EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- Disaster Capitalism Strikes as Hedge Funds Circle Near-Bankrupt Municipalities Like Vultures
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
- Patent Filing Claims Solar Energy ‘Breakthrough’
- Wisconsin Bill Would Treat Organic Milk, Sharp Cheddar, Brown Eggs as "Junk Food"
- Climate Change's 'Evil Twin': Ocean Acidification
- In 'March Toward Disaster,' World Hits 400 PPM Milestone
- Ignoring Bee Crisis, EPA Greenlights New 'Highly Toxic' Pesticide
Popular content
Today's Top News
Beef Plant Video Spurs Calls for New Protections
NEW YORK - Graphic images of animal cruelty and this week's record recall of U.S. beef have spurred fresh demands to expand a ban on killing sick animals for food consumption.
"Legislation is in play with the Downed Animal and Food Safety Protection Act. It's time to enact it," said Julie Janovsky of the animal rights group Farm Sanctuary.
The proposed legislation, which has been defeated in Congress several times in recent years, would prohibit the slaughter of all "downed" animals, including pigs, sheep, and other livestock.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has outlawed the use of what the meat industry calls "downer" cattle -- cows that are too weak or sick to stand -- for human consumption. But the ban does not apply to animals other than cattle, Farm Sanctuary says on its NoDowners.org Web site.
The group, which was launched in 1986 with the rescue of a downed sheep from a pile of dead animals, reiterated its demand for an all-encompassing ban this week, following the release of an undercover video that shows workers kicking and gouging sick cows to force them walk.
Many downed animals lie -- sometimes in piles of their own feces -- without food, water, or veterinary care, until it's convenient for companies to move them to slaughter. The undercover video shows downed cattle being pushed with forklifts and dragged with metal chains attached from their legs to heavy machinery.
The video, released this week by the U.S. Humane Society, raised questions about the safety of the meat produced at the Westland/Hallmark plant and forced authorities to order the recall of 143 million pounds of beef, enough to feed 2.1 million Americans for a year.
It was the largest beef recall in U.S. history.
According to the USDA, tens of millions of pounds of that beef was already used to make hamburgers and tacos for school lunches and other official nutrition programs.
"The USDA hasn't protected our nation's children who already ate the burgers, and other downed animal products," said Janvosky in urging the USDA to strengthen its rules on the slaughter of downed animals.
Farm Sanctuary researchers who have documented numerous cases of abuse of sick animals suggest there is no way to prevent suppliers from marketing the downed animal meat unless Congress takes action to fix the USDA's loopholes.
"I wish we were as shocked as the USDA claims to be by these blatant acts of animal cruelty," said Jeff Lydon, the group's executive director. "But our experience suggests that continued violations under the current system are inevitable."
Humane Society activists have made similar observations about the USDA's role in assuring the safety of food sold to U.S. consumers.
"How can so many downers have been mistreated day after day within a USDA oversight system that was present at the [Westland/Hallmark] plant?" wondered Wayne Pacelle, president of the Humane Society, in a statement.
Pacelle holds that there is an urgent need for "more boots on the ground at the plant."
USDA officials said last week they had started an inquiry and suspended Westland/Hallmark as a supplier to federal nutrition programs. For its part, the company has decided to stop operating until the inquiry is over.
On Sunday, the beef industry backed the USDA's recall, but said it was doing so "as a precautionary measure."
"We can say with confidence that the beef supply is safe," said James Reagan of the Beef Industry Food Safety Council. "We have multiple interlocking safeguards in place in every beef processing plant so that if one is bypassed, the other systems continue."
Despite such assurances, it seems that the industry is increasingly failing to win consumer confidence.
This latest scandal has raised questions about the USDA's dual and potentially conflicting roles of ensuring food safety and promoting the U.S. meat industry.
"We've had scores, if not hundreds, of phone calls, letters, and e-mails with the USDA over the years related specifically to downed animal concerns and their reaction is about as predictable as the cruelty witnessed at Westland/Hallmark," said Gene Baur, co-founder of Farm Sanctuary, who has investigated stockyards and slaughterhouses documenting violations of USDA policy and state anti-cruelty laws for 22 years.
"We can only hope that Congress's reaction to public outrage is swift and thorough," said Janovsky.
© 2008 One World
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

31 Comments so far
Show AllI read the title of this report and hoped that it was about new protections for animals from the cruelty of man. Alas, no it was about protecting the next generation of cruel, heartless and mindless humans.
Sadly this will all blow over and within 2 months will be forgotten. The creatures (I dare not call them man)that visit such cruelty upon these docile animals will probably take out their anger at being caught with even greater sadisic pleasure.
