Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Water

13 Breathtaking Effects of Cutting Back on Meat

By Kathy Freston, AlterNet. Posted April 22, 2009.


The meat industry contributes to land degradation, climate change, air pollution, water shortage and pollution, and loss of biodiversity.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

My first post on the effect of eating meat on the environment provoked quite a bit of discussion, so in honor of Earth Day, I thought I should follow up with more information about how our natural resources (e.g., air, water, and soil) are depleted and devastated by animal agriculture.

Of course, Earth Day is also a good time to remember that animal agriculture only exists at astronomical levels because people are purchasing vast quantities of chicken, beef, pork, and fish. The market for meat (i.e., we, the consumers) drives the depletion and destruction.

  1. Excrement produced by chickens, pigs, and other farm animals: 16.6 billion tons per year -- more than a million pounds per second (that's 60 times as much as is produced by the world's human population -- farmed animals produce more waste in one day than the U.S. human population produces in 3 years). This excrement is a major cause of air and water pollution. According to the United Nations: "The livestock sector is... the largest sectoral source of water pollution, contributing to eutrophication, 'dead' zones in coastal areas, degradation of coral reefs, human health problems, emergence of antibiotic resistance and many others."

  2. Water used for farmed animals and irrigating feed crops: 240 trillion gallons per year -- 7.5 million gallons per second (that's enough for every human to take 8 showers a day, or as much as is used by Europe, Africa, and South America combined). According to the UN: "[t]he water used by the sector exceeds 8 percent of the global human water use." As just one example, "[O]n average 990 litres of water are required to produce one litre of milk." So drinking milk instead of tap water requires almost 1,000 times as much water.

  3. Emissions of greenhouse gases from raising animals for food: The equivalent of 7.8 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, according to the UN report. Concludes the UN: "The livestock sector is... responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions." That's about 40 percent more than all the cars, trucks, planes, trains, and ships in the world combined (transport is 13%). And "The sector emits 37% of anthropogenic methane (with 23 times the global warming potential-or GWP-of CO2)... It emits 65% of anthropogenic nitrous oxide (with 296 times the GWP of CO2). These figures are based on the power of these gases over 100 years; in fact, over 20 years-a more important timeframe for dealing with global warming-methane and nitrous oxide are 72 times and 289 times more warming than CO2. And Dr. Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC (which shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore) has been saying that the 18% figure is probably an underestimate.

  4. It takes more than 11 times as much fossil fuel to make one calorie of animal protein as it does to make one calorie of plant protein.

  5. Soil erosion due to growing livestock feed: 40 billion tons per year (or 6 tons/year for every human being on the planet-of course if you don't eat meat, none of this is attributed to you; if you're in the U.S. where we eat lots more meat than most of the world, your contribution is many times greater than 6 tons/year). About 60% of soil that is washed away ends up in rivers, streams and lakes, making waterways more prone to flooding and to contamination from soil's fertilizers and pesticides. Erosion increases the amount of dust carried by wind, polluting the air and carrying infection and disease.

  6. Land used to raise animals for food: 10 billion acres. According to the UN: "In all, livestock production accounts for 70 percent of all agricultural land and 30 percent of the land surface of the planet." And "70 percent of previous forested land in the Amazon is occupied by pastures, and feedcrops cover a large part of the remainder." And "About 20 percent of the world's pastures and rangelands, with 73 percent of rangelands in dry areas, have been degraded to some extent, mostly through overgrazing, compaction and erosion created by livestock action."

  7. According to the UN, animal agriculture is a leading case of water pollution. The main water pollutants in the US are sediments and nutrients. Animal agriculture is responsible for 55 percent of the erosion that causes sedimentation, and for a third of the main nutrient pollutants, nitrogen and phosphorous. On top of that, animal agriculture is the source of more than a third of the United States' water pollution from pesticides, and half of its water pollution from antibiotics.

  8. Livestock are also responsible for almost two-thirds of anthropogenic ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain and acidification of ecosystems.

  9. Grain and corn raised for livestock feed that could otherwise feed people, according to the UN: 836 million tons per year (note that the more commonly used figure, 758 million tons, is metric). That's more than 7 times the amount used for biofuels and is much more than enough to adequately feed the 1.4 billion humans who are living in dire poverty, and the number doesn't even include the fact that almost all of the global soy crop (about 240 million tons of soy) is also fed to chickens, pigs, and other farmed animals.

