Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiAnimal Rights Group Turns its Fire on Celebrity Meat-Eaters
Animal rights protesters have launched a series of angry campaigns against A-list carnivores. They are shifting their focus from celebrities who wear fur to others who encourage the "exploitation" of animals by eating them. In its latest campaign, Peta - People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, which became infamous for dousing fur-wearers in red paint - has launched an attack on the singer Jessica Simpson.
Ms Simpson was singled out for ridicule after she was spotted wearing a T-shirt bearing the slogan "Real Girls Eat Meat", believed to be a light-hearted dig at her boyfriend Tony Romo's vegetarian ex-girlfriend, Carrie Underwood.
Alistair Currie, a spokesman for Peta, said: "Jessica Simpson might have a right to wear what she wants, but she doesn't have a right to eat what she wants - eating meat is about suffering and death. Some people feel like they are standing up against a tide of political correctness when they make a statement like this - what she is really doing is standing up for the status quo."
The animal rights group doctored a photo of Ms Simpson to read "Only Stupid Girls Eat Meat", and listed "five reasons only stupid girls eat meat".
In May the group condemned the British actor Jonathan Rhys Meyers for admitting that he had tried dog meat while in China.
The Peta attacks are seen as a sign of the radicalisation of some vegetarian groups. They claim eating meat causes environmental destruction, damages human health and contributes to global hunger, as well as inflicting suffering on billions of animals.
Vegetarians International Voice for Animals (Viva!) claims that there are currently between five and six million vegetarians in the UK but estimates that as many as a third of population have significantly reduced their meat intake.
"Vegetarians are still in a minority - most people eat meat. You're sticking your neck out as a vegetarian, and so most are passionate about it," said Annette Pinner, the chief executive of the Vegetarian Society.
A recent pronouncement from the head of the UN climate change agency that the best thing people can do to halt global warming is to turn vegetarian has taken the debate a step further.
Paul McCartney, a veteran vegetarian campaigner, recently launched "Meat Free Mondays" to encourage meat-eaters to eat vegetarian food once a week, citing the UN's statement as a good reason to forgo meat.
Yet there is evidence that the British public might be rebelling against pressure to cut their meat consumption. Despite the cost of meat hitting a 22-year high, British supermarkets actually report a rise in sales. Waitrose has recorded big year-on-year increases in the sale of most meats, while sales of Asda's "2p sausage" have gone up by 42 per cent.
©independent.co.uk
63 Comments so far
Show AllPluckistani,
Is this McCain's young hot wife?
Well . ..
You know as we seek compassion, empathy, an end to
violence in the world, an end to wars, torture,
and a return to sanity ---
we have to look at all violence and certainly
many think our violence towards others begins
with our violence towards animals.
Maybe VEGETARIANISM could turn the world right
side up again . . . ???
It never seems to take long for Milton Mills to enter the conversation. Unfortunately, Dr. Mills' analysis has a number of flaws. The most prominent of these is the overall vagueness of his comparisons. He uses a lot of qualitative descriptors to make his points, but what do they mean? When he says that the human digestive system is 'long', what is he comparing it with? What herbivores and carnivores is he using to determine the population of his argument? How did he select his sample? Most importantly, where are his numbers? I've have searched pretty thoroughly to find the research that Mills uses to back his list (the one quoted above by kgarry) and I have found very little quantitative analysis or rigorous statistical testing. On the other hand, there is a long list of rigorous, quantitative, hypothesis-driven studies that have established that humans, as primates, have a gut morphology that is quite well suited to an omnivorous diet (see especially the work of the primatologist David Chivers and his colleagues). The fact is, there are very few examples of 'pure' herbivores or carnivores -- the only examples of the former that I can think of off the top of my head are ruminant animals, and the only examples of the latter are cats (it's been a while since I took comparitive anatomy). Even as far back as the '70s (when I was in college) the 'apes are vegetarian' dogma had been dismissed by direct observation of insectivore behavior among gorillas, baboons, orangutans. Since then, carnivory among chimps and bonobos has been well-established. A few years ago, the anthropologist Cheryl Knott actually photographed orangutans eating insects and vertebrates. Add to this the archaeological evidence of meat-eating among proto- and early humans, the extremely limited ability of humans to synthesize our own taurine and the the fact that we all have the necessary digestive enzymes to break down a wide variety of foods, and the argument that humans are 'naturally' exclusive herbivores simply collapses under its own weight.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for a vegetarian diet and I respect people who feel strongly enough about the issue to make it central in their lives. However, strident recitations of dogma just get wearisome after a while.
Who here is denying that we must destroy some life to survive? Carrots too would rather live yet are often eaten while still alive and probably sentient. Sounds barbaric when put that way doesn't it. When eating cooked meat the meal is not aware that it is being consumed. Stated this way makes eating meat sound like the more humane choice. Should I then be eating more meat in order to be more humane, or less meat as I recognize that letting the cattle and pigs do the barbaric munching of living plants for me consumes far more of the world's plant life and resources for my survival than if I directly consume the plants myself.
_______________
Cannot resist responding to miftin June 30th, 2008 2:17 am,
Flowers and chocolate and wine have produced better results than steak dinners in my experience. :-)
Damn! What a bunch of nonsense I'm reading in these posts!
You have a right to eat whatever you want?! The HELL YOU DO! For example, try pulling a Jeffrey Dahmer and see how far you get!
