Vegan (alt.food.vegan) This newsgroup exists to share ideas and issues of concern among vegans. We are always happy to share our recipes- perhaps especially with omnivores who are simply curious- or even better, accomodating a vegan guest for a meal!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 27-04-2004, 02:44 PM
Mike
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Avowedly vegan"

Avowedly vegan
Some people may view veganism — a term coined in the 1940s in
England — as an unnecessarily extreme type of vegetarianism.
Since it is most often associated with animal rights activists, the
health benefits of the lifestyle often are overlooked.
at http://www.washtimes.com/metro/20040...2921-1606r.htm

  #2 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 28-04-2004, 12:24 PM
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Avowedly vegan"

On 27 Apr 2004 06:44:39 -0700, (Mike) wrote:

Avowedly vegan
Some people may view veganism — a term coined in the 1940s in
England — as an unnecessarily extreme type of vegetarianism.

[...]

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of
buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone else does.
What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:
__________________________________________________ _______
Tires, Surgical sutures, Matches, Soaps, Photographic film,
Cosmetics, Shaving cream, Paints, Candles, Crayon/Chalk,
Toothpaste, Deodorants, Mouthwash, Paper, Upholstery,
Floor waxes, Glass, Water Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer,
Antifreeze

http://www.aif.org/lvstock.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
Ceramics, Insecticides, Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic,
Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen, Heparin, Insulin,
Pancreatin, Thrombin, Vasopressin, Vitamin B-12, Asphalt,
auto and jet lubricants, outboard engine oil, high-performance
greases, brake fluid

http://www.teachfree.com/student/wow_that_cow.htm
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
contact-lens care products, glues for paper and cardboard
cartons, bookbinding glue, clarification of wines, Hemostats,
sunscreens and sunblocks, dental floss, hairspray, inks, PVC

http://www.discover.com/aug_01/featcow.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
__________________________________________________ _______
Explosives, Solvents, Industrial Oils, Industrial Lubricants,
Stearic Acid, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides, Syringes,
Gelatin Capsules, Bandage Strips, Combs and Toothbrushes,
Emery Boards and Cloth, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood and Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Adhesive Tape, Abrasives, Bone Charcoal for High
Grade Steel, Steel Ball Bearings

http://www.sheepusa.org/environment/products.shtml
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die in it as they do
in any other habitat. They also depend on it for their
lives like the animals in any other habitat. If people
consume animal products from animals they think are
raised in decent ways, they will be promoting life for
more such animals in the future.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat. From a grass
raised dairy cow people get thousands of servings of dairy
products. Due to the influence of farm machinery, and *icides,
and in the case of rice the flooding and draining of fields,
one serving of soy or rice based product is likely to involve
more animal deaths than hundreds of servings derived from grass
raised cattle. Grass raised cattle products contribute to less
wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and decent lives for
cattle. ·
  #3 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 29-04-2004, 10:02 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Avowedly vegan"

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of
buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone else does.


True to an extent, yes all human activity involve "collateral damage", i.e.
animal death. Even when you walk down your yard to pluck some raspberries
you must kill thousands of insects. But that has nothing to do with what
veganism is about.

What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:


No, we do not "have" to avoid, we just _should_ avoid where we can when it
is practical - being a vegan is not about being some ideal god-man. I know
many vegans who do avoid many of the things you mention BTW, and would avoid
more if they could.

You are creating a false definition of veganism and then attempting to
discredit it on that basis.

From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised

8

This is such a discredited claim, I am surprised you even raise it. Just
about any vegetarian book will tell you why meat consumption eating isn't
sustainable or environmentally friendly, as will any ecologist. For example,
if Asia where to convert to eating cattle, much more jungle would have to be
cleared to provide the pasture for the cattle. Rice paddies are not ideal,
but they will support more people than a similar amount of pasture with
cattle. Many prairies in the USA were once forests, cleared for wood to
cook, and now used to raise cattle. They would support more people and more
wildlife if turned over to agroforestry and vegeculture.

John C


  #4 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2004, 12:50 AM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Avowedly vegan"


"John Coleman" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of
buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone else does.


True to an extent, yes all human activity involve "collateral damage",

i.e.
animal death. Even when you walk down your yard to pluck some raspberries
you must kill thousands of insects. But that has nothing to do with what
veganism is about.