  10. An American saves more global warming pollution by going vegan than by switching their car to a hybrid Prius.

  11. Razing the Amazon rainforest for pasture and feed crops: 5 million acres of Amazon per year. Former Amazon rainforest converted to raising animals for food since 1970 is more than 90% of all Amazon deforestation since 1970.

  12. According to the UN: "Indeed, the livestock sector may well be the leading player in the reduction of biodiversity..." And "[l]ivestock now account for about 20 percent of the total terrestrial animal biomass, and the 30 percent of the earth's land surface that they now pre-empt was once habitat for wildlife." And "Conservation International has identified 35 global hotspots for biodiversity, characterized by exceptional levels of plant endemism and serious levels of habitat loss. Of these, 23 are reported to be affected by livestock production. An analysis of the authoritative World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species shows that most of the world's threatened species are suffering habitat loss where livestock are a factor."

  13. United Nations scientists, in their 408-page indictment of the meat industry, sum up these statistics, pointing out that the meat industry is "one of the ... most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global," including "problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution, and loss of biodiversity."

Perhaps it's time to explore vegetarianism. Click here for tips. Happy Eating!


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

See more stories tagged with: global warming, climate change, vegetarian, vegetarianism, vegan, veganism

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Water! 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:
A hard case to answer
Posted by: vrdolyak on Apr 22, 2009 1:43 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
These facts are so compelling it is astonishing that so litle attention is paid to this. Thankfully, there are encouraging signs that environmental groups and top environmentalists are now staring to take this seriously, albeit only by beginning to talk about meat reduction rather than advocating vegetarianism. Perhaps people need a while to shake their apparent addiction to meat but it's little exaggeration to describe this as a no-brainer. This isn't, as those threatened by it love to claim, some outrageous claim by vegan lunatics but evidently a rational and proportionate response to a pressing global problem. If you've read this and still feel resistant, it's time to look inside yourself and ask why, rather than outside looking for a get-out clause.

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

» Excellent post, vrdolyak! Posted by: dazzle59
» True, but Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: True, but Posted by: pfgetty
» How about... Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: A hard case to answer Posted by: danielleismyname
» RE: A hard case to answer Posted by: truthlover
» UN, UN, UN Posted by: Onedayatatime
» Humans are carnivores, not omnivores? Posted by: photon's feather
AMEN!
Posted by: lorado on Apr 22, 2009 2:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
LETS link our hands in unity

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

Agribusiness is the cause of all of those horrors, not livestock!
Posted by: pfgetty on Apr 22, 2009 3:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All agribusiness type farming is horribly destructive of our environment. Monocrops, chemicals, plowing, clearing land etc, are the culprits regardless of whether you are growing plants for people or plants for animals or growing animals.

Livestock, when grown in combination with healthy organic farming on a small scale can enhance the environment. Polyface farms has shown that is the case......look it up on Google. The manure is used to nourish the soil. The animals are raised humanely. They are rotated throughout the farm. With these practices and rundown and ecologically destroyed area was returned to health.
And grazing animals should be used in rotation and also in areas where plowing and growing corn and other vegetables would be far more destructive. The earth has huge grasslands that were once grazed on by herbivores much like our cows. It is probably the best way to produce a product for food from these areas..........growing veggies in these areas would be far more destructive.

I think this author and Alternet should turn their attentions to agribusiness farming first, whether livestock are part of it or not, and compare that to small scale organic farming, with or without livestock. It is not the livestock........it is modern farming period.

Humans were mostly carnivores for hundreds of thousands of years. They were hunter gatherers, and all groups like this ate meat. All hunter gatherer groups even today eat meat. It is who we are.

But there is a way to provide meat that can be in harmony with good farming practices. Zero in on that and don't just pick the meat out of the horror of agribusiness.

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

» RE: Agribusiness Posted by: Ratskii
» Good post by a vegetarian. Posted by: pfgetty
» RE: Agribusiness Posted by: YogiBear
after meat goes, then what?
Posted by: teel on Apr 22, 2009 4:18 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But what happens when nobody eats meat anymore and the agriculture in it's place is no longer able to sustain the population increase? Which green becomes the villain then? Lettuce, because we could be growing beans to support more people? When every person on earth feeds on grain and rainwater, what do we do then?

The first question to answer regarding anything like this is how many people do you want the planet to house? That's what it all boils down to, every time.

Then you can go on and moralize if you like.

