portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article

animal rights | corporate dominance

So You're an Environmentalist; Why Are You Still Eating Meat?

Evidence of the environmental impacts of a meat-based diet is piling up at the same time its health effects are becoming better known.
So You're an Environmentalist; Why Are You Still Eating Meat?
Jim Motavalli, E Magazine
January 3, 2002

There has never been a better time for environmentalists to become vegetarians. Evidence of the environmental impacts of a meat-based diet is piling up at the same time its health effects are becoming better known. Meanwhile, full-scale industrialized factory farming -- which allows diseases to spread quickly as animals are raised in close confinement -- has given rise to recent, highly publicized epidemics of meat-borne illnesses. At press time, the first discovery of mad cow disease in a Tokyo suburb caused beef prices to plummet in Japan and many people to stop eating meat.


All this comes at a time when meat consumption is reaching an all-time high around the world, quadrupling in the last 50 years. There are 20 billion head of livestock taking up space on the Earth, more than triple the number of people. According to the Worldwatch Institute, global livestock population has increased 60 percent since 1961, and the number of fowl being raised for human dinner tables has nearly quadrupled in the same time period, from 4.2 billion to 15.7 billion. U.S. beef and pork consumption has tripled since 1970, during which time it has more than doubled in Asia.


Americans spend $110 billion a year on meat-intensive fast food, and its growing popularity around the world may be a factor in dramatic increases in global meat consumption. © Jason Kremkau


One reason for the increase in meat consumption is the rise of fast-food restaurants as an American dietary staple. As Eric Schlosser noted in his best-selling book Fast Food Nation, "Americans now spend more money on fast food -- $110 billion a year -- than they do on higher education. They spend more on fast food than on movies, books, magazines, newspapers, videos and recorded music -- combined."


Strong growth in meat production and consumption continues despite mounting evidence that meat-based diets are unhealthy, and that just about every aspect of meat production -- from grazing-related loss of cropland and open space, to the inefficiencies of feeding vast quantities of water and grain to cattle in a hungry world, to pollution from "factory farms" -- is an environmental disaster with wide and sometimes catastrophic consequences. Oregon State University agriculture professor Peter Cheeke calls factory farming "a frontal assault on the environment, with massive groundwater and air pollution problems."


World Hunger and Resources


The 4.8 pounds of grain fed to cattle to produce one pound of beef for human beings represents a colossal waste of resources in a world still teeming with people who suffer from profound hunger and malnutrition.


According to the British group Vegfam, a 10-acre farm can support 60 people growing soybeans, 24 people growing wheat, 10 people growing corn and only two producing cattle. Britain -- with 56 million people -- could support a population of 250 million on an all-vegetable diet. Because 90 percent of U.S. and European meat eaters' grain consumption is indirect (first being fed to animals), westerners each consume 2,000 pounds of grain a year. Most grain in underdeveloped countries is consumed directly.


Somalian famine victims line up for food handouts. Producing a pound of beef requires 4.8 pounds of grain, and critics of our modern agricultural system say that the spread of meat-based diets aggravates world hunger. © David & Peter Turnley / Corbis


While it is true that many animals graze on land that would be unsuitable for cultivation, the demand for meat has taken millions of productive acres away from farm inventories. The cost of that is incalculable. As Diet For a Small Planet author Frances Moore Lappé writes, imagine sitting down to an eight-ounce steak. "Then imagine the room filled with 45 to 50 people with empty bowls in front of them. For the 'feed cost' of your steak, each of their bowls could be filled with a full cup of cooked cereal grains."


Harvard nutritionist Jean Mayer estimates that reducing meat production by just 10 percent in the U.S. would free enough grain to feed 60 million people. Authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich note that a pound of wheat can be grown with 60 pounds of water, whereas a pound of meat requires 2,500 to 6,000 pounds.


Environmental Costs


Energy-intensive U.S. factory farms generated 1.4 billion tons of animal waste in 1996, which, the Environmental Protection Agency reports, pollutes American waterways more than all other industrial sources combined. Meat production has also been linked to severe erosion of billions of acres of once-productive farmland and to the destruction of rainforests.


McDonald's took a group of British animal rights activists to court in the 1990s because they had linked the fast food giant to an unhealthy diet and rainforest destruction. The defendants, who fought the company to a standstill, made a convincing case. In court documents, the activists asserted, "From 1970 onwards, beef from cattle reared on ex-rainforest land was supplied to McDonald's." In a policy statement, McDonald's claims that it "does not purchase beef which threatens tropical rainforests anywhere in the world," but it does not deny past purchases.


