"Awareness is bad for the meat business. Conscience is bad for the meat business. Sensitivity to life is bad for the meat business. DENIAL, however, the meat business finds indispensable."
-John Robbins, Diet for a New America
"Ultimately, an unbiased observer of human behavior must conclude that most action is not shaped by theory, but rather theories are shaped to conform to actions we have no intention of changing."
-Thomas Paine, Common Sense
"Whatever my own practice may be, I have no doubt that it is a part of the destiny of the human race, in its gradual improvement, to leave off eating animals, as surely as the savage tribes have left off eating each other when they came in contact with the more civilized."
-Henry David Thoreau
"As we spoke one day about freedom and justice, we were at the dinner table eating steaks, I'm eating misery, I thought, as I took the first bite. Then I spit it out."
-Alice Walker
"The menu - the bloodiest page we write. Man is a habitual criminal toward the animals. Moral misgivings toward veal? Not from the side of the educator. Not from the side of jurisprudence. Not from the side of moral theology. Not from thousands of other sides. Perhaps from the side of the calf?"
-Karlheinz Deschner
"Nothing more strongly arouses our disgust than cannibalism, yet we make the same impression on Buddhists and vegetarians, for we feed on babies, though not our own."
-Robert Louis Stevenson (1850-1894)
"Man is truly the king of the animals, because is cruelty surpasses theirs. We live from the death of others. We are walking graves!"
-Leonardo DaVinci
"People often say that humans have always eaten animals as if this is a justification for continuing the practice. According to this logic, we should not try to prevent people from murdering other people, since this has also been done since the earliest of times."
-Albert Schweitzer
"
I've always accepted that Man's greatest mistake is trying to turn himself into a carnivore, contrary to natural law."
-Donald Watson, founder of The Vegan Society
|
"If you step back and look at the data, the optimum amount of red meat you eat should be zero.""
-- Walter Willett, M.D., of Brigham and Women's Hospital, director of a study that found a close correlation between red meat consumption and colon cancer.
"Usually, the first thing a country does in the course of economic development is to introduce a lot of livestock. Our data are showing that this is not a very smart move and the Chinese are listening. They are realizing that animal-based agriculture is not the way to go...We are basically a vegetarian species and should be eating a wide variety of plant food and minimizing our intake of animal foods...."Once people start introducing animal products into their diet, that's when the mischief starts."
-- T. Colin Campbell, Ph.D., of Cornell University, director of a study of 6,500 Chinese that found a close correlation between meat consumption and the incidence of heart disease and cancer.
"The beef industry has contributed to more American deaths than all the wars of this century, all natural disasters, and all automobile accidents combined. If beef is your idea of "real food for real people" you'd better live real close to a real good hospital."
-- Neal D. Barnard, M.D., President, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, D.C.
"When we kill the animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings."
-- William C. Roberts, M.D., editor of The American Journal of Cardiology
"All red meat contains saturated fat. There is no such thing as truly lean meat. Trimming away the edge ring of fat around a steak really does not lower the fat content significantly. People who have red meat (trimmed or untrimmed) as a regular feature of their diets suffer in far greater numbers from heart attacks and strokes."
-- Michael Klaper, M.D., Medical Director, EarthSave Foundation, Santa Cruz, California
"The thousands of people who have suffered food poisoning after eating beef will, no doubt, appreciate that their beef was aesthetically acceptable, even though it made them ill. Lovely to look at, dangerous to eat is not a standard that is likely to help beef sales."
-- Carol Tucker Foreman, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture during the Carter administration, commenting on the inadequacy of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Streamlined (Meat) Inspection System (SIS)
"As happened with tobacco, health warnings about meat eating are multiplying, and awareness of the environmental effects of meat production is rising. Just as cigarettes lost their allure, meat is losing its social cachet in some countries. Food marketers in the United Kingdom estimate that 2 million people in that country are strict vegetarians. More important, the number of people limiting meat in their diets is rising rapidly. An estimated 6 million people in the United Kingdom dine on meatless meals most of the time."
-- Alan B. Durning and Holly B. Brough, in Taking Stock: Animal Farming and the Environment, Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C., 1991
|
Exerpts from Slaughterhouse, by Gail Eisnitz, chief investigator for the Humane Farming association.
"Pigs on the kill floor have come up to me and nuzzled me like a puppy. Two minutes later I had to kill them - beat them to death with a pipe."
-
"I personally have seen rotten meat - you can tell by the odo[u]r. This rotten meat is mixed[ground] in with the fresh meat and is sold for baby food.
We are asked to mix[grind] it with the fresh food, and this is the way it is sold. You can see the worms inside the meat."
-
|
Dietary Double Standard
When a non-vegetarian gets sick, people assume it’s because of stress, overwork, germs, lack of sleep or just chance; but if a vegetarian comes down with the same illness, often it gets wrongly blamed on their diet, whereas the opposite is true as animal products weaken the immune system.
The immune system cannot be "boosted" by any product available, all marketing claims to the contrary are patently false. The only way to legitimately "boost" ones own immune system is simply to not compromise it with deliterious and superfluous junk dietary choices so that it runs at its optimum levels unhindered.
|
|
|
VEGETARIANISM: THE PLANT-BASED TRUTH
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
|
|
1: "Do vegetarians suffer from any deficiencies?"
a) Iron
b) B12
c) Calcium
2: "Where do the negative perceptions of vegetarian health come from?"
