He Said, She Said: Vegetarianism
Since I made the commitment to go vegan for Lent, I have been investigating and researching the pros and cons of vegetarianism and veganism; nutrition, impact on the environment, the ill health and suffering of the animals we put on our plates, etc..
Most of the demographic information seems to come down on the side of vegetarianism. Vegetarians live longer, healthier lives for the most part. Although this is probably due to the fact that vegetarians/vegans are generally individuals who take care of themselves anyway (most vegetarians are predisposed to avoid excessive drinking, any smoking or drug abuse and have an attraction to fitness and good nutrition) much of it is credited simply to the diet itself.
But there are simply things that veggie products can't do. Animal protein is "complete" (it lacks no essential amino acids) while vegetarians must combine foods to complete protein chains for optimal nutrition. And even the strictest pro-veg sites I have found still advocate B12 supplementation (an essential vitamin found only in animal products). Then there is information that refutes the age old claim that dairy calcium is best. And while I'm still skeptical, I wonder why I can't find more pro-carnivore information. Maybe because the web is flooded with hot topic pro-vegetarian information and the mother wisdom of omnivore eating is akin to a huge "duh" in the logical mind.
Still, in my research I've found graphic footage of animal farming and slaughtering conditions. And while I consider the source (PeTA and their narrator, Alec Baldwin, are NOT people I agree with -- period), I would like clarity as to whether this footage has been edited for bias (a la Michael Moore) or if it is, in fact, a verifiable truth of meat production. "Evidence" (from Vegan sources) says that even organic milking and free range egg production is just as bad as traditional dairying and laying methods.
PeTA is obviously a violent fringe group. They want to blow up people who disagree with them. They receive very poor ratings for their "work" (as do the Humane Society of the United States, the National Humane Education Society, Humane Society International, and The Greenpeace Fund). And their m.o. seems to be world domination. They see animal life as equal (if not superior to) human life. And while the rant against animal research, they are pro-choice and pro-embryonic stem cell research. That smacks of hypocrisy and intolerable idiocy. I DISAGREE with violent death, human deaths being the FIRST priority, which flies in the face of PeTA's stance. So I want to make this clear: I DO NOT SUPPORT PETA OR ANY OTHER MILITANT ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUP.
I know from personal experience that the cattle raised in my area are constantly roaming free in large pastures munching happily on grass. And I've come across information which clearly defends cattle raising as the most viable option for land management (apparently, the resources needed to produce food for a nation of vegans would create a massive desert). Unfortunately, I have also seen first hand the conditions chickens and turkeys must endure as I pass raising houses, transport trucks, and processing plants everyday. And I have found a plethora of Christian groups who advocate vegetarianism with mercy as their primary motivation.
I know animals do not have souls. I know they were put here for us to subdue. But I also know the respect for all life runs deep in the fabric of my Spirit. I understand that Old Testament Israel was called to sacrifice animals with mercy, placing their hands on the head of the animal as a sign of empathy and respect, but if we don't HAVE to do it...
In short, I'm conflicted. Set me straight.
Most of the demographic information seems to come down on the side of vegetarianism. Vegetarians live longer, healthier lives for the most part. Although this is probably due to the fact that vegetarians/vegans are generally individuals who take care of themselves anyway (most vegetarians are predisposed to avoid excessive drinking, any smoking or drug abuse and have an attraction to fitness and good nutrition) much of it is credited simply to the diet itself.
But there are simply things that veggie products can't do. Animal protein is "complete" (it lacks no essential amino acids) while vegetarians must combine foods to complete protein chains for optimal nutrition. And even the strictest pro-veg sites I have found still advocate B12 supplementation (an essential vitamin found only in animal products). Then there is information that refutes the age old claim that dairy calcium is best. And while I'm still skeptical, I wonder why I can't find more pro-carnivore information. Maybe because the web is flooded with hot topic pro-vegetarian information and the mother wisdom of omnivore eating is akin to a huge "duh" in the logical mind.
Still, in my research I've found graphic footage of animal farming and slaughtering conditions. And while I consider the source (PeTA and their narrator, Alec Baldwin, are NOT people I agree with -- period), I would like clarity as to whether this footage has been edited for bias (a la Michael Moore) or if it is, in fact, a verifiable truth of meat production. "Evidence" (from Vegan sources) says that even organic milking and free range egg production is just as bad as traditional dairying and laying methods.
PeTA is obviously a violent fringe group. They want to blow up people who disagree with them. They receive very poor ratings for their "work" (as do the Humane Society of the United States, the National Humane Education Society, Humane Society International, and The Greenpeace Fund). And their m.o. seems to be world domination. They see animal life as equal (if not superior to) human life. And while the rant against animal research, they are pro-choice and pro-embryonic stem cell research. That smacks of hypocrisy and intolerable idiocy. I DISAGREE with violent death, human deaths being the FIRST priority, which flies in the face of PeTA's stance. So I want to make this clear: I DO NOT SUPPORT PETA OR ANY OTHER MILITANT ANIMAL RIGHTS GROUP.