For some reason, many people have (many quite grudgingly) come around to see that racism and sexism are not just unacceptable, but detrimental to a civil society. How many more years until they realize that specieism is connected to this tribal, exclusionary, warfare-stimulating worldview?
You do NOT have the moral or ethical right to consume, abuse, utilize, destroy anything you enjoy. Damn libertarians! And just because you crave meat doesn't mean it is good for you. Try heroin a few times and tell me whether or not you crave opiates.
And PLEASE! Don't pull that "We were meant to be meat eaters" crap! In fact, (from "The Comparative Anatomy of Eating", by Milton R. Mills, MD) carnivores' and omnivores' facial muscles are reduced to allow a wide-mouth gape whereas herbivores' are well-developed (AS ARE HUMANS);
in a carnivore's and omnivore's jaw the angle is not expanded, whereas in an herbivore the angle is expanded (AS ARE HUMANS');
a carnivore's and omnivore's jaw joint location is on the same plane as the molar teeth, whereas an herbivore's (and human's) jaw joint is above the molar plane;
carnivore and omnivore jaw motion is shearing, with minimal side-to-side motion, whereas herbivore (and human) jaw motion features no shearing but good side-to-side and front-to-back movement;
the major jaw muscle of carnivores and omnivores is the temporalis, whereas the major jaw muscles of herbivores (and humans) are the masseter and pterygoids;
the mouth opening vs. head size of carnivores and omnivores is large, whereas for herbivores (and humans) it is small;
the incisors of carnivores and omnivores are short and pointed, whereas for herbivores (and humans) they are broad, flattened, and spade-shaped;
the canines of carnivores and omnivores are long, sharp, and curved, whereas for herbivores they are dull and short (or long for defense) or none at all and for humans they are short and blunted;
molars of carnivores are sharp, jagged and blade-shaped, while omnivores' molars are sharp blades and/or flattened, whereas herbivores (amnd humans) have molars that are flattened with modular cusps as opposed to complex surfaces;
carnivores and omnivores do not chew, they swallow their food whole (or do some crushing) whereas extensive chewing is necessary for herbivores and humans;
the saliva of carnivores and omnivores contains no digestive enzymes, whereas the saliva of herbivores (and humans) feature carbohydrate-digesting enzymes;
the stomach acidity of carnivores and omnivores is less than or equal to pH 1 with food in the stomach, whereas the pH value for herbivores (as well as humans) is 4 to 5;
the stomach capacity of carnivores and omnivores is 60 to 70 per cent of the total volume of the digestive tract, whereas herbivores' (and humans') stomach capacity is less than 30 per cent of the digestive tract's total volume;
the length of the small intestine in carnivores is 3 to 6 times the body length (for omnivores it is 4 to 6 times the body length) whereas for herbivores it is 10 to more than 12 times (and humans 10 to 11 times) the body length;
the colon of carnivores and omnivores is simple, smooth, and short whereas for herbivores it is long and complex (like humans') and sometimes sacculated (as are humans');
the liver of carnivores and omnivores can detoxify vitamin A, whereas the liver of herbivores (and humans) cannot;
the kidneys of carnivores and omnivores hold extremely concentrated urine, whereas those if herbivores (and humans) hold moderately concentrated urine;
and finally, the nails of carnivores and omnivores are sharp claws, whereas for herbivores they are flattened (as are humans) or blunt hooves.
Gee, I guess the evidence is our bodies are built to be herbivore REGARDLESS OF THE CRUEL HABITS AND TASTES YOU MAY HAVE ACQUIRED DURING YOUR LIFE.
this story is hilarious, it should have said 'Good' girls eat meat. Also 'she doesn't have a right to eat what she wants'?? get a life. Surely she can put whatever she likes in her mouth.
Life feeds off of the death of other life forms. PETA represents the usual human trait of arrogance and discrimination. If you take a quater pounder and bury it an inch or two beneath the ground you get a rotten bit of flesh. If you do the same with bean sprouts you get bean plants (lets munch some bean babies). If broccoli could get up and run it would. I do not condone the current meat industry in any way ( frankly its barbaric to the max), however to deny that you must destroy some life form to survive is just plain ignorance.
Again, as gimmesometruth said, reduction of the amount of meat we consume is a reasonable goal for everyone. And not in the least bit a radical idea. It is a fabulous idea especially because lessoning consumption will, like gimmesometruth said, hopefully bring about the possibility of sustainable, less cruel practices, as well as the lessoning of our impact on the planet, and it may just be possible to get people to do it.
There is absolutely no reason why we should not work towards less cruel practices in the meat industry or practices that have less of an impact on the planet. Many practices within the industry presently are beyond abhorrent.
I do eat some meat and I blame that on my being an omnivore, not a carnivore or an herbivore. I have however endeavored to lower my intake of meat. Aside from the above reasons, I also don't need as much as I used to eat. But much like Miftin has said repeatedly, we did evolve to be omnivores, and I personally am not comfortable with returning to an all vegetarian diet. I have friends who have successfully become vegetarians and/or vegans and been fabulously healthy, and I've watched others who worked hard at doing it right who had their health steadily decline. I'm just not at a point in my life where I'm willing to take that gamble.
Encouraging people to reduce how much they consume is a wonderful and reasonable goal. We are asking people to change something that they were raised to do, and that is no small thing to ask. Taking steps towards change is going to be a lot more palatable to the masses. We don't need a steak dinner every night, we don't need chicken in our lunch every day. Even cattle ranchers can understand that what's good in moderation can be bad in excess.