Circle Four Farms, a Utah-based pork producer, hosts a three-million gallon waste lagoon. When lagoons like this spill into rivers and lakes as happened in North Carolina in 1995, the result can be environmentally catastrophic. © AP Photo / Douglas C. Pizac


According to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), livestock raised for food produce 130 times the excrement of the human population, some 87,000 pounds per second. The Union of Concerned Scientists points out that 20 tons of livestock manure is produced annually for every U.S. household. The much-publicized 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska dumped 12 million gallons of oil into Prince William Sound, but the relatively unknown 1995 New River hog waste spill in North Carolina poured 25 million gallons of excrement and urine into the water, killing an estimated 10 to 14 million fish and closing 364,000 acres of coastal shellfishing beds. Hog waste spills have caused the rapid spread of a virulent microbe called Pfiesteria piscicida, which has killed a billion fish in North Carolina alone.


More than a third of all raw materials and fossil fuels consumed in the U.S. are used in animal production. Beef production alone uses more water than is consumed in growing the nation's entire fruit and vegetable crop. Producing a single hamburger patty uses enough fuel to drive 20 miles and causes the loss of five times its weight in topsoil. In his book The Food Revolution, author John Robbins estimates that "you'd save more water by not eating a pound of California beef than you would by not showering for an entire year." Because of deforestation to create grazing land, each vegetarian saves an acre of trees per year.


"We definitely take up more environmental space when we eat meat," says Barbara Bramble of the National Wildlife Federation. "I think it's consistent with environmental values to eat lower on the food chain."


The Human Health Toll


There is some evidence to suggest that the human digestive system was not designed for meat consumption and processing (see sidebar), which could help explain why there is such high incidence of heart disease, hypertension, and colon and other cancers. Add to this the plethora of drugs and antibiotics applied as a salve to unnatural factory farming conditions and growing occurrences of meat-based diseases like E. coli and Salmonella, and there's a compelling health-based case for vegetarianism.


The factory-farmed chicken, cow or pig of today is among the most medicated creatures on Earth. "For sheer overprescription, no doctor can touch the American farmer," reported Newsweek. According to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) report, the use of antimicrobial drugs for nontherapeutic purposes -- mainly to increase factory farm growth rates -- has risen 50 percent since 1985.


Ninety percent of commercially available eggs come from chickens raised on factory farms, and six billion "broiler" chickens emerge from the same conditions. Ninety percent of U.S.-raised pigs are closely confined at some point during their lives. According to the book Animal Factories by Jim Mason and Peter Singer, pork producers lose $187 million annually to chronic diseases such as dysentery, cholera, trichinosis and other ailments fostered by factory farming. Drugs are used to reduce stress levels in animals crowded together unnaturally, although 20 percent of the chickens die of stress or disease anyway.


One result of these conditions is a high rate of meat contamination. Up to 60 percent of chickens sold in supermarkets are infected with Salmonella entenidis, which can pass to humans if the meat is not heated to a high enough temperature. Another pathogen, Campylobacter, can also spread from chickens to human beings with deadly results.


In 1997, more than 25 million pounds of hamburger were found to be contaminated with E. coli 0157:H7, which is spread by fecal matter. The bacteria are a particular problem in hamburger, because the grinding process spreads it throughout the meat. E. coli, the leading cause of kidney failure in young children, was the culprit when three children died of food poisoning after eating at a Seattle Jack in the Box restaurant in 1993.


Business as usual at the animal farm: From left: chicken debeaking, cow confinement, poultry transport and hog crowding.


The British epidemic of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease, which began in 1986 and has affected nearly 200,000 cattle, jumps to beef-eating humans in the form of the always-fatal Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD). The CDC reports that an average of 10 to 15 people have contracted CJD from meat in Britain each year since it was first detected in 1994. In 1998, the British Medical Association warned in a report to Members of Parliament, "The current state of food safety in Britain is such that all raw meat should be assumed to be contaminated with pathogenic organisms." In 1997, it added, Salmonella or E. coli infected a million people in Britain. BSE spreads through cattle that are fed contaminated central nervous-system tissue from other animals. "Its future magnitude and geographic distribution...cannot yet be predicted," the CDC reported. In the U.S., deer have been affected with chronic wasting disease, which has many similarities to British BSE, though a definitive link to humans has not been established.


In the book Eating With Conscience, Dr. Michael W. Fox reports that what is known as "animal tankage" -- the non-fat animal residue from slaughterhouses -- is used in a wide variety of products, from animal feed and fertilizer to pet food. Dr. Fox adds that hundreds of cats in Europe (and several zoo animals) that ate tankage-laced food have contracted forms of BSE. The Japanese outbreak is believed to have originated in BSE-contaminated feed imported from Europe.


