Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Environment

You Call Yourself a Progressive -- But You Still Eat Meat?

By Kathy Freston, AlterNet. Posted March 14, 2007.


Eating a plant-based diet is an easy, cheap way to end animal cruelty and clean up the environment. Why, then, are so many progressives still clinging to their chicken nuggets?
03142007story
Advertisement

The report released this week by the world's leading climate scientists made no bones about it: Global warming is happening in a big way and it is very likely manmade. The U.N. report that came out soon after made a critical point: "The livestock sector emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." And yet, so many environmentalists continue to eat meat. Why?

Being part of the solution can be a whole lot simpler -- and cheaper -- than going out and buying a new hybrid. We can make a huge difference in the environment simply by eating a plant-based diet instead of an animal-based one. Factory farming pollutes our air and water, reduces the rainforests, and goes a long way to create global warming. Yet for some environmentalists, the idea of giving up those chicken nuggets is still hard to swallow.

So, I thought I might discuss a few of the key concerns that my meat-eating friends offer in defense of their continued meat consumption. Here we go:

Some were worried about thriving, physically, on a vegetarian diet.

Now this just does not make sense. Half of all Americans die of heart disease or cancer and two-thirds of us are overweight. The American Dietetic Association says that vegetarians have "lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; ... lower blood cholesterol levels, lower blood pressure, and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer." Vegetarians, on average, are about one-third as likely to be overweight as meat eaters.

And I've just learned from the brilliant Dr. Andrew Weil that there is something called arachidonic acid, or AA, in animal flesh that causes inflammation. AA is a pro-inflammatory fatty acid. He explains that "heart disease and Alzheimer's -- among many other diseases -- begin as inflammatory processes. The same hormonal imbalance that increases inflammation increases cell proliferation and the risk of malignant transformation." They are finding out that inflammation is key in so many of the diseases that plague us. So when you eat meat, you ingest AA, which causes inflammation, which fires up the disease process. It doesn't matter if the chicken is free range or the beef is grass-fed because the fatty acid is natural and inherent in the meat.

As for having strength and energy on a vegetarian diet, some of the world's top athletes are vegetarian. A few examples: Carl Lewis (perhaps the greatest Olympian of all time), Robert Parish (one of the "50 Greatest Players in NBA History"), Desmond Howard (Heisman Trophy winner and Super Bowl MVP), Bill Pearl (professional bodybuilder and four-time Mr. Universe), Jack La Lanne (Mr. Fitness himself) and Chris Evert (tennis champion). Vegetarian athletes have the advantage of getting all the plant protein, complex carbohydrates and fiber they need without all the artery-clogging cholesterol and saturated animal fats found in meat that would slow them down. In fact, Carl Lewis says that "my best year of track competition was the first year I ate a vegan diet."

One person pointed out that the rain forest is being cut down to grow soy, not meat.

Actually, much of the rain forest is being chopped down for grazing, but also yes, the rain forest is being chopped down to grow soy -- but not for human consumption. Americans and Europeans can't raise all the feed domestically that is needed to sustain their meat addictions, so agribusiness has started cutting down the rain forest. Ask Greenpeace or any other environmental group, and they'll tell you that the overwhelming majority of soy (or corn or wheat, for that matter) is used to feed animals in factory farms. In fact, Greenpeace recently unveiled a massive banner over an Amazon soy field that read, "KFC-Amazon Criminal," to accentuate the point that large chicken and other meat companies like KFC are responsible for the destruction of the Amazon. It takes many pounds of soy or other plant foods to produce just one pound of animal flesh -- so if you're worried about the rain forests being chopped down for grazing or to grow soy, your best move is to stop eating chickens, pigs and other animals. If more people went vegetarian, we would need far less land to feed people, and we wouldn't have to destroy the few natural places that this world has left.

Some wondered about humane, organic or kosher meat.

