Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Environment

Will We Still Eat Meat, Drink Milk, and Fry Eggs in 2109?

By Kathy Freston, AlterNet. Posted June 8, 2009.


The world will be a much better place in 100 years if we rethink the way we eat.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Dateline: June 2109, in a high school social sciences class in Boise, Idaho.

Teacher: Good morning class. Today we are remembering what life was like in the days of Barack Hussein Obama, the first African American president of the United States. As you all know, President Obama did many things to distinguish himself as one of the greatest presidents our country has ever known.

Back in 2009, the country was in a fast downward spiral of financial disaster; but Obama and his cabinet -- against all odds -- implemented a plan that reorganized the way banks and public corporations did business. He made them accountable not only to the shareholders and government, but also to the environment and to the well-being of the workers. There were a couple of very dark years for a lot of people, but a second Great Depression was averted.

It was under President Obama's leadership that this country was ushered into the era of peace and prosperity that we've experienced since then. Some argue that he saved the world from impending ecological collapse by appointing key agricultural and scientific people that made critical recommendations.

A hundred years ago, you may find this hard to believe, but the entire world was behaving in a way that made scientists of the time wonder aloud whether humans are actually a rational species. Some of the most brilliant scientists of the day argued that without changes in policy, the world was doomed to biblical-style plagues, floods, famines, food and water wars, and other catastrophes -- all of human origin. Even so, entire industries lined up to condemn these scientists -- there was actually a debate about whether global warming was a problem.

[Gasps and murmuring of incredulity from the students.]

I know, we see it all clearly now. But back then, people were used to just taking whatever they wanted of natural resources, not believing that there could ever be consequences. They thought there was no end to the oil in the ground, fresh air or water, trees, or even animals. They believed they could do whatever they wanted, and so they did.

It's impressive to think about how the transformation occurred, though. Take for instance how people used to eat. Back in the day, people used to eat animals as part of nearly every meal. No kidding.

But then in late 2006, United Nations scientists argued that eating meat was "one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global," singling out meat consumption as a top cause of everything from desertification to loss of biodiversity to global warming. In fact, it was the business of raising animals for food that caused more global warming gases -- carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide -- than all the various forms of transportation put together.

So even though driving those millions of big cars and flying old-fashioned planes powered by oil were polluting the environment and warming the planet at breakneck speed, animal agriculture was an even bigger problem.

It seemed that no one listened, though, as 10 billion land animals and tens of billions of fish continued to be killed and eaten by humans every year in the United States alone.

Student: Ten billion animals and all those fish were slaughtered a year? For people to eat?

Teacher: Oh yes. People in the United States ate on average about 100 kilograms of animal flesh per person per year; of course back then the U.S. measured weight in something called pounds -- so it was an average of about 220 pounds. They ate huge chunks of cows -- their rumps, shoulders and from around their ribs -- and drank their milk. They even ate the cow's babies -- called veal -- because they liked the taste of tender flesh. They dined on chickens more than anything, eating their breasts, legs and wings. And people ate their eggs, too!


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: health, environment, oil, cancer, global warming, vegetarianism, animals, vegan, milk, heart disease, slaughterhouse, eggs, plant-based diet

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


Advertisement
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:
This comment has been removed from the site due to non-compliance with AlterNet's community policies.
» Rats don’t eat and shit in soy? Posted by: Honky the Nihilist VI
» YHWH? Is that you? Posted by: -matti
» Balanced diet is best Posted by: eksommer
Absolutely Hilarious!
Posted by: bcgirl125 on Jun 8, 2009 12:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article truly has it all :

"As you all know, President Obama did many things to distinguish himself as one of the greatest presidents our country has ever known"
Um, yeah. Sure. He's ALREADY a major disappointment to progressives.

"It was under President Obama's leadership that this country was ushered into the era of peace and prosperity that we've experienced since then. Some argue that he saved the world..." Hail the Messiah!

"Humans consumed the milk and eggs of cows and chickens? Seriously?"
The horror, the horror!

"some doctors and nutritionists tried to tell everyone else that the human body is not designed to consume animals" Oh, really? I guess our canine teeth and those protease enzymes in our digestive tracts are just there for nothing. Mother Nature/God/Evolution is so illogical compared to the wisdom of the far left.

All in all, an excellent satire of over-the-top Loony Left dogma.

Please, Alternet, give us more of these comical articles. I haven't had a good laugh like this in ages.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» lol ! Posted by: undrgrndgirl
I really doubt...
Posted by: minmotstand on Jun 8, 2009 12:57 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... humanity will stop eating fatty food since we have taste buds which predispose us to meat, dairy products, eggs, etc.

A more, very real possibility is that we will be unable to sustain such a diet. Fish are becoming a rarity with each passing day, and our industrial farming will collapse in on itself once we pump the topsoil full of enough ammonia fertilizers that nothing grows. No cheap, abundant corn feed, no meat as a result.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» You mean no CHEAP meat. Posted by: -matti
» RE: I really doubt... Posted by: jwc1480
I'm gonna feed the trolls here but...
Posted by: maddy on Jun 8, 2009 1:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really don't want to feed the trolls here, but a counterpoint if I may.

I became seriously--seriously--ill as a result of a vegan diet. Vegetarianism didn't help either, and I have had a number of chronic health problems as a result of trying to adhere to the philosophy expressed herein.

The worst of the health stuff, aesthetically, was the ugly lesions I had all. over. my. body. But, undoubtedly the most serious was getting Type II diabetes--which arrived in my 20s!

And, lest you haven't heard, Type II Diabetes is becoming increasingly common among young Americans as we all get fatter. But, I kept trying, and trying, to not eat meat or dairy because I thought that doing so would be the most healthy thing for myself and for the planet.

Until I couldn't stand being sick every day.

Now I don't eat read meat and I watch my saturated fat intake, but I regularly eat chicken, turkey, fish, egg beaters, and low-fat cheeses. And, ya know what? No more lesions. Bloodwork is immaculate. And for the first time in more than 2 decades of yo-yo dieting, I have had no trouble losing weight.

My experience--years of suffering--has taught me that not everyone--and especially not those of us who gain weight easily in our midsections if we eat too many carbohydrates--can be healthy on a vegan diet. Sometimes we can be too rigid in our political ideologies to acknowledge, ya know, reality.

And, no, trolls, I wasn't talking to you. I do think we need to revise how we regard this planet we've poisoned and burned to a crisp. I've just learned, the hard way, that veganism is not the easy fix some well-intentioned lefties presume it to be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» help me draw the lines Posted by: ladyoracle
» Thanks Posted by: maddy
On the best sellers list...
Posted by: MyLeftFoot on Jun 8, 2009 2:32 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in 2109 might be, 101 Ways to Prepare Soylent Green.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Depends on blood type
Posted by: Carts on Jun 8, 2009 2:39 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
www.dadamo.com

O bloods are 40% of the population

They are meat eaters

What will happen to them?

I am A so vego suits me

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» No it doesn't... Posted by: jparsons
» RE: Depends on blood type Posted by: Coelophysis
kathy, kathy, kathy, you do not win converts by sneering at people and overstating your case
Posted by: Suzon on Jun 8, 2009 2:42 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For example, I have four chickens which I take very good care of. They produce eggs which are delicious and full of nutrients (and they also produce manure for the vegetable garden). Yes, I do eat meat. Throughout the long history of human beings, we've eaten a mixed diet, including bird's eggs.

Sadly, the last few decades have seen the corporate takeover of food production (the term "agribusiness" raises my hackles!) so that we are eating too much meat in the form of cheap burgers, but that is not because people are stupid and bad, but because corporate power is stupid and bad. If you haven't noticed, even in 2009, there are many people who are eating less meat and better food. Why lump everyone in together. Group condemnation leads to the concentration camp and worse.