WTF
so did i..........
LIMRIC
don't say things like that...........it upsets me too much.
The creatures (I dare not call them man)
**but they are man.
That's part of the problem. Being a human has to become a thing of embarrassment. Not because of Original sin, but because of failure to control behavior that many humans describe as being wrong(except sociopaths).
You cant reform unnecessary killing. Humans dont need to eat meat--everyone knows it. So its impossible to fix such a system.
It hasnt changed since Pythagoros' time.
And now i go to read the articles on wolves(related to ranching) and fisheries(meat eating again).
Veganism is the answer. Its sitting right there for everyone to see-but they just dont take it.
This is all such b.s. The USDA is in the back pockets of the meat industry and has no interest in regulating that industry. The USDA only cares about downed cattle entering the food supply if it would result in harm to the industry's economic bottom line. This is not about protecting the public; it's about protecting business. Same with the FDA regulating the drug industry. I'm all for the legislation proposed above, but I don't think it's going to do a darn thing to stop abuse and torture of animals or to protect the safety of the food supply. As long as the system remains corrupt, nothing will change.
Would this happen if there wasn't such a massive market for meat? And, why do consumers of meat want to eat such poor quality product, that is of dubious safety, and drug-riddled as it is, probably dangerous? If eat meat you must, why not demand truly high-quality beef, that has been farm raised, well-fed, and humanely (???) slaughtered. The factory mentality and agribusiness system of production results in the cruel and filthy circumstances that we witnessed on the video. Oh, and does anyone truly believe this to be an isolated case? I suspect this is how this industry is run, all day, every day. Vegetarianism, anyone?
How can anyone look into the eyes of these creatures and believe that we are meant to murder them and then consume their flesh?
It's a real unscientific non-fiction horror story! Can you imagine what must be going through these cows' minds as they look at us, knowing we are herbivores too?... imagine their horror. Imagine what is required to convince a whole society of humans that 100 million creatures each day (in the US alone) should be insanely butchered to produce 'meat' for humans who actually require an all plant-based diet to enjoy health and wellness!
Murder is committed by the insane. And, it is a fact that this culture is truly insane by all metrics used to judge such things.
(The understanding of human anatomy must be shared and it must be shared now. Print it out, try as we are to post it in libraries, medical schools, life science centers… Humans need to know, we are not natural omnivores and our cultural indoctrination involves us in murder of the innocent, environmental destruction and completely avoidable diseases such as heart disease and most cancers.)
From "The Comparative Anatomy of Eating", by Milton R. Mills, MD
Facial Muscles
CARNIVORE: Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
HERBIVORE: Well-developed
OMNIVORE: Reduced
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
"When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."
William C. Roberts, M.D., editor, American Journal of Cardiology
The deleterious affects of consuming animal derived products on human health are widely reported and resoundingly substantiated... yet the murders continue. Why? Who profits? Who gains? The answer is no one. And that alone should tell you that only the most insane and the most ignorant are guiding this insanity. Something must be done. And leaving it up to the other guy is not an option. Neither is sending another check to PETA. Get out and begin talking about this. Do it wherever you are.
We are distributing leaflets. They need to be in medical schools, in libraries, in churches and everywhere else.
People need to know, just because the Church once maintained that the earth was the center of the solar system, it is not so.
And just because nearly everyone is deceived about their own ecologically defined anatomy and so believes themselves to be omnivores, it is not so. And continuing ignorance on this matter is not an option!
Wake people up! Make them realize, these murders are COMPLETELY unjustified. And these animals have a right to our compassion. They do indeed have a natural right to it. And though many may not presently realize it, these animals do ... and that makes the horror they endure all the more terrifying, incomprehensible and entirely reprehensible.
If you would like a copy of what we are distributing for your own use, please email us at ecostacy@gmail.com. It is a two-sided Word doc which can be easily printed on your own system.
Munch
I know your information is well intended but it is not entirely true. People have evolved eatting meat and will continue to do so. I myself have elected dietary changes but it requires knowledge or it can make you sick. To apply this as a solution is only a small part of the problem. The reason is that this is such a big industry (any many variables) that the consequences of really horrible practices is not directly related to those practices...that is why things might change but will go back to this level once the attention has shifted to something else. To solve this problem, you have to define what it is and be willing to set objectives until a new practice is in place. Then monitor it. We could all stop eatting this stuff (I eat very little meat) and it would not stop these programs. I think putting the head guy, Steve Mendell, the person that has profitted by this the most in prison for 10 years might have an effect. Consequences maintain behavior...What you are talking about is consequences on a personal level and that is commendable, but one one small variable.
