J.C. Scott wrote:
I don't eat any animal products at all, and it's strictly for
health reasons. In my own case, it has nothing to do with compassion for
animals. In fact, I love hamburgers and chicken, among many other
types of animal products, but due to the associated ill effects of
such consumption, I abstain.
What "ill effects"?
The whole list or individual ones?
- Cancer: The studies most often cited deal with multiple issues, not
merely meat consumption. Some misuse the data to suggest that ALL meat
should be avoided, when the correlations have a lot more to do with the
amount of fruits and vegetables consumed in comparison to the amount of
meat consumed. Too much of anything can be bad, so moderation is called
for. One can still eat meat and not be at higher risk of cancer. Pay
attention to the words I highlighted:
SOME research has suggested that diets HIGH in red meat are
associated with a SLIGHT increase in risk of bowel cancer;
processed meat seems to be of most concern.
See also: http://www.breastcancer.org/research_diet_010903.html
- vCJD: How many new cases of vCJD are reported each year in the
countries hit hardest by BSE, like the UK?
(if foodnavigator link doesn't open, try http://tinyurl.com/5zkwm
There's also no evidence whatsoever that CWD affects humans. Not all
TSEs cross species. Scrapie, the oldest known TSE, affects sheep but it
doesn't affect humans who eat them.
- "Killer fats": Easy solution -- consume leaner meats. Grass-fed beef,
bison, wild game, goat, etc., are all very lean and also high in omega-3
FAs just like oily cold-water fish. Cook them in healthy oils like olive
Etc. All I see on that site is a bunch of scaremongering and
solicitations to listen to his recordings for $10.
A person could label me vegetarian but that's
too lax a term, in my opinion, because plenty of vegetarians
continue to eat eggs and cheese, which I don't. My diet is extremely rigid.
So is your sense of semantics. Why do you insist on using *any*
labels if animal rights isn't a personal concern?
The dictionary definition of 'vegetarianism' or 'vegan' fails to
mention animal rights, therefore your question is irrelevant.
Veganism is a ******* offspring of animal rights:
In late 1944, The Vegan Society was established, advocating a
totally plant-based diet excluding flesh, fish, fowl, eggs,
honey, and animals' milk, butter, and cheese, and also
encouraging the manufacture and use of alternatives to animal
commodities, including clothing and shoes. The group argued that
the elimination of exploitation of any kind was necessary in
order to bring about a more reasonable and humane society. FROM
ITS INCEPTION, VEGANISM WAS DEFINED AS A "PHILOSOPHY" AND "WAY
OF LIVING." IT WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE MERELY A DIET AND, STILL
TODAY, DESCRIBES A LIFESTYLE AND BELIEF SYSTEM THAT REVOLVES
AROUND A REVERENCE FOR LIFE.
It's not about food at all.
Ifthe debate is strictly over whether the term "dietary vegan" is
valid, well, it's just trivial semantics, as far as I'm concerned anyway.
Then why do you consider "vegetarian" too lax a description of your
... because I'm open to debate it just for the sake of discussion, but
when it's all said and done it's really a nonevent, in my opinion.
IOW, you had nothing better to do today than jump into a discussion and
show that you're susceptible to some charlatan's scaremongering but not
to calling things what they really are?