Learn to examine your own arguments before you present them and please place at least some of the blame on business, not on those of us who are doing our best to cope with and challenge a world run by ruthless individuals with too damn much power.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Thank you Suzon. Posted by: CarlaWaters
Um, most vegetarians drink milk and some eat eggs too.
Posted by: CarlaWaters on Jun 8, 2009 3:13 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Much as this author wants to push for vegetarianism, her 2109 prediction asking has gone way too far. Kathy Preston, please take a 1 year vacation and get a life !

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I guess many people would find this over the top
Posted by: jparsons on Jun 8, 2009 3:17 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But any number of SF stories already address the
future (or lack of it) of farming and eating animals.
"Turkey Lurkey" - Andre Norton, I think, for the
vat-raised protein source. No room for pastures or
even feedlots on a spaceship.

When resources are truly scarce, it doesn't end up
as a debate. You don't breed and feed animals just so
that you can feed fewer people (and that is just the
nonsense that it sounds like).

And most people have already lost the appetite for
raising and killing their own animals, and don't like
being reminded of the details of that supermarket
package. So don't assume this story will never
happen.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I guess many people would find this over the top Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
Pure Fiction
Posted by: leafsong1 on Jun 8, 2009 3:35 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Meat cultivation contributes to global warming, yes. Animal habitat destruction has an effect in the opposite direction. Both effects are dwarfed by the sudden release of carbon stored underground for tens of millions of years by industry and consumption. Those whose vegantarian habits are inspired by compassion for prey animals might wishfully think otherwise, and are free to write SF shorts where their imagination can satisfy their sentimentality.

It is important to note that diverting the plant food currently used for meat cultivation to human consumption is really just changing from one form of meat cultivation to another, as far as global warming is concerned. Human flatulence may not be quite so rich in greenhouse gasses as the bovine sort, but then, cows, don't drive cars, either.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

bigotry and intolerance
Posted by: sunnywater on Jun 8, 2009 4:06 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This article presupposes there is an authority that justifies a responce that is neither responsible nor informed.

This is understood to be a more socially acceptable "word" for bigotry and intolerance, turning those who do not, or will not accept the standards of the moralist into that amorphous group called "them" whose sole purpose is to make "us" miserable, and whom we must, for high moral reasons control/ improve/teach/ correct/subdue/
transform/halt/eliminate.

By embracing this morality, the author succumbs to the demands of fear, and allows this fear to frame her perceptions of others and to base her responces upon the supposition that character is contagious.

Perhaps the demands of human overpopulation is the real issue.

With increasing population comes increasing demandson all aspects of of daily life. None of the problems confronting our environment that are within our powers to control are more pressing than overpopulation.

There are few genuine risks to reducing the population by limiting the number of children produced.

I'm also vegetarian.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

fertilizer
Posted by: jrgjniew on Jun 8, 2009 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
....and without the animal manure to feed all the crops we will need to feed the humans....just think of all that nasty chemical fertilzer that we will need to mine and ship and spread on the land......(Tongue firmly in cheek!!!!) Where and how will we get our B12?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Link to UN report
Posted by: DignityForAll on Jun 8, 2009 4:49 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Livestock's Long Shadow - Environmental Issues and Options, by the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO), 2006.

As quoted in the article, the UN report does state, "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. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution and loss of biodiversity." (page xx)

The report gives lots of details and practical policy recommendations.

Notes, environmental damage is "probably highest for beef and lowest for poultry." (page 275)

And also, "Livestock now account for about 20 percent of the total terrestrial animal biomass, and occupies a vast area that was once habitat for wildlife." (page 273)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Link to UN report Posted by: jrgjniew
What the article failed to mention
Posted by: jstuv on Jun 8, 2009 5:30 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh, what fun it is to ridicule Science and logic, by ignorant and unthinking people (as they did in the Dark Ages).

What the article failed to mention was the demise of the Republican Political Party under
President Chelsea Victoria Clinton, in 2039 (the second women American President, after President Hillary Rodham Clinton, in 2024). President C.V. Clinton served as the Secretary of the Interior under President Joe Biden, in 2012.

It was proved that Republican Political Party philosophy was a flawed and a failed concept.

Under Republicanism; In order to maximize profit, all labor was so minimally compensated that workers were practically slaves. Wealth could only be inherited, as it was not taxed. The small elitist base continually shrinks. Elections would be perfunctory, as the outcome was already determined.

By definition, the average Republican Party voter has below average intelligence.
a) Half of all humanity has a below average IQ.
b) Predominantly Republican states have below average IQs.
c) By definition, the average Republican Party voter has below average intelligence.
d) In American History, the contemporary Republican philosophy was a failed concept.
e) History has shown that implemented Republican philosophy leads to failure.

The right-leaning Democratic Political Party replaced the Republican Political Party when the Environment Political Party (the Greens) was established, in 2027.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Blacks have lower IQs. Posted by: Honky the Nihilist VI
Are You Kidding?
Posted by: inprov73 on Jun 8, 2009 5:51 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The only things still living in a hundred years will be cockroaches and Newt Gingrich.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» ROFL! Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» RE: Are You Kidding? Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
Lierre Keith's The Vegetarian Myth may be right
Posted by: moyshekapoyre on Jun 8, 2009 6:00 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Please go read it, esp. the political vegetarians chapter. It's free to read for the most part, at books.google.com

Basically she points out that factory farmed meat is destructive but grazing animals are good for the environment in moderate flocks... and that vegetarians are destroying the world by eating monocrop agricultural products. I didn't go over her numbers myself but intuitively her arguments make sense.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Yep. She's dead on. Posted by: -matti
Keep trying to "rethink" your body's needs
Posted by: Beck on Jun 8, 2009 6:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Probably the reason so many "vegetarians" continue eating meat is that you can't rethink nutritional needs. Think all you want, but there's a reason so many vegetarians return to meat, except for the many who never gave it up completely to begin with. Think you don't need B12? Or that you can think the iron out of plants? Or that women and men have the same needs? Or that pregnant and nursing women don't need much more iron?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sick
Posted by: ChathamChick on Jun 8, 2009 6:24 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have been a vegetarian for years. I have read many books that have made me resolute that it is the right thing to do healthwise, for basic humanity's sake and also environmentally. I suggest you all read Diet for a New America by John Robbins. This book woke me up to the fact that the way we eat in this country diseases us. Animal products cause acid levels in the body to skyrocket and thereby create an environment that becomes home to cancers, autoimmune diseases etc.

I think that people can do what they want but if they're too dense to realize that populations survive only when they're willing to evolve, their bloodlines won't last very long. 100,000 years ago, people walked barefoot, slept in caves, didn't wear clothes, copulated outside and birthed babies standing on bricks. We have evolved away from these practices, why are people holding on so tightly so the mass murder of millions of innocent sentient beings?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» yes and during that Posted by: Juven
Meat free since 2001
Posted by: ladyoracle on Jun 8, 2009 6:43 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really didn't even want to leave this comment because I know meat eaters don't want to hear this, and I am not looking to pick a fight. But I do want to raise my voice as a healthy long term vegetarian. It's possible to eat this way and be full of energy and in great shape and look healthy.

I am a vegetarian who cooks meat for my husband. I have not eaten meat since 2001, not at all for any reason, so snide people who condescend to "partial" veggies can back off. My skin is healthy, and I exercise 8-10 hours a week. Any carnivores feel like keeping up with me? I cook meat for my husband because he wants it and because I don't want to force my choice onto others. I am not out to convert anyone although I believe I am right. That's because I think it's pretty pointless, as can be seen in the flagrant comments against vegetarianism here. If you want to hurt animals and kill our planet, be my guest. I am not having kids because I don't believe there will be a world for them. But that will not be blood on my hands, nor my blood.