=======================
Nice strawman. Nobody here is talking about insects, except you. But, if
you would like to include them in the total body count for your diet, be my
guest. You'll overwhemingly 'win' the blood bath contest. Unless of course
somehow you consider bugs to be mineral or plant...



What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:


No, we do not "have" to avoid, we just _should_ avoid where we can when it
is practical

======================
Yet you don't do that. You don't even try, killer. That's the point.


- being a vegan is not about being some ideal god-man. I know
many vegans who do avoid many of the things you mention BTW, and would

avoid
more if they could.

You are creating a false definition of veganism and then attempting to
discredit it on that basis.

=================
Nope. I use the real definition as is was made-up by watson.



From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised

8

This is such a discredited claim, I am surprised you even raise it. Just
about any vegetarian book will tell you why meat consumption eating isn't
sustainable or environmentally friendly,

=======================
LOL Now those are reliable sources, I'm sure.../sarcasm Are you really
that stupid? tell me how game meats are environmentally worse than your
mono-cultured crops? You really are loony-toons.




as will any ecologist. For example,
if Asia where to convert to eating cattle, much more jungle would have to

be
cleared to provide the pasture for the cattle. Rice paddies are not ideal,
but they will support more people than a similar amount of pasture with
cattle. Many prairies in the USA were once forests,

======================
Read what you just wrote stupid. Are you really this ignorant, or do you
work at it? Prairies are not forested areas. The great prairies were never
forests. trees are growing there now *because* people planted them. Some
homestead land was set aside just for planting trees. That was only
possible because the rest of the prairies were turned under for croplands,
causing an end to the natuarl fires that swept through to keep the woody
plants in check.
Now, if you want to talk about forest being cleared, then you'd better look
at crop lands. Forests and *prairies* were cut down and torn up just to
plant crops. Your crop lands are the definition of an ecological disaster
for an area.



cleared for wood to
cook, and now used to raise cattle. They would support more people and

more
wildlife if turned over to agroforestry and vegeculture.

=================
Nope, our forest were cleared for your homes and crop lands. Your
brainwashing is really a site to see. Maybe you should read some sites that
aren't just veg*n propaganda for a change.


John C




  #5 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2004, 07:44 AM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Avowedly vegan"

Nice strawman. Nobody here is talking about insects, except you. But, if
you would like to include them in the total body count for your diet, be

my

Insects do count as vegans do not use honey because of exploitation of the
bees, but note that collateral damage by _normal human activity_ does not
prevent one from being vegan and thus trying to eliminate needless killing.

Yet you don't do that. You don't even try, killer. That's the point.


Not eating meat is an example. You can opt in or out of that. If you avoid
meat you avoid a lot of death, exploitation and suffering. It absolutely is
not necessary for all vegans to go back to being wild living humans to be
vegan. Some are choosing this path, others prefer to remain within the
Meatrix and try and do what they can to push it in a new direction.

Nope. I use the real definition as is was made-up by watson.


You have arrived at your own highly idealistic definition of veganism that
no one else regcognises. Veganism says nothing about avoiding industrial
capitalism, that is an option one can logically add though, but some do not.

LOL Now those are reliable sources, I'm sure.../sarcasm Are you really
that stupid? tell me how game meats are environmentally worse than your
mono-cultured crops? You really are loony-toons.


It makes no difference how or where the meat is raised, it will still not
feed as many people as an equivalent area of land turned over to plant food
production. In the UK, before agriculture, the hunter gatherers required
200km square to support only 30 humans. Sadly if we reverted to that system
we would need to exterminate millions of humans - maybe they could eat each
other? But seriously, no one is going to opt for that solution, but that is
exactly what you are implying in your irrational meatarian agenda.

I see as with "usual suspect" and Rick Etter, you have no more credibility
than you do civility.

John C




  #6 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2004, 12:53 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Avowedly vegan"

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 22:02:53 +0100, "John Coleman" wrote:

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use
of wood and paper products, and roads and all types of
buildings, and by their own diet just as everyone else does.


True to an extent, yes all human activity involve "collateral damage", i.e.
animal death. Even when you walk down your yard to pluck some raspberries
you must kill thousands of insects. But that has nothing to do with what
veganism is about.

What vegans try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following in order to be successful:


No, we do not "have" to avoid,


You would have to in order to be successful. You're not successful.

we just _should_ avoid where we can when it
is practical - being a vegan is not about being some ideal god-man. I know
many vegans who do avoid many of the things you mention BTW, and would avoid
more if they could.

