Dietary Bigotry in Vegan Attitudes Toward Instinctive Eating

Vegan Attitudes Toward Instinctive Eating

(ISSUE VERSION 2)

by Tom Billings
Copyright © 1997, 1998 by Thomas E. Billings. All rights reserved.
Contact author for permission to republish.

(Note: I am clearly labeling this article as opinion, in case some readers
recognize certain of the people whose actions are discussed herein.)

How do we see others--and what
does it say about ourselves?

Negative attitudes held by vegans.

As a former vegan for many years, and now a lacto-vegetarian, it's been my observation that some vegans have very negative, even hostile, attitudes toward the dietary philosophy known as "instinctive eating." In some cases this extends to disregard and disrespect for the individuals who practice instinctive eating themselves ("instinctos"), and not just the diet itself. People are entitled to their opinions, of course. The problem in this case, however, is that such attitudes conflict with the (often self-conscious) compassion that so many vegans claim is a central part of their dietary philosophy.

I am writing this to describe my personal journey, from my first view of instincto (a very negative view) to my current (mostly) favorable view. It is my hope that others will find this of interest, and perhaps can see themselves as being on a similar journey. Let's begin with the following.

Definition of instinctive eating:

A system of sequential mono-eating (one food at a time), guided by the senses. Food is selected by smell (and other senses), and one eats until there is a "signal" from their body to stop eating, e.g., a "taste change" (probably the primary signal used in instincto), a feeling of fullness/satiation, or strong emotions or thoughts arise. If still hungry after a taste change with one food, select another food by smell/senses, and repeat the process until no longer hungry.

Original foods. Instinctos limit their food choices to unprocessed, raw, "original" foods. Original foods are defined as those that were part of the human diet pre-fire/pre-agriculture: fruits, animal foods (meat, seafood, honey), nuts, and raw vegetables. Grains and dairy are excluded as they are products of agriculture. Instinctive eaters are usually non-vegetarian. However, some instinctos consume only very limited amounts of animal foods. (It's not unusual for new instinctos to be former vegans for whom the diet didn't work out, but who may be reluctant to add more than modest amounts of animal food to their diets if they are concerned about potential repercussions from eating too much of it. The motivations that attract people to instincto--if they are based in the desire to eat as "natural" a diet as possible--often run parallel to why someone might select veganism for similar reasons.)

The three stages of my own shift from hostility, to acceptance, of instincto.

Stage 1: Negative reaction to instincto.

My first exposure to instincto came by reading Zephyr's book, Instinctive Eating: The Lost Knowledge of Optimum Nutrition. The book is very interesting--as well as challenging to vegans on a number of levels. There are graphic descriptions of killing and devouring (raw) animals. Even worse, in the view of the (self-conscious) sensitive vegan, the author (Zephyr) describes eating freshly killed raw meat as something akin to a spiritual experience. This is too much for many vegans, whose extensive self-conditioning makes them react emotionally, with horror and revulsion.
The result of hearing information such as this is that many vegans form a negative opinion of instinctive eating, and in some cases of instinctos as people, because they can't "mentally digest" (understand) the idea that someone could ever want to eat raw animal flesh.
My initial reaction was similar to the above, and I see many vegans reach this same stage and stop (hence this article).
Side note: I recommend Zephyr's book precisely because it presents a challenge to vegans and veganism. It's interesting reading, in particular not only because of the different view about what a "natural" diet might consist of, but because of the spiritual emphasis throughout on living life in closer harmony with nature (including human nature). This viewpoint faces straightforwardly the killing of animals for food, the question of its role in human existence given our natural place in--and as part of--the food chain, and doing so in harmony with the overall order of nature.
Stage 2: Understanding the basis for instincto.

