Are Chicken and Fish as Unhealthy as Red Meat?

for the last five years i've been going mostly vegetarian but now and then the old maniac meat-eater escapes and goes on a steak binge. ultimate goal: not to eat anything that has a face.

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

It is not so much what we eat, but how other creatures such as birds and fish are treated as their lives come to an end and how corporations have been able to freely exploit nature with no concern for the welfare of anyone else.

Without the power to dominate which has been wrongfully granted to corporations, businesses would function better and damage less.

Ruthless predators--whether bankers or chicken factory owners--should be brought to book.

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

Eating is one of the few pleasures left in my life. I like to eat lamb, beef, veal, pork, ducks, geese and game meats. I also eat fish, but I do not care for chickens or turkeys. I am not going to give up this enjoyment for anybody, and if a law were enacted, I'd break it.

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

in all of our thinking and behaviors? As is the case in almost every issue we talk about today, there is little benefit to be gained from narrow, one-sided, and overly zealous presentation of a part of the story - no matter how well-meaning (or not) the originator might be.

I gather from this that all fruits and vegetables are free from any chemicals and are farmed in a way that presents no harm to the environment. I also gather that as natural omnivores, there are zero benefits to humans from animal protein or animal enzymes. Must have been a mistake doing all that hunting as humans evolved.

Excess in any element of our diet or thoughts leads to a serious imbalance. Not healthy.

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

According to a national Vegetarian Resource Group Poll conducted by Harris Interactive, nearly 15 percent of Americans say they never eat fish or seafood.

The pacific sardine lives along the coasts of North America from Alaska to southern California. Sardines, once a major part of the California fishing industry, are now considered to be "commercially extinct." Another species classified as "commercially extinct" is the New England haddock. Ecologists have also been concerned about the significant reduction in finfish, the Atlantic bluefin tuna, Lake Erie cisco, and blackfins that inhabit Lakes Huron and Michigan.

Over 200,000 porpoises are killed every year by fishermen seeking tuna in the Pacific. Sea turtles are similarly killed in Caribbean shrimp operations.

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.

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.

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.

It makes sense to eat lower on the food chain. Some animals are killed because, as carnivores, they compete with the human predator for the right to kill other animals for food, including wild game and domesticated species raised by livestock ranchers. Alaskan hunters are eager to reduce the wolf population in their state because this animal is a predator of moose.

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.

Nor can fish provide any help in alleviating global hunger. There are signs that the fishing industry (which is quite energy-intensive) has already overfished the oceans in several areas. And fish could never play a major role in the worlds diet anyway: the entire global fish catch of the world, if divided among all the world's inhabitants would amount to only a few ounces of fish per person per week.

The American Dietetic Association reports that throughout history, the human race has lived on "vegetarian or near vegetarian diets," and meat has traditionally been a luxury. Studies show the healthiest human populations on the globe live almost entirely on plant foods--useful data, given our skyrocketing healthcare costs. Nathan Pritikin, author of The Pritikin Plan, recommended not more than three ounces of animal protein per day; three ounces per week for his patients who had already suffered a heart attack.

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

In A Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983), author Keith Akers observes:

"Much has been made over the virtues of chicken and fish in comparison to red meats such as beef and pork. It has been said that eating chicken and fish will aid in the prevention of heart disease, because these meats are relatively lower in fat and contain more unsaturated than saturated fat, thus helping to lower cholesterol levels. Unfortunately, these claims are not supported by the evidence. Studies in which human volunteers switched from diets including beef and eggs, to one including fish and chicken showed that serum cholesterol levels were not appreciably lowered by switching to chicken and fish.

"And an examination of the nutritional data suggests an explanation: while it is true that chicken and fish contain less fat than beef, it is also true that chicken and fish contain about twice as much cholesterol per calorie as does beef. Indeed, some seafoods (such as crab, shrimp, and lobster) are exceptionally high in cholesterol content.

"All of these diverse theories have roughly the same dietary implications. Meat is high in cholesterol, saturated fat, and total fat. Plant foods, by contrast, are usually low in saturated fat and total fat, and contain zero cholesterol. Vegetarians have lower levels of serum cholesterol than do meat-eaters, with total vegetarians (vegans) having the lowest levels of all."