You are creating a false definition of veganism and then attempting to
discredit it on that basis.


I'm pointing out facts you don't like.

From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised

8

This is such a discredited claim, I am surprised you even raise it.


It's another fact you don't like.

Just
about any vegetarian book will tell you why meat consumption eating isn't
sustainable or environmentally friendly,


Of course, because they don't care about human influence on
animals--like yourself--they only care about promoting veg*nism.
There's another fact you don't like. But you SHOULD be proud
of it, and proudly proclaim that you will support veg*nism even
in cases when it involves more animal deaths than eating meat.
And also that you will oppose contributing to life for farm animals,
even when it provides them with decent lives.

as will any ecologist.

__________________________________________________ _______
Environmental Benefits

Well-managed perennial pastures have several environmental
advantages over tilled land: they dramatically decrease soil
erosion potential. require minimal pesticides and fertilizers,
and decrease the amount of barnyard runoff.

Data from the Soil Conservation Service shows that in 1990, an
average of 4.8 tons of soil per acre was lost to erosion on
Wisconsin cropland and an average of 2.6 tons of soil per acre
was lost on Minnesota cropland. Converting erosion-prone land to
pasture is a good way to minimize this loss since perennial
pastures have an average soil loss of only 0.8 tons per acre. It
also helps in complying with the nationwide "T by 2000" legislation
whose goal is that erosion rates on all fields not exceed tolerable
limits ("T") by the year 2000. Decreasing erosion rates will preserve
the most fertile soil with higher water holding capacity for future
crop production. It will also protect our water quality.

High levels of nitrates and pesticides in our ground and surface waters
can cause human, livestock, and wildlife health problems. Pasturing has
several water quality advantages. It reduces the amount of nitrates and
pesticides which leach into our ground water and contaminate surface
waters. It also can reduce barnyard runoff which may destroy fish and
wildlife habitat by enriching surface waters with nitrogen and
phosphorous which promotes excessive aquatic plant growth (leading to
low oxygen levels in the water which suffocates most water life).

Wildlife Advantages

Many native grassland birds, such as upland sandpipers, bobolinks, and
meadowlarks, have experienced significant population declines within
the past 50 years. Natural inhabitants of the prairie, these birds
thrived in the extensive pastures which covered the state in the early
1900s. With the increased conversion of pasture to row crops and
frequently-mowed hay fields, their habitat is being disturbed and their
populations are now at risk.

Rotational grazing systems have the potential to reverse this decline
because the rested paddocks can provide undisturbed nesting habitat.
(However, converting existing under-grazed pasture into an intensive
rotational system where forage is used more efficiently may be
detrimental to wildlife.) Warm-season grass paddocks which aren't grazed
until late June provide especially good nesting habitat. Game birds, such
as pheasants, wild turkey, and quail also benefit from pastures, as do
bluebirds whose favorite nesting sites are fenceposts. The wildlife
benefits of rotational grazing will be greatest in those instances where
cropland is converted to pasture since grassland, despite being grazed,
provides greater nesting opportunity than cropland.

Pesticides can be very damaging to wildlife. though often short lived in
the environment, some insecticides are toxic to birds and mammals
(including humans). Not only do they kill the target pest but many kill a
wide range of insects, including predatory insects that could help prevent
future pest out breaks. Insecticides in surface waters may kill aquatic
invertebrates (food for fish, shorebirds, and water fowl.) Herbicides can
also be toxic to animals and may stunt or kill non-target vegetation which
may serve as wildlife habitat.

http://www.forages.css.orst.edu/Topi...s/MIG/Why.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ

  #7 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2004, 01:55 PM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Avowedly vegan"


"John Coleman" wrote in message
...
Nice strawman. Nobody here is talking about insects, except you. But,

if
you would like to include them in the total body count for your diet, be

my

Insects do count as vegans do not use honey because of exploitation of the
bees, but note that collateral damage by _normal human activity_ does not
prevent one from being vegan and thus trying to eliminate needless

killing.
========================
there is no 'need' to consume mono-cultured crops. yet vegans depend on
them, and then claim that meat eaters are 'murderers'.



Yet you don't do that. You don't even try, killer. That's the point.


Not eating meat is an example. You can opt in or out of that. If you avoid
meat you avoid a lot of death, exploitation and suffering.

