This article appears as part of the Food Matters newsletter.
Every now and then, mid-ordering a sirloin served rare or dessert smothered in molten chocolate, I find myself questioning just what on earth I’m playing at.
I have mentioned before that last year I bid farewell to years’ worth of veganism, then vegetarianism in favour of a full-fat, flesh-eating diet.
My questionable excuse for this 180 was work, having discovered there’s only so often you can blag your way through a review using observations from an omnivorous plus one.
But the truth is, even before delving into the world of food and drink writing I had started to reconsider my dietary choices.
I enjoyed tofu scramble and yet wondered if it would really be so bad to swap for a portion of buttery eggs and smoked salmon, just once on a lazy Sunday morning.
Worse, when special occasions called for a celebratory dinner, the siren call of red meat paired with a large glass of Malbec was growing harder to ignore.
Not long after these intrusive thoughts began, when offered a bite of locally sourced venison on a once-in-a-lifetime trip to Bavaria, I caved.
From that moment onwards, it felt like an act of rebellion to add items to my supermarket basket without first checking the ingredients or ordering from a wine list without a frantic Google to identify the vegan-friendly bottles.
Along with this new sense of foodie freedom, however, there was guilt.
Huge amounts of guilt as vegan ex-colleagues watched my dinnertime Instagram stories or friends seemed shocked by the radical shake-up of my go-to takeaway orders.
Food Matters | Sarah Campbell: Escaping from the Edinburgh summer in the mushroom underground
This week, I came face to face with a story that called out my own hypocrisy with a new study from the University of Stirling.
The ‘cheese paradox’, aside from sounding like the title for a Sci-Fi epic set on a rural farm, is a term coined by researchers who have explored a cognitive disconnect in those who follow a vegetarian diet while acknowledging that consuming animal products could cause suffering.
If they’re looking for a poster girl for the dubious moral position, I’d be a worthy candidate.
Having grown up in a crofting community I’m fully aware that all meat was once a living, breathing animal.
But would I really be able to hold my nerve while watching videos of battery hen cages or slaughterhouses?
And that’s before we arrive at the worrying environmental impact of mass factory farming as the planet hurtles towards a climate crisis.
It’s interesting that in this same week, I found myself chatting with Nick Rietz of Bilson Eleven in Glasgow.
With plans to banish meat from the menu for a special Vegan Week in September, the chef also revealed he no longer uses factory-farmed animals on his menus due to concerns over the restaurant’s carbon footprint.
‘I didn’t want my kids coming to me in 20 years’ time and saying, ‘I can’t believe you served beef at your restaurant’ he stressed.
It’s an admirable stance and one that’s shared to some degree by the chefs across Scotland who are committed to putting sustainability into practice, rather than jumping on the buzzword bandwagon.
Perhaps this approach to utilising locally sourced meat such as venison, game or seasonal seafood could provide a suitable halfway point for those who aren’t prepared to limit their options to a fully plant-based diet.
I do still worry that a delayed crisis of conscience is in the post, addressed directly to 'Sarah Campbell, traitor to the vegan cause', but until then, it’s vital that not just myself, but others continue to question where our produce is coming from, and if we can cope with the answer.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here