Obviously, then, the idea of providing the entire world with a Western diet is quite absurd. But what about satisfying today's demand for meat--which provides only a fraction of the population with a Western-style diet? If the world population triples in the next 100 years, and meat consumption continues, then meat production would have to triple as well. Instead of 3.7 billion acres of cropland and 7.5 billion acres of grazing land, we would require 11.1 billion acres of cropland and 22.5 billion acres of grazing land.

But this is slightly larger than the total land area of the six inhabited continents! We are desperately short of forests, water and energy already. Even if we resort to extreme methods of population control: abortion, infanticide, genocide, etc...modest increases in the world population during the next generation would make it impossible to maintain current levels of meat consumption. On a vegetarian diet, however, the world could easily support a population several times its present size. The world's cattle alone consume enough to feed over 8.7 billion humans.

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]

meaningless.. It really is how well your particular body handles cholesterol and how much it PRODUCES. Certainly if your body has a hard time processing cholesterol it is best to avoid overly fatty foods..Just because there is a diet high in cholesterol being consumed does it mean that the person in question will have heart disease or die of a heart attack. Enough with the disinformation.
I certainly understand the need for humane slaughter of all animals meant for the plate. I raise and slaughter my own meat from time to time and know that they have only one bad moment in their lives which is a avery brief one. Bottom line is to stay away from agribusiness raised anything...

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

My reading of this article did not disclose much information about how unhealthy it might be to eat chicken and fish. Instead it talks about how inhumane factory farms are. This is not what I expected from the title.

I know that fish often contains mercury and that chicken-feed often contains arsenic that eventually finds its way into the chicken meat. How about eggs? Is there arsenic in them? How dangerous are these problems to humans? Are all fish, eggs and chickens contaminated or is there some way to avoid these problems by selecting safer products? If the only alternative is to become a vegetarian, just how safe is that?

There seems to be material for an article that actually conforms to the title of this one if someone is willing to do the necessary research.

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

The writer is seriously misinformed about dietary cholesterol and cholesterol in humans.

There may be ethical reasons not to eat animals, but not dietary ones (apart from heavy metals and toxins).

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

they'd eat you. Don't believe for a minute that they wouldn't. And it would be an ugly way to go, what with your eyes being pecked out first and then having them move on to other soft parts (probably your genitalia).

Sorry, but life is not a Disney nature film, things eat other things, and for the time being, we're the most successful thing on the planet.

But I really do appreciate the author's effort to reduce suffering in the world, for all creatures. It's a noble ideal. If people understood a little better how food is produced and how consumers are exploited as much as the food "products" they devour, human behavior might take a different direction. Which could possibly make this experience we call "life" a bit more pleasant for all the passengers on Spaceship Earth. Why not.

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

and acidified in your stomach, happily.

Long ago, a scientist wondered why plants suffered such obvious shock after being transplanted, and surmised that it was actual shock as humans experience. He placed plants in bell jars with chloroform and discovered that sedated plants experience no shock. Another scientist in California hooked plants to polygraphs just to study how fast water and nutrients moved from roots to leaves, and discovered that plants have strong reaction to threats. An interesting example: a hooked-up plant was placed next to another, which was torn up by a grad assistant, who then left the room. A series of people entered one by one, and when the grad assistant entered, the plant reacted. Plants also reacted to THOUGHTS of threats. Don't be so sure you're so innocent and harmless. We all kill with every single bite we eat.

I think these articles are coming so much faster now because there are so many options for meat that didn't exist easily until recently. Many of us are buying, and will continue to buy despite this religious proselytizing, meat from farmer's markets, bought right next to the plants that you're so sure are dull, dead, devoid of reactions or meaningful life. YOU see a difference, levels of life, some worthy, some not. This used to be said of animals, that they have no feelings or souls, and it was ignorance. Don't be so certain you have it all figured out.

The book of Romans states the following, just in case the Bible argument is about to pop up;

Rom.14

1. [2] One believes he may eat anything, while the weak man eats only vegetables.