=======================
And replace it with even more "death, exploitation and suffering." Why is
it ok to kill 10, 100, 1000 other animals and leave them to rot just to keep
from killing one cow and eating it?


It absolutely is
not necessary for all vegans to go back to being wild living humans to be
vegan. Some are choosing this path, others prefer to remain within the
Meatrix and try and do what they can to push it in a new direction.

====================
LOL You guys are so good at made up words, aren't you? The point is that
vegans don't even pick and choose among the foods they do eat which ones
cause more/less death and suffering. They automatically assume that not
eating meat means they are automatically 'doing better'. It's a false
premise.



Nope. I use the real definition as is was made-up by watson.


You have arrived at your own highly idealistic definition of veganism that
no one else regcognises.

==================
No, I'm using the one that is the real definition. that vegans today have
had to twist it to fit their wanton disregard for their killing says more
about your supposed ethics than anything else.

Veganism says nothing about avoiding industrial
capitalism, that is an option one can logically add though, but some do

not.
==============
Then they are not vegan. Anyone here on usenet is not a real vegan either.



LOL Now those are reliable sources, I'm sure.../sarcasm Are you

really
that stupid? tell me how game meats are environmentally worse than

your
mono-cultured crops? You really are loony-toons.


It makes no difference how or where the meat is raised, it will still not
feed as many people as an equivalent area of land turned over to plant

food
production.

========================
Strawman, stupid. There is no shortage of food. Besides, you premise is
false. There are lands that are not siuitable for crop production, but will
support animals.
Some lands will support crops if enough water and chemicals are added, but
how does that fit your vegan definition, fool? You really haven't thought
this out much beyond your brainwashing, hae you?


In the UK, before agriculture, the hunter gatherers required
200km square to support only 30 humans. Sadly if we reverted to that

system
we would need to exterminate millions of humans - maybe they could eat

each
other? But seriously, no one is going to opt for that solution, but that

is
exactly what you are implying in your irrational meatarian agenda.

===============
Again, we are not talking about what 'everyone' needs to do. Just the very
tiny subset of loons that make the claim* that they care, yet all they do is
focus on what they think others are doing, and ignore their own bloody
footprints.


I see as with "usual suspect" and Rick Etter, you have no more credibility
than you do civility.

======================
ROTFLMAO And you have no more brains than Ron, the brain-banned loon..

Where's your credibility fool? You haven't posted anything to back up some
of your stupid remarks.



John C




  #8 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2004, 11:39 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Avowedly vegan"

there is no 'need' to consume mono-cultured crops.

There is no "need", but it is a practical reality for most people, vegan or
not.

yet vegans depend on
them, and then claim that meat eaters are 'murderers'.


As I said any human activity kills animals, however collateral damage like
that is not "murder", there was no intent to kill. There is, if you eat
meat, unless you scavenge it when dead.

And replace it with even more "death, exploitation and suffering." Why is
it ok to kill 10, 100, 1000 other animals and leave them to rot just to

keep
from killing one cow and eating it?


I don't think it is okay to kill 100s of animals for monculture at all. I
would prefer a tree based culture utilising fruit and nut trees. These could
be created in almost all parts of the globe and have high output and provide
homes for many creatures.

LOL You guys are so good at made up words, aren't you? The point is

that
vegans don't even pick and choose among the foods they do eat which ones
cause more/less death and suffering.


This is rubbish, I know many compassionate vegans who are very careful to
eat organic produce, and grow as much as they can themselves or even just
live off the land. Many are stuck in industrial capitalism, but in any
__comparable situation__, they will typically reduce suffering and waste by
opting to eat plant foods instead of animal.

They automatically assume that not
eating meat means they are automatically 'doing better'. It's a false
premise.


It is perfectly correct. Westernised Vegans living in a city will not be
causing less death than say a wild living "Aboriginal", or even an ordinary
farmer who keeps a few hens for eggs and grows his own vegetables, but
compared to someone similar to them who eats sausages and so forth, they
have less environemtnal impact and cause less death. And that IS the point.

No, I'm using the one that is the real definition. that vegans today have


I accept the terminology of the current Vegan Society. What is your
definition and its source?

Then they are not vegan. Anyone here on usenet is not a real vegan

either.

I do not know all the members beliefs.

Strawman, stupid. There is no shortage of food.


There would be if meat eating increased as you suggest.

false. There are lands that are not siuitable for crop production, but

will
support animals.