"I know your information is well intended but it is not entirely true."
And your authoritarian viewpoint comes from the 'Church'? The ecological/anatomical/scientific facts conflict with your completely unsupported assertion. Try reading them. Opinions that are conditioned are the problem here, not valid information as I offered in the post above.
"I myself have elected dietary changes but it requires knowledge or it can make you sick."
I gave you that knowledge. Try using it. If you respect your herbivore design, you will recover health, not lose it. These facts are also the matter of studies involving thousands of people so they too are well-supported by volumes of scientific studies.
"the consequences of really horrible practices is not directly related to those practices…"
????????????? Not only nonsensical, absurd!
"To solve this problem, you have to define what it is and be willing to set objectives until a new practice is in place."
Problem definition:
Human herbivores who believe and are taught that they are omnivores, corral, murder and torture other animals in the erroneous belief that this is required for their optimum human nutrition.
Solution:
Present the facts that clearly demonstrate humans are not omnivores nor have they 'evolved' to eat meat. In fact, few ate meat until the advent of refrigeration. Meat-eating has absolutely NOTHING to do with human evolution as is currently being insisted by disinformationists. And that is supported by esteemed anthropologists such as Leakey.
So Treefrog, you are mistaken. Leave the 'Church' and open your mind to the facts. No one should be killed for the sake of a presumed comfort in ignorance.
"Cardiologist William C. Roberts, Editor in chief of The American Journal of Cardiology and medical director of the Baylor Heart and Vascular Institute at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas the famed cattle state of Texas itself, says without hesitation that Humans aren't physiologically designed to eat meat. He states that the evidence is pretty clear. If you look at various characteristics of carnivores (meat eaters) versus herbivores (non-meat eaters), it doesn't take a genius to see where humans compare""
above quote from: http://www.stopcancer.co.uk/Humans_are_herbivores.htm
Americans had a fit over Michael Vick abusing his dogs!
But animals on factory farms receive much worse treatment and we turn a blind eye because their flesh tastes so good. Hindus believe the cow is sacred, are they wrong?
Jesus said that what we do to the least of these in society we do unto him, and, no I'm not a Crazy Christian nutjob but I do believe all life should be respected. I also think Jesus meant more than the human race.
It's the factory farm that is the problem and I love a good steak, but my family chooses to buy organic. If all Americans could see footage of a factory farm and the slaughterhouse and realize their food is raised in filth, the problem would solve itself. In the meantime, don't buy their product and they will go out of business or adapt.
Eat more beans!!
Feedlots exist because a few generations back, it was assumed that eating more 'protein' was necessary for optimal health. So, the more cows that could be made available (so the argument went), the more robust health could be enjoyed.
It is this fallacy that drives the feedlots AND the 'organic' meat industry.
If eating meat is necessary, then eating more meat by more people is/was considered a 'good'.
If on the other hand, eating meat is deleterious to human health, then ANY amount of meat consumption is bad; bad for the animal that should be allowed a natural term of life (and a natural life experience within its natural community and habitat) and bad for humans who consume them.
Today we are capable of realizing quite easily that meat-eating and dairy consumption is not only entirely unhealthy for humans (causing heart disease, many cancers, osteoporosis, kidney ailments, acne, etc.), it is the number one cause of most environmental crises such as water pollution and rainforest burning.
Meat-eating (and dairy consumption) is the reason that we have a very sick society. No matter how much people "love a 'good' steak", it is time for them to realize that tastes and habits are conditioned and their personal conditioning is not survivable; for them, for their children who will pay much graver costs due to increasingly rapid environmental decline and species losses, nor for any of the other lives that also have a right to call this planet home.
Meat-eating was a bad idea when it was first inculcated/introduced and it was not done for the sake of human health but rather for the sake of human control and ignorance (violence training). And that ignorance is now virtually ubiquitous and very defining of desensitized, violence-based and deception-based lifestyles.
Munch1
I have a lifetime of resources to apply to this issue, sorry the "church" is not one of them. I think you need to broaden your approach, look at other cultures and the history of cusine. The american diet stinks, but all diet is not american. The way animals are treated stinks worse than the dietary habits (no not all). Consider bodies weakened by bad dietary habits need a theaputic level of nutrition not only to start to live healthy but eliminate toxins. It takes a lot of human energy to do that. Me, I eat farely well. I grew up drinking raw milk, not pasturized milk that forms chrystals in the human body. We co-exist with animals and if the shoe was on the other foot, one of them might eat you. lol I like your comments though, I enjoy a good debate.
