Veggie, Vegan, Pescie?

WE tend to think of the world today as being divided between carnivores, who eat meat, and vegetarians, who dont. But there will be variations even among carnivores, from those who will eat anything that crawls, flies or swims to those who have some qualms about particular insects, reptiles, amphibians, and certain mammals, especially dogs and other animals considered as pets.

Some of the dietary restrictions are encoded in religion. The Old Testament book Leviticus has a whole section on clean and unclean foods, which prohibits the eating of animals that are cloven-footed but do not eat grass (pigs), or those that eat grass but do not have cloven hoofs (camels, hare).

Also considered an abomination are all flying insects that creep on all fours, unless their legs are jointed above their feet with which they can leap. This would include the locust, the cricket, and the grasshopper.

I wont go into the detailed descriptions of other clean and unclean animals, since my intention is to show how complicated cultures can be in their definition of the edible and inedible.

Carnivores dont have labels to distinguish their dietary preferences but when we move to the non-carnivores, we find an almost bewildering range of names. Vegetarian is the generic term used to refer to people who eat only plant-based products, but the strictest vegetarians, called vegans, will not eat any animal by-products as well, for example eggs, dairy products, honey and yeast.

Many vegans stretch the prohibitions even further, prohibiting the use of animal by-products for other purposes, which means no leather or silk for clothes, shoes, even furniture and car upholstery.

To distinguish themselves from vegans, some people will clarify they are ovo-vegetarian, which means they eat eggs, while others say they are lacto-vegetarian if they take milk and dairy products. An ovo-lacto-vegetarian takes both eggs and milk.

The variations here can be mind-boggling. I had a Buddhist grandmother who was vegetarian and would take eggs, but only if they were not fertilized. You can tell only by cracking open the egg and looking for a white spot on the yolk.

Many Hindu and Buddhist vegetarians, like my grandmother, would not take onions and garlic because these were said to incite the emotions and passions, making one quick to anger, for example.

Were not through yet with the distinctions. Lately Ive been hearing the term pesco-vegetarians, people who will not eat most kinds of meat, except fish, together with vegetables. Sometimes the term used is pescetarian, a portmanteau word from pesco and vegetarian.

In the past, peoples diets, including prohibitions, were pre-set by culture, usually through religion. Today, people often make more deliberate choices for vegetarianism and pescetarianism because of health or ethical reasons.

The health reasons are usually to avoid cardiovascular diseases, now so clearly associated with meat consumption.

Ethical reasons are more complex and varied. There are those who wont eat meat because the raising and slaughter of food animals cause pain. The most radical example here would be the Jains, who extend their non-killing ethic to microorganisms. This means a prohibition on root vegetables (onions, garlic, potatoes, etc.) because the soil from which they are uprooted contains living microorganisms. Very strict Jains will walk with a broom, constantly sweeping the ground they are about to step on, to avoid killing any living thing.

There are also more secular ethical reasons for avoiding meat, among them because meat production requires more intensive use of the land as well as energy sources.

If we look hard at the history of these dietary restrictions, we will find that the environment is often the original prime shaper of diets. Put simply, we ate what was available. Thus, while Buddhist monks are usually vegetarian, they will sometimes accept meat that has been given to them, for as long as animals were not slaughtered especially for them. In Tibet, Buddhist monks eat meat because vegetables are hard to grow in their area.

Its an uphill battle getting Filipinos to become vegetarian because of our hunting past, a time when wild pigs and chickens, as well as a variety of fish, amphibians, reptiles and birds were dominant in our diet. Wild plants, mainly root crops and the leaves of plants like ferns, were also part of our diet, while many of the vegetables that form vegetarian fare today beans, potatoes, tomatoes for example were introduced much later. To this day, many Filipinos still look at vegetables as supplements (to the main dish, usually meat), or even as garnishes.

The anthropologist Marvin Harris proposed that diets also had a practical aspect. Hindus prohibited beef, citing religious reasons, but Harris says there was a more practical reason: cows are more useful in the Indian subcontinent as work animals and source of dairy products. Even cow dung was useful, as fertilizer and even construction material.

Pigs ended up as taboo in the Middle East because in this arid environment, pigs would end up competing for water as well as some of the food that people ate. So Leviticus was right: pigs should be eating grass, and because they dont, you shouldnt eat them.

This practical aspect will be important in shaping the future Filipino diet. The quest for health will force us to rethink all that meat. Ethical concerns about animal welfare will count too, as more Filipinos raise dogs and cats as pets (and not just as Bantay). And, quite simply, the availability of more vegetables and vegetable recipes could convince more Filipinos to become vegetarian, ovo-, lacto or ovo-lacto.