So, even though I am on the veggie wagon and choose soy over dairy whenever it's an option, I also wish alternet hadn't published this piece just because I am tired of defending this lifestyle. And yet with all the naysayers here I am doing it once again.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The world will be a much better place in 100 years
Posted by: solrev on Jun 8, 2009 6:47 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I read someplace that 40% of grain products are used as animal feed. What would happen if that amount of food was made available to the human population? We could over populate the planet even faster than we are now doing. In the last 30 years we have managed to increase the worlds population by 50%. If we did not consume meat we could easily increase the population by more than 500 % by 2109. I guess, during this current interglacial period we should create as large a population as we can. During the next glacial period most of them will die off, and the remainder will be eating meat the old fashion way. They will have to hunt whatever species survives. The other option is to knock most of them off by global warming. Then the survivors can worry about surviving the old fashion way.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I can't afford the high protein vegan stuff
Posted by: noalternative on Jun 8, 2009 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
so I have to eat more carbs in the form of beans to get enough, thus increasing my weight.

I eat chicken fish and eggs, and some lean beef and pork, but pure vegetarianism is too expensive. Google protein requirements.

The good vegetarian sources of it are expensive, and either come from nuts which are too rare too feed everyone or soybeans which are definitely products of industrial ag, just like the meat they complain about.

The idea that the majority can do this is fantasy. There is a reason that these people tend to be upper middle class liberals and or celebs!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» hmm..dont get it Posted by: Drclaw
animal rights: a progressive cause
Posted by: vasumurti on Jun 8, 2009 7:06 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A vegetarian since 1982, I attended my first anti-vivisection protest in the spring of 1985, as anti-apartheid demonstrations rocked the UC San Diego campus. I first got interested in promoting vegetarianism in mainstream society after reading John Robbins' Diet for a New America (1987). Nominated for a Pulitzer Prize, it makes veganism seem as reasonable and mainstream as recycling.

Half the water consumed in the U.S. goes to irrigate land growing feed and fodder for livestock. Huge amounts of water wash away their excrement. U.S. livestock produce 20 times as much excrement as does the entire human population; creating sewage which is 10 to several hundred times more concentrated than raw domestic sewage. Animal wastes cause 10 times more water pollution than does the U.S. human population; the meat industry causes three times as much harmful organic water pollution than the rest of the nation's industries combined. Meat producers, the number one industrial polluters in our nation, contribute to half the water pollution in the United States.

Joanna Macy, author of Despair and Personal Power in the Nuclear Age, depicts the advantages of America moving towards a vegan diet in her foreword to Diet for a New America:

"The effects on our physical health are immediate. The incidence of cancer and heart attack, the nation's biggest killers, drops precipitously. So do many other diseases now demonstrably and causally linked to consumption of animal proteins and fats, such as osteoporosis...

"The social, ecological, and economic consequences, as we Americans turn away from animal food products, are equally remarkable. We find that the grain we previously fed to fatten livestock can now feed five times the U.S. population; so we have become able to alleviate malnutrition and hunger on a worldwide scale...

"The great forests of the world, that we had been decimating for grazing purposes, begin to grow again. Oxygen-producing trees are no longer sacrificed for cholesterol-producing steaks.

"The water crisis eases. As we stop raising and grinding up cattle for hamburgers, we discover that ranching and farm factories had been the major drain on our water resources. The amount now available for irrigation and hydroelectric power doubles. Meanwhile, the change in diet frees over 90% of the fossil fuel previously used to produce food. With this liberation of water energy and fossil fuel energy, our reliance on oil imports declines, as does the rationale for building nuclear power plants..."

Joanna Macy admits, "This scenario is wildly, absurdly utopian. It is also clearly the way we are meant to live, built to live." What could possibly make it a reality? "It is this very book!"

Roberta Kalechofsky of Jews for Animal Rights similarly says:

"Merely by ceasing to eat meat
Merely by practicing restraint
We have the power to end a painful industry

"We do not have to bear arms to end this evil
We do not have to contribute money
We do not have to sit in jail or go to
meetings or demonstrations or
engage in acts of civil disobedience

"Most often, the act of repairing the world,
of healing mortal wounds,
is left to heroes and tzaddikim (holy people)
Saints and people of unusual discipline

"But here is an action every mortal can
perform--surely it is not too difficult!"

When I first read Diet for a New America, I felt it could have the same kind of impact on mainstream American society that Frances Moore Lappe's Diet for a Small Planet had in the '70s.

John Robbins spoke before the United Nations in 1994, where he received a standing ovation.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

antivivisectionism is not the same as
Posted by: noalternative on Jun 8, 2009 7:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
environmentalism. They often oppose attempts to control invasive species like the hedghog on certain islands, the domestic cat in new zealand which kills off native parrots and the American Grey Squirrel in England which carries a disease which kills off the native red squirrel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

rgd
Posted by: rgd on Jun 8, 2009 7:35 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Diet and Politics. Interesting combination. Having been raised a vegetarian and have many family and friends who are vegetarians and vegans, I can honestly say there is a great deal of arrogance associated with being a non-meat-eater as if it somehow makes them closer to God.
Politicans are the vegetarian of a different order always running around telling us how to live our lives becaused they are somehow enlightend and know better than us. (I have politicians in the family as well)
Bottom line: Eat whatever you want only eat about half of the normal amount and you will feel great. I do and it works. Treat the politicians the same and you will feel even better.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hoffman
Posted by: Juven on Jun 8, 2009 8:16 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
who lived to be 100 years old claimed that the eggs he ate for breakfast every day were one of the keys to his longevity. This a ridiculous article--the author has been reading Ecotopia too many times to think right.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Kathy should shut her mouth if she's not gonna talk about lentils and hemp to help.
Posted by: maxpayne on Jun 8, 2009 8:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I may be vegetarian but I have plenty of respect for meat eaters and know that unless you can get yourself grassfed meat and diary, hemp foods and protein, lentils which also contain digestible protein, and the likes, people are gonna stick to traditional meat. Either the author get beyond just fruit and veggies or she should keep her mouth shut.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

mr.
Posted by: hartsmart on Jun 8, 2009 9:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a devout carnivore atheist. Every day small potion of red meat have advances my lifetime where I have outlived all vegans without even trying. Your choice!
hartsmartliving.com

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

OMG - in 2109 "we'll" still have high school "social studies" classes?
Posted by: Gabba_Gabba_Hey on Jun 8, 2009 9:55 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was so depressed by the first sentence, I found it hard to finish the rest. If the current "education" system is simply extrapolated into the next century, we're doomed anyway!

And what's this about how Obama appointed visionaries for food policy? What happened to his secretary of agriculture, Vilsack - did he quit government and become a lobbyist for Monsanto?

Also, the author left out the part where the remaining Amazon rain forests were destroyed to make way for all the soybean fields needed for the tofu.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It'll happen all right
Posted by: willymack on Jun 8, 2009 10:03 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Synthetic foods are under development, and have been for decades. They just don't taste all that good, even though they'd keep us alive, and even healthy. Our digestive systems, although they more closely resemble those of herbivores, are most happy with an omnivirous diet.
Fabrication of synthetic foods will certainly progress to the point where they're tasty, the texture pleasing to a wide variety of people, and are affordable to all.
By that time there'll probably be ten billion of us to feed, so this isn't an option; it's a necessity. I've read stories about North Korea, where the people there are eating bugs and grass in a desperate effort to stave off starvation. I'll bet the synthetic stuff already on the market would look pretty good to them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please Don't Eat the Animals
Posted by: vasumurti on Jun 8, 2009 10:16 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following quotes, facts, figures, and statistics are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

"A reduction in beef and other meat consumption is the most potent single act you can take to halt the destruction of our environment and preserve our natural resources. Our choices do matter: What's healthiest for each of us personally is also healthiest for the life support system of our precious, but wounded planet."

---John Robbins, author, Diet for a New America, and President, EarthSave Foundation

One study puts animal waste in the United States to between 2.4 trillion to 3.9 trillion pounds per year. The United states produces 15,000 pounds of manure per person. This is 130 times the amount of waste produced by the entire human population of the United States.

A 1,000-cow dairy can produce approximately 120,000 pounds of waste per day. This is the functional equivalent of the amount of sanitary waste produced by a city of 20,000 people.

A 20,000-chicken factory produces about 2.4 million pounds of manure a year. Poultry factories are one of the fastest growing industries throughout Asia.