Judah June 30th, 2008 1:25 am
The main argument anti-meat people present is that the meat industry infringes on the well-being of others. Thus, since we meat eaters are buyers, we are thus supporting an industry that infringes on the well-being of others.
Following these same irrational "standards," anyone's actions or beliefs which can be construed as "infringing on the well-being of others" therefore is appearently not to be tolerated, and outright banned - supposidly giving those with a superiority complex the grounds to go around forcing THEIR ways on other people, even if it means hostility. It's intolerance.
Nutrition is science not religion. Abuses by corporate animals inflicted on creatures is a cause for reform - WHICH NONE OF YOU IS GOING TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT BECAUSE THE CORPORATIONS OWN YOU THE WAY THEY OWN THE PIGS THEY SLAUGHTER. These abuses however do not constitute an indictment of eating creatures. Do the carrots scream when they are ripped from the ground? According to scientific papers in the 70's (printed in the WSJ of all places - YES, they do. We consume living creatures in order that we live. No way around it. We consume life to live.
ORTHODOXY is Bullshit. Dim. Repug. Marxists. Xrstian. Moslem. Hebrew. Vegan. or PETA. All 'food' is murder. nWe kill to live. Get over it. Now just watch the hysterical screams and protests. As you read the hysteria, ask yourself, did they answer the questions raised?
Let's see....
It troubles me to read so many opinions from self-identified progressives who are (apparently) quite willing impose their standards on others. I was particularly chilled by one of the previous comments about how these standards should be followed "for our own good." This thought process is no different than those who want children to pray in schools or those who impose on our privacy in the name of national security. I will never "castigate" an off-roader of a jet skiier, even though I wholeheartedly disapprove of these activities. As long as they are being conducted in an area where they are legal, it's not my place to interfere. Learning to live in a society often boils down to learning to accommodate the behaviors we don't like but must tolerate. I empathize with those who have a tough time with this. Sometimes, I do to. But the fact that I disapprove of the behavior of others does not necessarily constitute a moral permission to interfere in their lives. I recently had the experience of dealing with some self-appointed guardians of the wilderness who thought it OK to pour water on me while I was climbing because they thought my activity was "interfering with nesting raptors". They didn't realize that the gal belaying me was the biologist in that national park responsible for protecting nesting sites! After we reached the top, we explained that to this particular group of people, who instead of accepting that they were in error, continued their belligerency, to the great amusement of all the climbers and on-lookers in earshot. The point of the story is that these people accomplished nothing for the legitimate cause of wildlife conservations, yet they did succeed in making themselves (and by extension, other environmentally concerned people) look like nitwits. Unfortunately, PETA has raised this particular type of behavior to a high art.
segdeha asks a very good question: why does this issue really get under people's skin?
I'll allow that there are a few full-on libertarians posting above who truly do practice what they preach (i.e. "I don't tell you what to do; you don't tell me what to do"), but I suspect that the majority here are not really like that. They are fine with castigating a HMV driver, a jet ski thrill seeker, or an off road enthusiast, but when it comes to their own dietary choices, these are sacrosanct decisions thaat we as a a society have no right to question.
I suspect that the backlash that comes from some of PETA's campaigns indicates that their strategies aren't always the most effective, but you must admit that their campaigns are effective at getting into the press!
I agree with several posters above that the "either-or" aspect of the diet debates is unfortunate. People should be encouraged to reduce their meat consumption, and not necessarily to do this from a stand point of shame, but from a stand point of health and sustainability.
Still, to argue that dietary choices are to be considered something entirely personal with no impact on others is ignoring the clear evidence of environmental damage caused by western eating habits.
I don't get why meatatarians get so damn defensive about killing and eating animals. Growing up, I never imagined I'd become vegetarian. My wife prompted me to try it and now, after a few years at it, I can't imagine going back. The more I learn about it, the more sense it makes not to support the meat industry, the violence, the environmental degradation, etc. It's sad to me that such a high percentage of meatasaurs dig their heels in the way they do.
If you believe in the transmigration of the soul, that is that the spirit is reborn over and over again in millions of different bodies and creatures depending on it's moral actions in past
lives, then you would seriously think about abusing your trust as a human by eating helpless animals.
Some say man is the crown of creation and should be a gentle and kind caretaker of lower spices. If not he will go crashing down to the lower species he disregards to learn his lessons.
Could be if your desire is for flesh you will come back as a carnivore to satisfy these base appetites.
ROKYAHSOUL
thanks for the iodine tip.........never heard that one before, but will certainly try it.
Animals get rights and humans lose them.
Gonna be a tough sell.
Have fun veggie-eaters!
-matti.
The first libidinous peak in a woman's monthly cycle, coincident with ovulation, is for the purpose of conception; the second libidinous peak, coincident with menses, is to restore her iron homeostasis.
"OK, big boy...I want to pleasure you some more, but first you'll have to go out and show me what a great hunter you are.... go out and bring me some red meat."
Judah June 30th, 2008 1:25 am
I eat meat because I enjoy it.
. . . Leave the people who enjoy the end product alone.
