Just bumping this to try to entice Green Bean to post her info. . .
And while I’m here, I guess I should admit that I eat from every kingdom except Animalia, (what with stomach bacteria, mushrooms, yeast, etc), so I must be a monera-vegeta-fungi-protistarian. 
Of the ovo-lacto-honey subvariety, of course. (Do most vegans eat honey? I guess it’s just personal preference. . .)
Your Quadell
I know that I do. I’ve have gotten in some rather dubious exchanges with stone cold vegans about the necessity of bee pollen in my diet - hence I wasn’t a vegetarian - according to his standards. He also wanted to know if I had used butter. I said only if nothing else is remotely available. I loosely consider it to be a cost effective yet sometimes a hassle-free solution. Once again he said that I wasn’t even close to his ideals. Whatever. :mad:
“What’s right is only half of what’s wrong and
I want a short-haired girl who sometimes wears it twice as long.”
George Harrison - Old Brown Shoe
To answer the OP: I am not really sure. I know that the health food stores seem to be more “new agey”, something that does not bother me, even though I am not new-agey myself. I like the smell of sandalwood!
All I know is that I grew up with (what I like to call) a “crackpot” mom. She was and still is open to all sorts of “alternative” cures, herbs, aromatherapy, etc. But she isn’t strictly a vegetarian. My sister and I became veggie in our late 20s, encouraged by an atheist/non-new-ager friend who was vegan. Sure, we all think herbs and such can be beneficial, but when I have a really bad cold, give me NyQuill any day!
As for what the rest of people think about vegetarians, the list of incorrect ideas and wrong impressions they have is very long. Many of them still think veggies can eat fish and chicken, for instance. (ARGGGHHHHH!!!)
Polydactyl Cats Unlimited
“A Cat Cannot Have Too Many Toes”
Sorry for the dealy in game, My Quadell. It has taken me a couple of days to work up the nerve to venture into the pit of despair, otherwise known as my husband’s office, to retrieve the file from the computer in there.
Following this post is a paper on vegetarianism that I wrote a couple of years ago. Not my very best work, I’m afraid, but it contains some interesting information.
Following that is some conjecture on the answer to your original question.
I welcome questions, comments, criticism, and discussion.
This a paper that was originally published in The Salad Bowl: The Magazine of the American Studies Department of Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey, volume 23, 1998.
Some formatting, like superscript and italics, did not come through in the conversion to “text” format. I didn’t think that it was worth the trouble to type it all in in UBB code. I apologize in advance.
The “contents” page of the magazine says that the material may be reproduced with the express permission of the author. Conveniently, I am the author. I obviously give permission for this to be posted on the Straight Dope Message Board. No portion of this paper may be reproduced without my express permission. Contact information is at the bottom of this post. The only exception to this is if you wish to quote small portions of the paper on this thread in order to discuss particular points. Thank you.
The Rise of Popular Vegetarianism in the United States
Vegetarianism has become commonplace. There are vegetarian sections on menus and in supermarkets, and vegetarian options in the college dining hall. A walk through the cookbook section of the bookstore reveals dozens or even hundreds of titles promising recipes for delicious vegetarian meals. Mainstream publications such as USA Today, Seventeen, and Better Homes and Gardens all have published articles about vegetarianism.1 Many Americans have become fully vegetarian, and many more have chosen not to eat meat very often. Yet only a few decades ago vegetarianism was practically unheard of -- only "health nuts" or people who followed a few unusual religions did not eat meat. The trend towards popular vegetarianism had its roots in the countercultural movements of the late 1960s.
Determining the number of vegetarians in the American population at any one time is extremely difficult. The primary difficulty comes from the fact that there are so many different types of people who call themselves vegetarian. A survey is necessarily biased by which of these people the researcher chooses to include as "vegetarian." Some studies might only want to measure strict vegans, who consume no animal products at all, while others may want simply to know how many people regularly choose vegetarian meals. Therefore, the biases and purposes of the researcher easily can skew the results of any survey that is attempting to determine the incidence of vegetarianism in the United States. The statistics about how many vegetarians there are vary wildly. A recent poll commissioned by the Vegetarian Resource Group determined that 1% of adult Americans never ate meat, poultry, or fish.2 In the related article, they report:
According to a 1991 Gallup Poll conducted for the American Restaurant Association, about 20 percent of the population looks for a restaurant with vegetarian items when they eat out. In 1994, a study commissioned by Land O’ Lakes reported that over half of American households ate two or more meatless dinners each week, and 20 percent of U.S. households ate four or more meatless dinners per week.