"I think you need to broaden your approach, look at other cultures and the history of cusine."
I have. And I have studied, visited and eaten there as well. The most amazing discovery is that ALL ancient cultures have clearly discernable plant-based recipes defining the major substance of their diets.
Other countries and cultures in which I have eaten include; Iran, Tunisia, China, Vietnam, Chile, and India.
So let's look at India. Meat-eating was introduced into India by the 'Brahmins' from the north. Meat-eating was a feature of their war-making hierarchical society and both animal and human sacrifices were used to substantiate power and authority.
Meat-eating was pivotal to justifying dominator elitism and this is one of the reasons it was identified by Gautama as a key travesty requiring correction before the recovery of natural sense, natural connection and sane society would be possible.
The 'Church' refers to convention. And it is appropriately used in your case.
"Consider bodies weakened by bad dietary habits need a theaputic level of nutrition not only to start to live healthy but eliminate toxins."
The best diet in such cases is the natural diet. This is the ONLY diet that can enable natural functioning to resume and thus eliminate toxins and repair damaged cells, etc. There is no need to debate. You need to exit the 'Church', recover your logic and study the facts. You can start at http://pcrm.org and http://notmilk.com.
"I grew up drinking raw milk, not pasturized milk that forms chrystals in the human body."
All milk from cows contains animal proteins that contribute to calcium loss, kidney diseases and a host of cancers. Furthermore, the fats in milk are toxic for humans. Refer to http://notmilk.com.
"We co-exist with animals and if the shoe was on the other foot, one of them might eat you."
Co-existence is hardly what present-day elite-military-corporate human society is about. It is about domination to the exclusion of all natural sense. So, let's see how this works…
If squirrels refuse to eat rabbits, will the fox find them more or less delectable (will more or less be killed)? You see, your assumption (Church begotten) is quite absurd. Humans will not be in greater danger once they respect their ecological niche, quite the contrary!
I am not interested in debating with you. These dietary facts are overwhelmingly conclusive. Doing (knowing) the correct thing is not a matter of being more clever, traditional or deceitful; rather it is a matter of simple consideration of the facts.
Obscuring these will not benefit anyone.
Btw...it China they skin animals alive and make nic-naks out of them...
Munch1
Excuse me but you are the one making references to the church. The conventions of religious leaders, and MD's none of which reach any level of consensus. In all this wonderfull knowledge you have, show me how this has an impact on standards and practices put forth in this article.
I have discuss some personal knowledge based on personal and ancestral knowledge. I don't eat a conventional diet or subscribe to conventional practices. I do know a little bit about behavior and that might be the most specific concepts I've put forth.
Most of the examples you use are biased by geopolitically as well. One could say, scarcity played a roll or lack of land mass to support grazing animals. In one of your examples cows are sacred...a bit of convention if you ask me. But then you didn't.
"Excuse me but you are the one making references to the church."
By the term 'Church', I was referencing traditional viewpoints (culturally supported and induced) as opposed to fact-based ones.
"In one of your examples cows are sacred…a bit of convention if you ask me."
Cows are not at all sacred in most of India. In fact, Indians refer to cows as their 'mother'. To them, this means they are a food source. They no longer consume beef in most areas but they do slaughter cows for leather and use them for dairy products such as ghee. Their is much confusion on the subject of what cows actually mean to Indians... again, their beliefs are 'church' conditioned, not fact-based.
"Most of the examples you use are biased by geopolitically as well."
My fact-based offering is very simple, humans are herbivores. It is NOT geopolitical in any regard. It is based upon species characteristics (anatomical and physiological) that are fully substantiated even in these posts.
Geopolitical considerations (cultural anthropology for instance) are introduced to explain the actual role of meat-eating in human societies (nothing to do with nutrition); who introduced it, why and how and why it proliferated.
Finally, "In all this wonderfull knowledge you have, show me how this has an impact on standards and practices put forth in this article."
If everyone is taught the facts, that humans are herbivores, then no one will eat meat. Feedlots will go the way of the complex formulations used to describe the sun's revolution around the earth.
A full realization that humans are herbivores (species-wide) is imperative and quite easy to accomplish. Stop obscuring the evident and the critical. Embrace the ecological facts of diet and live by them.