________________________
When I ate meat I enjoyed it too. The argument though is that your eating meat in abundance affects me, mostly because there are so many of you doing so that your enjoyment changes the world that you and I live in due to the demands for water, grains, farmland, problematic quantities of waste, diseases caused by industrial farming of animals, and no doubt a few other effects. If your actions do not affect me then I am quite happy to leave you alone and would prefer to do so.
Judah June 30th, 2008 1:25 am
"You people can eat what you want and live any lifestyle you choose, to the limits of your wealth, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the freedom of other people. That's one of the reasons I love living in democracy.
I eat meat because I enjoy it."
***********************************************************************
Just because something is legal doesn't necessarily mean that it is morally defensible. It was legal for many years in this country to own and abuse other human beings. There will come a time when people will have evolved socially and morally to the extent that killing sentient beings for food will be both illegal and repugnant. Humans are currently a very primitive species--in many, many ways. Some individuals are evolving faster than others but overall it's a slow process.
canuckchuck June 29th, 2008 1:13 pm
"Jessica is terrible for eating Buffalo Wings, and everyone knows buffalo are endangered."
******************lol!!************************
Ok. Let's all stop being fully operational predatory anthropoids and just go back to being vegetarian simians.
i still eat meat, and wouldn't tell someone what they "should" do, so no worries mate
i attended a bunch of meditation retreats over a 3-4 year period while training for skiing
i felt a lot better after a week of vegatarian meals
but i dont yet have the discipline, or cooking skills to do it yet...maybe one day
You people can eat what you want and live any lifestyle you choose, to the limits of your wealth, as long as it doesn't infringe upon the freedom of other people. That's one of the reasons I love living in democracy.
I eat meat because I enjoy it.
Harassing famous people because they eat meat is stupid. If you truly believe meat ruins the environment, lobby for taxes on it, or for an end of agri-business subsidies. Leave the people who enjoy the end product alone. Petty harassment trivializes your points and makes you look like loonies.
interesting to see even top pro athletes feeling healthier once they've made the switch
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=keri/080616&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab6pos2
Without forcing anybody to do anything ... I would like to add that becoming a vegetarian was one of the best decisions I made in my life. There seems to be no other single thing to do every day that has an impact on sooooo many issues, not to mention the health benefits. If anybody is contemplating changing their diet, or even remotely interested, give it a try. I wish I had done it years ago.
Also, the whole "Real Girls eat meat" thing is disgusting to me. I find that meat eaters are cool attitude extremely annoying, more so than the self-righteous vegans that get criticized so often. (Even before I became a vegetarian myself) Just my opinion of course.
"Don't have the right to eat what I want."
You do. You also have the right to jump off a cliff, which is something you should seriously consider. The problem with your choice of eating meat is that you directly contribute to global warming.
Already we are the number one producers of greenhouse gases in terms of using petroleum products ... add to that our rabid and seriously disproportionate meat consumption and we alone produce a 1/4 of the worlds carbon (methane) emissions.
In other words our eating and living habits destroy the lives of others in the world but hey who gives a fuck .....
Menstruating human females need iron and plenty of it. Red meat is an excellent source of iron. Pre-menopausal human females are always iron deficient. There are almost no exceptions to this. Pregnant women in addition, need twice as much iron again for healthy fetal development.
There are 8 billion arable acres worldwide.
1.2 acres/person is required to produce the world average diet.
.6 acres per person to produce a vegetarian diet.
.3 acres per person to produce a vegan diet.
6! acres per person to produce the US average diet!
1 pound of beef requires 16 pounds of wheat be wasted as cattle feed.
1 pound of beef requires 5000 gallons of fresh water!
8b (arable acres) / (divided by) 1.2 acres per person (world average diet acreage) 6.7 billion people's worth of growable soil.
8b / .3 acres/person (vegan diet acreage) = 24 billion person potential for this planet.
This does not account for seaweed which is 60X more mineral dense than any land grown plant and grows 2 feet per day.
Grain that could have prevented child starvation is instead fed to cattle for US meat eaters. Fresh water that could have prevented child dehydration deaths is drunk by cattle.
It's a sham people. A massively wasteful sham.
Human intestines are TOO long to process meat. Meat eaters have short intestines.
Regarding vegan diet:
You MUST consume beans, nuts and seeds for protein. Various types of nuts and beans and seeds have varying levels of certain necessary amino acids and other minerals as calcium and iron. Peanuts have nearly no iron for example where almonds have a significant iron content. So you must eat a VARIETY of beans, nuts and seeds.
ALSO, meet your iodine sufficience by tincture. Iodine should stay visible on your skin for 24 hours. If it doesn't you need more. Apply it to your skin, repeat until iodine stays on your skin for 24 hours.
ALSO you need raw veges for ENZYMES.
The rest is pretty simple, greens and orange, red, yellow and purple veggies...
Oh yeah and cruciferous! (broccoli, cauliflower)
l ate vegetarian once, they taste like veal.
It is factory farming and the abuse of animals that is the problem.
I believe that you can eat mean that is humanely raised and treated.
I know some don't believe that.
HOwever, i do believe a more vegetarian diet is overall better.
It is about BALANCE in the environment. You mass produce cows to consume.. it is abusive, and non sustainable.
Permaculture allows for the consumption of animals in a logically designed sustainable humane way.
Peta gets a bit too vigilante and self righteous for me...
it is a shame.. becuase there is some REAL serious issues in our food production system that ARE really bad and horrible...
this just is a waste of time to attack people like Jessica Simpson. Who cares about her.