Sadly, most of the meat, egg and dairy companies that pretend to be eco- or animal-friendly, with packages covered in pictures of pretty red barnyards, are basically the same massive corporately owned factory farms but with a newly hired advertising consultant. In fact, labels like "Swine Welfare" and "UEP Certified" are simply the industry labels that attempt to hide the horrible abuse involved in these products' production. And even "organic" farms are industrializing in ways that shock the journalists who bother to investigate. Sadly, "kosher" means nothing when it comes to how animals are treated on farms, and the largest kosher slaughterhouse in North America was caught horribly abusing animals -- ripping the tracheas out of live cows' throats and worse -- and defending the abuse as kosher.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: farming, environment, meat-eating, vegetarian

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Environment! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
No doubt about it, vegetarianism is the way to go for progressives.
Posted by: TwinsFanatic on Mar 14, 2007 12:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been a progressive activists for more than 20 years, and I've been a vegetarian for more than 20 years. Tolstoy argued that "vegetarianism is the taproot of humanitarianism," because if we can't be kind in the little things, who are we to tell others what to do in the bigger things?

Slaughterhouses are probably the most violent places on the planet. Animals are routinely sent kicking and screaming through the skinning and dismemberment process, every one bleeding and dying exactly like they would if they were human beings.

Farms today treat animals like so many boxes in a warehouse, chopping off beaks and tails and genitals with no painkillers at all, inflicting third degree burns (branding), ripping out teeth, and hunks of flesh. Animals transported to slaughter routinely die from the heat or the cold, or freeze to the sides of the transport trucks or to the bottom in their own excrement. Dairy cows and egg laying hens endure the same living nightmare as their brethren who are raised for their flesh, except that their time on the "farm" is longer. They are still shipped to the slaughterhouse and killed, at a fraction of their natural life span.

There is simply no excuse for anyone who considers herself or himself to be an ethical human being, let alone an "animal lover," to be supporting these kinds of practices, all of which are routine and universal throughout the industries which turn animals into eggs and meat and dairy products.

I agree with what Kathy says: If I can't watch it happening, I want no part of it. I enjoy watching fields tilled and love picking apples and tomatoes and carrots and other vegetarian products. If slaughterhouses had glass walls, as Paul McCartney is so fond of saying, we would all be vegetarians.

Every time I sit down to eat, I make a decision about who I am in the world: Do I want to add to the level of violence, misery, and bloodshed in the world? Or, do I want to make a compassionate and merciful choice? There is so much violence in the world, from war torn regions of Africa and Europe, to our own inner cities. Most of this violence is difficult to understand, let alone influence.

Vegetarianism is one area where each and every one of us can make a difference, every time we sit down to eat. I find it empowering that I can make an option for peace and compassion every time I eat, simply by not encouraging violence and misery against animals.

» RE: What shall I feed my 3 cats? Cat Food Posted by: AngryWhiteFemale
» Mange Gateaux Posted by: gellero
Yup, lets all go vegi.
Posted by: cordas on Mar 14, 2007 12:45 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Lets wipe out (or reduce the numbers of species to zoo levels of bread and supported in captivity) all the animals we raise for food.

Lets do untold damage to the landscape (and enviroment) by turning hundreds of thousands of square miles into unending arable plains and destroy all the habitat that grazing meadows create and all the wildlife that lives there.

Yes lets.

Or maybe we should accept nature and the fact that we are omnivores. Personally as a meat eater and enviromentalist I get really narked by the short sightedness and blinkered approach taken by the extremist vegi lobby.

I will quite happily agree that the intensive farming of meat that is carried out on a "corperate scale" is wrong in so many different ways, and that the availability and over eating of such meat isn't good for either us or the enviroment, but you have to be absolutly barking if you think abolishing meat from the diet and everyone going vegi will be any better....

If that happens then big business will just move even more into the arable market and will continue its practises and continue to destroy the enviroment, only with arable practices it is far more damaging than maintaining prarie and meadows for livestock.

So put away your meat-eater hating banners and have a sensible debate about what we should do to protect our food and enviroment and make sure that the food we feed to ourselves and our children is the best it can be, wether its organic beef or a nut casserole.