Also in 1994, the National Restaurant Association reported that on any given day, nearly 15 percent of the nation’s college students select a vegetarian option at their dining halls.3
Vegetarian Times has reported that according to two separate studies, about 7 percent of the American population is vegetarian. This figure includes semi-vegetarians, though, who eat meat, fish, or poultry occasionally.4 The market research firm HealthFocus found that 2 to 3 percent of Americans are strict vegetarians, but 24 percent is “vegetarian aware,” meaning that they purposely eat a more vegetable-based diet, but are not strict vegetarians.5 It is clear that at this time vegetarians constitute a significant minority in the United States. Businesses have responded to this trend. More and more vegetarian foods are being seen at regular supermarkets, and mainstream restaurants from Burger King to Howard Johnson’s have added vegetarian options to their menus.6
The first wave of popular vegetarianism in the United States occurred in the 1830s and 1840s as part of the widespread reform movement at that time. Sylvester Graham was one of the better known diet reformers. Graham felt that the consumption of meat, salt, and spices would cause sexual desire and passion, and therefore, should be avoided.7 His advocacy of natural brown bread led to the production of supposedly wholesome graham crackers. In 1838, the American Health Convention approved vegetarianism, and Catharine Beecher said that "The most injurious food of any in common use… is the animal oils and articles of food cooked with them."8 John Harvey Kellogg was an influential vegetarian in the later part of the nineteenth century. As a Seventh-Day Adventist, and vegetarian, he wanted to create a more convenient breakfast food. Corn flakes were the result.9 In spite of the efforts of the reformers, though, most Americans did not significantly change their diet.10
A meat-based diet remained desirable in the United States for most of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Since meat was expensive, having it was a sort of a status symbol. Those people who could not regularly afford meat felt deprived.11 By the 1950s, meat had become the most important feature of a meal. General post-war prosperity combined with advances in refrigeration technology and livestock agriculture had made meat more affordable and accessible to many Americans. The government encouraged meat eating. The “basic 4” food groups espoused by the United States Department of Agriculture were meat, dairy, bread/cereals, and fruits/vegetables. Each meal was supposed to include at least one food from each group.12 There was some vegetarian food faddism in the late 1950s and early-to-mid 1960s, but meat was still supposed to be the centerpiece of each meal. Vegetarianism was looked upon with suspicion. In this anecdote submitted to Vegetarian Times, David J. Austin tells of his mother’s reaction when she suspects him of being a vegetarian. "‘Dave,’ she announced with true concern. ‘I hope you’re not becoming a vegetarian.’ She paused before that awful word. It was common knowledge in Colorado in 1967 that vegetarians soon withered away from pneumonia or pleurisy or plague. For a growing boy of 14, it probably meant a quick death."13
By the early 1960s, however, the first step toward the widespread adoption of a more vegetarian diet had been taken. In 1962, Silent Spring by Rachel Carson was published. This influential book warned of the dangers of the pesticides and chemicals that were routinely being released into the environment. She linked these environmental pollutants to disease and death, especially from cancer. The book gets its title from the “fable” at the beginning, in which she describes the factors that have "…silenced the voices of the spring in countless towns in America."14 In the introduction to the 1994 edition of Silent Spring, Vice President Al Gore discusses the influence that the book had.
In 1962, when Silent Spring was first published, “environment” was not even an entry in the vocabulary of public policy…Silent Spring came as a cry in the wilderness, a deeply felt, thoroughly researched, and brilliantly written argument that changed the course of history. Without this book, the environmental movement might have been long delayed or never have developed at all.15
Gore credits Silent Spring with eventually causing the ban on the toxic pesticide DDT and other dangerous substances, and with starting the process that led to the formation of the Environmental Protection Agency. Silent Spring was instrumental in calling attention to the environmental problems that were plaguing America. Silent Spring, like the civil rights movement and the war in Vietnam inspired young people to question the values of the dominant culture and the damage that these values were doing to people and the environment. This ne
Quadell asked “why the heck is there this crossover between vegetarians and anti-scientific twits?”