One pig excretes nearly three gallons of waste per day, or 2.5 times the average human's daily total. One hog farm with 50,000 pigs in France produces more waste than the entire city of Los Angeles, and some pig farms are much larger.

Factory farm pollution is the primary source of damage to coastal waters in North and South America, Europe, and Asia. Scientists report that over sixty percent of the coastal waters in the United States are moderately to severely degraded from factory farm nutrient pollution. This pollution creates oxygen-depleted dead zones, which are huge areas of ocean devoid of aquatic life.

Meat production causes deforestation, which then contributes to global warming. Trees convert carbon dioxide into oxygen, and the destruction of forests around the globe to make room for grazing cattle furthers the greenhouse effect. The Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations reports that the annual rate of tropical deforestation has increased from 9 million hectares in 1980 to 16.8 million hectares in 1990, and unfortunately, this destruction has accelerated since then. By 1994, a staggering 200 million hectares of rainforest had been destroyed in South America just for cattle.

"The impact of countless hooves and mouths over the years has done more to alter the type of vegetation and land forms of the West than all the water projects, strip mines, power plants, freeways, and sub-division developments combined."

---Philip Fradkin, in Audubon, National Audubon Society, New York

Agricultural meat production generates air pollution. As manure decomposes, it releases over 400 volatile organic compounds, many of which are extremely harmful to human health. Nitrogen, a major by-product of animal wastes, changes to ammonia as it escapes into the air, and this is a major source of acid rain. Worldwide, livestock produce over 30 million tons of ammonia. Hydrogen sulfide, another chemical released from animal waste, can cause irreversible neurological damage, even at low levels.

The World Conservation Union lists over 1,000 different fish species that are threatened or endangered. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimate, over 60 percent of the world's fish species are either fully exploited or depleted. Commercial fish populations of cod, hake, haddock, and flounder have fallen by as much as 95 percent in the north Atlantic.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Please Don't Eat the Animals (cont'd)
Posted by: vasumurti on Jun 8, 2009 10:19 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following quotes, facts, figures, and statistics are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

The United States and Europe lose several billion tons of topsoil each year from cropland and grazing land, and 84 percent of this erosion is caused by livestock agriculture. While this soil is theoretically a renewable resource, we are losing soil at a much faster rate than we are able to replace it. It takes 100 to 500 years to produce one inch of topsoil, but due to livestock grazing and feeding, farming areas can lose up to six inches of topsoil a year.

Livestock production affects a startling 70 to 85 percent of the land area of the United States, United Kingdom, and the European Union. That includes the public and private rangeland used for grazing, as well as the land used to produce the crops that feed the animals. By comparison, urbanization only affects 3 percent of the United States land area, slightly larger for the European Union and the United Kingdom. Meat production consumes the world's land resources.

Half of all fresh water worldwide is used for thirsty livestock. Producing eight ounces of beef requires an unimaginable 25,000 liters of water, or the water necessary for one pound of steak equals the water consumption of the average household for a year.

The United States government spends $10 million each year to kill an estimated 100,000 wild animals, including coyotes, foxes, bobcats, badgers, bears, and mountain lions just to placate ranchers who don't want these animals killing their livestock. The cost far outweighs the damage to livestock that these predators cause.

The Worldwatch Institute estimates one pound of steak from a steer raised in a feedlot costs: five pounds of grain, a whopping 2,500 gallons of water, the energy equivalent of a gallon of gasoline, and about 34 pounds of topsoil.

33 percent of our nation's raw materials and fossil fuels go into livestock destined for slaughter. In a vegan economy, only 2 percent of our resources will go to the production of food.

"It seems disingenuous for the intellectual elite of the first world to dwell on the subject of too many babies being born in the second- and third-world nations while virtually ignoring the overpopulation of cattle and the realities of a food chain that robs the poor of sustenance to feed the rich a steady diet of grain-fed meat."

---Jeremy Rifkin, author, Beyond Beef: The Rise and Fall of the Cattle Culture, and president of the Greenhouse Crisis Foundation

Lester Brown of the Overseas Development Council calculates that if Americans reduced their meat consumption by only 10 percent per year, it would free at least 12 million tons of grain for human consumption--or enough to feed 60 million people.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

An Interesting Proposal
Posted by: nen on Jun 8, 2009 10:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let's start small, friends. I'm an omnivore, just so you can see where I'm coming from. I'm also very poor. I'm trying very hard to find a job but the situation's getting more desperate by the day. While I'm in danger of losing my apartment, vegetarianism is NOT anywhere near the top of my list. It's expensive.

BUT, I do agree that moderation is a pretty good thing. Let's try something, fellow omnivores. How about we only eat meat that we've cooked ourselves? No McDonald's burgers, no processed turkey on your Subway sandwich, no chip wagon fish n' chips. BUT, we can go home and cook our own meat. Takes time and effort and most of us can only schedule in one or two meals at home because of our jobs.

If not this than at least not buying any fast food that has meat in it. Or how about buying meat-inclusive meals at places serve locally raised animals? We can do this little thing and not have to go to the extremes. Rome wasn't built in a day and the diets of America can't be changed in one presidency.

Check it out vegetarians! If we did this, nobody would be buying fast food meats. There, see what that would do to those big-business jerks? Sounds like a step in the right direction to me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Moderation is the key Posted by: arieden
» RE: Let's start small Posted by: stellabloo
This article
Posted by: Juven on Jun 8, 2009 11:28 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
bugs me on another level in that it assumes that global warming is even real and not a NWO plan for complete control.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» more inane than freon ban Posted by: Juven
More Vegan/Animal-Lover Propaganda
Posted by: msteryis on Jun 8, 2009 11:49 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are two types of people who can take me from bleeding-heart liberal to frothing-at-the-mouth wingnut in ten seconds flat: militant vegans and PETA nutcases. They are every bit as zealous, irrational, and self-righteous as the racist, anti-gay, religious bigots inhabiting the reactionary end of the spectrum. Just because I enjoy meat doesn't make me a bad person or make you a shoo-in for sainthood.

I recognize that the methods used to produce meat are harmful to the environment. In a perfect world, I'd love for all meat to be free-range. But I like meat, and I don't want to pay $30 a pound for it--sue me. I'm not going to stop eating it, and neither are billions of other meat-eaters.

Also, if we went to strictly free-range methods, people would starve by the hundreds of millions because of the amount of land that would have to be devoted to grasslands to feed the animals. You think that enough food isn't being grown now? Just wait until we try to make all cows California-happy!

Also, those who bitch and moan about FrankenFoods can do so because they live in societies that are wealthy and free enough to be able to turn up their noses and choose this food rather than that food. Thirty-thousand people die each day of starvation and starvation-related illnesses. Mothers in those countries would no doubt take those FrankenFoods in a millisecond rather than watch their children die.

Next, I believe in animal testing when it comes to medical science. What the hell are we supposed to test disease treatments on--car engines? My mother died after battling lupus for 34 years. She spent the last four debilitating, soul-crushing, horrifically painful years of her life in a nursing home with people 20-30 years her senior before dying at age 55. I would have sacrificed every lab rat and chimp on earth if it could have spared her that suffering. I still would, to spare anyone else or their family a similar experience. In my angrier, snarkier moments, I feel that maybe PETA members should put their DNA where their mouths are and take the place of the lab animals.

My tradeoff for my meat consumption and to try to make the world a better place is by being politically active and opening dialogs with my peers and government reps in favor of social equality, universal health care, and education reform. In the meantime, hopefully there are those who are out there trying to come up with solutions/alternatives for food production, environmental issues, and medical testing.

Bottom line: being sanctimonious may make the person doing it feel above it all, but it doesn't do a damned thing about changing people's minds or advancing his/her position. If anything, it will simply make people dig in their heels all the more.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Global Hunger
Posted by: vasumurti on Jun 8, 2009 12:27 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Global hunger could be directly attributed to meat-eating." ---Chrissie Hynde

Half the world's population does not receive an adequate amount of food to eat. Ten to twenty million die annually of hunger and its effects. The Institute for Food and Development Policy reports that, "Forty thousand children starve to death on this planet every day," or one child every two seconds.