These lands can be planted with trees and then reclaimed progessively.

how does that fit your vegan definition, fool? You really haven't thought
this out much beyond your brainwashing, hae you?


Actually I have, you presume far too much, I educated myself, there was no
brainwashing involved. I grew up with a meat and dairy eating family, and
disliked it even as a child.

focus on what they think others are doing, and ignore their own bloody
footprints.


One does not have to be a perfect god man before one can ask others to be
more caring. I do not call meat eaters muderers and make protests against
them as I don't think that pursuades people. Rather I prefer to educate. The
Vegan message is aimed largely at the Westerner who consumes so much animal
products it is absurd.

Where's your credibility fool? You haven't posted anything to back up

some
of your stupid remarks.


"Global meat consumption is increasing dramatically"



By Colin Tudge

The New Scientist

Vol.# 181, Issue #2438

March 13, 2004; Page 19



Meat is wonderful. Human beings are good omnivores and we have always been
hunters as well as gatherers. Farming is always more efficient with a few
animals on board: ruminants like cattle and sheep to eat the grass that
grows where staple crops will not, and pigs and poultry to sweep up the
leftovers. In Africa 80 per cent of farmers keep chickens for just this
purpose. In the extreme north and in deserts meat can be the prime source of
calories. For the world as a whole meat and milk are the guarantors of
quality protein, and a key source of essential structural fats, vitamins,
and minerals including calcium and zinc.



But you can have too much of a good thing. And as a new report for the
campaigning group Compassion in World Farming will point out next week, we
produce and eat so much meat it is literally killing us and our environment.
The world's output of meat increased fivefold in the second half of the 20th
century. We now have 22 billion farm animals, including 15 billion chickens
and 1.3 billion cattle. And the industry is girding its loins for a 50 per
cent increase in the next two decades. By 2050, the world's livestock
population will, on present trends, have grown to the point where the plant
food it consumes could feed an extra 4 billion people, if it wasn't hived
off for meat production.



The environment is already suffering and will suffer further if the extra
beasts continue to be raised intensively in "factories". Million-head "pig
cities" already exist in the US and are now planned for Poland when it
becomes part of the expanded European Union. Collectively, the world's
livestock produce 10 per cent of all the greenhouse gases, including 25 per
cent of the methane, among the most potent of all. Then there is water,
which is rapidly becoming the greatest check on overall food productivity.
It takes 500 litres to raise a kilo of potatoes; 900 for a kilo of wheat;
nearly 2000 for rice or soya; 3500 for a kilo of chicken; and a staggering
100,000 litres for a kilo of beef.



Our health is suffering too. According to the US Worldwatch Institute, 1.1
billion people worldwide are underweight, and another 1.1 billion too fat.
In the US, 23 per cent of adults are obese, but obesity besets poor
countries too, from Brazil to China. Meat and milk are not the sole cause
but increased fat intake is a prime suspect and most of it, in the developed
world at least, comes from livestock.



With fat come "diseases of affluence". In the UK, 165,000 people a year die
from heart disease - which, so one report suggests, would go down by 40,000
if everyone were vegetarian. Worldwide, 150 million are now diagnosed with
adult-onset (type 2) diabetes. The World Health Organization says this will
double by 2025. The world's diabetics will exceed the total population of
the US today.



Why is this happening? Why do governments and many scientific experts
encourage the big corporations that increasingly control the world's food,
to spoil our lives and ruin the planet? There are two prime answers, both of
which boil down to cash.



First, "economic growth" as measured by increase in gross domestic product
is the standard index both of government success and human well-being. But
GDP is deceptive. For example, heart disease cost the US an estimated $180
billion in 2001, but the money apparently squandered appears as a gain - for
it adds to the rising star that is the health industry. Both livestock and
medicine are big business, both flourishing, so both, on paper, seem good
for the economy.



Then there's the general problem that besets all farming: we can only eat so
much. Humans need about 1500 kilocalories per day to stay fit. Eat more than
twice that and most of us become obese. Providing enough for everybody is
actually not too difficult - if people stick to traditional, plant-rich
diets.



Meat offers the food industry a way to raise the ceiling on global
consumption of farming output. Simply feed the staple foods to livestock and
sell the meat: roughly 2 kilograms of feed for each kilogram of chicken, 4
for pork, and 7 or more for beef. Then the bar can be raised again by
throwing most of the carcass away and selling only the steaks and cutlets
(when did you last try buying tripe at the supermarket?). This game has a
long way to go yet, especially as people in developing countries presently
eat only about a third as much meat as westerners eat, and most of the
increase is in developing countries.