THey should go after factory farmers...
First of all -I eat meat. I also include a very large percentage of fruits, nuts and vegtables into my diet. I realise my impact on the environment by eating ALL these things. Everything we eat and consume has a negative impact on the environment -not just meat. Why? because there are just too many of us! Now admittedly there are things we can do to lessen our impact and these things should be done. Fruits and vegetables unless you buy them locally in a farmers market is flown, trucked and trained-in to get to your plate, not to mention the fertilizers, chemicals and irrigation schemes it takes to grow them. So really what we are talking about is responsible consumption. Like trying to buy meat that is humainly raised and slaughtered. Now sure, there are those that will say any slaughter is inhumaine and cannot be condoned and PETA of course is among those. Yet even the slaughter of animals is (relatively) humaine in comparision to death in the wild where thier suffering might last for days unless they are lucky enough to be slaughtered by a predator or predators. Ever seen a nature show where a pack carnivors pick out a weak or sick animal and slaughter it? Well the animal suffers and those are the lucky ones. Now that is not to say factory farms are good or humaine (animals do suffer) and free-range would of course be a preferable option. This is where PETA should put it's energy. There will always be those that eat meat and while those that do should be encouraged to lessen that intake and eat fruits and vegtables instead, the imapct on animals and the environment will still be a problem because there are just too many of us. The best and most responsible thing PETA and those intent on saving animals, enviromnment and ourselves is to promote having one child or better yet don't have children at all! There are just too many humans.
Animals are at much more risk from our encroachment into thier habitats than from eating of meat. While there is arguably very much impact on fish populations from overfishing there will be much greater impact from the destruction of the reefs. Why are the reefs at risk? Too many humans. It is our numbers not our eating habits that is truely destroying animal species.
PETA however continues to marginalise thier efforts by thier myopic obsession with "animal rights" and the eating meat issue! Get over it! There are those that will always continue to eat meat and animals will always suffer whether it is at the hands of man or the fangs of natural predators. The focus should be humaine consumption. Responsible consumption, of not just animals, but all we consume. That is the threat and the cause of real suffering.
But Peta contiunes to radicalise itself by fighting battles that cannot be won. Kinda like the drug war!
For instance PETA hurts thier cause by being radical enough to suggest the dressing animals in costume or using them in advertising is exploitation and demeaning to animals. WTF???!!!! I recieved such a letter when I worked in a Ad agency as a designer. Now I don't know about you but I have owned many pets and I would from my experience refute my pets suffered any embarrassment or degredation that harmed them by putting a tee-shirt or some other thing on them in fact I would suggest that infact aminals like humans thrive on any and all attention. So please PETA and those like inclined, pick your battles responsibly and don't marginalise your efforts by persuing radical agenda's that will ALWAYS brand you as nutcases and extremists. I am not suggesting veganism or vegetarianism is not a viable option yet to expect all humans to do likewise is just not realistic. To expect everyone to consume as responsibly as possible however IS REALISTIC!
EDUCATE about the benifits of vegetarianism without attacking those that do decide to eat meat and you might actually make a difference.
And also -If your gonna bitch about animal suffering...for christ sake take you leather goods off! Leather comes from animals afterall and while you might be able to get belts and leather goods from road kill or natural animal fatalities somthing tells me the animal was killed in a factory slaughterhouse!
As a matter of interest, how many of you tough-guy carnivores have ever been to an abattoir? Inside one, where they actually kill the animals? (I'll spare you the details.)
Even though he is well fed, my cat will from time to time catch a small animal, kill it, and then eat the whole thing. How many of you could do that? Eat a freshly killed raw animal? ALL of it? Because that is what carnivores do. So, are you a carnivore, or just a pretend one who doesn't actually want to know the gory details, and is quite happy for someone else to do that?
I also saw a comment above about lack of protein in a veg(itari)an diet. I won't lecture here, but if you just eat reasonably it will never be a problem; you do not need that much protein.
Surya -- yes, your non-vegetarian friends label you a hypocrite when they see you occasionally eating meat, because we vegetarians, collectively, have cast the issue as a question of all-or-nothing, holier-than-thou purity. So people end up treating it as being similar to marital infidelity, where if you violate the marriage vow even once, you've tainted yourself. A more appropriate analogy would be fossil-fuel consumption. Everybody should try to do it less, and do some serious self-examination of their habits, but it's not an all-or-nothing thing, nor is it a one-size-fits-all thing.
For me, eating zero meat works. For you eating meat on rare occasions works. For somebody else, changing from a two-meat-meals per day diet to a one-meat-meal-per-day diet (that's how I started out) will make a big difference in a lot of important ways.
Miftin -- the point I am trying to make is that those early humans with the male hunting parties, etc.... did not eat NEARLY as much meat as we do. It is the un-natural OVERconsumption of meat in the modern USA and similar cultures that leads to environmental degradation and requires farming practices that are unacceptably cruel to animals.
"As a vegetarian, one problem that I've noticed in the vegetarian movement is that we have tended to portray it as an all-or-nothing, moral purity type of issue…. that you either ARE or ARE NOT vegetarian. I think this has gotten in the way of people taking a serious look at the issue."
I've noticed a similar phenomenon from outside the veg movement. I consider myself to be primarily vegetarian, but I occasionally eat meat because, like Baruch, I have had health issues that seem to respond best to including some meat in my diet. Although I remain mindful of the impact of my meat eating on the environment, the animals and the food supply, non-vegetarian friends and family jump all over me to tell me what a hypocrite I am when they see me eating meat.