My first exposure to instincto was in the first half of 1996, via Zephyr's book, and also via the Veg-Raw email list on Internet (which has since been renamed the Raw-Food list due to a subsequent shift away from the prior exclusive emphasis on vegetarian raw-foodism). In May of 1996, I left the Veg-Raw list for various reasons, the primary one being that I was exhausted from trying to have a civil discussion with an uncivil fruitarian zealot. Shortly before leaving, I received some very nasty, hate email from people I had never heard of. As I didn't know who they were (at that time), I thought they might be instinctos--after all, only raw meat-eaters, who like the taste of blood, could be so hostile and nasty (that is what I foolishly thought at the time!).
Omnivorous (or faunivorous) diet is natural for humans. Things were quiet for some time. In late 1996, I learned of the Ward Nicholson interview article in the newsletter Health & Beyond. I read the text of the interview on Internet, and obtained a copy of the lengthy footnote/reference list. Here at last was convincing, carefully documented scientific evidence that: apes are not fruitarians but omnivores, and our prehistoric ancestors were also omnivores. For years I had believed, and even told others, that apes were fruitarians, and that we humans were natural frugivores/vegans.
This new knowledge presented me with a real dilemma: I could shut my eyes to the evidence, to reality and the truth, and go on as before. Alternately, I could accept the truth, accept reality, and understand that a raw vegan diet was not totally natural, and continue as a vegetarian for spiritual reasons (only). I felt that I had no choice but to remain intellectually honest.
Instincto based on a different model of nature rather than bloodthirstiness. The realization that an omnivorous (or faunivorous) diet is natural for humans, and vegan diet a major restriction of that natural diet, also cast a new light on instinctos. I saw that instinctive eaters aren't bloodthirsty, they are simply following a different (and quite frankly, more honest and accurate) model of nature than the fruitarian/vegan model. I also finally "connected with" (i.e., understood) information that I had been told many times before: that all hunter-gatherer societies are omnivores; none are vegan. That says quite a bit about the (raw) vegan diet, if you stop and think about it.
The result of these revelations was that I saw it was inappropriate for me to condemn a diet, or those who follow a diet, when the people following that diet have legitimate science and reason backing them up. (Of course, one should avoid judging others by their lunch, but that is something people often do anyway.)
Stage 3: Acceptance of instincto as a legitimate raw diet.

Fruitarian vs. instincto debate on Internet. Around the end of 1996/early 1997, I returned to the Veg-Raw list, to find a major debate in progress between a group of fruitarians and a group of instinctos. It turned out that the people who had sent me hate mail in Spring of 1996 were not instinctos, but were actually fruitarians! I sat back and watched as the fruitarians attacked the instincto position in a very hateful, and often intellectually dishonest, way. The instinctos responded with science and reason, and very little of the hostility present on the fruitarian side. In that debate, the scientific basis for the "model of nature" used for instincto was thoroughly presented, and the complete lack of a (genuine) scientific basis for fruitarianism was made very clear.
This debate featured the defenders of "compassionate" veganism behaving in a very hateful, anti-compassionate way, and the instinctos--non-vegetarians--behaving in an honest, civil manner. If you are a "compassionate" vegan, doesn't that seem like a contradiction to you?
The final result of the debate was to establish instincto as a legitimate diet, in my opinion. If one can back their diet with reasoning based on honest science, then it is a legitimate diet--even if I don't follow it, agree with it, or even care for it. Because of this, I passed from not simply understanding, but to seeing, instincto as a valid part of the raw diet spectrum--that is what I mean here as acceptance. (Note that I am still a vegetarian, and do not practice instinctive eating.)
Notes:
1. Readers who wish to read the debate for themselves can visit the Raw-Food email list archives and read the months of November 1996 through January 1997.
2. Since the above debate, I have become aware that certain other fruitarian extremists promote an allegedly "scientific" basis for the diet, e.g., such claims as "humans evolved as (strict) fruitarians," "fruit is just like human milk," etc. However, such claims are not legitimate science; instead they are fallacious, intellectually dishonest crank science.

Respect and tolerance for other individuals and diets.

Although most vegans will disagree with the instincto consumption of animal foods, there are other important issues here: respect and tolerance for others whose lifestyle is different from yours, and respect for their freedom of choice. Even if one opposes the consumption of animal foods, one should recognize that others have different views, and we must respect their choice, as well as their personal dignity and freedom. That is why the hateful, bigoted attacks on instinctos by certain vegans (discussed below) are so reprehensible.

What an understanding of instinctive
eating can offer other rawists

The philosophy of instinctive eating has a number of points that other raw-fooders might find of interest. A select few of these points are:

A more accurate, honest model of nature than one will find in certain other raw diets (e.g., fruitarianism).
The "taste change"--it's not an infallible stop signal, but worth paying some attention to, when it occurs.
"Original" foods--humanity's natural evolutionary diet.
Animal foods produced naturally. The insistence that animals be raised humanely, in conditions that are as similar to wild nature as possible, is a point that instinctos share with some of the less radical, more rational vegans.
Mono-eating. The idea that a sequential form of mono-eating might actually work (mono-eating is very rare in the raw vegan community).

