Vegetarian* with an asterisk

Join Hazon's Mailing List

What We're Reading

Books in Our Kitchen
Feeds
- Entries (RSS)
- Comments (RSS)
Meta
- Log in

Vegetarian* with an asterisk

by Aaron Desatnik · September 29th, 2007

Animal Care, Eco-Kashrut, Farming, Featured, Fish, Jewish Culture, Kosher, Personal Story

In a pinch, I call myself a vegetarian. Over the years, I have found the term socially useful–simpler to explain than my complex eating habits–and accurately describing my diet without meat. But am I a vegetarian? Rebecca, a teen on an Israel trip I staffed this summer, wondered just this. And while at the time I responded in the affirmative, I realized that I wasn’t being entirely honest. There is an asterisk that I hadn’t thought much of: I eat fish.

What I’ve come to realize is that, to some degree, my categorization of fish as not-so-meatish is an internalization of the laws of kashruth. According to traditional Jewish law, fish is neither here nor there–it is neutral. And though there are restrictions on eating fish and meat on the same plate, this tends to be irrelevant outside the observant Jewish community. Any list of cultural Jewish foods surely includes: a) tuna melt with American cheese; b) lox and cream cheese; and c) gefilte fish neighboring brisket. As far as kashruth is concerned, fish is less of an animal than cattle or chickens.

Outside of the Jewish community, there is a similar apathy to the scaley and finned creatures of the sea. Cattle have their grass-feeding advocates and chicken their free range supporters. Heck, even eggs have activists. But fish? None of the above. One glance at literature on “fish issues” (e.g. omega 3′s, or toxicity in certain fish) would make you think that fish were a dietary supplement as inorganic as iodized table salt.

So I’m stumped. Someone that I met on Sukkoth suggested that as humans, we identify to a greater degree with land animals because we share survival needs. So that is one take on why things are as they are. Will other people share their thoughts on why fish isn’t a “meat” in the human consciousness?

Print This Post

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

11 Responses to “Vegetarian* with an asterisk”

Michael Croland Says:
September 30th, 2007 at 7:28 am
1. It’s not accurate to say that there are activists about cows’ meat, chicken flesh, and chicken eggs but not fish. In particular, please check out the following sites:

http://fishinghurts.com/ (PETA)
http://www.jewishveg.com/faq27.html (Jewish Vegetarians of North America)

2. All of the below is an excerpt from http://www.smh.com.au/news/hec.....95506.html
—-
No, the fault lies with the wannabe vegetarians, the people who think it’s something cool to claim, but who couldn’t be bothered to go the whole hog, as it were, by forgoing the whole animal kingdom.

There are other words they can use to describe themselves. Vegaquarian is clever and catchy, or even pescatarian (peskies for short). “Dietary poseur” is perhaps too vague. Or how about just, “I don’t eat meat”? Although it can be argued that fish is a meat, “meat” and “fish” are separate on most menus, so we can live with this differentiation.

But please, can we keep the fish out of vegetarian? The next thing we know, similar words and phrases will cease to have meaning.

“I’m a non-smoker, but I always puff on a cigar after dinner.”

“I’m sedentary, but I go for a run every morning.”

“I’m celibate, but I have sex now and again.”
Sarah Says:
September 30th, 2007 at 11:10 am
Hey Aaron. Two quick thoughts.
1) We can’t cuddle fish. They’re like “starter animals”. People don’t feel bad when their kids kill a goldfish. They flush it. People are always more indifferent to things they can’t hold/cuddle/identify with. Being in water already makes them alien enough to be “different”.

2) but? They are meat. And when folks say they’re “vegetarian” but eat fish? You make things sucky for those of us who are actually vegetarians. Trust me. It muddies already muddy waters. Its why we show up to dinner parties and end up having to do massive explaining because “We had someone here just the other day who was a vegetarian, and he had a tuna sandwiche!”