The livestock population of the United States today consumes enough grain and soybeans to feed over five times the entire human population of the country. We feed these animals over 80% of the corn we grow, and over 95% of the oats. Less than half the harvested agricultural acreage in the United States is used to grow food for people. Most of it is used to grow livestock feed.

Ronald J. Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, in his 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, pointed out that 220 million Americans were eating enough food (largely because of the high consumption of grain-fed livestock) to feed over one billion people in the poorer countries.

The world's cattle alone, not to mention pigs and chickens, consume a quantity of food equal to the caloric needs of 8.7 billion people. It takes 16 pounds of grain to produce one pound of beef. According to Department of Agriculture statistics, one acre of land can grow 20,000 pounds of potatoes. That same acre of land, if used to grow cattlefeed, can produce less than 165 pounds of beef.

In his book, The Hungry Planet, Georg Bergstrom points out that protein-starved underdeveloped nations export more protein to wealthy nations than they receive. He calls this "the protein swindle." Ninety percent of the world's fish meal catch, for example, is exported to rich countries. One-third of Africa's peanut crop winds up in the stomachs of European livestock. Half the world's cereal crop is fed to livestock and the United States annually imports one million tons of vegetable protein from Third World nations--just to feed its farm animals.

Bergstrom writes: "Sometimes one wonders how many Americans and Western Europeans have grasped the fact that quite a few of their beef steaks, quarts of milk, dozens of eggs, and hundreds of broilers are the result, not of their agriculture, but of the approximately two million metric tons of protein, mostly of high quality, which astute Western businessmen channel away from the needy and hungry."

Jeremy Rifkin, author of a dozen influential books and President of the Foundation on Economic Trends, writes in his 1992 bestseller Beyond Beef:

"Cattle and other livestock are devouring much of the grain produced on the planet. It need be emphasized that this is a new phenomenon, unlike anything ever experienced before.

"Contrary to popular belief, the poor are getting poorer each year...Increased poverty has meant increased malnutrition. On the African continent, nearly one in every four human beings is malnourished. In Latin America, nearly one out of every seven people goes to bed hungry each night. In Asia and the Pacific, 28 percent of the people border on starvation, experiencing the gnawing pain of a perpetual hunger."

"In the Near East, one in ten people is underfed. Chronic hunger now affects upwards of 1.3 billion people, according to the world Health Organization--a statistic all the more striking in a world where one third of all the grain produced is being fed to cattle and other livestock. Never before in human history has such a large percentage of our species--nearly 25 percent--been malnourished.

"The transition of world agriculture from food grain to feed grains represents an...evil whose consequences may be far greater and longer lasting than any past examples of violence inflicted by men against their fellow human beings."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Global Hunger Posted by: Crazy H
I Would Gladly Give Up Meat... BUT...
Posted by: lunamina on Jun 8, 2009 12:27 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is no good source of some very vital nutrients that humans MUST have. I am talking about Vitamin B12 and folic acid. I am allergic to a lot of things and yeasts and fungus' are the worst. Therefore, I cannot use nutritional yeast, the only vegetarian source of B12. Folic acid is found in small amounts in green vegetables, but you would have to eat quite a lot to get the same amounts you get from meat products. Raw egg yolks also have some essential nutrients that we do not get from ANY OTHER FOOD. I am referring here to the essential fats that are in raw egg yolks. (You eat raw yolks when you eat poached eggs where only the white hardens.) I DO believe in eating as many different colors of fruits and vegetables as possible every day and I eat one meat meal every other day, so I do really minimize my meat, especially red meat. I tried being a total vegetarian for about 5 years and I got so sick on it that I had to stop. I do not believe that humans CAN maintain a healthy lifestyle indefinitely by vegetarian means alone UNLESS they have NO allergies or other ailments AND their bodies are NOT exposed to chemicals, pollutants, poisons, manufactured drugs, and all of the thousands of substances in our modern world's atmosphere. Our bodies are at a distinct DISADVANTAGE here. I can certainly see that in a completely natural world where humans have ready access to a natural abundance of food types NOT eating meat would better allow for quick turn-over of fresh cells and a ready immune system would mop up pathogens quickly and easily. But we do not live in that type of world. We are exposed to MILLIONS of man-made chemicals, pollutants, poisons and 'weaponized' pathogens produced by our disease breeding 'feed lots' as well as by our own military researchers looking for the NEXT destructive 'enhanced' pathogen! (Looked into the possible causes of LYME DISEASE lately? That 'hushed-up' epidemic running through the middle of America that is filling mental wards but being denied care by insurance companies!) All of the autoimmune diseases (so labeled by our Allopathic-run medical system when they don't know what is causing an illness), everyone is running around with these days, were unknown 50 years ago because they did not exist! The problem is GETTING WELL from these onslaughts. And the only way to do that is by getting lots of essential nutrients, especially Vitamin B12, Folate, and Essential Fatty Acid! The very things we can get from meat, especially organically grown meat where the fat contains omega-3's, 6's, and 9's in abundance instead of the killer fat produced by feed-lot raised beef fed soybeans and corn instead of GRASS! (AND PLEASE REMEMBER TO DO AWAY WITH THE WHITES - WHITE FLOUR, WHITE SUGAR, ETC.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

ground hog day!!!
Posted by: Drclaw on Jun 8, 2009 1:41 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
another week, another inane article by Freston (must we review all her factual errors and oversimplifications yet again?). sigh...If I was a vegetarian-I'd sure be unhappy that Ms. Freston was my spokesperson (I eat about 1 # of animal protein per week, incl eggs, milk, cheese-and I don't like her at all). If you look in the dictionary under "One trick pony" I am sure you will see Kathy's smiling face greeting you.

pls go, Kathy, and take vasumurti with you.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Will there be cows, and pigs, and chickens in 2109?
Posted by: Jarmadi on Jun 8, 2009 2:46 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Silly child, of course those long suffering animals were exterminated years ago, along with all other domestic animals that were doomed to suffering. "Pets", as they were called, and circus animals and rodeo animals, and animals that humans used to ride on their backs for some sort of psycho-sexual thrill....all exterminated. You and your classmates will never have to suffer empathetically for how all these animals were treated by humans. All animals are wild animals now, and we leave them alone, as far as humanly possible. You may occasionally see a mouse, or a skunk, or perhaps some birds. But you will never have to suffer the sight of watching some guy eat a hamburger, or of Mind That Bird being ridden in third in the Belmont.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the world would be a better place if Kathy Freston shut the fuck up
Posted by: AdamG on Jun 8, 2009 3:14 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I ate meat and drank some milk today and the world seems pretty groovy to me.

Stop harshin my mellow woman.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"The Comparative Anatomy of Eating" by Dr. Milton Mills
Posted by: vasumurti on Jun 8, 2009 3:15 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From

"The Comparative Anatomy of Eating", by Milton R. Mills, MD


Which category are humans most suited for?