No more need to justify murder, torture and rape of other creatures. No more need to burn the rainforest. No more need to pollute the waterways. No more need to fear cancer, heart attacks, or a pimple before the prom! No more need to wonder how to end hunger, war, etc. No more need to witness encroaching deserts, dying oceans... The simple answer is the answer. Humans are ecologically defined like all life on this planet. The sooner we stop artificially scripting our behaviors, the more likely it will be that life will continue and that unnecessary suffering will be a thing of the past, for humans and other creatures.
http://allinharmony.com
Munch 1
I do not think I am a herbivore but an ominivore, but I respect your right to think as you do. I appauld your commitment to live your beliefs and I think the world benefits. I don't think 9 billion people could sustain themselves by the same thinking. It is our ability to adapt to changes that has determined our longivity (good or bad). More specialized species didn't and we know what happened to them.
Here is something you might enjoy so there is no hard feelings between us:
http://www.myhero.com/myhero/hero.asp?hero=a_lookinghorse
To those of you, such as WTF. LIMRIC, coco, Kelmer, Munch1 and sandyk77:
When I was 12 and first found out the nexus between the meat I thoroughly enjoyed and the animals I loved, I immediately became vegetarian. I failed to understand how this eating the flesh of actual animals could be taking place.
In the first decade after that, as I started to realise the extent of this and the scale of cruelty, I increasingly came to become extremely angry at humanity in general and even at those around me, even and especially my own friends and family who seemed indifferent. They would just order a burger with no regard at all to the suffering which preceeded it and the contribution they are making with their payment to future suffering of other creatures.
My anger continued unabated until recently when I started reading the Buddhist notions of compassion. I wondered how I could be compassionate to a spider and a crocodile that is carnivorous but unable to do so for a human. The reason was that I believed the human ought to know better, and because humans expect morality from me and impose standards of behaviour on me.
I realised that my anger was in part projected: not liking to be controlled personally throughout childhood I felt betrayed that those who claimed to have moral highground in conditioning my behaviour turned out themselves to be highly unethical themselves.
I am inclined to believe, though I could be wrong, that in order to heal the world of anger and to bring to it compassion, it is important to ensure that we rid our own hearts of anger even in the face of the most vile cruelty in order to find the best way to bring about the quickest relief.
Recently there has arisen in me a new recognition, that humans are not unlike crocodiles. Most are just not emotionally developed enough to care about anything in diminishing order but themselves, their family, their own circle of friends, their nation, their race, and far off in the distance, their species, then much further away selectively other species. These humans are just animals too: they look like enlightened beings, and speak as though they are, but really, they are just unable to move beyond self-serving and justifying their actions which result in intense suffering to others.
Anger will not heal this any more effectively than banging one's head at a brick wall will efficiently break it down. Make no mistake, many times a day I still fall into anger, but I remind myself that this won't swing a vote.
Look at the argument between Munch1 and Treefrog. Despite the overwhelming superiority of Munch1's argument, Treefrog saw it as an opportunity for a "good debate" and was not persuaded one bit.
On another note, in relation to Munch1's arguments, I would add that given the scale and depravity of suffering which eating meat, poultry, seafood and dairy brings about, if it is possible to live a healthy life, as a vegan irrespective of whether or not we are "meant to eat meat" (who cares?) then live and let live!! It's the nice thing to do. It is the compassionate thing to do. It turns out too that this fetish for flesh is part of the reason the planet is heating up - it's going to kill us all in a cosmic justice kind of way, goodbye Treefrogs and humans! I would argue that even if it is possible to live with slightly less vitality on a vegan diet, given the cruelty to others involved in a non-herbivore diet, the right thing to do is accept slightly less vitality. The reality is that the shift in diet initially will cause a massive change in the body and during the transition an initial loss of energy may be experienced. Provided that the vegan diet is healthy and accompanied by balanced lifestyle activities such as perhaps yoga and other fitness regimes, the energy will come back and some.
In Christianity (not that I subscribe to the Western religions) one of the fundamental teachings I thought was "Do unto others as you would have them to unto you". Our whole Western empire has as its rationale Christianity, but one look at what we do to animals in the West makes me wonder how we collectively can consider ourselves to be good Christians and yet eat meat. Irrespective of whether or not Christ himself 2,000 years ago ate meat, there was no factory farming then, and what self-respecting Christian could tell me that Christ would condone what we do to "mass-produce" meat in today's modern world?
(I'm ranting... must stop. Good bye)
You should stop eating Meat till they put windows in the slauter house.
"It is our ability to adapt to changes that has determined our longivity (good or bad). More specialized species didn't and we know what happened to them."
This is very interesting. Most species that are disappearing today are doing so not because they cannot adapt, but because their habitats are being destroyed by human activities such as over-fishing, burning of the forests and damming of the rivers, dumping of pesticides, effluents, etc.
Humans actually lived in a fecund biosphere. Ecospheres around the planet have been decimated, not to make our species MORE adaptable, but to make it impossible for indigenous peoples to survive!