In the friendliest way – when you’re too lazy to explain your food choices? You’re just passing the buck to someone else to do it for you. And although here in the grand land of New York City, ovo-lacto-pisco-choco-tarians don’t sound like lunatics (oh wait, yes they do ;>)… Vegetarian & vegan are pretty well understood these days. And if you only eat fish? You should say that “I avoid meat products but do it some fish” instead of “Oh, I’m a vegetarian who eats fish”. Because that second one? That second one doesn’t exist
David Says:
October 1st, 2007 at 10:19 am
I see no reason why anyone should be limited by the self-appointed category authorities, such as the two previous posters of comments. When I have guests over to eat, I don’t ask if they are vegan, vegetarian, etc., I ask if there is anything they don’t eat. They then tell me and I cook accordingly. How they choose to label themselves is not my concern.

In fact, I think that we have to understand that categories such as vegan and vegetarian–or Christian, Muslim, and Jew–are flexible. After all, many people believe that Jews don’t eat pork…and many Jews don’t, of course. But many others do. Shall we excommunicate them? Where I live (New Orleans), we joke that an observant Jew fasts on Yom Kippur and breaks the fast with a seafood platter.

Let’s face it: that is a much more realistic view of the kind of world we live in. And it makes me a much more observant Jew than I used to be, when I lived in places with less open-minded people.
Sarah Says:
October 1st, 2007 at 12:35 pm
I think its not so much about “category authorities” so much as it is about why we use words Or labels. Or whatever. We use labels to communicate ideas – Now, do those labels do all the work of explaining? Heck no. “Vegetarian” does not begin to capture the intricacies of what or how I eat what I do. And I know for a fact neither does “Omnivore” or “vegan” or chatty and polite dinner hosts. Sure, in a perfect world we would all have deep and insightful conversations with every human being we ever encountered, engaging in the intracicies of their belief system.

However? Vegetarian is a word. A word which has a specific meaning. When you choose to the use a word, and then follow it with “Except not”? Its hard to understand your motivation. The first poster also made this point – Its totally cool to say “I don’t eat meat, but I do it some fish”. I think his examples are spot on. In the same way, one someone asks about my Judaism, I”m not going to say “I’m orthodox, except I don’t follow halakah strictly and I don’t believe God fedex’ed us the Torah”. Oh right. That has a word already.

We use labels for two reasons. 1) To associate ourselves with particular groups/ideas and 2) To communicate. Does it make me *angry* that Aaron is a vegetarian with a fishy tasting astrix? No. But I am *well* within my rights to roll my eyes. Would I chase him from my house waving a pointy stick? No, I’d invite him to dinner. It would probably be lovely. There wouldn’t be fish We’d have a mind expanding conversation on the meanings of “vegetarianism” and how we’re both drawn to that label.
See how we can all get along?
Stephen Mendelsohn Says:
October 1st, 2007 at 11:40 pm
BS”D

There may be ethical and health reasons as well as a kashrut reason why many Jews would differentiate between meat and fish. The ethical reason is modern factory farming methods. While wild-caught fish (hopefully from a sustainable ecosystem) suffer when they are caught, at least they got to live their lives far more naturally than the vast majority of land animals and birds raised for meat, eggs, and milk. Many people who are aware of factory farming abuses may be unaware of the factory farming of fish. There is at least some scientific dispute as to whether fish feel pain similar to other cattle and fowl, although the evidence suggests that fish do feel pain. And since the traditional American definition of “vegetarian” excludes wild-caught fish, but includes eggs from battery-caged, debeaked, and forced-molted hens (and growth-hormone-laced dairy), it insufficiently correlates to the degree of suffering of the animals who produce our food. (The British definition of “vegetarian” permits only free-range eggs; the Indian definition excludes eggs entirely but permits dairy.) By any reasonable measure, wild-caught fish would seem to suffer less than most egg-laying hens, yet in the US at least, the fish eater is derided for eating something with a face while the caged egg eater gets a pass.

Gefilte fish normally contains egg whites from caged hens and should be viewed as a more inhumane product than ordinary fish.

