Life on Mars 3

After I questioned why vegetarians had participated in a campaign which appears (perhaps with hindsight) to have produced greater benefits for Mars Incorporated than for vegetarians themselves, Adam commented:

"I think the vegans had far more to lose if they just silently stopped eating mars bars."

Fair point. It is difficult enough to predict the effect of our actions, and it is often better to campaign in good faith for what you believe in, rather than worry about the (sometimes devious) strategies of other people. The well-publicized campaign (to restore vegetarian status to the Mars Bar) may have wider effects - for example on other food manufacturers that may wish to join the ranks of the Accidentally Vegan - products that are not specifically targeted at vegetarians or vegans, but just happen not to contain animal ingredients.

(Given that many of these accidentally vegan products are produced in factories alongside non-vegan products, the Accidentally Vegan folk are willing to tolerate trace amounts, which they justify in terms of the likely effect on animal welfare. Obviously if this bothers you, then you should stick to Deliberately and Certifiably Vegan. Or grow and cook your own food.)

There are undoubtedly many food products that are Accidentally Non-Vegan. In other words, they contain animal ingredients for no particularly good reason. Like a chef sprinkling bits of crispy bacon into a salad. (And then picking them out again when a vegetarian complains.) It is possible that the vegetarians could have a greater impact from a campaign in this area. But psychologists have long known that people will fight more strongly to retain or restore something they already have (or have had) than to gain something they have never had.

Meanwhile, back to the Mars Bar. I haven't eaten one myself since I was a child, but I understand from Wikipedia that the Mars Bar contains milk chocolate. So although it may be suitable for vegetarians, it surely cannot be suitable for vegans. Sorry Adam.

Life on Mars 2

What is the purpose of chocolate? What is the purpose of desire for chocolate? And what is the purpose of habit? Following my earlier post Life on Mars, which questioned the enthusiasm of vegetarians for Mars Bars, someone called Adam asked:

"Why shouldn't vegetarians want to be able to continue to eat the chocolates they're used to?"

I am not sure whether this is a question about desire or about habit. What's wrong with trying new brands of chocolate, rather than feeling your life is ruined because The Men From Mars are messing around with the recipe of your favourite brand? And I think there is sometimes a temptation for people to think a product is good for you, just because it is "organic" or "vegetarian" or "GM-free". It is perfectly possible for a product to comply with all of these labels and still contain disgustingly unhealthy amounts of refined sugar, fat and salt. So I'm interested in the social and psychological and symbolic effect of these apparently positivc labels - the fact that many vegetarians think these labels are not only worth reading but worth campaigning for. Meanwhile, a quick internet search for "health" and chocolate" led me to several webpages about the health-giving properties of chocolate - dark chocolate in particular - posted by chocolate companies and independent news organizations, all apparently based on the same set of scientific studies. I especially liked the look of Yachana Gourmet, which appears to be a socially progressive supplier of FairTrade RainForest chocolate. Suitable for vegans.

Life on Mars?

Vegetarians have won a small battle with Mars Incorporated, who were allegedly planning to include animal products in their popular snack bars, including the famous Mars Bar [BBC News, May 20th 2007].

All the vegetarians I know are proud of a healthy diet and lifestyle, and vegetarians are supposed to have a higher IQ. (See my earlier post Meat and Two Veg.) So I find it a little puzzling that vegetarians should have campaigned so strongly to be allowed to eat Mars Bars. However, chocolate and candy have always been enjoyed by people who have abjured other pleasures, such as meat and alcohol, and many of the great confectionery companies have historical associations with Quakers.

As a company, Mars (which trades in Europe under the name Masterfoods Europe) has a reputation for management expertise and secrecy. The effect of the original announcement and the swift reversal has been excellent PR for the brand. Snicker, Snicker, Snicker.

Wikipedia: List of Quaker businesses

Meat and Two Veg

Is the human body "designed" to eat meat? Or is the human brain "designed" to prefer a vegetarian diet? A recent study [BBC News] showed some links between a vegetarian diet and high IQ, although it is not clear which causes what.

(I was particularly puzzled by this remark. "There was no difference in IQ score between strict vegetarians and those who said they were vegetarian but who reported eating fish or chicken." Who are these people who think chicken is a vegetable? Are they being dim-witted or devious, or do they have some inside information from the food processing industry?)

Scott Adams (himself a vegetarian and atheist) challenges his readers to produce reasons why it's healthier to eat meat.

• I Can’t Stop Myself. Seriously.
• Vegetarian Says, “Bring it on!”

But a lot of the arguments completely miss the point. If the human body is designed at all, it is designed to live in the wild, in near-starvation conditions. We are biologically programmed to feast on foods containing sweet, salt and fat, because our nomadic ancestors never had enough of these nutrients. Our bodies are not designed to function in conditions of abundance; the healthcare systems in some countries are overburdened by the diseases of affluence (obesity, diabetes, hypertension, and so on).

Is the human body designed for hunting? We cannot outrun animals, but we can surround animals, and we can construct weapons. In other words, we are designed to hunt in armed gangs. Of course, this also equips us to fight wars. The dangerous idea that we should do something (eating meat, eating broccoli, fighting wars) simply because our bodies equip us to is known as the naturalistic fallacy.


Source: Banksy via BBC News

Wikipedia: Scott Adams, Banksy, Naturalistic Fallacy, Sociobiology
Technorati tags: POSIWID