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

» Good point, Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» Uhm.. you do realize that Posted by: JoshuaLudd
add another
Posted by: ed_lettuce on Apr 22, 2009 4:33 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
if you would be so kind, i would like to add another,
what about the cruel way we treat farmed animals?
and other? it is strange we seldom mention the right of all earthlings to live full natural lives without pain, torture, slavery. am i wrong here?
so #14 treatment of animals.
peace and do no harm

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

» RE: add another Posted by: Lilykins
» RE: add another Posted by: yannicus
» You scare me. Posted by: pfgetty
» RE: add another Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: add another Posted by: truthlover
» animals can be raised humanely Posted by: Farmer John
#1 reason not to eat meat: It supports horrible cruelty to animals
Posted by: TwinsFanatic on Apr 22, 2009 4:36 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The green pastures and idyllic barnyard scenes of years past are now distant memories. On today's factory farms, animals are crammed by the thousands into filthy windowless sheds, wire cages, gestation crates, and other confinement systems. These animals will never raise their families, root in the soil, build nests, or do anything that is natural to them. They won't even feel the sun on their backs or breathe fresh air until the day they are loaded onto trucks bound for slaughter.

Animals on today's factory farms have no legal protection from cruelty that would be illegal if it were inflicted on dogs or cats: neglect, mutilation, genetic manipulation, and drug regimens that cause chronic pain and crippling, transport through all weather extremes, and gruesome and violent slaughter. Yet farmed animals are no less intelligent or capable of feeling pain than are the dogs and cats we cherish as companions.

The factory farming system of modern agriculture strives to maximize output while minimizing costs. Cows, calves, pigs, chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, and other animals are kept in small cages, in jam-packed sheds, or on filthy feedlots, often with so little space that they can't even turn around or lie down comfortably. They are deprived of exercise so that all their bodies' energy goes toward producing flesh, eggs, or milk for human consumption. The giant corporations that run most factory farms have found that they can make more money by cramming animals into tiny spaces, even though many of the animals get sick and some die. Industry journal National Hog Farmer explains, "Crowding Pigs Pays," and egg-industry expert Bernard Rollins writes that "chickens are cheap; cages are expensive."

They are fed drugs to fatten them faster and to keep them alive in conditions that would otherwise kill them, and they are genetically altered to grow faster or to produce much more milk or eggs than they would naturally. Many animals become crippled under their own weight and die within inches of water and food.

When they have finally grown large enough, animals raised for food are crowded onto trucks and transported over many miles through all weather extremes to the slaughterhouse. Those who survive this nightmarish journey will have their throats slit, often while they are still fully conscious. Many are still conscious when they are plunged into the scalding water of the defeathering or hair-removal tanks or while their bodies are being skinned or hacked apart.

Take a stand against cruelty to animals: By switching to a vegetarian diet, you will save more than 100 animals a year.

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

» What happens then? Posted by: helenahanbasquet
» Extinction of Farm Animals?? Posted by: dazzle59
» RE: xtinction of Farm Animals?? Posted by: helenahanbasquet
» RE: What happens then? Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: What happens then? Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line
» no animals are GE Posted by: Farmer John
» There is the GE salmon Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: What happens then? Posted by: helenahanbasquet
» Ha. h.. Posted by: truthlover
CAFOs vs Pastoralism
Posted by: Baal_Labs on Apr 22, 2009 4:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
All the accusations were against CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feedlot Operations) and did not apply to proper raising of animals.

Done right, manure is excellent fertilizer, not a poison. Much land is simply unsuitable for agriculture and would be destroyed by the attempt, but is quite suitable for pasturing animals.

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

» RE: CAFOs vs Pastoralism Posted by: djkrugger
Even pasture-raised animals go to the same slaughterhouses
Posted by: ritadona69 on Apr 22, 2009 5:23 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Unfortunately, given all of the regulations by the FDA for how meat is processed and handled, most of those pasture-raised animals (like the ones you see in supermarkets) are still going to the same horrible slaughterhouses where all the CAFO animals go. It's just too expensive for the farmers to do otherwise. So, lovely, idyllic life that you think those happy animals have, then it's dragged off to the slaughterhouse overpacked in big rigs to experience Lord only knows what before they die. It's a hard thing to look at our choices and change.

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

» not all of them Posted by: Farmer John
» RE: not all of them Posted by: lwolf
'Nuff Said...
Posted by: MyLeftFoot on Apr 22, 2009 5:47 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
McDonald's profit rises nearly 4 percent
From Associated Press
April 22, 2009 7:19 AM EDT

OAK BROOK, Ill. - McDonald's says its first-quarter profit climbed nearly 4 percent as more customers came to the Golden Arches for a cheap meal.

McDonald's Corp. said Wednesday profit rose to $979.5 million, or 87 cents per share, from $946.1 million, or 81 cents per share, last year.