The myth is that output is raised in response to public "demand". In truth,
meat has been sold and sold again, to maximise farm output. Corporations
seek to maximise profit; governments see those corporations as the sine qua
non; and scientists cannot or will not see what a cynical commercial game
they have been sucked into. The fundamental question is why we, humanity,
allow the world to be run by people who have long since lost the plot.



Colin Tudge's latest book, So Shall We Reap, on world food production, is
published by Penguin. The Global Benefits of Eating Less Meat will be
published by Compassion in World Farming on 15 March.



  #9 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 30-04-2004, 11:49 PM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Avowedly vegan"

http://www.foodrevolution.org/grassfedbeef.htm


  #10 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2004, 06:18 AM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Avowedly vegan"


"John Coleman" wrote in message
...
there is no 'need' to consume mono-cultured crops.


There is no "need", but it is a practical reality for most people, vegan

or
not.

=====================
The discussion is not about 'most' people. That's a usual vegan strawman.
Turn the discussion to something like, "but everybody in the world can't
live X way".
The point is not about anybody but the vegan making the claim that they care
enough to 'save' animals. But then, all they end up doing to 'save' animals
is to follow their simple rule for their simple mind, 'eat no meat.'



yet vegans depend on
them, and then claim that meat eaters are 'murderers'.


As I said any human activity kills animals, however collateral damage like
that is not "murder", there was no intent to kill. There is, if you eat
meat, unless you scavenge it when dead.

====================
It's still not 'murder', fool. The typical vegan tool, emotive language.
Use it to substitute for a valid argument, right?



And replace it with even more "death, exploitation and suffering." Why

is
it ok to kill 10, 100, 1000 other animals and leave them to rot just to

keep
from killing one cow and eating it?


I don't think it is okay to kill 100s of animals for monculture at all.

================
Yet you participate in it, knowing the death and suffering it entails. All
I've done is make a suggestion on how you can still live your consumer
lifestyle, and reduce your impact on animals and the environment with little
change.

I
would prefer a tree based culture utilising fruit and nut trees. These

could
be created in almost all parts of the globe and have high output and

provide
homes for many creatures.

LOL You guys are so good at made up words, aren't you? The point is

that
vegans don't even pick and choose among the foods they do eat which ones
cause more/less death and suffering.


This is rubbish, I know many compassionate vegans who are very careful to
eat organic produce,

=====================
Another vegan strawman. Organic does not equal cruelty-free. Large organic
operations are still mechanized farming, depending on the petro-chemical
industry.
Organic pesticides in some cases are just as toxic as synthetics.



and grow as much as they can themselves or even just
live off the land. Many are stuck in industrial capitalism, but in any
__comparable situation__, they will typically reduce suffering and waste

by
opting to eat plant foods instead of animal.

==================
But you can't automatically make that case.


They automatically assume that not
eating meat means they are automatically 'doing better'. It's a false
premise.


It is perfectly correct. Westernised Vegans living in a city will not be
causing less death than say a wild living "Aboriginal", or even an

ordinary
farmer who keeps a few hens for eggs and grows his own vegetables, but
compared to someone similar to them who eats sausages and so forth, they
have less environemtnal impact and cause less death.

=====================
Another vegan claim that you cannot support. You cannot prove that that
vegan diet causes less death and suffering than any meat-included diet.


And that IS the point.

No, I'm using the one that is the real definition. that vegans today

have

I accept the terminology of the current Vegan Society. What is your
definition and its source?

====================
I use the one form the guy who made up the word to begin with, watson.


Then they are not vegan. Anyone here on usenet is not a real vegan

either.

I do not know all the members beliefs.

===============
Don't need to. As long as they are on usenet, they are not vegan.


Strawman, stupid. There is no shortage of food.


There would be if meat eating increased as you suggest.

==================
Where did I suggest an increase in meat eating on that scale? I didn't, and
you know it.



false. There are lands that are not siuitable for crop production, but

will
support animals.


These lands can be planted with trees and then reclaimed progessively.

==================
Why? Many of these lands are in their natural state. Why would you want to
force crop production upon them, destroying even more land than it already
has?


how does that fit your vegan definition, fool? You really haven't

thought
this out much beyond your brainwashing, hae you?