According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), more than 10 million animals that were dying or diseased when slaughtered were "rendered" (processed into a protein-rich meal) in 1995 for addition to pig, poultry and pet food. Animals that collapse at the slaughterhouse door or during transportation are called "downers," and their corpses are routinely processed for human consumption. A 2001 Zogby America poll conducted for the group Farm Sanctuary found that 79 percent of Americans oppose this practice, which could be an entry point for BSE into the U.S. meat supply. Farm Sanctuary petitioned the USDA in 1998 to end processing of downer meat for human consumption, but its petition was denied.


Europe will spend billions of dollars bringing a virulent epidemic of yet another animal-borne disease -- foot-and-mouth -- under control. In the last two years, 60 countries have had outbreaks of foot-and-mouth, which kills animals but does not spread to people.


One of the major western exports is a taste for meat, though it brings with it increased risk of heart disease and cancer. Clearly, there is something seriously wrong with a diet and food production system resulting in such waste, endemic disease and human health threats.


Caring About Animals


The average meat eater is responsible for the deaths of some 2,400 animals during his or her lifetime. Animals raised for food endure great suffering in their housing, transport, feeding and slaughter, which is something not clearly evident in the neatly wrapped packages of meat offered for sale at grocery counters. Given the information, many Americans -- especially those with an environmental background -- recoil at knowing they participate in a meat production system so oppressive to the animals caught up in it.


The family farm of the nineteenth century, with its "free-range" animals running around the farmyard or grazing in a pasture, is largely a thing of the past. Brutality to animals has become routine in today's factory farm. A recent article in the pig industry journal National Hog Farmer recommends reducing the average space per animal from eight to six square feet, concluding "Crowding pigs pays." Morley Safer reported on the television program 60 Minutes that today's factory pig is no "Babe": "[They] see no sun in their limited lives, with no hay to lie on, no mud to roll in. The sows live in tiny cages, so narrow they cannot even turn around. They live over metal grates, and their waste is pushed through slats beneath them and flushed into huge pits."


Beef cattle are luckier than factory pigs in that they have an average of 14 square feet in the overcrowded feedlots where they live out their lives. Common procedures for beef calves include branding, castration and dehorning. Veal calves, taken away from their mothers shortly after birth, live their entire lives in near darkness, chained by their necks and unable to move in any direction. They commonly suffer from anemia, diarrhea, pneumonia and lameness.


Virtually all chickens today are factory raised, with as many as six egg-laying hens living in a wire-floored "battery" cage the size of an album cover. As many as 100,000 birds can live in each "henhouse." Conditions are so psychologically taxing on the birds that they must be debeaked to prevent pecking injuries. Male chicks born on factory farms -- as many as 280 million per year -- are simply thrown into garbage bags to die because they're of no economic value as meat or eggs.


Some 95 percent of factory-raised animals are moved by truck, where they are typically subjected to overcrowding, severe weather, hunger and thirst. Many animals die of heat exhaustion or freezing during transport.


Some of the worst abuse occurs at the end of the animals' lives, as documented by Gail Eisnitz' book Slaughterhouse, which includes interviews with slaughterhouse workers. "On the farm where I work," reports one employee, "they drag the live ones who can't stand up anymore out of the crate. They put a metal snare around her ear or foot and drag her the full length of the building. These animals are just screaming in pain." He adds, "The slaughtering part doesn't bother me. It's the way they're treated when they're alive." Dying animals unable to walk are tossed into the "downer pile," and many suffer agonies until, after one or two days, they are finally killed.


The threat to slaughterhouse workers' safety is largely underreported or ignored in the media. For example, Mother Jones magazine, in an otherwise admirable story on slaughterhouse workers, barely mentions the frequent injuries caused by pain-wracked animals lashing out inside the slaughterhouses. Despite the existence of the Humane Slaughter Act and regular USDA inspection, animals are often skinned alive or -- in a major threat to worker safety -- regain consciousness during slaughtering.


The Vegetarian Solution


Vegetarianism is not a new phenomenon. The ancient Greek philosopher Pythagoras was vegetarian, and until the mid-19th century, people who abstained from meat were known as "Pythagoreans." Famous followers of Pythagoras' diet included Leonardo da Vinci, Benjamin Franklin, George Bernard Shaw and Albert Einstein. The word "vegetarian" was coined in 1847 to give a name to what was then a tiny movement in England.