3: "But doesn't a "well-balanced diet" require animal products?"
4. "But aren't we natural omnivores?" - The Comparative Anatomy of Eating by Milton R. Mills, M.D.
5. "But humans lack the enzyme to digest cellulose, doesn't this prove that we're omnivores?"
6. "But didn't we evolve to eat meat"/"But didn't we evolve from omnivores?"
7. "Can't we just take supplements or eat more plant foods to counteract the detrimental effects of eating animal products?"
8. "But you can still be vegetarian and eat birds and fish, right?"
9. "Do vegetarians hate people who eat meat?"/
"Why do vegetarians try to force theirs opinions on us meat-eaters, it's our choice and our right to eat animals?"
10. "But isn't 'lean' meat healthy?"
11. "Where do vegetarians get their protein from?"
12. "But our eyes face forward, doesn't this mean we are omnivores?"/
"Didn't eating meat cause our brains to evolve?"
13. "Do small family operated animal agrikulture farms really produce less GHG emissions than faktory farms?"
14. "Isn't grass-fed organic meat healthy?"
15. "Doesn't [insert gimmick here] cause cows to emit less Greenhouse Gases?"
16. "What would happen to all the farmed animals if people stopped eating them?"
[much more to come]
|
Q: "Do vegetarians suffer from any deficiencies?"
A: Yes, vegetarians 'suffer' greatly from saturated fat and LDL cholesterol 'deficiencies'; All other purported nutritional shortfalls in the general veggie population are baseless at best, as will be shown as this page
evolves and more information is posted.
Nutrition Information
Q: "But iron from meat is easier to absorb, so this must mean that vegans suffer from iron deficiencies?"
A: No, there are no medical indications that the vegetarian population has a higher rate of iron deficiency than the nonvegetarian populace - the widespread belief otherwise is just another industry hoax.
Q: "Do vegetarians suffer from B12 deficiency?"
A: Vegetarians are Not any more likely to be deficient than meat-eaters.
Nutritionists recommend that everyone {vegetarians and omnitarians alike} take B12 supplements, singling out one group over the other isn't very scientific and the use of deception only works to debase ones {pro-meat} position.
{The Least You Need To Know:
Vitamin B12 is a bacteria naturally found growing in abundance in soil.
Animals -including us humans- produce B12 within their intestines -- the appendix is a bacteria producing factory.}
More B12 Information HERE
Q: "Without milk, isn't it difficult to get enough calcium?"
A: Not at all. Milk is meant for babies. period. that 's it. It is furthermore meant for the baby whose mother just gave birth to and is producing milk for.
We humans steal this from infants, who, for the most part, are then taken away [kidnapped] from their mothers.
Supporting the dairy industry directly subsidizes the "veal" industry.
It is utterly unnatural for any animal to drink milk past infancy; it is even more unnatural to drink the mammary secretions of another species.
Milk is overly hyped as the "best" source of calcium, this is absurd.
Dairy contains both saturated fat, cholesterol as well as many other unhealthful compounds and has been directly linked to numerous now common diseases -including osteoporosis.
Poor quality education can only be blamed for so much, but failure to consider these things is purely the fault of exceptionally poor critical thinking skills.
Yes, milk contains much calcium, but that which has the biggest number is not necessarily the "best", to say otherwise is foolishness.
Unfortunately, these silly number games have hijacked legitimate nutrition wisdom.
It's a bit like saying that the best way to feel energized is to stick a fork into a power outlet; brilliantly dumb and extremely short sighted.
|
Q: "Where do the negative perceptions of vegetarian health come from?"
A: Vegetarianism, sadly, is a foreign concept to the majority of us here in modern North America.
Those of us who were not raised as vegetarians, and [however well the intentions were] had omnitarianism forced upon us by industry propaganda-fearing
[which just goes to show who the actual terrorists are]
parents, and were failed by the government as well as our education system to provide us and our guardians with honest, healthy relevant-to-human nutrition information.
Industry-funded slander groups spread disinformation at a rate that would make Hitler jealous and envious over their success.
Negative stereotypes get written into TV shows and movies, and this is where many get their misinformation about vegetarians from.
We've all heard the silly "...I know this vegetarian and...[insert negative comment here]..." line from people whose closest [knowing] encounter with a vegetarian was watching an actor portray a characture of one through a television screen.
"Ignorance is bliss" and the truth is horrifying, therefore the less mentally and emotionally equipped will invariably "run and hide" from, or irrationally attack the truth and those presenting the proven facts.
We have lived both lifestyles and therefore are able to rationally state which is logically better than the other, however, there are many who claim to have been vegetarian and make all kinds of grandiose claims - non of which, unsurprisingly, are backed up by medical documentation.
Acolytes of omnitarianism are the same individuals who are too frightened [aside from trolling message boards to attack and spread CCF-style disinformation] to read through the vast amounts of free peer-reviewed information available on AR and veggie websites.
These individuals fear anything which may challenge their baseless beliefs, and lash out accordingly in attempts to shout down anyone who dares defy their faith.
Sadly many people listen to those who shout the loudest and tread the low-road most often; civilised discussions get very little attention.
Media outlets use often use inaccurate, sensationalist headlines to get people's attention do much damage as well.
One example is a recent spat of "vegetarianism raises risk of eating disorders in children" headlines.
This is blatantly false, as the study authors state plainly, that the public's ignorance about vegetarianism is exploited to mask their eating disorders; meaning that children raised as omnitarians develop eating disorders, then claim vegetarian status as a means with which to hide their medical conditions behind.