Actually I have, you presume far too much, I educated myself, there was no
brainwashing involved. I grew up with a meat and dairy eating family, and
disliked it even as a child.

focus on what they think others are doing, and ignore their own bloody
footprints.


One does not have to be a perfect god man before one can ask others to be
more caring. I do not call meat eaters muderers and make protests against
them as I don't think that pursuades people. Rather I prefer to educate.

The
Vegan message is aimed largely at the Westerner who consumes so much

animal
products it is absurd.

=================
You do realize that this typical western diet you vegans rant about still
includes 3 times more veggies than meat, don't you?
Besides, you too 'consume' animals. In massive numbers. You don't have to
eat them to 'consume' them.


Where's your credibility fool? You haven't posted anything to back up

some
of your stupid remarks.


"Global meat consumption is increasing dramatically"



By Colin Tudge

The New Scientist

Vol.# 181, Issue #2438

March 13, 2004; Page 19



Meat is wonderful. Human beings are good omnivores and we have always been
hunters as well as gatherers. Farming is always more efficient with a few
animals on board: ruminants like cattle and sheep to eat the grass that
grows where staple crops will not, and pigs and poultry to sweep up the
leftovers. In Africa 80 per cent of farmers keep chickens for just this
purpose. In the extreme north and in deserts meat can be the prime source

of
calories. For the world as a whole meat and milk are the guarantors of
quality protein, and a key source of essential structural fats, vitamins,
and minerals including calcium and zinc.



But you can have too much of a good thing. And as a new report for the
campaigning group Compassion in World Farming will point out next week, we
produce and eat so much meat it is literally killing us and our

environment.
The world's output of meat increased fivefold in the second half of the

20th
century. We now have 22 billion farm animals, including 15 billion

chickens
and 1.3 billion cattle. And the industry is girding its loins for a 50 per
cent increase in the next two decades. By 2050, the world's livestock
population will, on present trends, have grown to the point where the

plant
food it consumes could feed an extra 4 billion people, if it wasn't hived
off for meat production.



The environment is already suffering and will suffer further if the extra
beasts continue to be raised intensively in "factories". Million-head "pig
cities" already exist in the US and are now planned for Poland when it
becomes part of the expanded European Union. Collectively, the world's
livestock produce 10 per cent of all the greenhouse gases, including 25

per
cent of the methane, among the most potent of all. Then there is water,
which is rapidly becoming the greatest check on overall food productivity.
It takes 500 litres to raise a kilo of potatoes; 900 for a kilo of wheat;
nearly 2000 for rice or soya; 3500 for a kilo of chicken; and a staggering
100,000 litres for a kilo of beef.



Our health is suffering too. According to the US Worldwatch Institute, 1.1
billion people worldwide are underweight, and another 1.1 billion too fat.
In the US, 23 per cent of adults are obese, but obesity besets poor
countries too, from Brazil to China. Meat and milk are not the sole cause
but increased fat intake is a prime suspect and most of it, in the

developed
world at least, comes from livestock.



With fat come "diseases of affluence". In the UK, 165,000 people a year

die
from heart disease - which, so one report suggests, would go down by

40,000
if everyone were vegetarian. Worldwide, 150 million are now diagnosed with
adult-onset (type 2) diabetes. The World Health Organization says this

will
double by 2025. The world's diabetics will exceed the total population of
the US today.



Why is this happening? Why do governments and many scientific experts
encourage the big corporations that increasingly control the world's food,
to spoil our lives and ruin the planet? There are two prime answers, both

of
which boil down to cash.



First, "economic growth" as measured by increase in gross domestic product
is the standard index both of government success and human well-being. But
GDP is deceptive. For example, heart disease cost the US an estimated $180
billion in 2001, but the money apparently squandered appears as a gain -

for
it adds to the rising star that is the health industry. Both livestock and
medicine are big business, both flourishing, so both, on paper, seem good
for the economy.



Then there's the general problem that besets all farming: we can only eat

so
much. Humans need about 1500 kilocalories per day to stay fit. Eat more

than
twice that and most of us become obese. Providing enough for everybody is
actually not too difficult - if people stick to traditional, plant-rich
diets.