Here is my assessment:
The origins of the modern vegetarian movement can be found in the late-1960s counterculture. One major component of the counterculture was the conscious decision to question many of the assumptions that American consumer society was built on. These assumptions included the idea that “science” and “progress” were unmitigated goods. Members of the counterculture began to question everything from Western medicine to our lack of concern with the destruction of the environment to our belief that the “American way” was the right way. A lot of the new philosophies that developed were distinctly anti-scientific. The re-evaluation of American eating habits fell neatly into that mode of thought. The new vegetarians of the late 1960s and early 1970s were closely associated with that anti-scientific philosophy. By the early 1970s, though, vegetarian activists like Frances Moore Lappe were attempting to show that vegetarian diets could be supported scientifically. The anti-scientific association remained, though, both in the minds of the vegetarians, and in the minds of the general public.
In the intervening thirty years, many of the philosophies of the counterculture have been rethought and redefined as New-Ageism. New Age-ism also has a strong anti-scientific component. This is most clearly seen in the rejection of standard Western medicine. “Alternative” therapies abound. Those who are interested in alternative medicine often choose to follow a vegetarian diet as well. Both fit nicely into the New Age philosophy. “Health nuts” tend to fall into this category. They are concerned with the effect that the standard American diet and lifestyle has on their health. This, of course, is a reasonable concern. But a person who is a health nut is generally willing to try just about anything to improve his or her health. Vegetarianism is a popular choice for health nuts. Also, vegetarians of any stripe are seen by marketers as willing to experiment with non-standard things, including “natural remedies.” This explains to some extent the vegetarianism/natural remedy connection.
Another key reason why there is a crossover between “vegetarians and anti-scientific twits.” is that much of the pro-vegetarian rhetoric vastly overstates the justifications for vegetarianism. There are certainly many rational reasons to eat a low- or no-meat diet. Unfortunately, some of the most vociferous and well-known supporters of vegetarianism tend to exaggerate the disadvantages of meat-eating. Most people should certainly lower their saturated fat consumption, but a steak once a year will not kill a person. These rabid vegetarians seem to equate that one steak with an instant coronary. Also, in their zeal to promote vegetarianism, they fail to differentiate between “all meat” and “meat that comes from unacceptable sources.” What constitutes an acceptable source depends on the reasons you choose not to eat meat, of course. If you object to eating all flesh for any reason, then all meat is unacceptable. If your main objection to meat-eating is the environmental toll that factory farming takes, then theoretically, you might be willing to eat wild game. But, these enthusiastic promoters of vegetarianism insist that to eat any flesh at all invalidates you as a vegetarian. This either/or philosophy–if you eat any meat at all, ever, you can’t enter into the sacred realm of the vegetarians–disenfranchises all those people who eat an almost entirely vegetarian diet, but for one reason or another, eat a bit of flesh every now and then.
Vegetarian diets are often eagerly adopted by people who do not really understand their own justifications for vegetarianism or the nutritional differences between a good vegetarian diet and a diet that includes meat. Teenagers and college students often fall into this category. The enthusiasm is high, but the knowledge can be low. Unfortunately, these vegetarians seem particularly likely to proselytize. When questioned, they often can not answer in a way that seems reasonable to the questioner. They come off seeming ignorant and silly. Frequently, too, these vegetarians cite animal rights as a justification. While this is a valid reason for following a vegetarian diet, many of these self-professed animal-rights activists have little real understanding of the beliefs that undergird the animal-rights philosophy. They have no ammunition in a discussion with someone who sees little problem with the way animals are treated in factory farms, or who believes that the benefits of meat-eating outweigh the drawbacks. These untutored, but well-meaning animal-rights vegetarians often fall back on “it’s just wrong!” argument. A reasonable argument, yes. A scientific argument, no.
A final reason why vegetarianism is often disparaged is that the meat and dairy industry are very strong, and systematically work against any efforts to convince American people to reduce their dairy and meat intake. I have no evidence that they actively say that vegetarianism is anti-scientific, but they certainly do nothing to counteract that idea.