The study also found (which, of course, didn't get mentioned by the press) that vegetarian children are more likely to be physically active and less likely to do drugs or commit crimes.
|
Q: "But doesn't a "well-balanced diet" require animal products?"
A: Absolutely not [for humans atleast]. Adding animal products to our diets, in fact, completely throws them off balance.
That any so-called 'health expert' would suggest anything else is just one example of how our education system has failed us in the matter of nutrition by teaching industry misinformation in any school.
The concept of including harmful matter into our diets for 'balance' is as illogical as intentionally burning a $50 after finding a $20 bill on the street to 'balance' out your finances.
It is an outdated and extremely backward way of approaching human nutrition, as the basis of teaching this nonsense erroneously regards humans as being an omnivorous species by nature; our physiology does not support the human-omnivore belief.
|
Q: "But aren't we natural omnivores?"
A: NO! The human body does not share one single significant common digestive trait* with that of actual carnivorous or omnivorous animals, which is why those of us who consume flesh are omniTARIANS - not VORES.
Mythological creatures:
Sphinx,
Unicorn,
Banshee,
Wendigo,
Leprechaun,
Vampire
the Easter Bunny
the Tooth Fairy and
the Human-omnivore.
"You can't tear flesh by hand, you can't tear hide by hand. Our anterior teeth are not suited for tearing flesh or hide. We don't have large canine teeth, and we wouldn't have been able to deal with food sources that require those large canines."
-Dr. Richard Leakey, a renowned anthropologist.
A human who chooses to eat meat makes that person as much of an "omnivore" as doing drugs would make them a pharmacy.
Cats are anatomical carnivores; feeding kibble to a feline does not change this designation to "kibblevore".
The Comparative Anatomy of Eating by Milton R. Mills, M.D.
(please note that there the below definition of herbivore includes frugivore)
Humans are most often described as "omnivores."
This classification is based on the "observation" that humans generally eat a wide variety of plant and animal foods.
However, culture, custom and training are confounding variables when looking at human dietary practices.
Thus, "observation" is not the best technique to use when trying to identify the most "natural" diet for humans.
While most humans are clearly "behavioral" omnivores, the question still remains as to whether humans are anatomically suited for a diet that includes animal as well as plant foods.
A better and more objective technique is to look at human anatomy and physiology. Mammals are anatomically and physiologically adapted to procure and consume particular kinds of diets.
(It is common practice when examining fossils of extinct mammals to examine anatomical features to deduce the animal's probable diet.)
Therefore, we can look at mammalian carnivores, herbivores (plant-eaters) and omnivores to see which anatomical and physiological features are associated with each kind of diet.
Then we can look at human anatomy and physiology to see in which group we belong.
MUCH more information on comparative anatomy HERE
That so many of us will and have been surprised by this biological fact is yet another example of the educational systems failure - this should be biology 101.
|
Q: "But humans lack the enzyme to digest cellulose, doesn't this prove that we're omnivores?"
A: Not at all, cows themselves do not possess a special enzyme to break down cellulose.
Humans lack the enzyme necessary to digest cellulose. Hay and grasses are particularly abundant in cellulose, and both are indigestible by humans (although humans can digest starch). Animals such as cows, koalas, and horses all digest cellulose, but even these animals do not themselves have an enzyme that digests this material. Instead, these animals harbor microbes that can digest cellulose.
Animals such as cows have anaerobic bacteria in their digestive tracts which digest cellulose. The bacterial digestion of cellulose by bacteria in the stomach is anaerobic, meaning that the process does not use oxygen. One of the by-products of anaerobic metabolism is methane. Cows give off large amounts of methane daily and, in fact, grass-fed cows emit 50 percent more methane than those who are fed grains.
Although cellulose is indigestible by humans, it does form an important part of the human diet in the form of plant foods. Small amounts of cellulose found in vegetables and fruits pass through the human digestive system intact. Cellulose is part of the material called "fiber" that dieticians and nutritionists have identified as useful in, among other things, moving food through the digestive tract quickly and efficiently. Diets high in fiber are thought to lower the risk of colon cancer because fiber reduces the time that waste products stay in contact with the walls of the colon (the terminal part of the digestive tract).
Studies of teeth have shown that atleast one third of our ancient ancestors' diets consisted of grasses and leaves.
|
Q: "But didn't we evolve to eat meat"
alternately
"But didn't we evolve from omnivores?"
A: All arguements based on the omnivore-human-evolution hypothesis are fatally-flawed and doomed to fail due to one simple; this is the 21st century, not pre-historic times, we live in a go-to-the-store-in-our-cars age, not the "hunter-gatherer" stone age.
To say that we would be held prisoner by what our ancestors supposedly ate in pre-history would only say that we are nowhere near as adaptable a species as is currently believed.
There are many more reasons, but this should be sufficient enough to show the ridiculousness of these arguements.
Unfortunately these myths about human evolution are widely believed as being true, and many proclaim them as infallible fact despite the sheer lack of any anthropological proof - only presumptions and conjecture at best.
However, were this the case, there is a huge difference between being able to do something and being forced to do something from necessity.
"But our closest cousins, the bonobo, are omnivores, therefore aren't we omnivores?"
There are, at the very least, millions of base DNA sequences between us and other great apes which comprise the 2% genetic differences.