Meat offers the food industry a way to raise the ceiling on global
consumption of farming output. Simply feed the staple foods to livestock

and
sell the meat: roughly 2 kilograms of feed for each kilogram of chicken, 4
for pork, and 7 or more for beef. Then the bar can be raised again by
throwing most of the carcass away and selling only the steaks and cutlets
(when did you last try buying tripe at the supermarket?). This game has a
long way to go yet, especially as people in developing countries presently
eat only about a third as much meat as westerners eat, and most of the
increase is in developing countries.



The myth is that output is raised in response to public "demand". In

truth,
meat has been sold and sold again, to maximise farm output. Corporations
seek to maximise profit; governments see those corporations as the sine

qua
non; and scientists cannot or will not see what a cynical commercial game
they have been sucked into. The fundamental question is why we, humanity,
allow the world to be run by people who have long since lost the plot.



Colin Tudge's latest book, So Shall We Reap, on world food production, is
published by Penguin. The Global Benefits of Eating Less Meat will be
published by Compassion in World Farming on 15 March.








  #11 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 01-05-2004, 02:54 PM
William Hershman
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Avowedly vegan"

It's a retarded discussion, again. Face it, just living is causing death
and destruction. Some think that they can rationalize it by pointing out
that they are saving lives because there's no dead bodies on the dinner
plate, but not one of us can truthfully say we haven't caused any deaths.
So why not just put down the banner and eat how you want and share recipes?


  #12 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-05-2004, 09:36 AM
John Coleman
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Avowedly vegan"

It's a retarded discussion, again. Face it, just living is causing death
and destruction. Some think that they can rationalize it by pointing out
that they are saving lives because there's no dead bodies on the dinner
plate, but not one of us can truthfully say we haven't caused any deaths.
So why not just put down the banner and eat how you want and share

recipes?

Because although not "ideal", there really are more environmentally and less
cruel and exploitative way of eating.

John C


  #13 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-05-2004, 11:20 AM
rick etter
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Avowedly vegan"


"John Coleman" wrote in message
news:[email protected]
It's a retarded discussion, again. Face it, just living is causing

death
and destruction. Some think that they can rationalize it by pointing

out
that they are saving lives because there's no dead bodies on the dinner
plate, but not one of us can truthfully say we haven't caused any

deaths.
So why not just put down the banner and eat how you want and share

recipes?

Because although not "ideal", there really are more environmentally and

less
cruel and exploitative way of eating.
=============================

Yes, there are, but vegan isn't automatically one of them. Too bad for you,
eh?


John C




  #14 (permalink)   Report Post  
Old 03-05-2004, 12:30 PM
[email protected]
 
Posts: n/a
Default "Avowedly vegan"

__________________________________________________ _______
More than 40 bird species breed in Wisconsin's hayfields, prairies
and pastures. From 1960 to 1990, populations of birds such as
meadowlarks, savannah sparrows, upland sandpipers and bobolinks
experienced the steepest decline of any group of birds in North
America. Some of the decline in the Midwest can be traced to farmers
who converted grasslands to corn and soybean fields. But the recent
widespread adoption of rotational grazing in America's Dairyland is
giving Wisconsin grassland birds a second chance. With rotational
grazing, pastures are divided into paddocks and graziers let cows graze
one paddock at a time for two days or less before moving them to a
fresh paddock. A team of agronomists and wildlife biologists with the
UW-Madison and the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has
evaluated techniques that can favor grassland birds on these pastures.
The researchers have identified bird-friendly practices that graziers
can implement at little or no expense. The scientists found, for
example, that moving cows from paddock to paddock frequently, leaving
more grass after grazing a paddock or protecting a couple of paddocks
during the birds' nesting season all increase the nesting success of
grassland birds on these pastures.

http://www.newswise.com/articles/200...THDY2.UWI.html
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ



Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Intereting Vegan Problem - Please Help : How to get Caterers toGet/Provide Vegan Food. n Vegan 1 15-05-2008 03:04 AM
Vegan Cooking at International Vegan Festival Don Quinoa Vegetarian cooking 0 29-01-2007 11:46 AM
Vegan baking basics for a non-vegan [email protected] Vegan 0 06-11-2006 04:53 PM
It's amazing how in a Vegan group someone could hate a Doctor becausehe's a vegan Beach Runner Vegan 15 04-11-2005 03:06 PM
A Challenge To The Vegan Bakers: Help Me Modify This Recipe :Vegan Pumpkin Flax Muffins Steve Vegan 2 27-05-2004 05:07 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:48 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2019 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"

 

Copyright © 2017