» RE: Couldn't agree more Posted by: Techubus
» Ridiculous argument Posted by: Tombo
» wow Posted by: Ayla87
» RE: idiculous argument Posted by: profoflitandtrout
» RE: Yup, lets all go vegi. Posted by: activecitizen2007
» RE: Yup, lets all go vegi. Posted by: Sobanos
Sustainable, local food production is most important
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Mar 14, 2007 12:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's see - a vegetarian who eats bananas from Ecuador, strawberries from Mexico, and sips on soy lattes while proclaiming their moral superiority - is missing the picture. What really matters is getting your food locally, without shipping it halfway around the world.

The moral argument also applies to agriculture - when you clear a field for farmland, you destroy wildlife habitat. There's always a cost, and eating plants doesn't change that basic fact. You have to keep the deer from eating your crops, after all - think about it.

I'll take locally raised chickens and eggs over soy products flown in from the Brazilian Amazon - why not? I'd actually prefer a 95% vegetarian diet on basic health grounds, and I'll eat cheese and eggs - but how many people who eat meat have ever slaughtered an animal? Cut the head off a chicken? Gutted a cow or other large mammal? It should be a required experience for anyone who eats meat.

Of course, the levels of digusting foulness involved in the factory farming of meat is unprecedented. Google: "Rolling Stones" "Boss Hog" for the gory details - and yet people eat that nasty corn-fed hog flesh with no questions asked. Incredible.

55% of corn production goes right into the factory farm system - and I for one think that producing ethanol from that corn is a far better use than feeding it to hogs.

Thus, I'll agree with the author, with a caveat - eat vegetarian, but make sure it's locally produced - and if you do have to kill a chicken for food, at least make sure you do a good job of cooking it. Show a little respect, in other words - and don't eat that factory-farmed hormone-pumped nightmare flesh of death.

» Or a vegan who flies Posted by: Beck
It's Cultural - Gramsci
Posted by: milox on Mar 14, 2007 1:08 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To paraphrase Antonio Gramsci, all the reasons and logic of change might be apparent, badly needed and plainly obvious and yet it's culture that prevents change unless is the change is incorporated culturally within the movement, which I don't see happening with meat, ever.

Why? Because people eat meat by choice and like it...hell the Dali Lama does and using global warming and every other arguements isn't going to cut it. Frankly I don't see a change in omnivores culture just like I don't see fundamentalist Christians getting everyone to pray and not have sex. There's a disconnect in how people are wired. It's just not going to happen.

That said, you'll have many more allies in the environmental fight if you suggest substainable agriculture and humane/non-factory live stock breeding/production rather then being a vegetarian.

If you choose not to eat meat, I applaud you. I however as a progressive, who takes public transpo, rarely uses a car and walks a lot WILL NOT BE GIVING UP MEAT.

» RE: It's Cultural - Gramsci Posted by: si.se.puede
» RE: It's Cultural - Gramsci Posted by: yehadut
Nobody can claim to know best what diet others should have.
Posted by: doinaheckuvajob on Mar 14, 2007 1:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Guess what, lots of people eat meat because it's healthier for them. Not healthier than a vegetarian diet in general, but specifically healthier for them.

Who is it healthier for? People with certain physical ailments, people of certain builds and physical systems, people with gastrointestinal ailments of certain types, and some people who work in labor intensive situations and need lots of protein.

You don't have to believe that of course, you can continue to think you know better what's right for someone else-- that's sure a persuasive technique.

It's simply super arrogant to assume, because you read a few books on how bad meat is, that you know best for everybody.

You don't.

» Vegetarianism IS the healthiest diet Posted by: TwinsFanatic
E Magazine (the environmental magazine) had a similar title
Posted by: TwinsFanatic on Mar 14, 2007 1:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A few years ago, they ran a cover story, "So you're an environmentalist, and you still eat meat?" They hammered home the point that eating meat is a waste and creates massive amounts of pollution. Check out www.GoVeg.com, the environmental section, for the full argument.

This article has just been posted, and already there are "progressives" claiming that it goes to far, doesn't go far enough, and then the final one: I'm going to eat meat and call myself a progressive, and there's nothing you can do about it!

This just proves that progressives can be just as selfish and just as unreasonable as anyone else, and that some progressives also don't want to move outside of their comfort zones.