Great apes and monkeys also commit acts of cannibalism, by this flawed logic, we should also engage in the eating of our own kind.
Also, primate "omnivorous" tendencies comprise less than 3% of their diet throughout an entire year, and mainly consists of parasites [fleas, ticks and the like] as well as termites, followed by the very infrequent egg, and, least of all, a rare wild bird caught by hand or the infant of a neighbouring tribe during times of war.
"But haven't we developed adaptations that allow us to be able to digest flesh and other animal products?"
Such as?? [see above anatomic comparisons] Anyway, over thousands of years, by intensely consuming dairy, Europeans have managed to build up a slight tolerance to lactose from dairy.
The key words here are slight tolerance; the oft overlooked fact is that Europeans still develop the same diseases associated with the consumption of dairy as the rest of the world's populations - therefore this arguement is irrelevant.
Alcoholics also build up a tolerance to their poisons of choice, this doesn't make them safe, natural or justify their use.
About 60% of the world’s population is estimated to be lactose-intolerant, which is common among people of Asian, South American and African descent.
We are the ONLY species which actively seeks out the mammary secretions after infancy, especially from members of another genus - showing we humans still have much growing up to do.
Over the supposed millions of years of flesh consumption, our "highly adaptable" species still has yet to develop one digestive trait that is in line with legitimate omni/carnivores.
People tend to mistake social behaviour as natural design.
As children, our "natural" response to seeing a dead animal is revulsion, and most children who find out that meat comes from dead animals are horrified.
In general, animal flesh is only palatable to humans when it is cooked and covered in seasonings/condiments, and eating raw meat poses serious (and sometimes fatal) health risks.
Only through long-term cultural reinforcement (from other people, schooling, and the media) do we learn to "outgrow" our initial disgust with the idea of eating dead animal flesh and develop a taste for it.
Just because a society consumes meat does not mean humans are supposed to.
We can digest fecal matter as we do flesh, this does not mean we should consume excrement or any other animal product.
We humans take great pride in our mental "superiority", which means we are more than capable of choosing what we eat, opting for a natural-to-human plant-based diet over squandering our dwindling resources to feed our fragile egos.
[vitamin ego - apparently a "vital nutrient" of which plants are truly devoid of.]
Most amusingly the proponents of the human-omnivore-meat-evolution hypothesis fail to realize that Charles Darwin "The Father of Evolution" plainly stated, in Origin of the Species, that humans are plant-eaters by nature --- this has been echoed by many other naturalists throughout history.
- "There is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties ... The difference in mind between man and the higher animals, great as it is, certainly is one of degree and not of kind."
- "The love for all living creatures is the most noble attribute of man."
|
Q: "But our eyes face forward, doesn't this mean we are omnivores?"
and
"Didn't eating meat cause our brains to evolve?"
A: No to both.
Eye placement does not dictate diet - you are [hopefully] not shoving food into your eyes to eat it.
Primate stereoscopic vision occurred millions of years before the first scrap of flesh was scavenged from the kills of legitimate omni/carnivores and ingested by our predecessors.
Eyes are directly connected to the brain, so what affects the brain affects the eyes.
The human brain is a carbohydrate and glucose fiend, our species' evolution was fueled directly by high fruit intake.
The outdated and erroneous belief that meat caused our evolution was a misguided hypothesis based on ignorance and biased unscientific guesses which have been shown to be void of any anthropological merit.
Researchers now widely agree that meat has had no part in aiding our major physiological advances throughout history and that these changes in fact happened before the advent of omnitarianism. The most amusing part of the arguements for the meat-evolution myth is the fact that Darwin, the champion of the theory of evolution, himself clearly stated that humans are in no way physiologically suited to consume animals in any way.
New human research also points out that flesh based diets are tied to dementia as well as causing blindness.
To learn more about our species ancient ancestors, visit The Smithsonian Institute Natural History Museum Online
"Theories of Human Evolutionary Trends in Meat Eating and Studies of Primate Intestinal Tracts...
Theories of hominid evolution have postulated that switching to meat eating permitted an increase in brain size and hence the emergence of modern man. However, comparative studies of primate intestinal tracts do not support this hypothesis and it is likely that, while meat assumed a more important role in hominid diet, it was not responsible for any major evolutionary shift..."
http://www.publicaciones.cucsh.udg.mx/pperiod/esthom/esthompdf/esthom19/21-31.pdf
"Multiple lines of evidence now indicate that the ability to digest large quantities of starch may have been a crucial adaptation in human evolution -- providing the calories needed to grow large, cognitively-sophisticated brains capable of complex language and social cooperation. This idea is a serious departure from the leading hypothesis that carnivory (via hunting) was the dietary shift needed to support large brains in early humans..."
http://thexvials.blogspot.com/
"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."
-Roberts, William C. , Editor, American Journal of Cardiology. Volume 66, P. 896. 1 Oct, 1990.
|
Q: "Can't we just take supplements or eat more plant foods to counteract the detrimental effects of eating animal products?"
A: Again, no. Much hyped supplements are frequently shown to fail expectations in human studies, and can actually be quite harmful in elevated doses.
Adding more plant-based foods to ones diet is always a great idea, but toxic substances will still be just that - toxic, so it is best to eliminate harmful animal products from our diet.
The detrimental 'addition hypothesis' is the outdated and backward ideal of old-school nutritionism and must be replaced by the relevant
'subtraction theory' as soon as possible for humans as well as our healthcare systems' sake.