Analysts expected profit of 82 cents per share on revenue of $5.19 billion.

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

» RE: 'Nuff Said... Posted by: djkrugger
True and Complicated
Posted by: Kate_24 on Apr 22, 2009 5:48 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've read the first article that was mentioned here, and I found the data very convincing. I'm not a vegetarian, nor will I ever be one, though I eat very little meat (but I will if it is offered to me). This article once more underlines the importance, not of a vegetarian diet, but of a conscious diet, I think.

The problem I see with our food culture is of a different nature: Ask yourselves why do we need gigantic lifestock farms? Why do we need gigantic farms - period? Why are mile-long aisles in our supermarkets and grocery stores packed with processed food?

I see two reasons, both connect: First, we want food that is affordable, or more precisely: cheap. Second, we want everything now, regardless of where it comes from. And we want it cheap.

Evolutionarily speaking, I am certain there was a reason why for thousands of years, humans have been eating meat. (A diet including animal protein increased the brain size.) But it has always been a tremendous amount of work that had to be put into producing that meat. Not so today: We sit down at a table and can be served a four pound steak if we wish to. And it won't even cost us a fortune.

Therefore, we need gigantic farms to produce huge amounts of food at very little immediate cost, albeit forgetting the long-term effects on our health and our nature. Our food culture is in no way sustainable. But most of us are not willing to give up on that. We eat too much – of everything.

And it's not even about not eating meat or fish or eggs. It's about eating meat or fish or eggs that cost next to nothing. I don't know how much it costs to produce an egg, but if I were a farmer and wanted to live off farming, I think I would need to charge more for an egg, probably ten times as much, but who'd be willing to pay that? (If an egg cost that much, and meat cost as much respectively, we'd have a much more realistic picture of what it took to produce our food. And a lot people would quit on meat, eggs etc. simply because they couldn't/didn't want to afford it.)

If we want people to change the way they are eating, we must raise everyone's consciousness: Food must not be taken for granted. Not ever.

Then, when we realize that it takes work to produce, that it is something very valuable, that this is not some magic kingdom where food miraculously appears at our very wish, I think we will be able to keep a conscious diet that does not ban any food per se, but is as nutritious and balanced as it is responsible.

I am not a vegetarian, but since the beginning of this year I have not felt much like eating meat. When I was invited out, I had some, but I didn't buy any for myself. I didn't notice the change at first, but since I have I began eating more consciously: asking where my food comes from, buying local and "green" food. It not only actually tastes better than the processed stuff from the huge chain grocerers, it also makes me feel a lot healthier.

Yet, I would not know where to start other than with myself.

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

» I hate to be cynical, but Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» Common ground Posted by: WhuThe?!?
» RE: True and Complicated Posted by: veggiegrrrl
Breathtaking, eh?
Posted by: Beck on Apr 22, 2009 6:06 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
And now there are 13 effects? Didn't there used to be only ten? Well, maybe those weren't the breathtaking ones.

One breathtaking effect, literally, will be if you malnourish yourself. Look up the effects of low iron and B12 deficiency (and check out how necessary B12 is to humans, and whether ANY plants contain it) before you believe anything. Maybe just read the warnings about short and long-term health consequences from a famous vegetarian. But don't believe that humans get to decide for ourselves what our nutritional needs are and aren't.

http://brucefriedrich.org/Top_Five_Nutrients.html

The opening paragraphs of the above article:

"Both vegetarian and non-vegetarian diets have advantages.
Vegetarian diets tend to be rich in antioxidants, certain
vitamins, and healthy fats. Non-vegetarian diets, by
contrast, tend to contain more protein, iron, zinc,
calcium, and vitamin B-12.

"If you already decided to adopt a vegetarian diet,
it is essential you learn how to increase your intake
and absorption of these nutrients to avoid short-term
and long-term health complications."

Even he, however, doesn't bother to point out the greatly different nutritional needs of men, women, pregnant women, and nursing women.

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

» Yawn Posted by: dazzle59
» RE: Yawn Posted by: yannicus
» fat vegans Posted by: veggiegrrrl
» B12 - where it comes from Posted by: cactus
» RE: Breathtaking, eh? Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: Breathtaking, eh? Posted by: helenwheels
there is green animal agriculture
Posted by: Farmer John on Apr 22, 2009 6:45 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
On my organic farm there is land that is too steep/stony/low-lying for cropping. It is used for pasture. As such it is permanent grass/legume sod that is the best erosion controlling cover possible. Besides the cattle,it is home to a wide variety of animals and birds that like open field ecosystems.