*Facial Muscles*
CARNIVORE: Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
OMNIVORE: Reduced
HERBIVORE: Well-developed
HUMAN: Well-developed

*Jaw Type*
CARNIVORE: Angle not expanded
HERBIVORE: Expanded angle
OMNIVORE: Angle not expanded
HUMAN: Expanded angle

*Jaw Joint Location*
CARNIVORE: On same plane as molar teeth
HERBIVORE: Above the plane of the molars
OMNIVORE: On same plane as molar teeth
HUMAN: Above the plane of the molars

*Jaw Motion*
CARNIVORE: Shearing; minimal side-to-side motion
HERBIVORE: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back
OMNIVORE: Shearing; minimal side-to-side
HUMAN: No shear; good side-to-side, front-to-back

*Major Jaw Muscles*
CARNIVORE: Temporalis
HERBIVORE: Masseter and pterygoids
OMNIVORE: Temporalis
HUMAN: Masseter and pterygoids

*Mouth Opening vs. Head Size*
CARNIVORE: Large
HERBIVORE: Small
OMNIVORE: Large
HUMAN: Small

*Teeth: Incisors*
CARNIVORE: Short and pointed
HERBIVORE: Broad, flattened and spade shaped
OMNIVORE: Short and pointed
HUMAN: Broad, flattened and spade shaped

*Teeth: Canines*
CARNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
HERBIVORE: Dull and short or long (for defense), or none
OMNIVORE: Long, sharp and curved
HUMAN: Short and blunted

*Teeth: Molars*
CARNIVORE: Sharp, jagged and blade shaped
HERBIVORE: Flattened with cusps vs complex surface
OMNIVORE: Sharp blades and/or flattened
HUMAN: Flattened with nodular cusps

*Chewing*
CARNIVORE: None; swallows food whole
HERBIVORE: Extensive chewing necessary
OMNIVORE: Swallows food whole and/or simple crushing
HUMAN: Extensive chewing necessary

*Saliva*
CARNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
HERBIVORE: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes
OMNIVORE: No digestive enzymes
HUMAN: Carbohydrate digesting enzymes

*Stomach Type*
CARNIVORE: Simple
HERBIVORE: Simple or multiple chambers
OMNIVORE: Simple
HUMAN: Simple

*Stomach Acidity*
CARNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
HERBIVORE: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach
OMNIVORE: Less than or equal to pH 1 with food in stomach
HUMAN: pH 4 to 5 with food in stomach

*Stomach Capacity*
CARNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
HERBIVORE: Less than 30% of total volume of digestive tract
OMNIVORE: 60% to 70% of total volume of digestive tract
HUMAN: 21% to 27% of total volume of digestive tract

*Length of Small Intestine*
CARNIVORE: 3 to 6 times body length
HERBIVORE: 10 to more than 12 times body length
OMNIVORE: 4 to 6 times body length
HUMAN: 10 to 11 times body length

*Colon*
CARNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
HERBIVORE: Long, complex; may be sacculated
OMNIVORE: Simple, short and smooth
HUMAN: Long, sacculated

*Liver*
CARNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
HERBIVORE: Cannot detoxify vitamin A
OMNIVORE: Can detoxify vitamin A
HUMAN: Cannot detoxify vitamin A

*Kidney*
CARNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
HERBIVORE: Moderately concentrated urine
OMNIVORE: Extremely concentrated urine
HUMAN: Moderately concentrated urine

*Nails*
CARNIVORE: Sharp claws
HERBIVORE: Flattened nails or blunt hooves
OMNIVORE: Sharp claws
HUMAN: Flattened nails

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

PLEASE PASS THE MODERATION AND SEASON IT WITH SOME REAL SCIENCE!
Posted by: blurider on Jun 8, 2009 3:31 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...and excuse my eating references and analogies, but what a belly full of sanctimonious, unscientific bullshit!!

Freston's correct that we need some fixes - starting with population control - hopefully voluntary, before involuntary actually becomes necessary! I'd resent that as much as the rest of you.

Everyone's body, everyone's blood type, even everyone's dietary preferences are different AND pleasure is an important component of healthy eating. Getting enough folates, B-12 and protein is an expensive proposition for strict vegetarians and hi carb diets are one of the main causes of our obesity and diabetes epidemics. Most vegetarians do eat eggs and milk, only vegans eschew all compnents of the animal food chain.

Don't know about you but I don't wish to risk my male-ness with too much soy - a tofurkey to you!!

Among the worst of our problems is widespread, dominant, agri-business, manufactured, food-like substances and processed foods with all the nutritional content removed or reduced. Genetic modification, patents on natural substances and genomes and the savagery of the capitalist profit motive applied to our food, have damaged traditional, healthy farming and husbandry methods much as it's damaged our personal health and our health care industries.

Lower consumption of healthier, grass fed meats, and a variety of more traditional, natural methods of farming whether it's growing grains, fruits and vegetables, nuts and legumes or animals for meat will solve many of these issues. Holistic ranching treats the grazing animals as the former wild animals in the eco system, cuts way down on the water required for the production of meat and removes the necessity of antibiotics and medications. It also produces protein from areas in the American west for instance, that otherwise aren't very ag-productive. At the same time we'll eat less of the more expensive, grass fed beef and lamb. A return to traditional hunting and fishing methods would, by it's nature reduce consumption and environmental effects and of course, since this is the 21st century, we could use technology to simplify trade and to dispense dietary knowledge.

Eating local is good, but availing oneself of an occasional 'treat' from another environment would increase happiness, satiety and diversity in nutrition. Fish and meat should logically evolve to a similar position from being mainstays in our diet. Most of the newest knowledge about the ideal food 'pyramid' is contradictory to this article, by the way - we are eating too much, high glycemic carbohydrates, today.

An old cowboy like myself can and does enjoy vegetarian meals and vegetarian days and occasional French wines and I think that's the way it ought to be. Healthy choices, not dominated by the overbearing influence of advertising, commercialism and the profit motive alone with real education and true nutritional information not distorted by industry juggernauts will be the stuff of an enlightened future.

Ms Freston, the last thing we need is your brand of food dogma. A lot more real knowledge and moderation on many levels will solve many more of our problems! As for our relationships with animals, I find that people who have those relationships with animals know a lot more about what animals want - what makes animals 'happy' - than the bleeding hearts urbanites who only 'know' the occasional dog or cat. Humane treatment results in production animals doing well and even at the point of slaughter, attitudes that include respect for life (a la the American Natives respect, combined with slaughter and efficient, grateful, use) also have health and 'curb appeal' effects too.

Like in everything else that's wrong with our nation and it's world influence, we also need a lot less - look into a healthy restricted calory diet! Once again - we consume too much!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Bingo! Posted by: Quist
nutritional arguments
Posted by: vasumurti on Jun 8, 2009 5:16 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following quotes, facts, figures, and statistics are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet."

---Albert Einstein

"Each year, the meat industrial complex abuses and butchers nearly 9 billion cows, pigs, sheep, turkeys, chickens, and other innocent, feeling animals just for the enjoyment of consumers. Each year, nearly 1.5 million of these consumers are crippled and killed prematurely by heart failure, cancer, stroke, and other chronic diseases that have been linked conclusively with the consumption of these animals. Each year, millions of other animals are abused and sacrificed in a vain search for a 'magic pill' that would vanquish these largely self-inflicted diseases."

---Alex Hershaft, PhD, president, Farm Animal Reform Movement

When analyzing 8,300 deaths in the United States, United Kingdom, and Germany among 76,000 men and women in five different, large studies, researchers concluded that vegetarians have a 24 percent reduction in death from heart disease.

Similarly, in the famous Oxford Vegetarian Study, where 6,000 vegetarians were compared with 5,000 meat-eaters over nearly two decades, scientists found that the rate of death from heart disease was 28 percent lower in vegetarians than in meat-eaters.

One study analyzed eighty scientific studies in leading medical journals. The analysis found that vegetarians had lower blood pressure, and were less likely to suffer from stroke, heart attack, and kidney failure.

A large German study of nearly 2,000 vegetarians found that deaths from heart disease were reduced by over one-third, and that heart disease itself was far less than that of the general population.

Another large study examined the coronary artery disease risk of young adults ages 18 to 30 and vegetarians were found to have much higher levels of cardiovascular fitness and a greatly reduced risk of heart disease.

"The process of gradual blocking of the coronary arteries begins not in adulthood but in childhood...and the main cause of this arteriosclerosis is the steadily increasing amount of fat in the American diet, particularly saturated animal fats such as those found in meat, chicken, milk and cheeses. If there was another disease that caused half a million deaths a year, you can be sure that the public would be acutely aware of the danger, and that the cure or prevention would be universally practiced."