One of Jesus's major miracles was turning a few fish into enough fish to feed thousands.

The Old Testament gives paragraphs of instruction on eating meat. What was allowed to them, what wasn't. But there was no blanket condemnation of eating meat.

It kind of makes sense that this separation from nature, this non-biological removal from the circle of life exists so strongly now. We don't get what we are anymore (food eaters, food ourselves) and what animals are. We take dogs to day care that are like luxury spas. We try to feed pets vegetarian diets because, like all fundamentalists, we believe in beliefs more than facts.

And I'll add: those Amish! The effects of raising, killing, and eating meat can be seen right there. Such warring, unsustainable, vicious lifestyles. They just PROVE the arguments about meat, don't they?

it is absolutely unconscionable to leave out young women, pregnant women, and nursing women when making these belief-based arguments. The nutritional needs of men and women are NOT the same, and 50% of pregnant women in this country are low in iron. If you're making the no-meat argument, are you willing to take responsibility for low-birth-weight or premature babies? Little or no iron from plants is usable by humans. Nursing mothers low in B12, not found in ANY plant, can cause their babies irreparable damage, while certainly being sure they're doing the very best for their babies, based upon the words written by those with strong belief systems, not those with knowledge about nutrition.

Lastly, I believe these "concerns" about animals no more than I believe in the Right-to-Lifers. Just as no one stands outside a building they truly believe babies are being slaughtered in, no one truly concerned about animal welfare addresses it here. If you plan to sign off and get to real work and work till change happens, I believe you. If you just preach, you lose me.

Most of you do eat meat, anyway. I see it ALL THE TIME.

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

This article and many of the responses tend to conflate several issues. Let's look at them separately...

Cruelty to Animals
The animals we eat get health care, food, shelter, and protection from predators. In general, they live longer lives as livestock than they would in the wild. Their children have a much greater chance of surviving to bear their own children. They also get a quick, painless, death - in the wild the few that don't get eaten alive tend to die of disease.

Nutrition
Veggie nuts love to quote misleading statistics on this. They invariably compare a healthy vegetarian diet to the average American diet. There is no dispute that the average American diet is something less than healthy. However, when you make an honest comparison of a *balanced* omnivorous diet vs. a healthy vegetarian diet the difference disappears. You could just as well compare the average American diet to a vegetarian diet consisting solely of Twinkies and Coke.

Factory Farms
I'll give you that one, factory farms *are* cruel to animals. However, they're more a symptom of overpopulation and the corporate mentality than they are of dietary choices. You can combat it by working for negative population growth and buying locally.

Consumption of Limited Resources
Yes, this is a real problem - but again, it's symptom of overpopulation; not of dietary choices. (Special note on water: it doesn't matter how much water a cow drinks - it's not destroyed thereby. It comes back out the other end or is otherwise returned to the environment. )

Religion and Philosophy
Hey, if your religion or your personal philosophy prevents you from eating meat; I have no objections. That's all the more for me. However, I obviously do not share your religion or personal philosophy; so I'm not going to be swayed by arguments based upon them.

"Bacon - it's what's for dinner"

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

So how do we convert grasslands to something producing food? Grass fed animals.

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

You lost me at "a shitload of cholesterol". A shitload, eh?

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

Another day another Vegan screed.

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

and tired of fearmongering regarding food. you will not convince me that food is not good for me. i had to go to a year of treatment in order to eat ANYTHING! and everyday there is some new that someone decided wasnt good for me. i eat meat i eat fish i even eat chicken; but i get them from the organic food market because i believe that the FDA is actually trying to kill all of us, not the food itself; but how it is treated.

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

Grow and harvest (raise and slaughter) your own food or buy it from your neighbor. In other words - localize your food sources! Better access to the details of your diet and more control, plus you're driving the economy at the local level as well.

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

full of disinformation and driven by ideology, not science. This author is appealing entirely to emotion, but her outrage is not compelling to me. It would be helpful if the article contained real evidence and a reasoned argument, instead of an unsubstantiated childish outburst.

Also, like others, I would like the author to explain the relationship between cholesterol in food and serum cholesterol, because the relationship does not appear to be nearly as simple as she implies.

