janic wrote: Some use the term flexitarian.
Not me, because I find that this word is singularly lacking in descriptive criteria (except if it has an "official" definition which would have escaped me).
No official definition, that of es-specialists of the French language, that I know; but:
https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlexitarismeFlexitarism (a flexible word word combining vegetarianism1), sometimes called semi-vegetarianism2, is a food practice whose daily basis is vegetarian BUT WHICH AUTHORIZES [*] an occasional consumption of meat3. A person who has greatly reduced his consumption of meat without being a vegetarian is therefore commonly called a flexitarian.I have a good friend, quite meaty, who jokes that he is flexitarian because out of 14 meals a week, there is at least one where he only has a mixed salad. Certainly it provokes, but what are the "criteria"? Personally, there is at least one in two meals where I eat neither meat nor fish: am I flexitarian? In short, my "almost vegetarian" seems to me more meaningful, at least we can see which side are the sliders.
Would you eat animal products only once a year, that would be flexitarianism hence your notion of slider.
Suppose you are heterosexual most of the time and homo from time to time (or vice versa) you would call that how?
PS: we are very happy for your friend, but this is not the subject.
On the contrary ! Our current world wants to put everything in a well-closed drawer with a label that only opens when pulled. In biology it's the opposite, pulling a drawer moves all the others more or less like when an insect that gets caught in a spider's web and where the moving threads indicate to it, the size, the force or danger. So all aspects related to meat consumption move all labeled drawers: pollution, dietetics, ethics, philosophy, lifestyle, etc ... and in the case cited the health affecting these different factors and not only an industrial production or not.
sicetaitsimple wrote:
GuyGadebois wrote: Omnivore "which feeds indifferently on foods of animal or plant origin" suits me very well. This is clearly what defines the human being
Not really, omnivorous is an "ability to", and
indeed HUMANS ARE OMNIVORES. Then the diet can vary from one extreme to another, between the "historical" Inuit (I don't know if there are any yet?) Who ate only meat / fish and the vegan suffered or chosen. .
Do not mix omnivorous culture, food opportunism, habit or taste and omnivorous anatomical constitution. Otherwise, the cannibals would naturally be made for that ... since they do it, they like it and digest well (in appearance)
Biologically we are omnivorous. Our digestive system is designed to assimilate "indifferently" meat and vegetable foods.
This is the mistake of confusing social culture and anatomobiology.
[*] subject treated by a non-VG or vegan type. Why
allow himself as if it were a ban to cross as a diabetic for sugar. (see the ad on TV on flexis!)
"We make science with facts, like making a house with stones: but an accumulation of facts is no more a science than a pile of stones is a house" Henri Poincaré