This process of environmental destruction is not driven by the need of resources, but by a dominator culture that seeks control over ALL humans and their possible habitats... and thus, places that are naturally abundant are defoliated.
So, we did not become meat eaters as part of an adaptation. It is absurd to think that meat was a requirement in a world abundant with fruits, nuts, vegetables, etc. Thousands of years ago, the planet was capable of producing and did produce much more human appropriate food than it does today. Surprised? It is true.
Furthermore, only 1/16th of an acre is required to grow food for a practicing human herbivore. 50 times that amount is required for a modern western-style meatarian.
"I would argue that even if it is possible to live with slightly less vitality on a vegan diet, given the cruelty to others involved in a non-herbivore diet, the right thing to do is accept slightly less vitality. The reality is that the shift in diet initially will cause a massive change in the body and during the transition an initial loss of energy may be experienced. Provided that the vegan diet is healthy and accompanied by balanced lifestyle activities such as perhaps yoga and other fitness regimes, the energy will come back and some."
This is simply untrue (well intentioned, so thank you mmmooo). In all tests run on vegans, their recovery time from exhaustion is shorter than meat-eaters AND vegetarians and, they have far superior stamina. Furthermore, they live an average of 6 years longer than meat-eaters and have far less colds, flues, etc. No adaptation is necessary, it's all good from the git. See Carl Lewis' discussion on this.
Vegans have been shown to have much better energy than others and the reason is that human bodies function more efficiently on plant foods. We are herbivores. We are designed to eat plant foods exclusively and can only enjoy optimal health if we do eat plant foods exclusively. http://pcrm.org gives some of the results from the studies on energy levels of vegans vs. meat-eaters.
The notion of vegans being emaciated, drawn, irritable or of low energy is simply inaccurate. Being healthy as a vegan is easy: eat plants (fruits, nuts, grains, leaves, etc.) and quit when satisfied, repeat… that is ALL there is to it, no B-12 worries (those are rubbish), no calcium deprivation (another REALLY bogus lie), just abundant easy to maintain glorious health… and it comes with lots of animal loveïŠ
"I do not think I am a herbivore but an ominivore"
The word 'think' is not appropriately used here. The correct word is 'believe'. You do not 'believe' you are an herbivore because you have not actually allowed yourself to fully consider it. So, I am pasting the chart once again. Please read it and let the thinking begin!
From "The Comparative Anatomy of Eating", by Milton R. Mills, MD
Facial Muscles
CARNIVORE: Reduced to allow wide mouth gape
HERBIVORE: Well-developed
OMNIVORE: Reduced
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
Munch 1
I think you have misinterpreted my position on this. I haven't made any special claims about eating meat other than people do it for a reason and that it has shaped evolution. It is not the root cause of evolution, only a factor. Meat was not always an industrial product and for some it is still not an industrial product. Some people hold it sacred (meaning it can't be brought or sold) Once something is bought or sold it becomes ordinary. My reference to adaption was in a survival context, all spieces have that pressure, even Vegans. I've been to vegan websites, I'm very impressed at how meticules they are about thier food. I have been a vegetarian and as I said I eat very little meat. I too have a personal relationship with the food I eat. I just happen to feel that there is more to the industrialization of animals and food animals in particular. more direct conquence is needed to change this practice. I know you have repeated the phyiscal characterists again. They are not all correct, when was the last time you saw anyone chewing thier cud for instance. You have looked at the issues and made a reasoned arguement. I could fairly easily post just as many reasoned positions to the opposite. The reason I don't is that neither one these is my position. I'm not making a case for eating meat as a precontext to industrialized food and handing me a laundry list of physical characterists is not going to change how I feel about one of the single most significant factors in my survival. I appreciate the links, especially the notmilk.com. There is another site rawmilk.com that is interesting too.
"They are not all correct, when was the last time you saw anyone chewing thier cud for instance."
Herbivore is a biological classification that is more general than say frugivore (one of the herbivore subcategories). But, frugivores are also herbivores as are folivores. Not ALL herbivores have multiple stomach chambers like cows and therefore, not all herbivores need "to chew their cud".
The cow digestive system BTW, is a later evolution of dietary adaptation than our type of digestive system.
"I haven't made any special claims about eating meat other than people do it for a reason and that it has shaped evolution."
Yes, they do it for a reason and that reason is cultural conditioning and it has not shaped evolution so much as it has rent the naturally evolved ecospheres that provided healthy habitation for so many creatures and species, including human. It has also defined the nature of modern (corporate military) society in ways that are psychologically, emotionally, socially, economically and politically destructive.