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

in your food is not the problem. Your body MAKES cholesterol, primarily from saturated fats. Hence, what matters is the quantity and kind of saturated fats in your diet.

Properly raised (the underlying issue in Chloe's discussion of chicken), chicken and other non-red meats have less fat and less saturation than, say, suet. (Saturation varies with diet even among cattle and pigs.)

It's true but misleading to say that plant products don't contain cholesterol: some of them, like palm oil, are extremely saturated, hence can raise your own cholesterol levels more than, say, suet.

And just to prove there are no safe generalizations, the highly saturated fat in chocolate (cocoa butter) is immediately converted in your body to a mono-unsaturate, so it behaves more like olive oil.

Several articles in Alternet recently have questioned the whole cholesterol scare. Personally, I have no idea, and I suspect the nutritionists don't, either.

None of this affects the environmental or ethical issues with eating too much or improperly raised meat. It still pays to examine your sources of supply.

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

I think this is a very good warning article, that adds onto such information as is found in Michael Pollen's books, films like Food, Inc., etc.
However, the reasoning that fish and chicken are higher in cholesterol and therefore worse for our healthy is not entirely backed up by science. As far as I understand, it's the saturated fat that causes more heart disease, not the cholesterol per se.
Nevertheless, there are plenty of reasons to avoid all meats, poultry and fish, but that leaves us also with a lot of Frankenfoods in the vegetarian area as well--genetically modified foods-particularly corn and soybeans; foods full of pesticides, etc.
It is hard to know what to eat these days, as everything around us seems to be full of toxic waste!
I suppose farmer's markets are one small step, but even some of those farmers use pesticides.
So it's kind of up in the air what we can do to change things or??

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

"you can fit up to 12 747s in these motherfuckers."
this phrase does nothing for this paper except prove that you can speak poorly. I therefore did not bother to check your facts. I am going to just assume thay are "subject to interpretation". You want to be taken seriously ? - write like a grown up.

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

A liberation movement demands an expansion of our moral horizons. Practices that were previously regarded as natural and inevitable come to be seen as the result of an unjustifiable prejudice. In comparison with other liberation movements, Animal Liberation has a lot of handicaps. First and most obvious is the fact that the exploited group cannot themselves make an organized protest against the treatment they receive (though they can and do protest to the best of their abilities individually). We have to speak up on behalf of those who cannot speak for themselves. You can appreciate how serious this handicap is by asking yourself how long blacks would have had to wait for equal rights if they had not been able to stand up for themselves and demand it. The less able a group is to stand up and organize against oppression, the more easily it is oppressed.

The principle of the equality of human beings is not a description of an alleged actual equality among humans; it is a prescription of how we should treat humans. Thomas Jefferson saw this point. He wrote in a letter to the author of a book the notable intellectual achievements of Negroes in order to refute the then common view that they had limited intellectual capacities:

"...whatever be their degree of talent it is no measure of their rights. Because Sir Isaac Newton was superior to others in understanding, he was not therefore lord of the property or person of others."

Similarly when in the 1850s the call for women's rights was raised in the United States a remarkable black feminist named Sojourner Truth made the same point in more robust terms at a feminist convention.

" ...they talk about this thing in the head; what do they call it? ('Intellect,' whispered someone nearby.) That's it. What's that got to do with women's rights or Negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half-measure full?"

If possessing a higher degree of intelligence does not entitle one human to use another for his own ends, how can it entitle humans to exploit nonhumans for the same purpose? In a forward-looking passage written at a time when black slaves had been freed by the French but in the British dominions were still being treated in the way we now treat animals, Jeremy Bentham wrote:

"The day may come when the rest of the animal creation may acquire those rights which never could have been witholden from them but by the hand of tyranny.

"The French have already discovered that the blackness of the skin is no reason why a human being should be abandoned without redress to the caprice of a tormentor.

"It may one day come to be recognized that the number of the legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate.

"What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason or perhaps the faculty of discourse? But a full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as more conversable animal, than an infant of a day or a week or even a month old. But suppose they were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason?, nor Can they talk? but, Can they SUFFER?"