Vegans prove that eliminating toxic substances from the human diet is one of the most beneficial changes we can make in our lives for our short as well as long-term health.
Always incorporate some type of regular exercise into your daily life; this often goes without saying, but it becomes apparent why after giving up the meat addiction as energy levels spike and stay high, resulting in the need to expend newfound energy.
|
Q: "But you can still be vegetarian and eat birds and fish, right?"
A: Wrong. Fish and birds are as much animal life as cats, cows, dogs, pigs and even us humans; they are neither plant nor mineral.
Before Vatican II put an end to it in the early 1960's, the Catholic Church had long prohibited the eating of meat on Fridays and certain holidays.
Eating fish on those days was permitted, however, which led to the widespread belief that fish are somehow magically not meat.
Many people today still hold this belief.
Cockfighting was illegal in Oklahoma until 1963, when a crooked judge ruled that chickens are not animals and therefore unprotected by anti-cruelty laws.
Today, under this absurd belief, birds -which comprise more than 95% of all animals executed for [junk]food- were exempted by congress from the "Humane" Slaughter Act
[which is exceptionally weak legislation] and are subjugated to many of the worst and widespread abuses that are known to be rampant in animal agriculture.
It should be obvious to any intelligent, sane person that birds and fish are in fact living, breathing animals comprised of flesh and just as capable of feeling pain, fear,
hopelessness and joy as we are.
|
Q: "Do vegetarians hate people who eat meat?"
and
"Why do vegetarians try to force theirs opinions on us meat-eaters, it's our choice and our right to eat animals?"
A: Of course not, that would be silly.
We are simply against the acts of murder, slavery, torture and rape; all the factors intrinsic to modern animal agriKulture.
Most of us, as with currently practicing omnitarians, were not given the choice to grow up on a natural-to-human diet.
We also had omnitarianism forced upon us, subsequently programmed to not even question the practice of eating meat for fear of ridicule, so we understand why so many eat meat and are afraid to give up the habit.
Our duty is to educate and spread the truth about human nutritional needs and what [junk]foods cause harm, it is up to others to do and deal with this knowledge as they see fit.
We do, however, dislike being attacked by those who choose to eat [force their extreme views upon others] meat and other animal products;
yes, vegetarianism is a choice, just like omnitarianism, but it is not one which harms others in any way, whereas the basis for the other is subjugation and death.
FYI: there are many sites dedicated to promoting outright hatred toward vegetarians and vegans.
|
Q: "But isn't 'lean' meat healthy?"
A: No. So-called 'lean meat' contains nearly as much saturated fat and cholesterol as other meats;
it is just another in a long line of deceptive marketing ploys to help keep people fooled and, subsequently, addicted to their products [e.g, 'light' cigarettes] - ALL animals contain these two non-nutrients.
Being given partial results of a race may tell you who/what came in first, second and third place, but this incomplete data won't give you any detailed end results.
If someone eating red meat has and end-of-day saturated fat intake of 100g ["1st"] and the 'lean' meat chicken/fish eater has a result of 98g [2nd] whereas the plant-based eater only has a result of 15g [3rd],
which of the three is actually receiving a truly lean source of protein and is not being made an industry chump?
There are some well-known "health charities" which heavily promote "lean" and "low-fat" animal products,
but a quick look at their financial records have a nasty tendency to reveal "charitable donations"[fixed link!] from the animal agriKulture sector- it does not bode well for one to bite the hand that feeds their coffers.
Grilled chicken [along with anything else which is similarly prepared] contains elevated amounts of cancer causing compounds than these products already have.
"Researchers" have made the silly claim that adding a few herbs to a marinade cocktail would form a kind of protective force-shield around the corpse during cooking on a grill;
this was shown to be as bogus as it sounds when it came out that their "scientific" results were done with a frying pan rather than an open flame - but some media outlets still trot out this absurdity during "bbq season".
Fish/marine life contain dangerous amounts of mercury and other heavy metals as well as chemical contaminants - the dietary acceptable amount of these "nutrients" is ZERO, yet governments are now allowing wiggle room to accommodate this industry rather than protect the populace from them.
Beware any organization which promotes these or any other animal products and serve them at their fund-raisers;
always check to see where large contributions come from which almost invariably cause bias of information
[also check to see if they waste money on contracting out worthless nonhuman animal tests instead of helping humans].
FACT: The only legitimate sources of truly lean protein come from plants.
|
Q: "Where do vegetarians get their protein from?"
A: This is probably the single most popular question ever that is asked of vegetarians. As strange and whacky as it may seem, the simple answer is, we eat.
As absurd as it is, people are greatly concerned about protein as if there were some protein deficiency pandemic raging on about them.
Even more so is that the vast majority of people know next to nothing; driven to consume vast quantities simply because industry propagandists tell them they should.
Animal products provide a very low-grade protein as they also contain detrimental substances.
Cows, chickens, horses, goats, pigs and other farmed animals acquire their protein from the same places as vegetarians, this mysterious and wondrous source being plants - surprise!
VERY few people know that proteins are comprised of amino-acids and that the body cleaves these nutrients apart and reassembles them as the individuals body requires.
Too much protein, yes there is such a thing, can cause serious organ damage as well as other health ailments.
The current RDA is 0.4grams per pound of body weight.
The average American is getting 3-4x this amount.
Legitimate health experts are now in agreement that this amount is too high and want it lowered to 0.3g/lb.