In the U.S., the 1971 publication of Diet For a Small Planet was a major catalyst for introducing people to a healthy vegetarian diet. Other stimuli included Peter Singer's 1975 book Animal Liberation, which gave vegetarianism a moral underpinning; Singer and Jim Mason's book Animal Factories, the first expose´ of confinement agriculture; and John Robbins' 1987 Diet for a New America. In the U.S., according to a 1998 Vegetarian Journal survey, 82 percent of vegetarians are motivated by health concerns, 75 percent by ethics, the environment and/or animal rights, 31 percent because of taste and 26 percent because of economics.


Is the vegetarian diet healthy? The common perception persists that removing meat from the menu is dangerous because of protein loss. Lappé says there is danger of protein deficiency if vegetarian diets are heavily dependent upon 1) fruit; 2) sweet potatoes or cassava (a staple root crop for more than 500 million people in the tropics); or 3) the particular western problem, junk food.


But Reed Mangels, nutrition advisor to the Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG), says vegetarians can meet their protein needs "easily" if they "eat a varied diet and consume enough calories to maintain their weight. It is not necessary to plan combinations of foods. A mixture of proteins throughout the day will provide enough 'essential amino acids.'"


Although meat is rich in protein, Vegetarian and Vegan FAQ reports that other good sources are potatoes, whole wheat bread, rice, broccoli, spinach, almonds, peas, chickpeas, peanut butter, tofu (soybean curd), soymilk, lentils and kale.


Supermarket shelves overflow with soy- or seitan-based meat substitutes. The soybean contains all eight essential amino acids and exceeds even meat in the amount of usable protein it can deliver to the human body. (It should be noted, however, that some people are allergic to soy, and the "hyper-processing" of some soy-based foods reduces the useful protein content.) Animal rights advocates also claim that, contrary to the urging of the meat and dairy industries, humans need to consume only two to 10 percent of their total calories as protein.


How many vegetarians are there in the U.S.? It depends on whom you ask. A PETA fact sheet asserts that 12 million Americans are vegetarians, and 19,000 make the switch every week. Pamela Rice, author of 101 Reasons Why I'm a Vegetarian, puts the number at 4.5 million, or 2.5 percent of the population, based on recent surveys. Older counts, from 1992, put the number of people who "consider themselves" to be vegetarians at seven percent of the U.S. population, or an impressive 18 million. A 1991 Gallup Poll indicated that 20 percent of the population look for vegetarian menu items when they eat out.


Actual vegetarian numbers may be lower. VRG got virtually the same results in two separate Roper Polls it sponsored in 1994 and 1997: One percent of the public, or between two and three million, is vegetarian (eats no meat or fish, but may eat dairy and/or eggs), with a third to half of them living on a vegan diet (eschewing all animal products). Roughly five percent in both studies "never eat red meat." A 2000 poll was slightly more optimistic, putting the number of vegetarians at 2.5 percent of the population. Women are more likely to be vegetarians than men; and -- surprisingly -- Republicans are slightly more likely to abstain from meat than Democrats.


The American Dietetic Association says in a position statement, "Appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, are nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases." Vegetarians now have excellent opportunities to put together well-planned meals. The sale of organic products in natural food stores is the highest growth niche in the food industry, according to Nutrition Business Journal, and it grew 22 percent in 1999 to $4 billion. The natural food markets of today are not the tiny storefronts of yesteryear, but full-service supermarkets, with vigorous competition among giant national chains. Diverse veggie entrees are now available in most supermarkets and on a growing list of restaurant menus.


It's never been easier to become a vegetarian, and there have never been more compelling reasons for environmentalists to make that choice. It's not always easy to do -- most environmentalists still eat meat -- but the tide is beginning to turn.


For resources about vegetarianism, contact:


International Vegetarian Union (www.ivu.org)
North American Vegetarian Society (www.navs-online.org)
Vegetarian Resource Group (wwwv.vrg.org)


This article originally appeared in E, The Environmental Magazine.

ho hum 23.Jan.2002 20:51

red

Yes, thats a great option for a thin layer of the middle class within the firts world. How about real solutions that make sense in the vast majority of those on planet earth. (hint:class war)

did you READ the article, red? 23.Jan.2002 22:05

curious boy

What the article is saying is that meat eating in the U.S. causes vast amounts of suffering for "the vast majority of those on planet earth". Meat is, and always has been, a luxury of the rich, and the rich need to give it up because their selfishness is destroying the planet and killing its people. On the subject of fast food, which makes meat available to the poor here too, it is a matter of education and options. First, while fast food might be cheaper in the short run, the health problems it causes in the long run are much more expensive, and there's no "health care" here if you're poor. Second, if you take out the qualifier, "fast", then fast food is certainly not cheaper. Buying healthy food in bulk and preparing it oneself is definitely cheaper in the short and long run. However, many people either a) choose not to make this investment of time because they'd rather watch TV or b) don't have the time because they spend too much time working (due to lack of affordable "health care", and including long commutes by car across sprawled out cities because public transportation has been gutted). Third, the explosion of stores carrying bulk/healthy foods has made these items much more available. It's just that folks don't always know how to cook them, so therein is the education about options.