The health reason is that it is very difficult to get a lot of omega-3 essential fatty acids with a vegan diet. While one can get ALA from walnuts or milled flax seeds, DHA and EPA come primarily from fish and other animal products (e.g. eggs, especially from hens fed a lot of flax seeds, which converts the ALA into DHA & EPA). Supplementing an otherwise vegan diet with a modest amount of carefully chosen fish (such as wild Alaska salmon, sardines, or anchovies from sources nearly free of mercury or PCBs) might have some health benefits. Unlike vitamin B12, which is frequently added to soymilk, soy pudding, cereals, mock meat, and other foods often consumed in a vegan diet, DHA and EPA are not added to these foods. The omega-3′s added to one variety of Tropicana orange juice is fish-derived and the product is certified OK-F. Whether by eating enough plant-based foods with ALA one’s body can convert this into DHA and EPA to the degree that the source of omega-3s does not matter is still an open question. Until this issue is resolved, vegan purists ought to hold some of their fire on pescetarianism.
rebecca m Says:
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:14 pm
Kashrut viewing fish as “less animal” than cattle or poultry is more a byproduct than an actual integral part of kashrut.

What I mean is: Original halacha only prohibited eating [kosher] mammals with milk. Poultry were added because of potential for confusion. So fish aren’t “less animal” so much as very obviously unable to lactate.

I do agree that the custom of not eating poultry with milk intensifies the tendency for people to see it as real meat. Though it does seem that this distinction is already out there, independent of kashrut.

As for myself, I call myself a vegetarian who occasionally breaks vegetarianism to eat fish.
rebecca m Says:
October 2nd, 2007 at 12:16 pm
stephen’s point about health benefits of fish is interesting, as I often the times I “cheat” by eating fish involve feeling that I “need to”.
Rivka K Says:
October 3rd, 2007 at 9:53 pm
I am 45…since I was about 15-17 I stopped eating any manmmal or anything that gives birth. Easy policy to keep!So this means I sometimes eat chicken.
Torah wise…I don’t consider chicken meat. I just don’t follow the law of sight that made it meat.
Aaron Says:
October 3rd, 2007 at 10:20 pm
It’s so interesting to see such diverse answers from such a seemingly focused group of people.

At the moment, a major factor in my changing eating habits has to do with feeling deficient in certain nutrients. I’m experimenting with what it means to be true to a philosophy while maintaining my health. And I think that my eating of fish are certainly part of this. Michael, I agree that there are organizations concerned about the sustainability of fish and less human-health related issues. At an event coordinated by the Green Roundtable this afternoon, the New England Aquarium discussed its own efforts in sustainable fisheries work. But in popular discourse, it still seems like there is an imbalance between how land creatures are considered and those of the sea. And I agree, Sarah, that this has to do with what you call the “cuddle” factor.

Aside from the issues of fish sustainability, I’m concerned about what the images of vegetarianism that were mentioned earlier affect how we care for our bodies. I certainly agree that being “vegan” or “vegetarian” has its attractiveness in urban/foodie/progressive America and even outside of it. To an extent, the confusion is the fault of people who challenge the definitions (albeit unintentionally) by being vegetarian fish eaters or whatnot. But I also think that there is a social pressure on people to identify as vegetarian or vegan to maintain a sense of being progressive or conscious or whatnot in our society.

I think there is also value in being a conscious pescatarian or omnivore or however someone is predisposed to eat. Each of us has a complex history and physiology with philosophies and desires and such, and I find it problematic to hold one type over another. To me, the concern should be about engaging in the process mindfully, and to be willing to question where your food comes from, who is involved in the process, and how we effect everyone and everything in that process. That seems to necessitate our own transparency, holding the food system accountable, and supporting the people/processes/environment that provide us with those foods that we choose to eat how we do so.
Chorus of Apes Says:
November 6th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
I am a vegetarian who eats fish, and I know that this relates to growing up in a home where we kept kosher in the house, and ate dairy and fish out. Thus, the practice of menu reading I developed was to steer clear for the meat (pork, chicken, and beef) and go for the fish or dairy. Its not logical, but fish’s category as parve feels right. Of course, since I stopped keeping kosher a while ago, I’ve added shell-fish to my diet, because they are parve. How weird is that?
CDRFENCE | Fraud Control For VoIP Networks Says:
July 6th, 2011 at 3:54 am
Vegetarian not chose meat. This health is very good. Present time many people like meat. so vegetarian people present time good health.
===================