My animals are completely grass and hay fed. No grain is grown for them.

Yes,they belch methane. So did the 65 million bison that were slaughtered in the 19th century. If we reduced the North American cattle herd to 65 million,there would be no more methane generated by ruminants than there was then.

Growing grains and beans for direct human consumption results in as much erosion as growing them for animal consumption. Sod crops(grass and alfalfa,clover etc.) are critical for soil structure and biological activity in the soil. Having a clover crop in my grain crop rotation is key to the sustainability of my farm. Only ruminant animals(cattle,sheep,goats)can convert that hay into a form of nutrient usable to humans.

I try to farm in a way that mimics natural systems. No ecosystem exists in which plants and animals are not intimately co-dependent.

Yes,eat less meat,and from non-factory raised livestock. Seek out local,pastured animal foods. But recognize that animals are critical to soil health,and manure,properly composted and applied,is gold!

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

recently spotted bumpersticker: When you're vegan, every day is Earth Day.
Posted by: veggiegrrrl on Apr 22, 2009 6:59 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
recently spotted bumpersticker: When you're vegan, every day is Earth Day.

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

Cut back the meat for one day, two days, every Earth Day. Just try it.
Posted by: macguffin25 on Apr 22, 2009 7:17 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obviously not all readers on AlterNet are vegetarians or vegans as is obvious anytime Kathy Freston posts an article, but instead of picking apart one fact from the article and try to debase it, why not consider a Meatless Monday or Thursday or Earth Day?

Livestock, whether produced in factory farming or on small, organic farms produces methane and hazardous gases to our atmosphere. If everyone started just reducing the meat in their diets we would dramatically reduce the harmful effects on our Earth.

And best of all, no one gets hurt in the process!

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

I'm disappointed
Posted by: mattnothing on Apr 22, 2009 7:31 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Not a single "This makes me hungry for a big juicy steak"??

Where's the chorus of "But if we don't eat the animals they'll overrun the Earth!!"??

Have AlterNet readers finally gotten less defensive when someone suggests they shouldn't put animals in their mouths?

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

» RE: I'm disappointed Posted by: helenwheels
» No, just more dismissive... Posted by: brunowe
OK
Posted by: JTMixer5 on Apr 22, 2009 7:40 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thats all fine and dandy but are there any direct HEALTH effects of cutting back on meat? Thats all that matters.

RT
Is your ISP watching?

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

» RE: OK Posted by: drmflorida
» RE: SPAM Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: SPAM Posted by: jingles
» RE: OK Posted by: helenwheels
onslow
Posted by: onslow on Apr 22, 2009 7:42 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The number one breathtaking view.....should be decrease our own numbers......PEROID....I graduated from high school in 1960 ....Pittsburgh PA....back then I saw OVER POPULATION as the BIG PROBLEM...AND IT STILL IS...just think how the planet earth would be if NOW.... IF THE WARNINGS HAD BEEN HEARD AND ACTED UPON..back then?

I ALSO THINK THAT OUR IMMIGRATION POLICY IS FAULTY FOR DIFFERENT REASONS THEN MOST....Most of the people who come here just want a better life for themselves and their family....these are the very people who should remain at home because they are the ones who can work for the necessary changes in their homeland. Changes that would be long term solutions to the improvement of quality of life for ALL OF US all.

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

Let's keep a few facts in mind, please
Posted by: Jasonix on Apr 22, 2009 8:13 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Some points to remember:

- The human body does not efficiently convert plant-based sources of omega-3 fatty acids into the type our bodies can use. You can only get bio-available omega-3s from fish and animal products. Take fish oil.

- Same goes for B12. Take supplements.

- There are serious health concerns about soy products, especially for men. Soy isoflavones become estrogen in the body. If you want to turn yourself in a lab rat, then eat a lot of tofu and tempeh. The only real alternative to soy protein products is seitan/vital wheat gluten. Seitan won't give you man-boobs. And despite what some vegans say, you really do need the RDA of protein. Try living a physically active life on 20 grams of protein a day (and the human body doesn't absorb protein from plant sources as well as animal ones, to boot). That's about three whole cups of lentils, just to get that, and that's barely half of what a small woman needs. Your body will crash and you'll start losing lean muscle mass. If you're going to go this route, look into seitan/vital wheat gluten. You'll need at least 12 ounces of seitan a day, together with the protein you get from nuts, peanut butter, lentils, and whole grains...it's about a buck an ounce.