In conclusion, I would like to offer my own philosophy of vegetarianism. I am not a vegetarian, not by anyone’s definition. For various reasons, I am unable to follow a vegetarian diet. I fall under the category that has been called “vegetarian aware,” though, and eat many meatless meals. I strongly believe that a reduction in meat consumption provides significant benefits to the environment and to human health. Therefore, I advocate reduced meat consumption for everyone. If everybody ate even a little bit less mean, the aggregate benefits would be staggering. I support and encourage anyone who chooses to follow an all- or mostly-vegetarian diet, because they are doing far more than their fair share.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I welcome any comments or questions.
–Bean, who goes great with rice.
Wow! Thanks a ton for the wealth of information there, Green Bean! It’s good to have a historical picture.
In your third post (analysis of the OP), you mentioned 60s counter-culturalists and 70s new-agers, both of whom turned to vegetarianism for impassioned but non-scientific reasons. I personally feel much more of a bond with a meat-eater who looks at diet from a rational perspective than a vegetarian who is simply rejecting “Western” ideals without considering why.
You also mentioned that there are prominant vegetarians who overstate the effects of meat on health, and young vegetarians who are quick to proselytize and slow to understand. I feel insulated from those people. I’ve run into very few vegetarian exagerators and proselytizers (besides what I see on the PETA website), but I run into a lot of meat-eaters who assume vegetarians are exagerators and proselytizers. It seems a common stereotype, of whom few fit.
Even a casual look at the incidence rates of various diseases should convince an unbiased observer that there are significant health benefits from a vegetarian diet, making “veggie-witnessing” seem silly to me. I’m also sure there is very little difference between the health benefits of a no-meat diet, and a meat-twice-a-week diet.
(Sometimes I almost wish people would start more meat based natural remedies and all-meat fad diets, to siphon some of the anti-scientific types from trying to side with me. :))
Again, thanks for all the info,
Your Quadell
Thanks for the comments.
I guess I could summarize my 2 stupendously long posts by saying that vegetarianism is a often a symptom of anti-scientific thought. Never mind the fact that there are good scietific reasons to embrace a vegetarian way of eating. Unfortunately, the anti-scientific vegetarians tend to get more attention. That is why there is an apparent correlation between vegetarianism and anti-scientific-twit-ism.
Yes, I think it is a question of chicken or egg - forgive the metaphor. Most of my vegetarian friends (and I’ve been on and off the wagon my whole life) are perfectly normal people as dedicated to the weeding out of junk science as anyone. But one lives the sterotype, he’s a neo-pagan who swears by chakra-therapy and considers all natural remedies to be both more beneficial than “western” ones (like amoxicillin) and less dangerous (like, um, all-natural nightshade?).
However, with this person (who I adore - just he’s got this blind spot a truck could drive through) I can definitively state that he was already into strange medicine and crystal channelling before the vegetarianism hit. So I think that for many it is so: that that way of thinking is likely to lead to vegetarianism, rather than that reasoned vegetarianism is likely to lead to crystal channelling. (channeling?)
Hep
Ooh, I love your magazine. My favorite section is `How to increase your word power’. That thing is really, really… really… good. – Homer, ``Mr. Lisa Goes to Washington’’
I would never, as in never, take anything synthetic for anything, except maybe an aspirin or two, but even then very rarely. I have no illusions about whether or not I actually am to be considered one. I know that strictlyu speaking I am not. The point that I was trying to make is that I am not an empty bone-head, like some so called vegans and vegetarians I have met. I must admit considering the twisted/simplistic/rude logic that they used in explaining simple everyday situations, I still have a hard time swallowing their very dubious and doubtful claim(s) that they were in fact strict vegans/vegetarians/whatevers. 
“What’s right is only half of what’s wrong and
I want a short-haired girl who sometimes wears it twice as long.”
George Harrison - Old Brown Shoe
From Green Bean:
So if being a vegetarian makes you healthy, where were all of the older ones? Died at early ages, perhaps? Hmmmmmm… 
Seriously, thank you, Green Bean, for posting that balanced and informative material.
For business reasons, I must preserve the outward signs of sanity. - Mark Twain
I think one of the more compelling reasons to become a vegetarian is that it is vastly less costly to buy vegetables and grains and whatnot because of the resource cost to produce meat.
The environmental damage factor people!!!
Unfortunately, I am weak.