As with most things, a middle path is the best route to common ground.
PS Hi baruch. Miss you! from Dianne in VT
Homo Sapien would have never developed as a species without males going out into the wild and hunting for red meat to feed their iron-deficient menstruating females in exchange for sex.
What gimmesometruth, iwarrior, chameleon2, leftk, Rich Griffin & kelmer said!!!
I too would much like to hear a lot less black or white talk from certain animal rights advocates.
One concern with the world's population moving to a vegetarian diet is that far less land and water is needed to sustain us on a vegetarian diet. We could then expand our population considerably. In other words we need to address the population problem at the same time as we transition to a mostly vegetarian lifestyle so as to stablize our numbers at a sensible population that allows us and nature to thrive, preferably at numbers far below the maximum carrying capacity available to us.
A case can be made that excessive meat consumption is gluttony, being an unneccessary waste and consumption of far too much of the Earth's finite resources. (btw I am a vegetarian and have a more extreme definition of guttony as the wasting of an animal's life when it is not neccessary for my health.)
And at the world's current population it can be argued that large families are an unreasonable and unfair demand for a larger share of the world's finite resources. I feel angry when I see groups that encourage their members to have large families, though there are probably exceptions where expansion of a groups population would be fair and understandable.
I've been vegetarian for twenty years. Not from a moral or ethical motivation, I just don't like meat.
I love excellent cheese, and yogurt. Butter and ghee too.
The irony of the peta situation as i see it, is that the imposition of rigid moral codes leads to the proliferation of the very conduct it supposedly seeks to erradicate, by polarizing the choices available.
I also love many animals. Especially cats, birds, and elephants.
People eat meat because it's pervasive in restaurants and they don't know how to cook vegetarian.
I don't eat meat now, but going without it started out as a personal experiment for me that just kept going. And you can do that too. Do two things.
1. Buy a vegetarian cookbook with simple, practical meals in it.
2. Try selecting vegetarian alternatives when dining out. Indian and Italian cusines make it easy to do.
Keep a log about what you eat and how you feel, day by day.
If you are concerned about protein (which isn't a problem if you eat meals made up of mixed veggies), eat nuts, tofu or stay on an ovo-lacto diet. There's a possibility of vitamin B12 deficiency with humans eating just vegetables, but you can ask your physican test your B12 concentrations in your blood for assurance or just simply take vitamins containing B12.
The one think to keep in mind is that you aren't giving up anything by going vegetarian. We're hardwired to be attracted to concentrated sources of fats, proteins, sugar, etc., but the truth is that some of the most tasty and satisfying meals on the planet are vegetarian!
iwarrior:
I admire your willingness to consider the full spectrum of ethical concerns regarding the politics of diet.
A few comments -- I see where you are going with the thought that we might "produce" meat more ethically, but I wonder at such lengths (particularly the kinds of technological fixes that are implied and which surely have unforeseen problems) when vegetarian/vegan diets are available right now. Yes, as you point out, it does take a little education to eat a healthy veg diet (there are a lot of "junk food vegetarians" I know who live off too much processed, high sugar, high fat veg food)--this way, too, has its share of problems surely. But the wealth of information I have seen suggests that it is easy, it is beneficial to our health in innumerable ways, and that EVERYONE can live a fully vegan life when done properly -- and, again, we can all do it NOW. I do see your point about getting this message out. I try to engage anyone who wants to hear from a healthy vegan (for 10 years --- in Arkansas, no less), so on a personal level I try to listen, learn, and discuss with those who will consider the politics of diet. It's tough when people in all kinds of authoritative positions (medicine, FDA, etc) lean on old/discredited research and/or self-interest to distort and misrepresent the radical benefits of veganism.
Why is there such investment in continuing a practice that many suggest is harmful to self, the community, the environment, and animals when perfectly fine alternatives exist?
Koshthenerd:
Lobbying for animals in the way you advocate is animal welfare; it just makes objectifying and killing animals that much easier. And welfare movements are notoriously ineffective -- placating folks who think the animals they exploit are "happy" when in fact no significant changes in their circumstances has occurred. Once again, humans profit and feel good, but what happens to animals? They wind up tortured and dead at the hands of those who could have made other life-sustaing dietary choices.
It is not an either/or situation when it comes to war and the abuse and killing of animals. In fact, the two are part and parcel of the same ethos, I believe. Opposing both forms of violence and seeing the links between the two is the most ethical and committed stance to take.
"In May the group condemned the British actor Jonathan Rhys Meyers for admitting that he had tried dog meat while in China."
And once again PETA abandons common sense. How is eating dog meat any worse than eating chicken? This shows that PETA's ideals are flawed and based too much on irrelevant topics.
Also, why criticize celebrities when they could do a lot more good by lobbying for more ethical and environmental mathods of raising animals?
PETA should have been designated a terrorist organization years ago. They stand against free speech, criminal law, and nonviolent ways of thinking.
It is because of them that I find myself so annoyed with the pro-animal movement. People are dying from genocide and starvation across the globe, and all these idiots can think about is saving the animals.
Hate to break it to ya, pals, but these animals would die as a result of other predators if not for us.