In any case, meat is used by the ruling classes to control the working classes, so on that point, you're correct -- a toppling of the ruling class must take place. And to raise consciousness that high, we all need to stop eating meat. Eating unhealthy food clogs awareness, smothers reason, dampens consciousness. If you want a class war, you'll need to stop eating meat yourself, and get others to do the same.

There's a quotation I will paraphrase here that I saw in the British magazine, Ecology. On the subject of fast food and its effects on the brain, a woman academic said, "I ate fast food to test my theories. And for two hours afterwards, I had no problem with American foreign policy."

No, red, vegetarianism is not a choice available only to a thin veneer of the Middle Class in the U.S. It is an option for everyone, and one that is already practiced by well over half the world's population. India, which is predominantly vegetarian, has street actions with tens of thousands and sometimes even hundreds of thousands of people protesting war, working conditions, and genetically modified food. There's a connection there between our respective treatment of cows. They venerate their sacred ones, and we eat them.

there are lotz of reasons not to eat meat 23.Jan.2002 22:33

veg girl

gosh red, where is your compassion for our animal friends? they are sentient beings that deserve to be treated with the same respect that we demand.

what about the idea of americans reducing their meat consumption by a mere ten percent in order to feed sixty million people. or do arrogant americans feel it is their due while millions of people in the world die of starvation, with one entire village in Afghanistan eating nothing but grass.
 http://www.portland.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=6278&group=webcast

animals, being sentient beings, are fully aware that they are being led to slaughter. fear floods their bodies. that fear is consumed when a person eats meat. not hard to see that side effect.

meat has a dulling effect on the consciousness. it also acts as an irritant to the nervous system and throws a human body into a hormonal high which produces aggression.

animals are slammed with artificial junk. another lovely part of eating meat, eating a host of chemicals that further dull the apathetic mind.

food is where the rEvolution begins. until we step away from mindlessly filling our bodies with meat, and other forms of junk, we will remain slaves to the very system that we are trying to change.

hmmm... 24.Jan.2002 00:00

made up

Whoa. Without a doubt we Americans consume more meat than is healthy, and at great cost to the environment. But to be vegitarian is tough. I'll bet that if you speak with your dietician, you'll find that a diet comprised of 100% vegetable matter, for a non-trivial percentage of people, just doesn't work without planning. But it is sound advice to greatly cut back on meat consumption. Let's just not go overboard and say an only-vegetable diet is healthier than an omnivorous daily platter. After all, some of our teeth are sharp for tearing thru meat, and some are blunt for grinding the plants. Is it really wise to deny our evolutionary heritage? Anyhow, good post despite the few innacuracies.

curious indeed 24.Jan.2002 00:20

icon of curiosity

Curious, curious boy... have you ever asked yourself "is India's culture largely vegetarian because it's so poor it can't afford meat or because the culture chose to abstain from meat based on some lofty ideals?" If you choose the "lofty ideals" bit, then consider that those lofty ideals may owe their birth to the scarcity of meat. I mean, if you couldn't have meat but wanted it, wouldn't it be more comforting to lie to yourself and believe that you actually CHOSE not to eat meat for reasons x-and-such? If you still say they're vegetarian because of some principle or desire for health or something then riddle me this: why is it that most vegetarian cultures can't afford to have meat on a regular basis? Name me just one large wealthy nation that has over 50% vegetarians. Methinks the cultures that eat a little meat are the ones that got it right.

Oh yeah, and meat doesn't dull my thinking. I need the grease to lubricate my synapses. Too much soy, indicates a study of many many Hawaians (albeit poorly controlled), is what blunts the brain.

meat and health 24.Jan.2002 09:17

Ph.D in wholistic nutrition

nope, meat is NOT needed to have a healthy diet, contrary. animals can digest meat rather quickly, given that their digestive tract is short while the human tract is l-o-n-g. this means that meats putrifies in the gut long before it is eliminated - yuk! this leads to parasites of all varieties.

tis true, one needs to do a bit of planning to eat a healthy well rounded diet, vegetarian or otherwise, but this should not be used an an excuse by any means. we can get all that we need from a plant based diet. many cultures do.

the teeth thing is just way ancient. ever notice how those human canine teeth are getting less sharp generation after generation? once upon a time, we needed them for tearing meat, but as we are evolving (?) there are plenty more choices eliminating the need to eat meat. Dairy products are still a part of a healthy diet, however, as long as they are derived from healthy animals, ie: organic standards.