- If you're 30 and you meet the silly weight charts proposed by our medical industry, the way many vegans brag they do, then you're going to end up crippled by the time you're 70. If you're 6' and only weigh 165 pounds at 30, then the lost muscle tissue that comes with aging will leave you without enough muscle tissue to function in old age. You need muscle mass. The best time to develop muscle mass is when you're young. Don't adopt a lifestyle that prevents you from doing so - you'll regret it later.

Of course, you could always have sensible portions of lean meat grown by local farmers...

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

» One important fact about soy Posted by: truthlover
» omega 3 Posted by: inverse_agonist
Please Don't Eat the Animals
Posted by: vasumurti on Apr 22, 2009 8:21 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 Apr 22, 2009 8:23 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]

Never going to happen
Posted by: riffraff2001 on Apr 22, 2009 8:35 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
People aren't giving up meat, period. So why write this article? It's as rediculous as Sam Harris' End of Faith. Sure I agree, but it's not going to happen. You can argue until you're blue in the face but people like meat. And they don't care how they get it. They don't care what happens to the animals. They don't care what happens to the land the animals are raised on. All they care about is eating the steak they ordered at Longhorn. We're all just waisting time debating all of this.

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

» RE: Never going to happen Posted by: helenwheels
Vegan diet and problems
Posted by: oldfreedomdude2 on Apr 22, 2009 8:53 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I was a vegan for some years. I agree with all the evils stated above. My meditation practice really encourages no meat. i got really sick and went to naturapathic physicians who had worked with the 4 blood groups, Dr. Peter D'Adamo. Everything he said worked for me I have 0- RH factor blood. After many years of struggle, I know I cannot eat any wheat or diary. I am older and soy also does not agree with me. Certainly I can;t handle many beans. I eat only local organic meat. D'Adamo says on the other hand that peopel with an A blood type will die froom eating meat. Don't don't cite the medical profession on this; they are idiots. I don't like to eat meat, but I can function well with it. I wonder what to do daily. Meat is a spiritual hold back as well as all probems cited above. Yet when i do, my body works, digests, and stops pian. Blood ppressure low and no clogged arteries. It is the carbs I can't handle. What to do> My heart is with the vegan, but what about the old body.

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

» RE: Vegan diet and problems Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Vegan diet and problems Posted by: Ratskii
» RE: Vegan diet and problems Posted by: oldfreedomdude2
Iconoclastic Cows
Posted by: JayHaden on Apr 22, 2009 9:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
There is probably more BSE and related diseases in America than our government and stockmen would have us believe. By the time we find out about it, it's years too late, and the media always report that meat from the affected cows never got into the human "food chain." Nonetheless, there are persistent reports that some forms of dementia like Alzheimers may be linked to prions in beef.

Despite the potential deathblow to the cattle industry that might ensue from an outbreak of BSE, as happened in the UK, the livestock industry is fighting tooth and hoof against registration and tracking of individual cows through their life cycle.

So, my wife and I will only eat beef that has been grass fed and raised organically from birth to slaughter -- and only on special occasions like a birthday or anniversary. Here in Montana, it's not hard to find such meat in restaurants, although most is brought in from other states and you have to take the waitress's word that its truly organic.

Most Montana ranchers still employ environment and people harmful practices dictated by the economics of industrialized cow-calf operations. They are also the main culprits in down-sizing the renascent wolf populations of greater Yellowstone region. It costs too much money or takes too much effort to provide proper protection to, or compensation for, pastured grazers, so ranchers have demanded, through their legislature, that the taxpayer wipe out the wolf population.

The same with the renascent bison population. It is the ranchers who squeal that bison might be carrying brucellosis and, because there is not an effective vaccine against the disease, better to wipe out all bison that venture outside of Yellowstone Park. Ranchers who are also hunters don't yell so loudly about the wandering elk, which have actually transmitted brucellosis to cattle. At root, it may be all about competition for cheap government-owned grasslands.

Cows and cowboys have been romanticized and rhapsodized to the point of self-parody. But these icons of the Old West are instrumental in wiping out the icons of the Older West: wolves, bison and a very large portion of our Native American population.

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

Meatless
Posted by: Archie1954 on Apr 22, 2009 9:37 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everything you say may be true but nature fashioned us in a form that requires meat as food. That's why we have a shorter alimentary system than herbiforous animals. Since we are omnivorous we must eat a balanced diet which unfortunately includes meat. However scientists are currently working diligently to create meat in the laboratory without having to grow the whole animal but only certain portions which can then be eaten without the fostering of animal husbandry. Why can't we put our efforts into this line of endeavour?