"…not going to change how I feel about one of the single most significant factors in my survival."
Your survival simply does not depend to your eating meat, quite the opposite. That is a fact. What you feel about this is another matter. (Actually, your survival and all survival depends to humans getting the facts of this matter clearly realized.)
ALL of us will undergo some trauma (emotional, not physical) awakening to the facts of our ecologically defined dietary behaviors. Just the necessity of realizing how wrong our parents were, our schooling, our society, our corporate structures and their combined incapacity for stating the facts clearly, is overwhelming for many. Yet, resistance (to understanding) based upon habits that are culturally validated will only allow a dire situation to grow much worse... and what is already well beyond insane.
As for stating the opposite position… Nothing can be stated opposite to this position that cannot be proven to be false. There is no opinion in my words, humans are herbivores. These facts have been well researched over decades, by me and by others.
I appreciate that you are considerably confused. I may be wrong on this one but it often seems to me that the set-up for confusion is usually in the cultural precept that humans are a unique species, not instinctual but a class alone, different because of a greater intelligence… but, that is also not supported by the facts.
Other animals also learn, have cultural, etc. But, they have not been scripted to behave in ways anathema to their ecologically defined anatomies unless it is done to them by a human in which case, they too will adopt behaviors (and self understandings) contrary to the dictates of their general anatomy. (Circus bears, trained birds that will not fly even when outside, etc.)
I agree culture has a profound influence on the availablitiy and value of food. I have worked with registered dietians that include bologna as a food source. Prescriptive diets by authorities that I would not eat. (certainly one could survive in terms of daily caloric intake, but this is only because the human body can adapt on many levels) I have lived and worked on farms where a bobcat would kill and eat a goose, or a raccoon would kill several chickens and take one for dinner. How is that placing yourself apart from nature. Plant a garden and have the baby goats get in an eat half of it. We are no different, even if we ate road kill and wild crafted everything else. (and some people do exactly that) That being said, I think we have lost sight of what it means to be human beings and what is essential to our well being. We have to trust our own knowledge and that includes what we learn from animals. To say that a circus bear doesn't know he is a bear is not accurate. He may not remember how to survive as a bear but he would never lose the instinct for being a bear. The same with a bird that doesn't fly, and many will even when they are born and raised in cage...they just won't survive as long.
"How is that placing yourself apart from nature."
ALL creatures are ecologically scripted. What this means is that when we speak of 'evolution' we must speak in terms of CO-EVOLUTION.
In other words, biospheres are gestalts. These gestalts work on principles of symbiosis that together support (and engender) the maximum degree of aliveness.
Man's fundamental modern failure is to think of himself as distinct from the larger ecology. Once he realizes (at a very intimate level) that he is designed INTO its fabric, his appreciation for what that means will spur him to another manner of questing, discovery and understanding. And his willingness to participate in destructions that violate all natural law will end.
At that point (and probably because of it) he will take his own anatomical design to heart and use it as he should to guide him into a more realistic understanding not only of himself and his potential to attune to the rest of life but also of the greater world around him.
"He may not remember how to survive as a bear but he would never lose the instinct for being a bear."
Since you have lost your sense of what it is to be a fully realized human (beginning with something so fundamental as knowing what is healthy for you to eat), why would you think any other creature would also not be similarly affected by being denied a full interaction with the ecology that he was designed to grow up within?
Sensory deprivation can erase all mental capacity. Our corporate culture can and does inhibit human development. It short-circuits natural reflection, compassion, opportunities to connect, to fully realize (interact with) the intellect in other animals, etc.
Your 'instinct' so to speak is defeated. You are unable to see the profound intellects that surround you and instead you are scripted to label them (and perceive them) with words that designate them to levels generally extraneous to what is 'important'.
"I have lived and worked on farms where a bobcat would kill and eat a goose, or a raccoon would kill several chickens and take one for dinner. How is that placing yourself apart from nature."
Chickens have no business being caged by humans and humans have no business caging them. The situations you describe are happening outside natural law. That is the overwhelming fact you must realize… then the confusion will end. Your experiences will be seen not as reliable indicators of reality but as unnatural situations that should be curtailed.
Some animals kill other animals and they are designed to do so. Humans are not so designed and that fact is fundamental to the healthy functioning of this earthly biosphere.
(Although this is an art site, there is much natural philosophy offered so you might enjoy it: http://zazzle.com/allinharmony)
"certainly one could survive in terms of daily caloric intake, but this is only because the human body can adapt on many levels"
But, no human body will function at its most healthy eating bologna or any other kind of meat. Adaptation is hardly the word. Our bodies are not adapting, our bodies are using their natural defense and balancing mechanisms to overcome the toxic overload(s)... and that hardly allows us to be at our best... if our metabolism is always subjected to uphill battles.