and if meat did somehow improve the health of a human, do we really feel that we deserve to kill animals in the name of our well-being. where is the compassion in that. those who want to continue eating meat, should slaughter the animal themselves, rather than buy a sterile and dyed (yes, meat would be grey not pink) piece of it in a styrofoam package.

and re the india thing. many may be poor, but as someone who has spent a fair amount of time there, and living with poor (hindu) families, their diets are a wealth of healthy food. they do indeed think of cows as sacred (they have free run of the streets and are very well fed). i have non-hindu friends in india who do eat meat, although they are no more financially able to afford it. it IS about culture, not about whether or not they can afford it.

What is this denial about anyway? gluttony, is it?

True "environmentalism" is "bioregional" 24.Jan.2002 09:42

Mike stepbystepfarm@shaysnet.com

There are plenty of good ETHICAL reasons for vegetarianism. But the concept that humans eating meat is (necessarily) bad for the environment presupposes the acceptance of faulty postulates:

1) Because agribusiness meat IS raised under adverse conditions this should mean ANYTHING about the question in general. For example, conditions of high interest rates favoring rapid growing beef cattle consuming grain rather than a year older "grass fat".

2) That in all bioregions, producing meat represents a net loss (in terms of diverted grain production). So even here, with less than 5% of the land "bottomland" suitable for plowing and grain production the mowable slopes shouldn't be in legume forage for cattle.

3) That our problem and focus should be global rather than local. That it makes ANY difference to how we should live that people hopelessly out of balance with their local environment are starving.

4) That our goals should be directed around feeding the maximum number of locusts (oops, humans) rather than living such that our populations are in reasonable balance with the ability of the local environment to support us AND wild non-human Nature as well.

response to icon, re. wealth 24.Jan.2002 09:58

curious boy

You say: "why is it that most vegetarian cultures can't afford to have meat on a regular basis? Name me just one large wealthy nation that has over 50% vegetarians. Methinks the cultures that eat a little meat are the ones that got it right."

Surely you are not meaning to say that we can judge whether something is right based on whether large wealthy nations do it? That line of logic falls apart pretty quickly.

As residents of the largest and wealthiest of the large wealthy nations, let's take a quick look at our actions:

* slaughter of innocents ("Who is the terrorist?" at  http://www.cpiml.org/pgs/partorg/liberati/2001oct/terrorist.htm)

* aggressive marketing of poison in foreign countries ("The economics of tobacco" at  link to news.bbc.co.uk)

* dumping of waste in other countries ("RICH COUNTRIES DUMP PLASTIC WASTES IN INDIA" at  http://india.indymedia.org/front.php3?article_id=541&group=webcast)

* allowing our country to be taken over in a coup ("A passing comment from Clinton: the US election was stolen" at  http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/jan2001/clin-j13.shtml)

* setting up sweatshops overseas so we have cheap products and no jobs here (see  http://www.sweatshops.org/)

This is obviously only a short list. We have a lot of work to do here if we want this particular large wealthy nation to fulfill its promise and responsibility (which many of us do want). Eating meat is something to reduce and then stop. You have to start with your own house, and there's the stink of addiction and unhealthy habits in this one.

meat to eat? 24.Jan.2002 10:24

deva

icon,

in India, the notion of not eating meat has its basis in spiritual awareness. do keep in mind that India was predominately vegetarian when it was one of the richest nations in the world. (it was terribly impoverished by European imperialism long after its spiritual traditions were formed)

China also has a strong spiritual tradition of vegetarian diet among the Buddhists and Taoists. It too, was one of the wealthiest nations. The Taoist monastaries up until the communist revolution, held great temporal as well as spiritual power. They could afford to eat whatever they wanted. They lived on an austere vegetarian diet. . .and were very strong and vital.

You seem to denigrate the spiritual awareness, by using a term such as "lofty ideals". . .as if they are just ideas, disconnected from "real" life. Spirituality is a direct and deeper perception of life, of what is going on beyond the closed in little mind and its attachment to ideas. the modern mind has become so enamoured of its ideas, and glorification of ideas, that it rarely can see beyond them. ideas are like maps, maps of reality, but the mind has lost sight of the fact that the map is only a representation, not the thing it represents. We make more and more clever representations of life. . .beautiful movies of faraway places. The ideas too, become more and more clever and elaborate. Spiritual vision is direct perception of the vast realm that lies beyond the narrow world of ideas. In that broader perception, it becomes apparent, that all creatures are spiritual brothers and sisters.