I know from personal experience that the cattle raised in my area are constantly roaming free in large pastures munching happily on grass. And I've come across information which clearly defends cattle raising as the most viable option for land management (apparently, the resources needed to produce food for a nation of vegans would create a massive desert). Unfortunately, I have also seen first hand the conditions chickens and turkeys must endure as I pass raising houses, transport trucks, and processing plants everyday. And I have found a plethora of Christian groups who advocate vegetarianism with mercy as their primary motivation.
I know animals do not have souls. I know they were put here for us to subdue. But I also know the respect for all life runs deep in the fabric of my Spirit. I understand that Old Testament Israel was called to sacrifice animals with mercy, placing their hands on the head of the animal as a sign of empathy and respect, but if we don't HAVE to do it...
In short, I'm conflicted. Set me straight.
11 Comments:
Based on your post, there are two benefits you propose regarding vegetarianism---health and humane treatment of animals.
In regard to the health benefits of vegetarianism, I think it is pretty obvious at this point that pure vegan living is unhealthy. Why? Because as you noted the lack of B12 in a purely vegan diet creates big problems for human beings.
Where do they get the B12, btw? From animal products?
If the human body cannot live without something we can only get from animals, I find it hard to believe that we're not supposed to be using animals for nutritional purposes.
We can quibble about the extent to which our diet is comprised of meat an dairy, I suppose, but the whole "vegetarians good, carnivores bad" is pretty silly.
In fact, I suspect that the whole debate is a strictly modern one. If you could get meat for much of human history, you'd eat it. It was a matter of survival. Meat is more calorically and nutritionally dense than vegetables as a rule. That's why vegetarians can stuff themselves silly and not get fat, whereas carnivores can eat relatively little meat and be rotund.
Once food became plentiful in some areas of the globe, naturally, the proportion of the rotund to the skeletal grew, causing people to wonder if eating a pig a day was a good thing. It was a nice problem to have, compared to the perpetual battle against starvation most of humanity has waged for most of human history.
How would one be purely vegan before B12 supplements were manufactured within the last century or so?
As to your second point, let me pose a couple of questions.
First, which class of animals do you think has a better quality of life: wild animals, or domesticated animals?
Economics would point toward the latter, for this reason---domesticated animals are an investment. Feed, shelter, and medical care all cost money, money which is inaccessible until the animal is either sold, killed, or harvested (in the case of say, cows or chickens or sheep). To command the maximum price for animal products, one must provide sufficient care for the animal.
We've gotten quite good at this in America. We use virtually every part of the animal for something, whether nutritional or industrial. Unlike the American Indians, who tended to waste quite a significant proportion of the animals they hunted, simple free market economics have led to a very efficient use of animals. The upshot of this is a greater incentive to treat animals humanely, before we even consider the public policy implications of this issue that PETA obsesses about.
We've also gotten a lot more humane and efficient in killing these animals. If you travel in the third world today (or even in the second world and rural parts of the first), you'll be pretty shocked at the brutality involved in killing animals. In the West, where most of our food is provided by large concerns, the process is automated and clean. Elsewhere, you've got women hacking chickens heads off with dull cleavers. Which do you think the animal would prefer? Which do you think is more difficult to audit?
Once the animal is dead, what happens to it causes no suffering to it. When you tour a meatpacking plant, you might be discomfited seeing how meat is processed. The animal, being dead, is not uncomfortable at all.
When I went through Survival training, we had to kill our own food. This involved striking a rabbit with a club at the base of it's neck, killing it instantly. The exercise impressed upon me that one can fairly easily kill an animal without it suffering---in this case, one quick blow and it was over. If anything, we suffered more than the rabbit did, as some folks agonized over striking the blow.
If anything, the methods employed by food processing companies are more humane than that hunters employ. It is certainly more humane than what occurs in the wild, as anyone who's watched the Discovery Channel is aware.
The life of a wild animal is not as portrayed in a Disney Cartoon, as the activists would have you believe. It tends to be nasty, brutal, and short.
By eating animals and using them for additional purposes, we have created an incentive to care for them, and to breed them in greater numbers than they could attain in the wild.
If you want to save an endangered species, find an economic use for it and let somebody own it. Once our well-being is tied to that of our animals, both thrive.
So eat that celery and wear those hemp shirts. All you do by doing so is sentence poor, dumb animals to a cold and brutal death in the wild.
How can you people be so heartless?
Okay, first of all I am not "you people", I think I stated that pretty strongly. I just don't particularly like suffering and bloodshed.