It's a simple fact, really, made eloquently by this author, that eating meat is bad for the environment, bad for your health, and supports cruelty. To deny it and fight to keep eating meat is similar to the right wingers who deny global warming and continue to drive their SUVs.

Your INSANE!!!
Posted by: Temporary on Mar 14, 2007 1:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Humans NEED MEAT! We need Proteind, D-vitamin, and FISH! Especially children need FISH! You people have totally LOST IT!!!

in ten years, you'll be eating meat again....
Posted by: Eat Politicians on Mar 14, 2007 1:49 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the Vegan or vegetarians I know that have been on this diet for more than 5 years have had to start eating meat again because of health issues. Sorry...it's the truth.

And here's the real deal...if you want to buy free-range, organic meat it's easy. But cows and chickens are stupid and they will die because everything dies...

Should Americans eat less meat...yes....should commercial farming adopt ethical methods, or be kicked altogether for family farms...yes...should meat production end completely...no.

Anyone who has lived on a real farm...a family farm...knows the reality of life and death and it's tie to nature...city dwelling yokels with their funny ideas about nature are laughable....they lose all basis for argument about nature or life or death because they are so removed FROM it...

Live outside the city...understand reality, and get back to me in 5 years...real progressives eat meat...responsibly.

» Go veg for life Posted by: A.T.
» Sorry... it's NOT the truth. Posted by: wellread
» RE: depends... Posted by: tlCampbell
Being a vegetarian does not automatically make someone an environmentalist
Posted by: JS111272 on Mar 14, 2007 2:00 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being a vegetarian does not automatically make someone an environmentalist and eating meat does not make someone less of an environmentalist, but eating meat does come with certain responcibilities which includes researching where your meat comes from and ensuring that the animal has lead the best life it can up to the point of slaughter and that the slaughter is done in the most humane way possible. Meat sold at knock-down prices in supermarkets can only mean that the animal has lead a very poor life. if you choose to eat meat then buy local produce from reputable farms and pay the extra for it.

Find out how that chicken got to your plate; you'll go veg
Posted by: ramsey on Mar 14, 2007 2:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Choices we make reflect our ethics and lifestyle; people eat meat because they do not know what goes on behind the closed doors of the factory farming business. As a former meat eater, I can promise you that most who find out about the horrors and suffering that animals endure would go veg on the spot.

A modest proposal...
Posted by: jwc on Mar 14, 2007 2:32 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Eating animals who can't defend themselves is wrong and unfair.

Let's eat the annoying, whiny, cares-more-for-any-animal-than-for-any-humans instead.

They would quite condemning us, we would eat like kings for years, and the potato famine wouldn't matter anymore.

» RE: A modest proposal... Posted by: Benjaminsjw
There is nothing progressive about vegetarianism
Posted by: Bobsays on Mar 14, 2007 3:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why veggies still peddle this hogwash I don't know. I lived with nomadic herders and learned very quickly what rubbish this 'we shouldn't eat meat' argument is.

Humans have a long-standing relationship with animals as providers of food and clothing. We are built to eat meat and you can live a long and healthy life eating meat.

Militant vegetarianism always hauls out the same old arguments: it is more moral and ethical, animals take up too much space, aren't animals 'cute', meat is cancerous etc. etc.

Let me be clear: I agree with animal welfare and its advocates, I agree with avoiding the harm caused by using chemicals and hormones on animals purely for the purpose of churning out cheap meat, I agree with paying farmers properly, I agree with preserving traditional meat products like prosciuto, and I disagree with supermarkets like Piggly Wiggly who flog rancid recycled meat to customers.

Progressives should be fighting for the following: fair prices for farmers, retention of traditional meat products, animal welfare, chemical-free or low-chemical animals, access to animal protein to the world's entire population so that people can be healthy, and population control so that we do not need to overwhelm the environment to meet out food needs. At present, the left and progressives support a ridiculous policy of mass immigration to the developed world to jack up its population. Across the developed world, the third world is moving in and causing over-crowding in our cities and suburbs, overwhelming the environment with over-consumption.

Those are the fights for progressives if they really care about people and planet.