"As a vegetarian, one problem that I've noticed in the vegetarian movement is that we have tended to portray it as an all-or-nothing, moral purity type of issue…. that you either ARE or ARE NOT vegetarian. I think this has gotten in the way of people taking a serious look at the issue."
gimmesometruth-THANKS for that and the rest of your post. That's the kind of response I was looking for.
I don't think we can treat this issue like we did with drugs back in the 80's. "Just Say No" and "This Is Your Brain On..." won't cut it. That's why people rebel.
Well, I do what I can. I do not drive. I carpool it to and from work and bus it when I can. I don't even own a car. And I have cut back on certain things. It is difficult being a conscious consumer, and just when you think that you're doing the right things, it turns out that you're wrong, or you find out something in it is bad, or what is involved in its production. It's hard to get away from it all.
IWarrior:
What you can do, as a start, is eat a lot less of it. Personally, I am moved to vegetarianism because of the cruelty involved in producing meat. However, the only argument that I can make to sway others is the effect of meat production on the environment. Meat production is a significant factor in climate change (some say 20%) and is extremely inefficient in its use of land and water.
So, just as you might ask me to drive a lot less, while realizing it is not realistic to ask me to cut out driving altogether, I will ask you and others to eat much less meat, thereby polluting my environment proportionately less as well. Even if you still eat SOME meat, eating less will be a definite improvement.
There are reasonable claims that many (perhaps even most) people need some meat in their diet for optimal health. However, the optimal amount of meat in a healthy diet for most people is much,much lower than what is typically consumed in the currently popular American diet.
Meanwhile, a return to the more traditional "family" farming methods which result in less cruelty to animals, would we way more viable if most people only ate SOME meat, and were willing to pay somewhat higher prices for it (to pay for the increased cost of producing it in a sustainable, reduced-cruelty way).
As a vegetarian, one problem that I've noticed in the vegetarian movement is that we have tended to portray it as an all-or-nothing, moral purity type of issue.... that you either ARE or ARE NOT vegetarian. I think this has gotten in the way of people taking a serious look at the issue.
Please, people, if you want to reduce the suffering of animals and you want to reduce the impact of human culture on our environment, PLEASE consider making serious changes in the AMOUNT of meat that you consume. Eating no meat whatsoever is a choice that works for me and many others, but it is not the ONLY way that you can make a positive change.
Here's a subject I have been avoiding for some time. *pinches nose and jumps into the drink*
I tried being a vegan once and failed miserably. I thought it would clear up my acne in high school.
I don't give people a hard time for choosing to not eat meat or dairy. But, and maybe I am wrong here, I get the feeling that telling people to abstain from meat and dairy is akin to telling people to abstain from sex.
I eat meat and dairy. Perhaps I should not. I get mixed feeling about it because I know how much meat and dairy is processed. But at the same time...
...I crave it.
I like my fruits and vegetable also. I think that at the very least Americans eat too much meat and not enough fruits and vegetables. I've never been a meat and potatoes guy.
I can't say that I eat meat and dairy because I have this bloodlust running through my being. I just feel like I need it just like I feel that I need my cheese and my lettuce and my peanuts. A balanced diet is actually something I obsess about a little bit.
Is there a way, and I could be getting into Victor Von Frankenstein territory here, for us as humans to continue to eat meat in a way that is sustainable, safe, and ethical? Jeremy Rifkin is his book The Biotech Century talked about growing organs. Could we, and again, this may sound disturbing, grow drumsticks, fish filets, and veal shanks?
Christ, even our tomatoes and onions aren't safe! Look at what happened to the restaurant chain Chi-Chi's a few years back when people were getting sick from their salsa. Even consuming corn is proving to be environmentally incorrect.
What the hell can we eat anymore? I just saw an article here about chocolate the other day and how it is produced. So we're to stop eating that now?
It's not that I don't care. I don't hate animals. I have 3 cats myself. I'm not into Dominion Theology.
Do we need to gross people out? Will that cause people to break their meat addiction if you want to call it that. Or would it be better to create ways in which people can eat meat and dairy products (or whatever the hell they want for that matter) that don't damage the environment or exploit other members of our human family.
I've been consuming meat and dairy for as long as I can remember as have most people. If there is no way for us to consume such things in a manner that isn't harmful to any living thing, then how do we get people to break the habit? How do we wean people off of meat, dairy, and chocoloate?
Do we force people to listen to these guys...?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cattle_Decapitation
Do we just browbeat people? Do we preach? Do we educate? Even though I am no vegetarian or vegan, I do know that you have to learn HOW to be a vegetarian or vegan. You can't just stop eating meat and dairy, and those who do without any guidance end up with health problems.
I hear about vegetarian hamburgers, tofu hot dogs, faux sour cream, etc. What does that say when you have to give people fake versions of meat and dairy foods to get them to try an lifestyle free of consuming animal products? Is it that deeply engrained in us? Shouldn't people be learning to appreciate foods that don't taste like chicken or ground chuck or steak or ice cream?
Do we shake our fingers at the lady on welfare who buys her kids Happy Meals because it's cheaper than buying dinner at a whole foods store?
How do we get away from consuming anything that doesn't involve pollution, death, or injustice? Do we just keep boycotting and avoiding certain things and doing without, or should we look for ways to consume as we do that don't poison the water and choke the air, that don't kill anything with a heart and brain, and that don't oppress any person in any way?
so lemme put this in perspective cuz i don't think some people realize what was said here:
within the last few years the gubmint decided i have to be id'd each time i travel within my own country, my phone conversations can be listened to with little or no cause and that's just two of the things i can think of. I hear people rightfully complain about these infringements of basic rights.
yet when some organization says i don't have the right to eat whatever i want that's just fine and dandy?