This is why, spirit based cultures that eat/ate meat, would thank the animal, and knew that it was not they who took the animal, but the animal who gave itself. A profound difference.

The huge problem with justifying the eating of meat in this country, is that the animals live under such horrifying conditions. All creatures are our spiritual kin. I do think the perceptive and conscious person, upon visiting these houses of death, will have a hard time to say such treatment is ok. . .if the person feels that way, then to be honest to themselves and to life, they must refrain from paying energy and money to support this terrible thing we do to our kin.

deva

oils, meat and soy 24.Jan.2002 10:30

miss ph.d

the best source of oils or fats are derived from nuts, olive oil and butter. ghee is particulaly good. nuts are also a superior source of protein. soy, on the other hand, has a lot of unhealthy fats, among a ton of other problems, rendering it a pretty unhealthy food choice, unless it is fermented and then eaten sparingly.

and, may i say once again, we cannot consider ourselves evolved or conscious beings until we quit eating our animal friends who are being mercilessly murdered for our gluttonous consumption. I am way disappointed with this dailogue that shows a contemptous lack of concern about the effects of meat eating.

we will never be FREE until all beings are FREE!!

Vegetarians Taste Better ! 24.Jan.2002 11:03

miss ph.d

curious boy and deva, hows about we all get together for a sumptious, yummy, delicious, gratifying and altogether wholesome veggie meal? whadya say?

meat and vegetables 24.Jan.2002 16:09

poptart superstar

Hello. Ph D dude.

I don't think I see any comment up there saying people need to eat meat (I do see a Devil's advocate because both of the naughty little comments up there are mine so I should know!). What I see is a comment saying that meat has been a part of our diet for untold millenia. And no, I don't see our teeth getting blunter and blunter. People have evolved with meat in their diet. The argument about the long intestine is just plain weak; if it takes a long intestine to properly digest vegetable matter, then by default an omnivore is going to have a long one and not a short one. Anyway, I don't think anyone would argue that we could reduce our meat consumption as a nation by 80% easily without causing issues for those who don't plan their diet. In fact they'd probably be healthier.

Now as for a comparison between carnivorous, omnivorous, and herbivorous diets, I can say that I know healthy people at both ends of the spectrum. However, most of the "vegatarians" I know aren't really vegetarians, and I have to admit they're usually more educated than their near-carnivorous brethen. They have tried to be vegetarian, but end up consuming animal matter such as chicken eggs or dairy because they found they just weren't as healthy without some form of animal matter. And yes, I know the difference between vegan and vegetarian, I just think it's an artifice to say you're a vegetarian when you're still consuming animal matter.

As far as the ethical aspects (ie killing other sentient beings for our own benefit), I have no qualms, but it's the way of the world. Animals which eat meat, by and large, kill other animals. It's not about compassion, and some cultures do kill with compassion (ie apologize to the animal and pray to its family and friends before killing it). These cultures have accepted that it's a hunger their body has. If I couldn't buy meat at the store, I'd kill my own (if there were any in the city), and I wouldn't cut back much since I eat less than a pound a week.
Don't get me wrong--I know that's it's not practical for us all to kill our own food all the time, but I think it is DEFINITELY a very cool idea you have there to have people kill their own food. Maybe it could be part of a well-rounded education; somehow, without forcing vegans to participate (which is of course discrimination to exempt any group), take peole to a slaughtering plant and make them do the dirty deed and see just what they're killing. A lot of the food we eat is as smart as the pets we love and keep and I think people would be more sane about the volume they consume if they knew the real deal.

Your take on India is a bit off. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the cow utilized as dairy, which is an animal product? My point is that the culture of revering cows could easily have come about as a result of the utility of milk over the utility of meat. The fact that male cows aren't killed is irrelevant because clearly they'd recognize the male cow is needed as well. A lot easier to develop a belief system that doesn't say "well we can eat the boys but not the girls". And as for your friends who eat meat, if they're so poor then why are they buying it? Apparently they CAN afford it. So, maybe the culture IS about availability after all. Don't get me wrong; I threw up the India comment because it's an interesting argument that I haven't been able to decide upon either way. I appreciate that you responded but I still can't decide because I don't see your argument as being all that compelling. Thanks!

___________
Now. Hello curious! You write "Surely you are not meaning to say that we can judge whether something is right based on whether large wealthy nations do it?" And you're correct! I would NEVER say that. If I were saying that then I'd be dumb enough to support our campaign in Afghanistan. What I was saying was all about people having the means to easily obtain large quantities of meat, and that has nothing to do with right or wrong. By my beleif system, vegans have the ethical advantage, hands down, and some of the poorest nations house the most vegans.