» Sorry, Pat..... Posted by: mjabele
YET MORE FAKE-LEFTIST NONSENSE! LEFTISM IS ABOUT MONEY, NOT LIFESTYLES
Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties on Mar 14, 2007 3:34 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yet again we see how the rich and powerful are funding nonprofits like Alternet to crank out fakeLeftist propaganda that has been used to subvert trueLeftism (which is based on populist economics--taxing the rich to provide healthcare and social services, controlling the supply of labor, etc), and to create a new fakeLeftism that is based on LIFESTYLES. Thus this new fakeLeftism does not threaten the rich and powerful.

Formerly, under trueLeftism, the enemy of the left was the rich and powerful. NOW, the enemy of the new FAKELeft is the common man who does not happen to live the "proper" lifestyle. What is the proper lifestyle for the fakeLeft? Oh, just whatever nonsense they can whip up--vegetarianism, metrosexuality, etc etc etc.

» Rubbish. Posted by: kevred
» not a conspiracy, but an ecosystem with quasi-organic entities Posted by: emmanuel_goldstein_fights_fake_lefties
» RE: Lol Posted by: Techubus
I love Vegans
Posted by: drblack on Mar 14, 2007 3:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I only Eat Vegans. They taste great.
America is about freedom. It has disappeared,largely by the laws neocons have passed.
Take drugs,have sex with any consenting adult you wish, worship and believe what ever.......but if you think passing a law will change what people do then check out the "drug war".
Overpopulation causes so many problems. having children is much more damaging to the future of our planet.
Also science is the only thing that will save us. learn what it is and donot believe in old ,outdated books.
Mankind would never have survived the Ice age without eating meat and man would never have developed the brain that has made us what we are without the proteins in meat as well as the learning that went on to catch meat.
The technology is there to clone flesh and this will become how meat is produced in the future. Just like a hybrid or better a solar powered engine can allow one to drive an SUV and be good to the planet,cloned meat will eliminate all the concerns written in the article.
Everything living dies and we might as well enjoy ourselves by eating tasty food.
Be a vegan if you want and mind your self.

» RE: I love Vegans Posted by: WWMD
Why I am vegan (and to what extent should society restrict current meat-eating practises)
Posted by: aouie01 on Mar 14, 2007 3:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Why am I vegan?

Standard short answer. I am vegan mainly for the animals, partly for the environment and health. But the true reasoning is a bit longer and is in four parts.

I don't eat factory farmed animals because I find it unnaturally cruel and exploitative. It is so unnaturally cruel and exploitative that I think society should ban the factory farming of animals.

I don't eat animals that are hunted or fished or trapped because I think it is unfair and irresponsible to use collective human technology against other sentient beings unless it is a matter of survival. When we (humans) make nuclear weapons or guns we (except for the arms industry) don't give them away indiscriminately partly for self preservation. I like to think that at least in part it is because we are trying to be responsible with the power of collective human knowledge. It would be unfair to use it against other humans without very good reason. For thousands of years collective human knowledge has been used against other species without sufficient thought as to whether it is unfair to the other species. Since I think it most unbiased logical analyses will find the use of collective human knowledge against other sentient beings to be unfair (unless it is a matter of survival). Even to this day, we still use our technology against many humans too in unfair ways. If and when society becomes almost ideally responsible about collective human knowledge then society should ban the irresponsible use of technology against other sentient beings unless it is a matter of survival.

I don't eat animals that I can catch and consume with my own natural body because I would rather not kill than kill a living being. I would rather not harm than harm a living being. I would not want society to force this principle on anybody and would actually vote against a law that wanted to outright ban humans from eating non-human animals. Just the same way I would vote against preventing a lion in a forest from eating a deer for food. There are many vegetarians and vegans who differ from me on this as they don't defer to nature as much as I do.

I don't eat naturally dead or accidentally killed animals (e.g. roadkill, animals dead in floods, old age, etcetera) because of the "yuck" factor.

So, avoiding unnatural cruelty, being responsible about collective human technology, and my personal religious beliefs are why I avoid most animal products. But, I am a vegan because of the "yuck" factor (Amusing, but true).