The footage I saw documented chickens with their beaks being snipped off; chickens lying dead in their own feces with others packed in close beside them; men exploding the skulls of chickens and turkeys with metal rods; chickens and turkeys so overfed and pumped full of growth hormone that they couldn't walk from the weight of their own girth; egg laying hens barely surviving in tiny little pens; cattle too sick and weak to walk off the cattle car (supposedly 40% of dairy cows are in this condition); cancerous cattle being legally used for meat (although the footage was unclear if it was for human consupmtion or meat used for dog food); pigs writhing on the floor of the slaughterhouse with blood gushing from their necks; cattle being dismembered while still conscious; and veal calves separated from their mothers and isolated in crates, barely exposed to light.
I know getting our food can be ugly -- my Dad grew up on a farm. He hated hog slaughtering, but they had to do it to feed the family. He's a good guy to have around in a pinch. If the black helicopters come and we must fend for ourselves, I want my Dad on my team.
And I've seen "Wild America," "National Geographic," etc., I know nature is not Disney World.
I already conceded in my post that the fact vegetarians must supplement their diets with B12 (vegetarian supplements are derived from fermented sea plants) is evidence the diet is not complete. Yet, lacto-ovo vegetarians (who still eat dairy and eggs, but not meat) have zero nutritional deficiencies and thrive with no supplementation.
If I'm not in survival mode, why do I have to eat meat? I live in cultural conditions where I have constant access to much more than I need. I have so much available to me that I have to constantly be on guard against all the temptation. Nice "problem" to have, right?
If I lived on a farm with a large family in the 1950's, I would certainly be the first to stand up and advocate meat.
But not all cultures have. How have Asian peoples thrived? Why are their health numbers among the best in the world? They eat mostly grains and veggies, tofu, edamame, fish, and little meat. That doesn't mean I dislike meat. Check out my previous posts -- I quite enjoy it.
And I know PeTA propagandizes and preys upon people's emotions, which is why I clearly and strongly boldfaced my disdain, but I am still bothered by meat production practices.
You're right to be very suspicious of PETA. I had an uncle who switched back to eating meat after about a decade of vegetarianism; he mentioned numbness in the tips of his fingers as a side-effect of not eating meat.
Capitalism works in one way to make the animal's life both better and worse; better in that the slaughter is quick and efficient; worse in that the animal does not have much freedom of movement. I doubt that serious abuse of animals is commonplace for the simple reason that it is counterproductive. BTW, the reason many other cultures eat less meat than ours is that they are poorer and/or (in the case of Japan) don't have the space to raise tasty animals.
My take is that you should make the decision on meat-eating based on what it does for you, not on moral grounds. One person more or less not eating meat isn't going to change conditions at meat-raising farms; of course a lot less people eating meat would probably result in a lot fewer animals being raised.
"My take is that you should make the decision on meat-eating based on what it does for you, not on moral grounds."
I eat meat. I do it on moral grounds. In other words, I don't eat immorally. Actually, in the Book of Acts, Peter (who always had a strict religious diet) ws told to "slay and eat". In other words, it was moral for him to eat the stuff (all stuff) that he beforehand thought he could not.
Want to eat meat? Fine.
Want not to? Fine.
Just don't blow up something or shoot someone or shame someone because they do.
It is really very simple. You are
an omnivore. You arrived at this
point through millions of years of
evolution to be best suited for survival at your pay grade at your place of business EARTH. To propose to over ride that with nought but sentimentality is the height of folly and self delusion.
No need to overdo it it. But meat is a natural dietary adjunct to your life.
There ... does THAT clear it up?
I am adding you to my blog roll.
Feel free to do the same.
OK, so at this point I see a couple of arguments:
1. Animals are mistreated, so we should eat less meat to improve their conditions.
2. Asians eat little meat so that's the way to go.
As to the first issue, a couple of questions for you:
- How old was the footage you saw?
- Where did it come from?
- Was any legal or regulatory action taken on its basis?
- Was it authentic?
Now, PETA and other activist groups live for this footage. They are going to dig up the worst footage they can find and play it endlessly in order to engender the exact same emotions Word Girl experienced in response to it.
Is PETA going to show footage of the Japanese massaging their Kobe beef herds? No.
Are they going to show footage of dairy farmers keeping their cows warm in the terribly cold Midwest winters? No.
They're going to show the very worst material they can find.
Does that mean that what you're seeing is common industry practice? Nope.
Of the proportion of meat which reaches your supermarket, which portion came from animals that were tortured and brutalized in this fashion? I suspect it's a tiny fraction.
If so, is it a worthwhile argument to say people should stop eating meat because, I don't know, 1% of it by weight came from mistreated animals?
That sounds a little too much like the "If we can help even one child..." arguments the Left use to justify eroding all of our freedoms.