---Dr. Benjamin Spock, author, child expert

"I don't understand why asking people to eat a well-balanced vegetarian diet is considered drastic, while it is medically conservative to cut people open and put them on powerful cholesterol-lowering drugs for the rest of their lives."

---Dr. Dean Ornish, author, Reversing Heart Disease

Stroke is the third leading cause of death behind heart disease and cancer. Vegetarians have a 20 to 30 percent reduced risk of having a stroke. Stroke, like heart disease, is associated with diets high in saturated fats, and the vegetarian diet is naturally low in these fats.

The Oxford Vegetarian Study found cancer mortality to be 39 percent lower among vegetarians when compared with meat-eaters. The European Prospective Investigation of Cancer found vegetarians suffer 40 percent fewer cancers than the general population.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

nutritional arguments (cont'd)
Posted by: vasumurti on Jun 8, 2009 5:18 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The following quotes, facts, figures, and statistics are excerpted from Please Don't Eat the Animals (2007) by Jennifer Horsman and Jaime Flowers:

Studies have shown that decreasing a woman's animal fat intake can reduce the chances that she will die from breast cancer. A large-scale, long-term study in the Netherlands found a powerful connection between the amount of animal fat consumed and the rate of prostate cancer. A review of a dozen studies found dietary fat strongly correlated with prostate cancer.

Ovarian, uterine, and endometrial cancers have all been shown to be strongly correlated to the amount of animal fat in one's diet, and vegetarian women have significantly lower rates of these cancers.

"The beef industry has contributed to more American deaths than all the wars of this century, all the natural disasters, and all automobile accidents combined."

---Dr. Neal Barnard, Executive Director, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

"Vegetarians have the best diet. They have the lowest rate of coronary disease of any group in the country. They have a fraction of our heart attack rate and they have only 40 percent of our cancer rate."

---William Castelli, MD, Director, Framingham Heart Study

"Human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."

---Dr. William Roberts, editor-in-chief, American Journal of Cardiology

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This is unhelpful
Posted by: abstractedaway on Jun 8, 2009 10:39 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There are good, sound reasons to cut down on meat consumption or go outright vegetarian or vegan. They should not be mixed with fallacies and easily debunked arguments, because this is in fact an important issue.

Obviously making assumptions about people a century into the future is a poor place to start from unless you're preaching to the choir. Let's move past that.

Human cultures back to the dawn of time have eaten meat. We are anatomically omnivores, not carnivores or herbivores. The Inuit's primary source of vegetable nutrition, in previous centuries, came from the contents of fish guts. The plains Indian tribes followed and fed on the buffalo. These examples are, of course, hunter-gatherer lifestyles. Humans who live this way are well in tune with the ecosystem they live in, and it's not terribly significant whether a deer, having lived freely, is felled by a human hunter or a wolf in this context. This makes the statement "If everyone had to kill their meat, we'd all be vegetarian" demonstrably false.

PETA-style critiques of meat-eating focus on the cuteness and feelings of animals, and the horrors of industrial meat farming. Yes, these animals have feelings and endure horrible conditions their entire lives. Yes, meat farming is brutal, polluting, and wasteful of resources. To be effective, you have to separate this from the way historical societies handled meat. Of course, no society has every consumed meat in such a harmful, gluttonous way before.

Industrial agriculture is a nasty beast that has to be shown and tackled for what it is. A population of 6+ billion human beings can't eat meat on the scale Burger King would have you believe. We have serious decisions to make about our habits in order for the biosphere to remain intact, and countries like India show that large human populations can be healthy going vegetarian.

Therefore, I feel the ecological grounds for vegetarianism are strong all around, but animal rights and health arguments are only strong if they are not blatantly imbalanced. Let's not risk being discredited on an important issue due to a poorly made case.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: This is unhelpful Posted by: maddy
Where this ignornt bandwidth filler is from
Posted by: AMERICAN VETERAN on Jun 9, 2009 5:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
FRESTON'S FLAKINESS

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

cannibals
Posted by: richholland on Jun 9, 2009 7:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in 2100 we will have a PETA president and since USA has so many inmates we start the McInmateburger corporation.

the meat of an eighteen years old chick well done is very delicious.

since in icecream there is fishproteine and we all eat industrial food vegetarians often are hypocrites.

vegetarians are in a luxury positions.
many people also in USA sometimes have a day without food.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is alternet turning into "The Onion"?
Posted by: Ladywolf55 on Jun 9, 2009 8:14 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
For this is satire at it's finest, surely. What a belly laugh. I'm thinking "loonytunes".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Compassion Over Killing
Posted by: vasumurti on Jun 9, 2009 8:27 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"A diet that can lead to heart attacks, cancer, and numerous other diseases cannot be a natural diet," writes Keith Akers in A Vegetarian Sourcebook. "A diet that pillages our resources of land, water, forests, and energy cannot be a natural diet. A diet that causes the unnecessary suffering and death of billions of animals each year cannot be a natural diet."

I understand there are conservative Christians who fear vegetarianism...which is kind of like being afraid of nonsmoking, nondrinking, or recycling. Ronald J. Sider of Evangelicals for Social Action, in his 1977 book, Rich Christians in an Age of Hunger, pointed out that 220 million Americans were eating enough food (largely because of the high consumption of grain fed to livestock) to feed over one billion people in the poorer countries.

A pamphlet put out by Compassion Over Killing says raising animals for food is one of the leading causes of both pollution and resource depletion today. According to a recent United Nations report, "Livestock's Long Shadow," raising chickens, turkeys, pigs, and other animals for food causes more greenhouse gas emissions than all the cars, trucks and other forms of transportation combined. Researchers from the University of Chicago similarly concluded that a vegetarian diet is the most energy efficient, and the average American does more to reduce global warming emissions by not eating animal products than by switching to a hybrid car.

A 2007 journal published by the American Dietetic Association found "meat protein production required 26 times more water than vegetable protein on rain-fed lands." The journal further states that dieticians "can encourage eating that is both healthful and conserving of soil, water, and energy by emphasizing plant sources of protein and foods that have been produced with fewer agricultural inputs."

"Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation."

---Union Nations' Food and Agriculture Association

A single dairy cow produces approximately 120 pounds of wet manure per day, which is equivalent to that of 20 to 40 humans.

70% of the grain grown and 50% of the water consumed in the U.S. are used by the meat industry. (Audubon Society)

On average 990 liters of water are required to produce one liter of milk. (United Nations)

Over 260 million acres of U.S. forest have been cleared to grow grain for livestock. (Greenpeace)

It takes nearly one gallon of fossil fuel and 5,200 gallons of water to produce just one pound of conventionally fed beef. (Mother Jones)

Farmed animals produce an estimated 1.4 billion tons of fecal waste each year in the U.S. Much of this untreated waste pollutes the land and water.

The number of animals killed for food in the United States is 70 times larger than the number of animals killed in laboratories, 30 times larger than the number killed by hunters and trappers, and 500 times larger than the number of animals killed in animal pounds.

“If anyone wants to save the planet,” says Paul McCartney in a PETA interview, “all they have to do is stop eating meat. That’s the single most important thing you could do. It’s staggering when you think about it. Vegetarianism takes care of so many things in one shot: ecology, famine, cruelty. Let’s do it! Linda was right. Going veggie is the single best idea for the new century.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Compassion Over Killing Posted by: therabshakeh
stunning ignorance
Posted by: therabshakeh on Jun 9, 2009 12:11 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
just browsing through some of the "comments" posted above reminds me of how stunningly ignorant, closed-minded, and utterly brainwashed most americans are. those who categorically refuse to engage the logic and reasoning of the essay, refuse to self-evaluate when it comes to personal habits, cultural context, and national history are pathetic mirror-images of the anti-intellectual religious zealots whom you criticize. go watch some more tv.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Buddhism and vegetarianism
Posted by: vasumurti on Jun 9, 2009 12:29 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Although it is an agnostic (i.e., no recognition of a personal God) moral philosophy a few centuries older than Christianity, Buddhism teaches a consistent ethic of reverence for all life. No wars have ever been waged in the name of Buddhism. The act of abortion is also explicitly condemned in the Buddhist canonical scriptures. Sir Edwin Arnold’s poetic biography on Siddhartha Gautama, The Light of Asia, caused quite a controversy in Victorian England: centuries before Jesus, an earlier teacher lived “the Christ life.”