World famous ex-body builder, Arnold Schwarzenegger, who is no friend to animals, stated that body builders should only be ingesting 0.5g/lb.
Despite what experts recommend, the meat industry has recently lobbied the WHO to increase the RDA so they can up their profit margins even higher.
[historically the WHO has also accepted funding from tobacco and sugar pushers, which is why things are still they way they are, slow to progress.]
Many vegan foods are high in protein, including soy products, nuts, beans, legumes, grains, and even many vegetables.
You do not need to combine these foods in any special way to provide "complete" protein, and you can easily get all essential amino acids from plant-based foods.
You will not suffer from a protein deficiency so long as you eat enough calories from a variety of sources.
People in affluent societies generally eat too much meat and therefore too much protein.
Research shows that excessive protein consumption contributes to kidney disease, cancer and osteoporosis.
For more information, visit
www.pcrm.org/health/veginfo/vsk/protein_myth.html.
http://www.webmd.com/content/pages/1/3080_365.htm
|
Q: "Do small family operated animal agrikulture farms really produce less GHG emissions than faktory farms?"
A: Yes and No. This is deceptive as it implies that smaller farms are less ecologically destructive.
Smaller operations have fewer animals than CAFO's, so yes, there is less pollution per acre.
However, the animals on these kamps still produce excrement, feces and urine, as well as their now infamous belches, at about the same rate as those on large scale [concentration] kamps.
So per animal confined on these smaller prisons, the answer is typically no.
Agrikulture as Climate Killer
Greenhouse effect from different kinds of eating habits, per capita and per annum, presented in car kilometers*.
VEGANISM
Organic: ---281km
Conventional: ------629km
VEGETARIANISM
Organic: ---------------------1978km
Conventional: -------------------------2427km
OMNITARIANISM
Organic: --------------------------------------------4377km**
Conventional: -------------------------------------------------4758km
*equivalent to the CO2 emissions of a BMW 118d with 119gCO2/km
**"organically raised", "grass-fed", "free-roaming" and all the other pretty eco-sham marketing ploy terms.
Source: Foodwatch
Referenced by: Der Spiegel
|
Q: "Isn't grass-fed organic meat healthy?"
A: Yes and no, a more appropriate way of looking at this is which is less unhealthy.
Yes it is slightly healthier than eating conventionally exploited animals, but no, it is still not healthy for humans for reasons mentioned above.
Many people, however, claim that eating "natural" meats is healthy and has no health [or environmental] impacts.
This is due to skewed reporting mixed with pre-existing brainwashing[faith].
Amongst other negative environmental impacts, grass-fed cows emit around 50% more methane than grain fed cows due to increased cellulose fermentation.
Sadly these acolytes are often successful in spreading this disinformation - it's easier for humans to accept what they want to believe rather than what they don't want to be true.
|
Q: "Doesn't [insert gimmick here] cause cows to emit less Greenhouse Gases?"
A: Absolutely no significant emission levels are reduced by whatever new gimmick the industry comes up with.
No matter what the belching level is, they still produce excrement which emits ammonia, methane as well as the even more potent GHG known as nitrous oxide.
In a Canadian study, grass-fed cows were shown to produce 50% more methane than conventional grain-fed bovine, this is due to the bacterial breakdown of the higher content of cellulose in the diet.
Grass-fed cows are also often "finished off" on grain foraround three months to fatten then up for slaughter where they lose the extra omega-3 fatty acids (which is irrelevant if you are eating a healthy vegan diet).
Grass is not asnutrient dense as grains, so even more solid matter, in the form of grass, is required to meet their nutritional needs (most of which ends up as fecal matter), so even more land and other resources are required to raise cowson grass and there is already insufficient amounts of land to meet the needs used by conventional methods.
These operations will still continue to cause enormous amounts of pollution that contaminates land and water.
One of the newest scams is feeding fish oil to cows. Any GHG emission reductions would be irrelevant as fishing vessels require massive amounts of pollution spewing fuel.
The collapse of fisheries around the world means these ships have to travel even further out just to mass execute massive amounts of aquatic life.
And then there's the extra land miles on top of this as well as the extra amounts of water required to clean the "products" as well as the "processing" areas, then there's the energy that goes into obtaining the oil.
The industry literally banks on consumers who refuse to think for themselves and believe whatever nonsense they dream up - hook, line and sinker.
|
Q: "OK maybe factory farms are cruel to animals, but surely small family-operated farms are cruelty-free?"
A: Family-operated farms can be just as cruel as large scale Confined Animal Feed Operations (CAFO's) and many have been caught and charged with cruelty toward animals.
Quite often small-time operations double as puppy mills, adding to the misery all around.
Assumptions and blind-faith are no guarantee against harm toward animals.
These animals are still trafficked and sold off to the highest bidders and face the same horrors that CAFO-raised animals do during transport, auction, as well as execution.
"But I met the family and they seem nice and to genuinely care for the animals."
Wouldn't it be great if all animal abusers made themselves that easy to spot as Qu Li did that morning?
He probably seemed like a nice, caring person to the [as of yet unidentified...and probably uncaring] breeder who sold Kiki to him.
If abusers were easy to spot, the Childrens Aid Society would have a much easier time doing their job, however, the majority of abuses happen behind closed doors and out of public view and perpetrated by those who seem the least likely in public.
