in London, where one of the book authors worked, as "one of the chefs" married to a famous architect.
My rebuttals:
1. Sogyal Rinpoche, a Tibetan Buddhist high-holy man of some repute, provided me with the rejoinder years ago at a meal in London. I was, of course, fixated on what he would order, thinking it would be, say, alfalfa sprouts and sesame seeds. Nope. Roasted pork. Then, we went to dinner, where the hostess was preparing chicken for the rest of us - and a vegetable casserole for Sogyal. Perplexed, I asked. "It's a tradeoff," she said, "between number of souls sacrificed and number of souls fed." Translation: If it's bigger than you, you can eat it; smaller, not so much.
2. The River Cafe in London was founded by Ruthie Rogers and Ruth Gray, both chefs there and cookbook authors in their own right. And, yes, Ruthie's husband is the famous Richard Rogers...but but but...talented as he is, he didn't start the restaurant.