Also, if you are going to plead humane treatment, then you need to explain what happens to these animals when the demand for them evaporates.
Do they go off to retirement communities where they'll be loved and cared for, roaming free like your parents claim your sick dog did after disappearing?
No way. If Tyson's chicken went out of business tomorrow, those millions of chickens starve to death, get hunted by predators in the wild, or attack and eat each other.
You do watch The Discovery Channel, right? It's a jungle out there.
Humane treatment requires humans.
To the second issue, I've been to Asia many times. They eat every meat they can get. The Japanese eat lots and lots of fish and prize beef when they can get it.
The Chinese eat everything that moves---pigeons, chicken feet, dogs (and on the latter, don't tell me they don't---I've seen the dogs in cages in restaurants and some of my party ordered it off the menu and ate it.)
They eat meat when they can get it, which is typical of human civilizations of all stripes.
In the Mediterranean, people eat meat when they can get it. They are not as a rule vegetarian by choice---it's hard to herd beef there.
If vegetarianism were the best thing for us to do, nutritionally, would it not be easier?
If you lived on nothing but meat and dairy products, you might die 10 or 20 years before your time.
If you ate nothing but vegetable products, you're dead within a couple of years, thanks to the B12 thing.
Doesn't that point to some health implications of vegetarianism that aren't so wonderful?
And if all that isn't enough for you, Hitler was a vegetarian.
Hitler was a vegetarian! LMAO!
Well, guys, this one might prove itself FOR me regardless of what you've said. But first, a few points of interest.
I discussed the matter with my sister, probably the only other person on the planet who could most closely understand my point of view, given we share DNA and life experience.
We agreed there are many more women vegetarians simply because of the "Mommy factor." Women take it much more personally when living things suffer because we are hard-wired to be nurturers. How many men do you know who stand over the trashcan and give eulogy to produce that has gone bad? How many little boys play with baby dolls and strollers? How many girls want to play cowboys and Indians? Groups like PeTA have tapped in to this and exploited it (their founder is also a woman).
And I concede there are exceptions. I grew up playing with Transformers, Hot Wheels, He-Man, Star Wars action figures, and Legos, but had much more affinity for my Barbies than the former.
So when the "Mommy" light bulb went off (yeah, I know, it takes me while sometimes) I asked sis if maybe that was the reason men were traditionally hunters and women gatherers? Not simply because of strength and skill, but also because of men's ability to look more readily past the animal's needs to the needs of his family. (Another excellent reason women should not be allowed in combat.)
So while that was enough to chew on in itself (added to the points from Teflon and co.), I didn't really take this whole thing too seriously until...
Monday during my workout I couldn't get up enough steam to keep up. I felt like I wasn't getting enough oxygen to my body. Tuesday, the same thing happened, except now my balance was off. Later that afternoon, I began feeling run down, incredibly fatigued, and queasy. Wednesday, I took a break from the workout sessions (Monday and Tueday I has exercised for an hour-and-a-half each) thinking I just might need to rest. But the dizziness/vertigo/queasy/fatigue got worse. Finally, Thursday I had to miss work. I slept a full 9 hours Wednesday night, napped for nearly three hours Thursday afternoon, and got another 8 hours last night. I'm still weak and weary, despite taking supplements every day, keeping my vegetable protein up with lots of legumes and nuts, and drinking plenty of water in addition to my intake of multi grains, fruits and veggies. I am now having to seriously contemplate altering my Lenten sacrifice.
If by adding dairy and eggs to my diet I can rid myself of these odd conditions, you guys will have proved your point without having to say a word. And I will bow out gracefully... if someone will hold me up.
Well, it's a bit too far to go to prove a point when it negatively impacts your health.
If God didn't want us eating meat or consuming animal products, He wouldn't have hardwired us for requiring B12.
Since so many of the vegan Left don't believe in God anyway, we can further amend that to state that if it were natural to eat nothing but nuts and vegetables, that big thick juicy steak would be about as appealing to us as a plateful of turds.
The world doesn't work that way, since Outback Steakhouse is packed every night and Gaia's House of Lichen boasts only a goateed Trotskyite in a Che Guevara tee shirt made of hemp.
Moderation in most things tends to be key. As strict vegetarianism is, ahem, extremist nutrition, it's no wonder it ultimately is unappealing to the teeming hordes of happy carnivores out there.
Likewise, the Atkins diet at the other extreme shall most likely prove to be rather silly in retrospect, and the suffering of the self-afflicted Atkinsites unnecessary and foolish.
Dr. Dean Edell probably said it best (paraphrasing): "Eat what you want, but try to work in more veggies and some exercise."
Seems eminently reasonable to me, as most things do after I've eaten a big, juicy Angus burger.
Mmmmm.... Angus burger.
This post has been removed by the author.
This post has been removed by the author.
Post a Comment
<< Home