Food for thought, and vice versa.

It's brain," I said; "Pure brain! What do you do to get like that, Jeeves? I believe you must eat a lot of fish or something. Do you eat a lot of fish, Jeeves?

Yours truly happens to be a fish-loving non-vegetarian by choice, having been brought up on a vegetarian diet part of the time and a more normal diet otherwise (it's a long story, just take my word for it). I would, in the normal course of things, not seek to pick a fight with someone over their dietary preferences, but it wouldn't be right to shy away from an argument on this topic when invited to.

Most Indian vegetarians are so because of reasons of tradition, having been born into a religion or caste or family that doesn't eat meat. Historians believe vegetarianism wasn't originally part of Hinduism, having probably been borrowed from Buddhism which prohibits meat as a regular part of a monk's (not a layperson's) diet. The Vedas, Manusmriti, and Ramayana mention meat eating as part of religious ritual or normal practice.

No general prohibition against meat eating is to be found in any Hindu "shruti" scripture, in spite of the common belief to the contrary. It is often sought to justify the prohibition using the general dicta promoting kindness and "ahimsa", but that raises the question of why direct prohibition of meat eating is not to be found.

Neither does the Bhagavad Gita mention a prohibition on meat eating. It has a delightfully practical set of advice for you (chapter 17): eat good food, food that is good to taste, what makes you feel good and healthy; avoid stale, rotten, infected or otherwise inedible stuff. Again, no specific meat or fish prohibition is to be found here, although unscrupulous translators have often slipped in meat as part of the inedible set of foods. More on what constitutes "good food" later.

Classical Sanskrit literature, Kalidasa in particular, mentions meat being eaten by kings, commoners, and occasionally by Brahmins. Given Kalidasa's understanding of the subtleties of Hindu philosophy, his casual descriptions of meat eating probably mean that he didn't consider it a problem, and that it wasn't a big deal in society of his time.

History seems to indicate that Brahmins became vegetarians to co-opt lay Buddhists into the Hindu fold during the decline of Buddhism (which happened partly through Buddhism's internal corruption and invasions, but that's another story). As the power of kings waned (with Muslim and European invasions), the prestige of Brahmins in Hindu society grew, and other communities began to mimic their practices, including their diet.

It is evident to an external observer that some people seek to rationalize a practice they follow due to plain tradition. The only reply needed there is to call the rationalization what it is.

That having been said, it must be admitted that there are those who have adopted the practice through the genuine belief in its being better for health or the environment. Those points deserve to be addressed.

Many by-choice vegetarians become so due to health reasons. It is often claimed that studies show vegetarians to be healthier. A careful examination of the data shows that the answer to be not that simple. Studies of Indian vegetarians show them to be as prone to obesity and disease as their meat-eating cousins. This is not surprising given the high amounts of animal fat they consume as milk, curd and ghee: it doesn't matter if you get it from eating beef or drinking milk, animal fat is animal fat.

Western studies of vegetarians sometimes include chicken/fish eaters or even those who eat much less meat than the norm as vegetarians. Studies indicate that vegans (those who consume no animal products at all) have similar overall mortality rates compared to regular meat eaters. The same meta-study found the least overall mortality rate in fish eaters. Thus, eating more vegetables and less meat is good for you, but eating only plant products probably isn't. Animal fat in excess - the operative word being excess, something which is often ignored when reported- is bad for you, irrespective of whether you get it from milk or meat.

There are advantages to having fish, in particular, as part of your diet. There has had a lot of recent positive attention paid to fish due to its nutritional benefits. Perhaps Bertie Wooster was onto something, after all. Why give up all that for no reason?

The healthiest diet, as per studies and logic would be the one our hunter-gatherer ancestors ate (and the one our bodies evolved around): largely vegetable and tuber based, with some grain (as opposed to our largely grain based diet) and some meat (mostly fowl) and fish. In modern terms: a low-carb, low-fat, high-fiber, lots of vegetable, moderate protein and omega-3 diet. It must be said that low does not equal zero in this context - some simple carbs and fat must be eaten.

There are others who espouse vegetarianism for environmental reasons. Meat production, mainly the western practice of "factory farming" is highly stressful to the environment. Statistics of the amount of grain it takes to produce a kilogram of meat are easy to find, given the peaceful non-confrontational vegetarian habit of shoving such statistics in one's face.

This is the most seductive argument, especially for those of us with a green bent. As Aussie environmentalist Dave Riley notes, being meatless and guiltless seems seductively simple while environmental destruction rages around us. However, factory farming isn't the only way of meat-production - third-world meat production tends to be much more environmentally friendly. Grazed cattle do not contribute to environmental damage in the way factory farmed ones do. Livestock - cattle, goats, pigs and the like - raised sustainably and organically are a great way of converting marginal agricultural produce and organic farm waste into high-quality protein as has been done for millenia. Sustainable fishing (not deep trawling) can provide us with omega-3 rich high-quality food for as long as we can foresee.

Reductions in factory-farming, sustainable practices, and reducing cattle meat by replacing it with fowl and fish need to be promoted. At the same time, we need a shift towards vegetables from grain. Large-scale fossil-fuel dependent resource-intensive grain agriculture needs to reform as well, and is as much or more culpable for environmental destruction as is factory-farming of meat.

Other, less rational arguments abound, especially among those who seek to rationalize a traditional practice. They range from almost reasonable to puerile. Let's look at a few of those at random.

Some Hindu traditionalists often promote the view that a meat or fish diet promotes aggressiveness and violence. They never say how they arrive at this claim, merely stating it as fact which one is not allowed to dispute. Studies do not back up this claim, unfortunately for those who make it. Eskimos live largely on a diet based on meat and fish, and have been reported to be much less prone to anger (feeling, not just expression) than is the norm in the human race.

It is often claimed from a comparison of human and carnivore anatomy that we were not meant to eat meat. If that were so, a casual comparison of our anatomy with cud-chewing cattle would indicate that we weren't intended to eat greens as well! As long as you do not intend to live purely on flesh, your lack of internal similarity to tigers should not worry you. The vast majority of human societies in their natural state tend to be omnivore hunter-gatherers, not herbivores.

One article, which prompted this post, claims that since fruits and tomatoes are edible in their natural state and meat allegedly isn't, the former is food and the latter isn't. Has the author ever attempted to bite into a raw brinjal? For a rare treat, I would recommend a rare steak - juicy, tasty, and and not really "cooked" - which should banish all claims of meat being inedible.
The same article attempts to diss seafood through a superficial comparison of shrimps and cockroaches. Leaving aside the fact that it is fish not shrimp that is considered healthy, superficial comparisons get us nowhere. The scatological appearance of tapioca and potatoes reveal nothing about thier nutritional value.

One can go on and on about such arguments, but the facts are simple. Humans are evolved to be omnivores, with a small amount of animal protein and fat in their diet. While we need to move away from a diet rich in cattle-meat - prominent in the industrialized west - we do not need to go all the way to a diet without animal products. Fish and fowl in limited quantities have a positive impact on health, as do vegetables instead of grain. To make our food production sustainable, we need to adopt sustainable farming as well as livestock-rearing practices and be more environmentally responsible overall.

Humans may transition to synthetic foods in the future, making this debate moot. Until then, eat responsibly; think for yourself than blindly following tradition. Follow what you think is right, and let others do the same.