The capacity for suffering and enjoyment is a prerequisite for having interests at all, a condition that must be satisfied before we can speak of interests in a meaningful way. It would be nonsense to say that it was not in the interests of a stone to be kicked along the road by a schoolboy. A stone does not have interests because it cannot suffer. A mouse, on the other hand, does have an interest in not being kicked along the road, because it will suffer if it is.

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

Someone in my family was recently ordered to cut cholesterol
We thought we were safe, but I never would have even suspected that tuna was so high in cholesterol

lucky we like peanut butter

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

human teeth arent pointy

They were never pointy

see my point?

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

I don't do any of those things to my chickens.

Dietary cholesterol does not have a direct influence on serum cholesterol.

Peter Singer? The same guy who says buggering animals is OK because they might enjoy it? Sounds like a pervert, not someone to quote.

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

yes dont you know it human instinct to kill, rip open the guts and blood of an animal with our teeth?
Its human instinct. Thats why we are carnivores...we have really pointy teeth, like saber tooth tigers we are. and we like to bite into some creature we think might be good. blood and teeth were meant to join together.
Cows are carnivores too canibalistic even. They deny being herbivores because they eat each other when they are given (cow) meats in their feeds..they allege that they are meant to be %100 cannibals and know that if it wasnt given to them in their feed, then they would go chew each other up face to face. Its in their nature.
_________

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

...to know what the author of the article has to say about the Japanese having the worlds longest life expectancy, and on the island of Okinawa, out of every 100,00 Okinawans, 60,000 of them are over 100 years old.
The PRINCIPLE not-vegetable item in the diet of the Japanese and Okinawans is FISH.

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

Misturu Kakimoto of the Japanese Vegetarian Society writes: “A survey that I conducted of 80 Westerners, including Americans, Englishmen and Canadians, revealed that approximately half of them believed that vegetarianism originated in India. Some respondents assumed that vegetarianism had its origin in China or Japan. It seems to me that the reason Westerners associate vegetarianism with China or Japan is Buddhism. It is no wonder, and in fact we could say that Japan used to be a country where vegetarianism prevailed.”

Gishi-wajin-denn, a history book on Japan written in China around the third century BC, says, “There are no cattle, no horses, no tigers, no leopards, no goats and no magpies in that land. The climate is mild and people over there eat fresh vegetables both in summer and in winter.” It also says that “people catch fish and shellfish in the water.” Apparently, the Japanese ate fresh vegetables as well as rice and other cereals as staple foods. They also took some fish and shellfish, but hardly any meat.

Shinto, the prevailing religion at the time, is essentially pantheistic, based upon the worship of the forces of nature. According to writer Steven Rosen, in the early days of Shinto, no animal food was offered in sacrifice because of the injunction against shedding blood in the sacred area of the shrine.

Several hundred years later, Buddhism came to Japan and the prohibition of hunting and fishing permeated the Japanese people. In 7th century Japan, the Empress Jito encouraged “hojo,” or the releasing of captive animals, and established wildlife preserves, where animals could not be hunted.

There are many similarities between the Hindu literature and the Buddhist religions of the Far East. For example, the word Cha’an of the Cha’an school of Chinese Buddhism is Chinese for the Sanskrit word “dhyana”, which means meditation, as does the word “Zen” in Japanese. In 676 AD, then Japanese emperor Tenmu proclaimed an ordinance prohibiting the eating of fish and shellfish as well as animal flesh and fowl.

During the twelve hundred years from the Nara period to the Meiji restoration in the second half of the 19th century, Japanese people enjoyed vegetarian style meals. They usually ate rice as staple food and beans and vegetables. It was only on special occasions or celebrations that fish was served. Under these circumstances the Japanese people developed a vegetarian cuisine, Shojin Ryori (ryori means cooking or cuisine), which was native to Japan.

The word “shojin” is a Japanese translation of “vyria” in Sanskrit, meaning “to have the goodness and keep away evils.” Buddhist priests of the Tendai-shu and Shingon-shu sects, whose founders studied in China in the ninth century before they founded their respective sects, have handed down vegetarian cooking practices from Chinese temples strictly in accordance with the teachings of the Buddha.