Pass the Baby back ribs, please.
"Elmo knows where you live! – Elmo, after Homer stiffed PBS for $10,000
If you need a graphic solution, http:\ alk.to\Piglet
Thanks, Green Bean. I’m going to send this thread address to my niece. She was vegetarian and then when she went to college she had problems eating a balanced diet. I believe she eats dolphin-safe tuna and chicken now. I’m not exactly sure. I think she’ll find your posts interesting.
I know several old vegetarians (if you consider 70s to be old)
–
From an actual catalog: “Disco balls create an enchanting, dazzling effect of light shafts, adding movement and glamour to any occasion”
the Abrams’ bris was certainly memorable
O p a l C a t
www.opalcat.com
Yes. But what kind of shape are they in? To me leading an abundant life is of primary consideration here, more so than just diet. I was never one to get too overjoyed about the currently popular mainstream fads and fashions.
“What’s right is only half of what’s wrong and
I want a short-haired girl who sometimes wears it twice as long.”
George Harrison - Old Brown Shoe
obviously, alive at 70 and 80 is good health.
You don’t need meat to be healthy. I’m not saying a vegetarian diet is healthier (though it can definately be if you are respoincible) but to say you think it is unhealthy in the long run is ignorant. You can get amino acids from lots of things other than meat, protein isn’t a problem. I’ve known a LOT of people who have had heart attacks at 45 and 50 BECAUSE they had too much saturated fat in their diet. Vegetarianism MIGHT be good for you, but we KNOW meat eating is bad.
Sympathetic omnivore here; some of my best friends are vegetarian. Hope you don’t mind a few comments from the peanut gallery.
All in all, I’d have to agree with GreenBean et al. who’ve said (more or less) that lots of anti-science types are attracted to vegetarianism (often for anti-science-type reasons), rather than vice versa.
However, considering comments posted in other threads about vegetarians, I found these two bits interesting:
I’ve run into a fair number of veg ‘exaggeraters & proselytizers’ (I like that phrasing!); fortunately I know enough
vegetarians to know that they’re not ALL like that. But the obnoxious ones are, well, REALLY obnoxious…enough so to annoy even other vegetarians. (IME, of course. I live in a college town, so that may help explain things.)
I think maybe the two go together…these folks haven’t (or can’t?) put together a rational explanation for their vegetarianism (due to their personal failings, not due to their choice in diet), so they go overboard. YOU MUST AGREE, BECAUSE I BELIEVE AND I AM RIGHT! That sorta thing, y’know.
Just a thought.
Vegetarians: the other other white meat. Mmm-mmm-good! 
The adage “Knowledge is Power” is incorrect. The correct formulation is “Knowledge that other people don’t have is Power”. - The Donald
Yes. I agree. It would appear upon closer scrutiny that my reasoning is even more absurd, maybe even more noticeably warped, than those that I claim to have taken to task, though barely. I didn’t argue much with them as I felt, as I do now, that they were if nothing else on the right track. And I admit that if nothing else I am merely an omnivore and nothing more. Problem solved.
“What’s right is only half of what’s wrong and
I want a short-haired girl who sometimes wears it twice as long.”
George Harrison - Old Brown Shoe
You think being a vegetarian is tough? Try being a PeTAVegan for a year. They sent me letters every month about what I could and couldn’t eat since I became a member.
Yes those were actual messages I recieved, although I paraphrased a little on the Gillette controversy, it would have taken me a month to list all the stuff PeTA hated them for. DO YOU KNOW HOW HARD IT IS TO BOYCOTT PROCTER AND GAMBLE? THEY MAKE EVERYTHING!!!
I quit that stuff, now I only eat Fowl and Fish. I don’t feel THAT bad they are natures dumbest animals.
P.S. I own a Mach 3, I don’t care how many animals suffered and died for me to have a shave. It’s a DAMN GOOD SHAVE!
Where’s my side of FUN!?
Kisses!
Ophy
PETA never said those things. I get mailings from them all the time, and they’ve never said “you can’t eat” anything at all. They’re radicals, but they don’t tell their members what to eat and they don’t call companies “fucking Nazis”.
They do, however, give slanted info filled with bathos about companies in order to give you the impression that you should but from them.
Not defending PETA,
Your Quadell