I agree all things are scripted, however that is not an absolute. There is adaptation that demonstrates a range of possibilities. It is within this range that we exist and I disagree that man seems himself as distinct. More like the lord and master of everything. (collectively, that everything on earth is within his range to adapt to his personal survival or entertainment.)
There are statistics both small and large about these specific changes and how humans are adapting to artifical environments on a large scale. Two percent of people actually live and work with nature to produce thier own food. Some people spend less than an hour a day in the sun light. (You may not realize thise but sun light is essential to digest some parts of your food)
This range that we are taking about, this is where industrialized farming became adapted as a un-natural practices. It is also probably a response to environmental variables that veganism also developed within this range. A vegan diet is not the result of natural occurrences. (It's much closer than industrialize farming, much, much closer)
I also 'believe' we are not exactly sensory deprived but on sensory overload. That we spend more time trying to avoid harmfull sensory imput and efforts to hear our 'natural' voice speak are few. (that can make you sick)
Now, I think you should stop making presumptions for your own good. The chickens were not caged. Many of them slep in trees but have you ever seen or had a hen house?
The meat I eat comes from range cattle and isn't processed in a slaughter house.
Thank you for the link, I will check it out.
If you are a meat eater, it is possible to know exactly what you are eating and doesn't involve a slaughter house.
"A vegan diet is not the result of natural occurrences."
Treefrog, I think you are extremely confused and standing on culturally scripted falsehoods as you usher forth your understandings... we have all been there or currently are, so not a criticism, but a reflection.
A 'vegan' diet is actually a natural diet. That is why it is imperative that you actually read and understand the "Comparative Anatomy of Eating" chart.
It is for the same reason that ONLY a vegan diet can produce optimal health. I am not going to give again all the particulars, they are available in SO many places.
So, veganism is the original human diet though natural human herbivores did not consider themselves alternative vegans, they simply practiced what they knew to be healthy, delicious and abundantly available.
Your sense of adaptation is a product of corporate culture. In order to perceive the depth of deception in which modern humans operate, there must be offered a door outside that perception than can afford a more realistic understanding.
This is the reason to revert to a study of human anatomy. Start with some verifiable facts.
Adaptation to corporate paradigms is currently threatening ALL biospheres but the short-circuited intellects of corporatized drones cannot see outside the artificial realities in which they have been scripted and currently live.
Again, that is why reverting to the most basic and verifiable truths that ARE NOT CULTURALLY DEFINED can assist us in exiting this corporate military culture of doom and environmental chaos and assist us in regaining our natural (and ecologically conscious) footing.
Knowledge of what is healthy and appropriate to eat is essential. It is the first step to understanding human nature. And that is the first step to correctly re-ordering our relationships with the rest of life.
"More like the lord and master of everything. (collectively, that everything on earth is within his range to adapt to his personal survival or entertainment.)"
This is the fundamental fallacy upon which ALL empires (dominator societies) have been built. Strangely though, domination has generally been only accomplished by war, destructions of habitats, etc. So yes, human culture today is a form that is diametrically opposed to human nature and at the inception of this insane dominator (temple) culture, meat-eating was introduced. I have discussed this process in 'The Temple' where I divulge the root of scripting unnatural behaviors to produce violence enabled humans who function without knowledge of nature or their own nature but who nonetheless serve the violent purposes of a temple elite for conquest and domination. (and this means environmental destruction and will mean total environmental destruction if it is not understood and stopped)
So, man is not by nature the 'lord and master'. He is like all else in nature, a critical and necessary and enlivened participant. At least, that is our natural scripting and that is what you can clearly discern from reading the facts of your anatomy… that is if you will read them, consider them and use them to assess what actually would exist for you in order for you to be most alive and fulfilled.
Man can no more exist without the natural world than a human can mentally survive in a sensory deprivation chamber. And, our stunted selves will only become increasingly so as we push it to the control and domination limit
mmmoo...sorry, your points are well taken. I myself question religious beliefs and find many unequal to the task of explaining the reality of human interaction with the environment. Interesting though my 78 year old neighbor (devout christian) was given a book about vegetarian diets and is actually making some changes. :)
Munch1
Your points are well worth further consideration and I thank you for your participation in this discussion. It is my hope that we will as you say become enlivened participants and make the right choices for our future.
:)
"It is my hope that we will as you say become enlivened participants and make the right choices for our future."
Thank you Treefrog. That is my most sincere hope as well.