Editor:

Michael Whitaker’s letter to the editor (“Vegetarians can’t expect us to accommodate,” April 15) was the equivalent of “I know you are, but what am I” in the omnivore vs. herbivore debate: nonsensical and contributing nothing original.

The “poor fruits and vegetables” argument is certainly meant as a joke by most who use it — still, it backfires when one learns that producing 1 pound of meat requires the death of 16 pounds of plants. With one steak, you kill more plants than a vegan will in a day of plant-munching. The “save the ozone by killing cows faster” angle is equally amateur, because the only reason 100 million cows are polluting America at any given time is because they are bred for the food industry. The greater the demand for beef and dairy, the more methane warms our planet.

The simplest and most common response when confronted with uncomfortable information is to mock the messenger and thus temporarily avoid resolving the issue with oneself. Others choose to come to terms with their lifelong complicity in unnecessary destruction and cruelty, and dispel their guilt by changing their diets. As veganism rapidly spreads, restaurants that do not change with the market will lose out. That’s why food servers are increasingly accommodating our lifestyle.

But relax. Most vegans and vegetarians aren’t trying to take the carcasses off your plate. What we would like from you, the meat eaters, is informed, rational discussion on the subject. We have data on pollution, facts about animal cruelty (with videos, if you dare) and studies showing we are in better shape and live 10 years longer. If all you have to combat that is “animals taste good,” then admit that, and we can move on from there. Repeating the same tired, ignorant taunts only invites further condescension from the growing minority of the informed.

Kristina McIntyreJunior, Anthropology