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

» we don't require meat. Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» Humans need real food Posted by: souffrantfleur
» RE: Meatless Posted by: helenwheels
» RE: Meatless Posted by: morticia
Do baby vegans drink breast milk?
Posted by: Crazy H on Apr 22, 2009 9:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just curious...

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

» The entire point is consent... Posted by: JoshuaLudd
» When milking is done right Posted by: Bliss Doubt
» RE: When milking is done right Posted by: morticia
» In... Posted by: morticia
» RE: In... Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: In... Posted by: morticia
"The Comparative Anatomy of Eating" by Dr. Milton Mills
Posted by: vasumurti on Apr 22, 2009 10:17 AM   
Current rating: 3    [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]

Small Farm
Posted by: chomsky on Apr 22, 2009 10:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Buy yourself a small farm and raise your own food. The majority of your arguments are moot if you follow this advice. All animal excrement is used to fertilize the gardens. Leave the cities behind. Go back to nature.

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

Do the math
Posted by: teacherman on Apr 22, 2009 11:22 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
An individual, or even an entire neighborhood, switching to vegan is not going to change one aspect of the agribusiness model. Walmart will continue to purchase and sell large amounts of meat products. McDonalds will still serve billions and billions more. In effect, an individual's changing will have no effect on the global energy consumption.

Simply changing our eating habits will not solve the problem. Agribusiness needs a new business model. This new model will not come without pressure from both consumers and government. To solve the problem posed by Ms. Freston, our government could subsidize the organic growers, and tax the agribusiness. This subsidy and tax will revert the price battle faced in our supermarkets. Organic foods will be affordable and the agribusiness products will be costly. Over time, the agribusiness will revert to 'greener' methods, resulting in a healthier population and environment.

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

There's no reason NOT to go Vegetarian!
Posted by: HMOORE123 on Apr 22, 2009 11:23 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Considering that meat, eggs, and dairy products are so bad for the environment, animals, and our health, and that great-tasting vegetarian foods are widely available, it makes no sense to eat animal products. VegCooking.com has great vegetarian recipes an product suggestions.

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

Tony Waters
Posted by: 3party on Apr 22, 2009 11:34 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If we set aside the moralizing by people like me (I have been vegetarian for 54 years, and I don't wear animal skins), and look solely at the environmental effects, the economic costs, and the deleterious influence on human health, of eating meat, the case against is overwhelming. My guess is that, as with slavery, the moral argument will take hold only after economic factors -- the cotton ginny in one case, the need to feed more people on the other -- has made the change necessary. The good news is that, so far as eating red meat, at least, is concerned, all four considerations -- environmental, economic, health-related, and moral -- point toward the very same conclusion: Friends Don't Let Friends Eat Meat.

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

Compassion Over Killing
Posted by: vasumurti on Apr 22, 2009 12:29 PM   
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]

» Damn! Posted by: morticia
» RE: Double Damn! Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Double Damn! Posted by: morticia
protien issues...
Posted by: ellie on Apr 22, 2009 12:44 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
how does one who is insulin dependent get enough protein in a day without meat, poultry or fish (this planet is over-fished to the point of extinction even with fish farming) products to support normal muscle mass if you are limited by high blood sugar or DKA and kept alive by injected insulin...

you have to restrict almost all soy, legumes, starchy veggies, carbs in general, etc... with animal and fish added in, almost all who are well regulated wind up with a BMI of around 20, not much room to wiggle...

insulin was discovered in 1921... before then, people just died within a year or two after their insulin beta cells died...

ideas???

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

» RE: protien issues... Posted by: helenwheels
oops... protein...
Posted by: ellie on Apr 22, 2009 12:49 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
?

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

» 14 grams???!!! Posted by: AdamG
How about a trade?
Posted by: YogiBear on Apr 22, 2009 1:17 PM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'll continue to eat meat and you continue to make babies.

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

Cutting to the chase
Posted by: Fat Man at the Buffet Line on Apr 22, 2009 2:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ok now I know that small scale farming is a great lifestyle(having lived it for the past 11 years).. However... It is not econmicly sustainable. Eventually a few things occur that may push you over the edge. It is mostly a cash flow thing. Certainly farmers are really good with money(some of us)..but at least where I reside we make the bulk of our money in about 15 weeks out of the season. Season extension has improved the lot dramatically, but I still am finding that despite all my efforts and good business skills that farming on the small scale can be massively unsustainable. The larger scale growers aka agribusiness..have the money behind them to make it worth their while...Bottom line is in farming deep pockets make all the difference. I really wish it were different.. I am not giving up the ship (although it is mighty tempting on some days)but rather diversifying and making a go of it that way... vegetable farming alone? Not sustainable.. adding meat..better, custom services even better..There is a way to do it, but sometimes a vow of poverty is not a choice. I absolutely love what I do, however I also see it for what it is... Not a very strong career choice if you want to do things that require a lot of cash flow....