Vegan bigotry: referring to
Instinctos as "In-stinktos"

It has become popular in certain raw vegan circles (specifically, among certain fruitarian extremists) to refer to instinctos as "in-stinktos." This practice, in my opinion, is a clear form of bigotry and should stop. Here I am not critical of those who use the term once or twice in ignorance or by accident, but of those vegans who think it is fun to create and use a derogatory, insulting nickname for another dietary group. The deliberate, repeated use of "in-stinkto" is the moral equivalent of using a derogatory, insulting nickname for people who are of a different race. In the 1990s, such behavior is (or ought to be) socially unacceptable, just as racial epithets are stigmatized. It is surprising to me that vegans condone or tolerate such behavior by some in the vegan camp. Most vegans would not condone the use of hateful, insulting nicknames for other racial groups; why, then, do you (or would you) tolerate it when it is used against those in a different dietary group?

I would encourage vegans to let those who use such derogatory terms know that such behavior is not in line with the vegan principle of compassion.

I hope that this sheds some light on why vegan attacks on instincto are not appropriate. If you are a vegan with a negative view of instinctos, I also hope that you will analyze the reasons for your negativity, and consider the points above.

Appendix to Issue Version 2:
On compassion and (lack of) honesty in veganism

Attacks by a hostile fruitarian. Shortly after Issue 1 of the above material was posted on multiple email lists on Internet (August-September 1997), I became the target of vicious personal attacks by a hostile fruitarian. This extremist made the rather bizarre claim that compassion is not a valid part of veganism, and that veganism is based exclusively on the principle of animal liberation. The fruitarian then suggested that hostile behavior by vegans in attempting to promote their views or achieve their social objectives is perfectly acceptable, and in full accord with veganism. (Side note: If I were a hostile extremist in denial of reality, I too, would probably deny that my hostile behavior is anti-vegan!)

There are two major problems with the extremist claims.

Compassion is a major part of veganism. First, the issue of compassion is a major theme in both the vegan and animal rights movements. Erik Marcus, in Vegan: The New Ethics of Eating (1998, McBooks Press), states on p. 191: "Whatever one's reason for becoming vegan, it is at bottom an act of compassion." Also, the animal rights group PETA, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, has a vegan cookbook whose title is Cooking with PETA, subtitled Great Vegan Recipes for a Compassionate Kitchen. So, it is clear that compassion is, at least in theory, and among prominent advocates, a central part of veganism.
The claims are logically invalid. Secondly, the extremist claims are an example of invalid logic. To see this, let's review the logic of the claim. Assume that you have absolutely no compassion for animals. It then follows that you do not care what happens to them, and hence you certainly don't care about animal liberation. The argument that animals are sentient beings and should be liberated has no weight, as you have assumed away all compassion for them--without compassion, who cares if they are sentient or not, liberated or not?
If animal liberation is not motivated by (at least some) compassion for animals, then it has the same logical validity as, say, automobile liberation. After all, we have no compassion for autos, and we are obviously not concerned with their liberation.

Veganism requires not just compassion, but honesty, if it is to have ethical integrity.

The above illustrates that animal liberation implicitly depends on compassion, as animal liberation without compassion is meaningless. Hence the extremist attempt to evade criticism by claiming that compassion is not required for veganism is invalid, and--to all intents and purposes--intellectually dishonest as well.

As always, actions speak louder than words. Much the same reasoning applies with respect to behavior toward other human beings no matter what their dietary practice or philosophy. Intellectual honesty is just as essential as compassion when ethical integrity is at stake. Both are critical to how veganism is promoted (and perceived) when interacting with others on different dietary paths. If one's attitude reeks of hostility or disdainful superiority rather than compassion, or if the facts (about the actual, natural diet of humanity, for instance) or other reasons used in promoting veganism are presented dishonestly, then the ethical basis and credibility of veganism are undermined, not advanced. (Behavior in these areas speaks much louder than one's verbal rationale.)

Veganism is, then, in large part a system of diet where ethical considerations are central. Given that, it should be incumbent on those in the movement to recognize the need not only for compassion, but for basic honesty in promoting veganism, if its ethical stance is to be perceived as having any real integrity.

--Tom Billings

Before writing to Beyond Veg contributors, please be aware of our
email policy about what types of email we can and cannot respond to.

Back to Psychology of Idealistic Diets
Back to Re-Examining Instinctive Eating

Beyond Veg home | Feedback | Links