In the 13th century, Dogen, the founder of the Soto sect of Zen, formally established Shojin Ryori or Japanese vegetarian cuisine. Dogen studied and learned the Zen teachings abroad in China, during the Sung Dynasty. He fixed rules aiming to establish the pure vegetarian life as a means of training the mind.

One of the other influences Zen exerted on the Japanese people manifested itself in Sado, the Japanese tea ceremony. It is believed that Esai, founder of the Rinazi-shu sect, introduced tea to Japan and it is the custom for Zen followers to drink tea. The customs preserved in the teaching of Zen lead to a systematic rule called Sado…a Cha-shitsu or tea ceremony room is so constructed as to resemble the Shojin, where the chief priest is at a Buddhist temple.

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

Food served at a tea ceremony is called Kaiseki in Japanese, which literally means a stone in the breast. Monks practicing asceticism used to press heated stones to their bosom to suppress hunger. Then the word Kaiseki itself came to mean a light meal served at Shojin, and Kaiseki meals had great influence on the Japanese.

The “Temple of the Butchered Cow” can be found in Shimoda, Japan. It was erected shortly after Japan opened its doors to the West in the 1850s. It was erected in honor of the first cow slaughtered in Japan, marking the first violation of the Buddhist tenet against the eating of meat.

An example of a Buddhist vegetarian in the modern age: Kenji Miyazawa, a writer and poet of the early 20th century, who wrote a novel entitled Vegetarian-Taisai, depicted a fictitious vegetarian congress…His works played an important role in the advocacy of modern vegetarianism. Today, no animal flesh is ever eaten in a Zen Buddhist monastery, and such Buddhist denominations as the Cao Dai sect (which originated in South Vietnam), now boasts some two million followers, all of whom are vegetarian.

The Buddhist teachings are not the only source contributing to the growth of vegetarianism in Japan. in the late 19th century, Dr. Gensai Ishizuka published an academic book in which he advocated vegetarian cooking with an emphasis on brown rice and vegetables. His method is called Seisyoku (Macrobiotics) and is based upon ancient Chinese philosophy such as the principles of Yin and Yang and Taoism.

In his 1923 book, The Natural Diet of Man, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg writes: “According to Mori, the Japanese peasant of the interior is almost an exclusive vegetarian. He eats fish once or twice a month and meat once or twice a year.” Dr. Kellogg writes that in 1899, the Emperor of Japan appointed a commission to determine whether it was necessary to add meat to the nation’s diet to improve the people’s strength and stature. The commission concluded that as far as meat was concerned, “the Japanese had always managed to do without it, and that their powers of endurance and their athletic prowess exceeded that of any of the Caucasian races. Japan’s diet stands on a foundation of rice.”

According to Dr. Kellogg: “the rice diet of the Japanese is supplemented by the free use of peanuts, soy beans and greens, which… constitute a wholly sufficient bill of fare. Throughout the Island Empire, rice is largely used, together with buckwheat, barley, wheat and millet. Turnips and radishes, yams and sweet potatoes are frequently used, also cucumbers, pumpkins and squashes. The soy bean is held in high esteem and used largely in the form of miso, a puree prepared from the bean and fermented; also tofu, a sort of cheese; and cho-yu, which is prepared by mixing the pulverized beans with wheat flour, salt, and water and fermenting from one and a half to five years.

“The Chinese peasant lives on essentially the same diet, as do also the Siamese, the Koreans, and most other Oriental peoples. Three-fourths of the world’s population eats so little meat that it cannot be regarded as anything more than an incidental factor in their bill of fare. The countless millions of China,” writes Dr. Kellogg, “are for the most part flesh-abstainers. In fact at least two-thirds of the inhabitants of the world make so little use of flesh that it can hardly be considered an essential part of their dietary…”

Misturu Kakimoto concludes: “Japanese people started eating meat some 150 years ago and now suffer the crippling diseases caused by the excess intake of fat in flesh and the possible hazards from the use of agricultural chemicals and additives. This is persuading them to seek natural and safe food and to adopt once again the traditional Japanese cuisine.”