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

Buddhism and vegetarianism (part 1)
Posted by: vasumurti on Apr 22, 2009 3:25 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 (part 2)
Posted by: vasumurti on Apr 22, 2009 3:28 PM   
Current rating: 1    [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]

» P.S. Posted by: morticia
Great article
Posted by: whcthree on Apr 22, 2009 7:04 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks !!!

Go Vegan

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

animal rights: a progressive cause
Posted by: vasumurti on Apr 22, 2009 9:26 PM   
Current rating: 3    [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 thought 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]

Agribusiness is the problem, not meat eating
Posted by: Shivani on Apr 23, 2009 11:11 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The author clearly means well, but is only partially informed. The problem is not eating meat, the problem is industrialized agriculture, from its production of lettuce to its production of beef.
When animals are raised naturally, on farms, the problems she lists are transformed to benefits. However, our government policies support Agribusiness, not small-scale local farming.
For instance, the production of massive monocultures of grain is heavily subsidized. The cheap grain leads to feedlot meat production, which results in farms losing the fertilizer they’d have if the animals were raised on small farms and in the “waste” (It’s only waste because it’s wasted!) creating pollution, instead.
BTW, Agribusiness’s cheap-grain fructose and white flour are also the basis of our school lunch program and, thanks to Agribusiness’ political clout, grains were put at the base of our “food pyramid,” resulting in an epidemic of obesity and type-two diabetes.
Americans are eating health-damaging commodities and dumping the “waste” into our drinking water instead of composting a valuable resource.
As ruminants are not designed by Nature to eat grains, nor to be crowded, feedlot production also means too much methane production and meat laced with antibiotics used to keep the animals from dying.
Cattle that pee on the ground fertilize it. Ammonia arises from feedlot waste.
Growing huge crops of grains for feedlot feed uses huge quantities of water. Growing monocultures of vegetables does, too. Animals grazing naturally do not need much water.
Pesticides and herbicides are not used in natural farming.
When cattle are raised on small farms with rotational grazing, the soil is not damaged but greatly improved. (Read Joel Salatin and Michael Pollan!)
When food animals are raised on grass and sold locally, hardly any fossil fuel is needed for production or transport. (BTW, vegetables shipped from California to NY use lots of fossil fuel.)
The United Nations report mentioned does not decry eating meat but slams “the meat industry.”
Industrial agriculture was made possible by cheap, plentiful fossil fuels, which it must have not only for the farm machinery, long-distance transportation and refrigeration but also to make the synthetic fertilizers essential to grow crops on damaged soil. As fossil fuel production declines, we will have to return to growing food and producing animals naturally and locally. We’ll need lots of backyard gardens, rabbits and chickens.
The United States is home to about 5% of the planet’s people, but is using about a third of the planet’s resources. We are about to be forced, by climate change, fossil fuel depletion, economic depression and overpopulation, to change our ways. The sooner the better, as we will need great change in order to feed our present population in non-industrial ways. Please see Toward a Post Carbon Food System at: www.postcarbon.org/food. It’s a “must read” on this subject.

By the way, a vegetarian/vegan diet is not a healthy diet for long-term use. It’s not nutrient-dense enough. (I tried it for 30 years, to my great detritment.) Please do some reading at www.Westonaprice.org.

Shivani

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

» RE: Do you have some suggestions? Posted by: Bliss Doubt
There are many good reasons to go vegetarian!
Posted by: ronniejw on Apr 24, 2009 5:55 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Here are some more good reasons to go vegetarian:

Vegetarian Diets: Healthy and Humane


Ronnie Wright
World Change Cafe

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

There are actually only 3 basic arguments against meat in the article
Posted by: AdamG on Apr 24, 2009 9:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. Meat hurts the environment

2. Meat hurts people (through starvation)

3. Meat hurts wildlife

Number one could be solved by composting and nutrient management

Number two could be solved through the alleviation of poverty.

Number three could be solved by more diverse farming and resource conservation, among other things.

Guess what? If just took action instead of wasting our time babbling, the problems could be solved.

Then we could all eat a steak, or tofu dog, or whatever your pleasure. Nom nom nom.

[« 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