Sincerely,
Aouie

Kudos to the Alternet for posting this article.
Posted by: TwinsFanatic on Mar 14, 2007 4:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Kudos to the Alternet for posting this article, and for posting it as their top item.

Clearly it's creating a bit of a storm; for the same reason some abolitionists resisted suffrage, and some suffragettes resisted abolition, some progressives resist vegetarianism.

But vegetarianism is what progressive values are all about, which is why some of the great historical progressives—including Tolstoy, Gandhi, Einstein, and Schweitzer—were vegetarian advocates.

Being a progressive is about “comforting the afflicted and afflicting the comfortable.”

And no one is more afflicted than animals who are raised to be eaten.

Other animals are made of flesh, blood, and bone, just like we human beings are. They have the same five physiological senses. They are more like us than they are unlike us. Eating animals means eating the corpse of an animal who valued her life.

Tolstoy called vegetarianism “the taproot of humanitarianism,” because how can we call for peace, when we are powered by the product of violence and cruelty.

Einstein said that “nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet.”

Gandhi said in his essay, “The Moral Basis of vegetarianism,” that “to my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being.”

All the defensive comments are great; we need to have the discussion. And all sides need to be heard.

Again, kudos to the Alternet for posting this article, and for posting it as the top item today.

Nice leading article Alternet - NOT!
Posted by: colinmeister on Mar 14, 2007 4:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In Zimbabwe, the leader of the opposition is in hospital with head injuries resulting from torture by Mugabe's thugs. In the USA, the administration is firing judges for political reasons.

The most important thing Alternet can come up with for a lead article is one which is trying to persuade people to eat what the author wants them to eat, and not what they choose to eat.

This stuff is trival banter, and should be relegated to the bottom of the list if it is posted at all - but what the hell, I'll forget all about it when I eat some nice foie gras for dinner tonight :-).

» Troll--ignore this person Posted by: kevred
A welcome call to fellow environmentalists to ditch meat
Posted by: ECtek on Mar 14, 2007 4:20 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If someone avoids meat because of the environmental devastation that industry causes, you have my full support.

Personally, I don't eat meat because I've seen how animals are treated before and after they arrive at the slaughter house. My feeling is that any self respecting person would not want to eat meat after they learn how common abuse to animals in factory farms it...we're talking about animals having their testicles cut off with no pain killer, birds having their beaks cut off so they don't peck each other to death in their tiny cages...If most people saw someone grab a robin and cut his beak off and then throw him back on the ground, they would rightly be pissed off. But when this happens to billions of birds raised for their meat, we are supposed to savor the taste? It is madness.

Jump Start Entrenched Beliefs
Posted by: Suzanne Carlson on Mar 14, 2007 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Surely no one wants to be the same person at 20 as they are at 30 as they are in middle age. You don't have to cling to behaviors and beliefs for an entire lifetime. Why not give these issues thought and consideration? You have nothing to lose and so much to gain.

"And yet, so many environmentalists continue to eat meat. Why?"
Posted by: lorenwrigley on Mar 14, 2007 4:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tha author asks...the answer is... it costs a lot of money to eat healthy. I'm not talking about eating a strict diet of grains and greens and looking like I've been hanigng out ina field smoking weed and throwing a frisbee half my life. But I talking about (I like most people need real food) a diet for real people, who work and needand have kids, and need sustenance. I went to Whole Foods near where I live in Western Massachusetss, it's the only place of it's kind in these parts, and I looked at the prices, yet again, and walked out. I looked at a quart of orange juice and it was twice the price of what it costs in another corporate food moraket. Also, for instance, they have an elaborate hot bar and I chose somethings, merely amounting to a tasting of some items, and it came up to $9.00.+ change. It's price is $7.99 per pound of hotbar. I was shocked and told the clerk I changed my mind.
My guess is that most people can't afford to eat an elitist progressive diet.

"And yet, so many environmentalists continue to eat meat. Why?"
Posted by: lorenwrigley on Mar 14, 2007 4:46 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Tha author asks...the answer is... it costs a lot of money to eat