The main things that must be kept in mind are:
a) it is not how a person [who wants your money] acts toward you, its how they treat those in their care when no one is watching, and
b) it is not what a person says, it's their actions that count; exploiting the reproductive organs against the will of those they are attached to, with the sole intent of exploiting that life they created for their own personal gains doesn't seem all that nice or benevolent when one stops to think about it.
Until there are cameras in place to capture every second of every moment of every single exploited animals life from every conceivable angle, there is absolutely no certainty that any animal anywhere was treated "humanely".
|
Q: "What would happen to all the farmed animals if people stopped eating them?"
A: Some meat eaters express concern that if people stopped eating meat, all the farmed animals would die of starvation or be set loose in the wild to destroy natural habitats. However, the economics of supply and demand make this scenario extremely unlikely.
Each individual who goes vegan both reduces the overall consumer demand for animal products and leaves the meat, dairy and egg industries less money to raise and slaughter animals. Industries must respond to consumer demand in order to remain profitable, so fewer and fewer animals will be raised for food as the demand for meat, dairy and eggs gradually diminishes.
In addition, since the 1980s, sanctuaries have been established around the world for farmed animals. Many of the animals at these sanctuaries were rescued from factory farms and now greet visitors as ambassadors for their species. As people's concern for farm animals grows, sanctuaries will have greater support and more resources to help farmed animals.
For more information and to find a farmed animal sanctuary near you, visit http://www.farmanimalshelters.org/.
|
Q: "Isn't the rainforest and other places being destroyed for the soy and soy-based vegetarian foods you eat?"
A: Veg(etari)an-owned companies do not use soybeans from these places, opting for ethically and organically grown soybeans from North America, however, the animal agrikulture industry produced soy foods do contain these unenvironmentally friendly derived soybeans. The animal agrikulture sector is the primary consumer of soy from Brazil and like countries. They have little to no interest in organic soy. A growing concern is that as veggie-owned companies become more popular, the agrkulture sector buys them out and switches to low quality soybeans - for instance, the recent fiasco by the parent company of WhiteWave Foods, which makes Silk soy beverage products, Dean Foods (the largest dairy company in North America)*. If anyone is truly concerned about the remnants of the rainforest you will stop eating animal products immediately.
*Bait-and-switch: The word "organic" has been quietly replaced with the equally meaningless term "natural", everything else on the packages have been left the same to fool consumers and merchants. Dean Foods still markets products as, and charges the price for "organic" while making a tidy profit for conventionally grown soy. Adding insult to injury, a few organic products had been released in the fallout from these deceptions, but the prices had also been increased. Note: the type of soy flour used in soy milk is toxic to humans - always read the ingredients label.
|
Our apologies for the lack of links in this FAQ, these will be added as soon as the appropriate articles are located online.
|
The belief that any commercial farm or slaughterhouse is able to provide good lives or deaths are delusions we tell ourselves to rationalize the continued consumption of animal products.
Male chickens, who aren't tossed into garbage bags to suffocate or tossed alive into giant grinders, face even more hellish fates within the average span of 6 weeks of life they exist for.
It's not a good life for the cow, all they do is "give" milk.
"Dairy" cows, females who repeatedly have their reproductive organs violated, live, on average, for only four years out of twenty, because their bodies are "spent" and no longer able to produce baby food [milk] for infants they do not get to nurse.
Their sons are taken away for "veal", daughters grown to face the same violations they suffered.
Their retirement package? A nightmarish death sentence.
These animals, no matter their species, or Kamp of origin, have one thing in common; they end up at slaughterhouses infamous for their extreme abuses against humans and nonhumans.
"A good death" is a bit of a euphemism. Its one thing to say that about a human who is 90 years old, but how can a 6-week-old chicken have a "good" death?
Milk simply isn't ours to take. The milk is there for the mothers infant, not for a human.
Think about it, you couldn't get within udder-jacking distance to take the milk. The bull would gore you to death.
The cow herself would run away.
They don't want to be milked.
It's really a false conceit to say "Well, they don't really mind." or "They need us to milk them."
Of course they mind, and the babies "milk" them - when they're not kidnapped and are allowed to nurse.
It's just that we breed them to be docile, rob them of all hope, put them in stalls, and artificially impregnant (mechanically rape) them. It's totally unnatural.
But it's all OK; we have commercials with animated cows whose lives are so complete and wonderful that their only worry may be a single tiny cloud to disrupt their lives which are lived on near-heavenly-like open fields. One mustn't trouble themselves by wondering why animations are necessary if the commercials claims are true...
Of course it's much better to have animals living under better conditions.
We don't like to be reminded of where meat comes from, let alone think about it as being flesh that was once alive and able to feel.
Sure, one can say that these animals might have a "good life", but their life is going to be over long before their natural life span is over.
These industries, whose practices we endorse and reward with every purchase, thrive on heavily victimizing extremely young lives.
Allowing animals to live and be free just isn't going to happen, because there's no money in that, and they are there to answer our wants.
It's an economic deal that we make with ourselves, not with our victims.
There's a silly notion that we've made a contract with them, this bizarre notion is utterly absurd.
They are not consenting. They have no choice in it.
Look around at any farm and you will see that there are fences everywhere; there are also cages.
These animals are not free, they cannot come and go and they most assuredly don't say:
"Hey, that's not a bad deal. We'll go there for five years, and then they'll slit our throat.
That's fair enough."
These animals are born into slavery and have no say whatsoever in how they get to live their lives.
Slavery did not die in North America, the practice was merely shifted to lay heavily upon every other species under the arbitrary excuse of "It's ok, they're not like us."