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

has the lowest levels of mercury and PCBs and its just too damn tasty...

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

And become sponges?

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

Ever considered what all this pollution and antibiotic residues are doing to our collectiove metabolisms? No wonder we're all getting fatter.

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

Its not enough just to preach the health benefits of going vegetation or vegan. The influence of market speculation, exploitation and inevitable mis distribution of resources that cause Americans to become fat slobs and the huge swaths of the world to be as thin as an aspiring super-model.

We got enough boutique liberals who still consume slave labored shoes and underwear like hell, but have a meat free diets.

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

First of all, I am "fed up" with AlterNet posting junk that is a) completely erroneous, and b) has a transparent agenda which is not about engendering more truth and a greater perspective. In short, BS. Fortunately, I can counter some of this and I hope some people will take heed.

First, animal fat does not cause high cholesterol. And cholesterol is not the cause of heart disease. The evil is transfats which hello! are caused by processed oils (plant based food!) that cling to cholesterol molecules and thereby cause plaque. Again, cholesterol does not cause heart disease so stop spreading untruths.

People should stop eating so many processed carbohydrates (plant based food!) which turn to sugars in the bloodstream, and sugar is the enemy. Read about cellular fermentation, okay? And stop consuming cooking oils like canola, soy and corn. Try cooking with virgin coconut oil or safflower if you can find it, because it stands up to higher heat better. All vegetable based oils turn to transfat when heated or processed. Yes, even olive oil.

The key to good health is the proper oxygenation at the cellular level. That has been known since the 30's (see Otto Warburg, 2 time Nobel Prize winner) You need essential fatty (Omega 3 and 6) acids in the right ratio (2:1) found in fresh meats, hemp oil, flax, borage oils. Fish oil (juiced fish) is not the right kind of omega acid, it is a derivative.

Eat organic meats that are free of hormones and BGH and antibiotics.

Plant based diets are insufficient in essential fatty acids and proteins that are needed, not to mention all important B-12. You have to eat so much that you would never stop eating. There is a reason cows have four stomachs. Studies show that fibrous foods actually leach nutrients from your intestines.

Take high quality supplements, MSM, and EFAs to supplement our mostly nutritionless food supply.

All I'm saying is do your research. For example, studies of women who eat plenty of fruit and vegetables have virtually no less risk for breast cancer than women who ate a traditional western diet. Conventional wisdom is not true wisdom, and is no substitute for research. And keep in mind that research is ongoing so read everything with a sprinkle of skepticism.

Spreading BS maybe good for your garden, but not if you swallow it. It is bad news and AlterNet, try doing your homework before you blindly accept what you put into circulation. But I guess when you have a major agenda, which I can't always stomach, you ignore facts and push truthiness.

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

Alternet: Every few months you keep posting this very same article, but there's no new information and certainly no useful information about the health risks (or benefits) of chicken. Most of the article addresses ethical concerns, and while this is one part of the debate, it has very little to do with health. As usual the Alternet headline is deceptive. The few items that are mentioned in the article that have anything to do with health don't demonstrate that chicken and fish are as unhealthy as red meat and don't fairly measure possible adverse health effects of eating chicken against the possible health effects of eating pesiticide treated or genetically modified vegetables. Nor is the cholesterol content of chicken compared to other foods high in protein. The reality is that any food in excess can effect health adversely, especially when such food is produced within our food industrial complex. The article is also written as if there were absolutley no benefits to eating chicken or fish. Risks must always be weighted against benefits when one is making a decision about one's health and well-being. Not only do the claims in this piece go against my own personal experience (a little bit of chicken with veggies is quite alright and healthy), but it seems that the author prefers to get her point across by using an excess of cutesy colloqiual expressions instead of providing any convincing medical evidence. Stop posting these stupid articles.

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

Dear Chloe J., Sustain Lane,

The importance and credibility of your article is greatly diminished by the use of profanity. I'm disappointed by your choice of words.

David Fishken

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

For: s.duplantier
You poor, poor, uninformed knuckle-dragger. What a pity that you are so entrenched in ignorance.

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

Surviving Infidelity
Infidelity in Marriage
How to Survive an Affair

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