This is absurd! There's a war on and all we can do is give celebrities problems for eating meat.
Who cares.
I support animal rights, but can't stand the self-righteousness of the animal rights movement.
On second thought-- it is a bit extreme when people act so proud of being meat eaters (wtf)
What a bunch of busy-body nutjobs. Let Jessica eat whatever she likes....
Animals were domesticated for food thousands of years ago in part because cereals, especially corn, are low in protein. It is true that pulses ("beans") did provide enough protein to compensate. However, most if not all domesticated animals were only eaten after they had provided other foods such as milk and eggs and horse meat was eaten when the animal could no longer perform its tasks. Eurasians, who have overwhelmingly peopled the Americas, have eaten the meats of cows, pigs, horses, chicken, and other domesticated animals for thousands of years. Notice that all of these are herbivores. The rich and powerful who could afford to hunt or to be served by hunters also occasionally ate deer, etc. I am not certain that a sudden total "abstinence" from all meats will be healthy. I do agree, however, that the eating of meat other than from sheep, goats, cows, pigs, horses, Arabian camels, Bactrian camels, llamas, donkeys, reindeer, yaks, and chicken, all domesticated animals, should be discouraged. An exception must be made for the eating of American Buffalo by American Indians who are used to the meat. Eating Buffalo meat makes no sense for Eurasian descendants. That is arrogance.
canuckchuck...Let's lock you in a room with a lion and find out who occupies the top of the food chain, shall we?
Factory farming is the greatest culprit, not meat eating per se, but I find it interesting that anti-veg folks always feel the need to vent a cro-mag hunger for violence...strange...
Jessica should clarify to PETA that her T-shirt was actually refering to fellatio
Who cares if celebs eat meat? How is it different than if I eat meat? People have the freedom to eat animal meat. PETA can't take that away from us.
Kelmer is right on again. Thanks!
I'll tell you,in my experience, the folks who want to be left alone by "radical" vegans are sometimes the very same ones who spend an enormous amount of energy ridiculing vegans in the most childish and unthinking ways -- it really seems like those jokes and cracks they make are meant to be nothing more than intimidation, a kind of violence I abhor.
I'm craving a nice baby seal burger, clubbed until tenderized right there on the artic ice....yummy!
P People for
E Enforced dietary
T Totaltarian
A Agendas
Enjoy your tofu and nose piercings, your 100% hemp clothes and your hacky sacks, no one is stopping you
Me, ...I'm sticking to beef, fish and chicken.
You can have my meat when you pry my steak knife from my cold, greasy hands!!
Top of the food chain, Ma...top of the food chain!
Jessica is terrible for eating Buffalo Wings, and everyone knows buffalo are endangered.
@baruch
So now that your spinal injuries have by now mostly healed, why not try going veg again and seeing if the pain returns?
I bet it won't.
Vegetarianism is great, but not for every body. I was a vegetarian for 20+ years during which time I suffered serious spinal injuries which did not begin to become less painful until I started to eat meat again.
Depending on your metabolism, climate, and overall health, vegetarianism can be great.
Another thing is meat eaters force non meat eaters to endure higher food prices because of the wasted water and food put into livestock. They also expose non meat eaters to diseases(sars, influenza, etc) caused through livestock production(pig influenza jumping to humans etc).
Anyway
every pro meat argument is debunked here: http://animalvegfaq.tripod.com
Because meat eaters dont have a logical/moral leg to stand on, its really easy to list the arguments they use and negate them.
Thanks, kelmer for making my point...
If vegans would take Rich's (see prev post) approach I think they would be more successful, instead of being regarded as radicals.
I just want everybody to stop exploiting animals - wish I knew how to convince people - it's for their own good, the good of others, (incl. animals of course), the planet - it's the right thing to do. It's such a huge addiction & people get really defensive. All I can do is say to people STOP exploiting animals, esp. eating animals & animal products, and hope everybody will start listening.
My niece became a vegan two months ago!! Hooray!!
I just have a problem with the ones that try to impose their lifestyle on others
**you are wrong. Life trumps lifestyle. YOU do not have a moral right to eat meat when it causes harm(to everyone). That is common sense. Meat eaters have a trouble with the concept. Its not hard to grasp when you think about it. "Radical" is wanting to pollute and cause unnecessary suffering and death.
"...but she doesn't have a right to eat what she wants" -methinks this is the main problem with PETA.
I do not have a problem with vegans. I just have a problem with the ones that try to impose their lifestyle on others. Don't have the right to eat what I want. Talk about radicalisation... This is the best example of it.
Vegetarianism is common sense. Many people have a problem with common sense.
But the article is misleading(the Independent has a bad track record when it comes to animal rights issues, then always seem to slant it in favor of the abuser/exploiter). Its not really radical. They are targeting celebrities who are not just eating meat--but promoting it(especially the dog meat). Its understandable and smart that they wanted to attack the negative pr of that(although no one is going to decide to eat meat or dog meat because of those celebrities). But let Peta get whatever pr they can get.
Its still the most popular charity to work for among teenagers so they have nurtured their target audience well.