"...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of custom.
But the tumult soon subsides.
Time makes more converts than reason."
-Matthew Henry
|
|
We want to hear from you!
Everyone has a unique experience with their journey into vegetarianism, their reasons for going meatless, dealing with other peoples reactions, daily living and so on, we want to know about yours! Selected submissions will be posted and shared for others to read, you are not alone, help us let others know that they too aren't alone.
|
PLANT-BASED
[balanced]
FRUITARIAN
Vegan, with the exception of eating only that which can be obtained from plants without causing them harm[i.e fruits].
VEGAN
['pure vegetarians']:
Avoids/does Not consume or use Any animal products wherever possible.
VEGETARIAN:
Does Not eat flesh whatsoever,
however, will ingest;
[lacto-] milk.
and/or
[ovo-] eggs.
MEDITERRANEAN:
See pescotarian.
FLESH-BASED
[unbalanced]
PESCOTARIAN:
Consumes fish, but no other types of flesh. Traditional Mediterranean diets are plant-centered and Very low in fish,
despite the fishing industry's attempted rebranding. May consume eggs/dairy/others.
POLLOTARIAN:
Consumes "poultry" -birds, but no other forms of flesh. May consume eggs/dairy/others.
FLEX/LOCATARIAN:
Modified omnitarianism. Well-intentioned, but misguided greenwashing. Both of these diets still produce more pollution
than that of Vegan/Vegetarianism.
OMNITARIAN
[SAD, Standard American Diet]:
Consumes a wide variety of rotting cadavers with, all too often, a meager to moderate amount of healthful plant foods.
CARNITARIAN
[ATKINS/PRICE]:
Utterly UNhealthy.
*NOTE: the -VORE suffix has been substituted in some titles with the appropriate -TARIAN for accuracy, and to show there is
a distinction between actual omnivores [dogs, bears] and omnitarians [humans] which simply choose/are conditioned to eat flesh.
-VORE infers a biologically suited diet, whereas -TARIAN is a play off of vegetarian and discerns these alternative
diets to be purely choice driven. Humans anatomically fall into the herbi/frugivore category. Silly Myths persist about
our brains ["eating meat made them evolve"...no, evolutionary changes in the human-ancestor brain were fueled by high levels of glucose as well as complex-carbohydrates...of which meat is void thereof],
eyes ["eating meat made them stereoscopic"] and teeth [that our misleadingly so-called "canines",
otherwise known as cuspids, are "meant to tear flesh"]
but these beliefs/misconceptions invariably fail to stand up to the slightest of scientific scrutiny.
[A good book, for those caught in arguments with amateur anthropologists, is
"Man the Hunted: Primates, Predators, and Human Evolution" by Hart & Sussman]
|
|
What the agriKulture industry doesn't want you to realize:
|
There are NO nutrients which are unique to animal products, quite the opposite in fact, animal products lack many nutrients which are vital for optimal health, however,
there are many things found in animal-derived 'foods' that are detrimental to humans..
BEEF: It's Whats Rotting In Your Colon.
Flesh begins to break down and decompose from the moment of death.
When fats are cooked using high heat, free radicals are created -which are known to cause cancer.
When we stop eating animal products, we immediately liberate a great amount of physical energy which the body uses for
detoxifying and healing itself.
"Why are animal products toxic?"
Protein putrefaction, a fermentation process,
the bacteriological decomposition, or rotting, of nitrogenous foods or proteins in our gut.
Putrefaction of proteins proceeds easily at body temperatures, just as milk will spoil on a warm day.
In our society, putrefaction of meat & dairy products is the major culprit in that regard.
The byproducts of putrefaction include ammonias, sulfides, histamines, tyramine, cadaverine, putrescine, indoles,
skatoles, and purines -all toxic compounds which poisons both the body and mind.
Betrayal
It is our right to be provided truthful nutritional education which has Not been corrupted by animal agriculture money;
that we, and our children, are taught the unhealthy habits that these industries have paid education boards to teach us is a sad violation of our trust.
[[With that being said, we do understand that taking a stand against multi-billion dollar-a-year industries, which have no compunctions about taking countless lives for sheer
profit, is a very daunting prospect that could put ones
career on the line; but for the sake of our children, our species and all others, fear needs to be put aside -- it is your duty.]]
|
REASONS FOR BEING/GOING VEGETARIAN
|
There are differing reasons for why people don't participate in the war against animals, the reasons can be stand-alone or in conjunction with others; here are the basic five:
Health;
Vegetarianism is proven to be the most natural and therefore healthiest diet for our species, unfortunately many people don't figure this out until after a major omnitarianism-induced medical incident occurs.
Moral/Welfare;
To reduce the harm done to all others - cruelty [and numerous violations] are intrinsic to animal exploitation.
Ecological;
Animal agrikulture is one of the most ecologically destructive industries in history, and is only going to continue to worsen. This industry is also responsible for the decline of wild animal populations.
Economical;
Healthy Plant-based diets are much more "wallet-friendly" than flesh-based ones. When strapped for cash, sticking to the produce section helps to save cash. While we pay cost at the grocery store, multi-Billion-dollar exploitation industries receive mega-subsidies from their friends in government.
Religious beliefs;
There are a number of religions which have not been corrupted and still actively promote compassion and respect for others; there are others which survive persecution and taint - for example, the true teachings of Jesus, the "Prince of Peace".
|
|
|
|
|