The ethical teachings of the Buddha are quite similar to those found in the Gospel of Jesus: One must never be proud nor harbor anger against anyone. He who humbles himself shall be exalted, while the one who exalts himself shall be degraded. Harsh language must never be used against anyone.

Avoid lust, anger and greed. One should not scrutinize the mote in a neighbor’s eye without first noticing the beam in one’s own. One must “turn the other cheek” if attacked or abused. One’s own possessions must be shared with the less fortunate. If a man obtained the whole world and its riches, he still would not be satisfied, nor would this save him.

In 261 B.C., the Indian emperor Ashoka witnessed firsthand the innumerable casualties he caused during one of his many military campaigns. His heart was filled with grief. He converted to Buddhism. 19th century scholar and writer H.G. Wells considered Ashoka’s conversion to Buddhism one of the most significant events in world history.

Ashoka, formerly a bloody and ruthless emperor, became a remarkably kind and gentle leader. Ashoka established some of the first animal rights laws. He stopped the royal hunt, stopped the sacrifice of animals in his capital city, stopped the killing of animals for food in the royal kitchens, and gave up the eating of meat. Ashoka made it illegal to kill many species of animals, such as parrots, ducks, geese, bats, turtles, squirrels, monkeys and rhinos. He forbade the killing of pregnant animals, or animals that were nursing their young. He declared certain days to be “non-killing days,” on which fish could not be caught, nor any other animals killed. He established wells and watering holes, places of rest and hospitals for humans and animals alike.

Ashoka educated his people to have compassion for animals, and to refrain from killing or harming them. He sent missionaries to all the neighboring kingdoms to teach mercy, compassion and nonviolence. Through Ashoka’s patronage, Buddhism was spread all over the Indian subcontinent. Buddhism would eventually reach the rest of Asia; today there are an estimated 300 to 600 million Buddhists worldwide.

The first precept of Buddhism is: “Do not kill, but rather preserve and cherish all life.” There is an ancient poem, reputed to be the only text ever written by the Buddha himself, which states:

“Let creatures all, all things that live, all beings of whatever kind, see nothing that will bode them ill. May naught of evil come to them.”

The Buddhist emperor Ashoka (268-223 BC) declared in one of his famous Pillar Edicts: “I have enforced the law against killing certain animals..The greatest progress of Righteousness among men comes from the exhortation in favor of non-injury to life and abstention from killing living beings.”

Mahayana Buddhism supports the vegetarian way of life. According to the Mahaparinirvana Sutra: “The eating of meat extinguishes the seed of great compassion.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Buddhism and vegetarianism (cont'd)
Posted by: vasumurti on Jun 9, 2009 12:31 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The Lankavatara Sutra says:

“For the sake of love of purity, the bodhisattva should refrain from eating flesh, which is born from semen, blood, etc. For fear of causing terror to living beings let the bodhisattva, who is disciplining himself to attain compassion, refrain from eating flesh…It is not true that meat is proper food and permissible when the animal was not killed by himself, when he did not order others to kill it, when it was not specifically meant for him…Again, there may be some people in the future who…being under the influence of the taste for meat will string together in various ways many sophisticated arguments to defend meat-eating…But…meat-eating in any form, in any manner, and in any place is unconditionally and once and for all prohibited…Meat-eating I have not permitted to anyone, I do not permit, I will not permit…”

The Surangama Sutra says:

“The reason for practicing dhyana and seeking to attain samadhi is to escape from the suffering of life. But in seeking to escape from suffering ourselves, why should we inflict it upon others? Unless you can control your minds that even the thought of brutal unkindness and killing is abhorrent, you will never be able to escape from the bondage of the world’s life…After my parinirvana in the final kalpa different kinds of ghosts will be encountered everywhere deceiving people and teaching them that they can eat meat and still attain enlightenment…How can a bhikshu, who hopes to become a deliverer of others, himself be living on the flesh of other sentient beings?”

The Dalai Lama has said, “I do not see any reason why animals should be slaughtered to serve as human diet when there are so many substitutes. After all, man can live without meat.”

Contemporary Hindu spiritual masters have taught us that if one wishes to eat cow’s flesh (or the flesh of any other animal for that matter), one should wait until the animal dies of natural causes, rather than take the life of a fellow creature. This indicates that we are vegetarian first and foremost out of nonviolence toward and compassion for animals, rather than because we follow “dietary laws.”

Avoidance of onions and garlic is not limited to Hindus in India; there is a tradition of avoiding these foods in China, antedating the arrival of Buddhism. ‘Enjoy’ Vegetarian Restaurant in San Francisco, CA is run by Chinese Buddhists, and they do not serve onions or garlic in any of their preparations.

In Theravada Buddhist countries (Burma, Ceylon, Laos, Thailand, Cambodia, Tibet, Malaya), although the monks are forbidden to kill animals, they beg for food and are expected to eat whatever is offered them. Contrasting the Mahayana Buddhist countries (e.g., China) with the Theravada, in A Vegetarian Sourcebook, author Keith Akers writes:

“In the Mahayana countries, the custom regarding monks is completely different, reflecting a different attitude towards meat consumption. The Mahayana Buddhist monks do not beg for food at all; they prepare their own food, which is either bought, grown, or collected as rent. The Mahayana monks in China were strictly vegetarian in ancient times and remain so today.

“Dietary abstinence from meat was an ancient Chinese tradition that antedated the arrival of Buddhism. In China, all animal foods, onions, and alcohol were either forbidden or customarily avoided. Animal products were avoided in dress as they were in diet. There was a prohibition on the use of silk or leather (not observed in Theravada countries).

“Not only are the Mahayana Buddhist monks vegetarian, but so are many Buddhist lay people in China. Lay people usually receive a lay ordination, in which they must take from one to five vows. Almost everyone takes the first vow, which is not to take the life of any sentient creature.”

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This article is infuriating stupid
Posted by: Pissed Off Woman on Jun 9, 2009 7:01 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The article above ignores human nature. Quite aside from any arguments about what constitutes the perfect healthy diet etc., human beings LIKE the taste of meat. We like the taste of milk and cheese and butter and eggs. We're not going to give it up. Look at China, where the newly rich and newly middle-class are gobbling up all the meat they can eat now that they can finally afford it. Yes, some people, those who don't have the histories of physical and emotional deprivation that cause most of us to regard food as such an essential, principle source of indulgence and pleasure, will decide to cut out animal products from their diets out of compassion or concern for the environment or whatever. And then they will feel superior to the rest of us for it. But they will remain a small niche market. People will continue to eat meat--furthermore, many of them will also continue to smoke cigarettes, another thing this stupid article thinks will be obsolete in 100 years.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Answer: We will not
Posted by: limburger on Jun 10, 2009 5:56 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Will We Still Eat Meat, Drink Milk, and Fry Eggs in 2109? It's a great question. Our answer is a resounding 'No we wont', and neither will our offspring. Unfortunately most of our family, friends, and neighbors will not be so lucky. They will be long gone from the human gene pool by then. And, I hate to say this, many of them view themselves as progressive. But the evidence and science are in: animal flesh and fluids are catastrophic to human health. In our heart of hearts we all know that but old habits, like smoking, die hard. Just look at the flesh consuming apologists on this blog alone; it's disheartening to endure so much willful ignorance.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Answer: We will not Posted by: therabshakeh
Btw check out Notmilk
Posted by: limburger on Jun 10, 2009 6:35 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Check out the Robert Cohen 'notmilk' daily blog and you will soon be wishing that you had discovered dairy substitutes like rice cheese and almond milk sooner ...just in case there is still someone who believes that cow's milk has ANY nutritional value.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • 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.

Advertisement
Advertisement