People prefer not to discuss their eating habits. Now that I’m a student of food, I’m finding that even the most vocal meat lovers become suddenly shy at the table with me, and equally so do the vegetarians. The thought of me judging their diet is just as unsettling as any actual argument I might have. I’ve found most people still consider diet a personal choice like birth control, not a public one like religion.

Prior to the 1970′s, philosophers didn’t find the subject of food ethically compelling. Most only touched on it when discussing how best to nourish the body. In today’s culture, Americans are slowly gaining awareness of the political impact of a single trip to the grocery store. They are also starting to look more realistically at the topic of health, beyond the continuously changing landscape of fad dieting. Equally though, the number of obese and diabetic Americans is rapidly increasing. In light of factory farming and industrial agriculture, modern philosophers like Australian-born ethicist Peter Singer are now writing critically on the implications of our diets.

Peter Singer specializes in ethics from an atheistic and “preference utilitarian” perspective. He defines a right action as one that, in the given context, favors the most interests of the people involved. His morals are not bound by rules or defined by religion. Singer’s infamous work Animal Liberation (1975) inspired the animal rights movement, and caused “meat eaters” and “vegetarians” to take equal stand for their diets. The basic premise was that the interests of any sentient being capable of suffering should be equally considered, making factory farming unethical. On the subject of killing, Singer pointed out that animals share the same conscious capacity as that of a 6 year-old child or someone with “profound intellectual disabilities.” Therefore, if we found it ethical to kill animals, by extension we also needed to accept killing those of equal conscious capacity. This argument continues to be used today by Singer and members of the movement.

In his recent work, The Ethics of What We Eat (March 2007), Singer and farmer Jim Mason investigate the shopping choices of three families with diets exemplary of our current culture: Standard American Diet (SAD), Organic, and vegan. The Hiller-Neirstheimer family lives in Mabelville, Arkansas, shops at Wal-Mart and eats the SAD. They choose their groceries based on convenience and cost, and are unaware of ethical values concerning food. The Masarech-Motavalli family lives in Fairfield, Connecticut, they are environmentally conscious, and they eat organic food whenever possible. However, due to busy lifestyles, they also base many of their shopping decisions on convenience. And in Othale, Kansas, the Farb family, a vegan household, buys organic, and to a large extent has a lifestyle to match their ethical views. The authors follow the families to the grocery store, partake in a meal, and question each family’s choices. Each family’s purchases are then weighed alongside the interests of all those involved in the food’s production. We are all at least marginally aware of the atrocities of factory farming and food production. Although the authors include their fair share of horror stories, the significance of the work is the focus on critique, not exposure to these ethical problems.

In the end, Singer’s views unequivocally lead to a vegan lifestyle. The central and most compelling findings are about the hidden costs of factory farming. From eggs to bacon to burgers to salmon, the authors demonstrate how Big Industry is offloading its costs to the farmer, producer, factory worker, neighbor, and animals. Organic and Fair Trade are more expensive simply because their costs are paid by the consumer, whereas factory farm costs are intentionally hidden through illegal waste disposal, poor wages, inhumane confinements, and otherwise unnecessary health care. Singer and Mason also draw conclusions about the excessive energy and land costs of meat production. If we only ate plants, we could live off substantially less land, and would be able to return the remaining land back to forests where animals could live free. And finally they proclaim that humans today are no longer reliant on eating meat, and can easily sustain off of plant life.

Even with as compelling an argument as Singer’s, many of us still make food choices based on personal preference. While many agree that animal suffrage is wrong, they will only go as far as conceding that animals should be raised and killed humanely, not that they shouldn’t be killed at all. For example, Michael Pollan makes the claim in The Omnivore’s Dilemma (August 2007) that the experience of killing an animal should merit eating one, and that the perfect meal is one that is appreciative of the ingredients. I, myself am so strongly governed by taste that I couldn’t possibly accept fake meat as food. I was shocked to find Singer declare that Tofurky “skin [is] deliciously crisp when baked.” Evidently taste carries little weight in a diet based on a consistent set of ethical beliefs.

I have been asked many times whether reading Peter Singer’s books will force someone into veganism. What is most shocking is not Peter Singer, but those of us who favor taste and our personal preferences over our ethical beliefs. I consider myself an equally guilty party. Peter Singer makes sound ethical arguments regarding meat and industrial food choices. It’s not whether we agree or disagree, but what we are capable of acting on, and then what we choose to accept. The larger battle is how we reconcile convenience with a practical ethics. Beyond that the focus will be on furthering education and making information about food choices more accessible. Authors like Marion Nestle and Michael Pollan are already helping in these areas. These are uphill battles, and they demand that we all consider our morals along with our wallets when we choose what to eat.