So, let me expand upon my statement. Many people espouse values that are determined with a large influence from their reality; those who can, quite often do if it's enjoyable or more convenient. So although a belief may clearly be the more noble of the two, many people who hold that belief hold it because it is practical. Now, an American vegan with the means to eat lots of meat probably isn't vegan for sheer practicality. But what about a country with scarcely enough to eat vegetables? They all know that eating meat is wrong, but some of them only know it because that's the way they've been raised and not because of some congnitive birth. Just like so many Americans blindly support our war on terrorism while only a small fraction support it with their eyes wide open.

Before I sign off I want to sincerely thank you for caring and taking the time to show it in a polite manner.

____________
Deva. Hello. Your arguments about India and China are very strong indeed! And that is what I was looking for in my quest to understand vegetarianism vs omnivorism. Thank you. You have converted my perception of vegetarianism!

I somewhat agree with your criticism of my using "lofty ideals" as well, for I was just trying to be the Devil's advocate. When you get right down to it, one of the most important things we have is belief. Sadly, many people don't know why they have a set of belief, and that's why I used "lofty ideals" in such snotty terms--in reference to that set of individuals.

However, in the spirit of debate I am compelled to disagree with your take on just why it's noble to thank the animal. I agree with your first part of the statement, but not "and knew that it was not they who took the animal, but the animal who gave itself". The animal didn't give itself. We humans forced ourself onto it. What really scares me about your statement is the way some people have twisted it. In similar fashion, many humans have thanked their gods for giving them slaves, and in fact some of them viewed slaves as animals. I'm not saying you would ever twist that statement, just that it has potential to be a dangerous belief.

Thanks.
________________________________
Miss PhD.

One very special thing about being a sentient being is the ability to discern right from wrong. However, in no universal sense is eating meat or killing right or wrong. With the current set of beliefs most humans have espoused, it is inconsistent to eat other highly sentient beings. But if you're a human who believes that it's ok to eat anything less intelligent than a human, then it becomes morally acceptable to eat other animals. However, anyone who says it's barbaric to eat smart animals like dogs and then goes and feasts on pigs clearly has some belief systems that need to be evaluated.

As far as all beings being free, I scoff at the idea that I have to spare a snail from being eaten. Snails can be trained (I was surprised to learn when I read a pretty much irrefutable article), so how do you define conscience? When has an animal gained conscience? If an omnivore like a bear kills to live, then what's wrong with humans killing? How can killing be right for one animal and not for another? If a bear's not sentient then I really don't know if a dog or cat is 'cause bears are pretty smart. Aren't there other omnivores out there that could live without meat? They may even be smart enough to know it. So why does my intellect make it wrong to eat meat? I'm only saying that it looks to me like you've lumped human meat eaters into this box and put a "savage" label on it. That won't get the world anywhere. Any more than labelling vegans as freaks. Let's stay away from the labels, ok? Telling an omnivore it's not evolved or conscious just because he or she eats meat is pretty unfair because there are plenty of smart, loving beings who eat meat--they just don't think it's wrong, and can you prove that it is? NO! BECAUSE IT'S A VALUE!

Oh yeah, and why is soy fat bad?

Let's look back over this letter. Apparently, something in my tone triggered something in your tone that amplified something in my tone, whereas Deva and Curious have only my omnivorous respect. Even if they do think my eating meat is wrong, they don't appear to have condemned me. Trust me I don't hate you, but I think you need to join me in asking a few more questions of our beliefs. Damn, did I just spend an hour on this letter?!?!? Guess I did! :)

ho hum 2 25.Jan.2002 23:26

red

india, a country comprised of hindus and muslims and buhdist's may or may not be 50% vegaterian. that hardly comprises half of the world population.
I can assure you, having traveled a bit on planet earth that meat comprises a part of the diet of most cultures. There are certainly places that don't eat much meat, but they are the minority.
People all over the world hunt animals for part of there diet. the fact is that a bullet is a small price to pay for a meal that may feed a family for a week. people all over the world raise animals to kill them. they have for thousands of years, and won't stop any time soon.
this is not to say that western consumption patterns are not destructive (so are the russian, chinnese and indian methods of production), or a case cannot be had for not eating meat. But it's not the solution for all the worlds woes. theres bigger issues going on here on planet earth, and making every body feel guilty about eating meat is not gonna change that very much.
as to the frankly inane suggestion that only vegaterians can fight the class war, i say take one look in a history book and back up such a claim. idiotic.
i bet i've been a vegaterian for a longer period of time in my life then most the folks reading this, i just gave up on that as a issue back in high school, when i turned in my crass records for some karl marx.