"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> > PS. do you call your teachers, parents, and other non-vegans "body
> part
> > eaters" to their faces? If so, how have you managed to live this
> long?
>
> I am not offended by being called a plant part eater. Why then are you
> upset at being called a body part eater? I mean it is the dead animal's
> body you're eating, isn't it? Why do you see the term as an insult if
> you
> don't mind people knowing you eat carcasses.

couldn't give a damn myself. You are what you eat, and I would hate to be a
vegetable

To reduce the numbers of vegetables who might be offended at posts about
vegetarianism I've cut a lot of cross posts


Jim Webster

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> > PS. do you call your teachers, parents, and other non-vegans "body
> part
> > eaters" to their faces? If so, how have you managed to live this
> long?
>
> I am not offended by being called a plant part eater. Why then are you
> upset at being called a body part eater? I mean it is the dead animal's
> body you're eating, isn't it? Why do you see the term as an insult if
> you
> don't mind people knowing you eat carcasses.

couldn't give a damn myself. You are what you eat, and I would hate to be a
vegetable

To reduce the numbers of vegetables who might be offended at posts about
vegetarianism I've cut a lot of cross posts


Jim Webster

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> > > Back this up a bit. Have you ever worked in the produce packing
> > > industry or are you making this stuff up.
> > >
> > Yes I did! was in an agronomist working with a large veg growing
> concern in
> > the NY Pine Island area. And worked in Costa Rica, Belize, Colombia,
> > Argentina. plus a few others. My credentials are, in a way, as large
> as
> > your mouth is wide.
>
> Just in case the nonsarcastic side of what you're saying is true, then
> I will agree that to you, the word 'carcass' has a meaning of being
> plant or animal. I will not argue with your credentials as a produce
> packer. However, and surely you must agree, to most people, the
> word carcass means a dead body (human or other animal).

technically it should be carcass meat. Look in a dictionary, you will see
that carcass itself is of somewhat wider useage, including the shell case of
a bomb

>
> Which brings us back more on topic, since vegans don't eat
> carcasses (common use meaning) or other animal products.
> I don't see why an omnivore or carnivore would get mad at
> been told they are eating carcasses. A dead body part is
> a dead body part is a dead body part....

so what? It is delicious
I always try to see the carcass of any animal we buy meat from, it gives you
a good idea of quality

Jim Webster

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> > This is posted to five different groups, only one of which is a vegan
> group.
> > You cannot assume any one posting is posting from a vegan group.
>
> I was forgetting that. My apologies to those groups that are off topic.
> I don't know why the thread starter chose to crosspost so much!
>

it is easily dealt with, just cut the cross posts, which I have done,

Jim Webster
>
> http://www.scentednectar.com
>
>
>

"Purple" > wrote in message
om...
> There is one vitamin (B12) that vegans must supplement and having
> accepted this, it presumably feels less unnatural to supplement others.

Vegans don't have to supplement B12, it is simply the best option.

It may be possible to obtain enough without supplements, and also possible
from eating your own faeces. http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/int

Personally I take a supplement though.

John

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Purple" > wrote in message
> om...
>> There is one vitamin (B12) that vegans must supplement and having
>> accepted this, it presumably feels less unnatural to supplement others.
>
> Vegans don't have to supplement B12, it is simply the best option.
>
> It may be possible to obtain enough without supplements, and also possible
> from eating your own faeces. http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/int

It's also possible by not washing your veggies. especially if grown
organically. It's for the same reason though....

>
> Personally I take a supplement though.
================
Personally, I'd just eat a helping of grass-fed beef or game every now and
then. Very healthy, very tasty, very good nutrition. It doesn't have to be
every day. Also, less demand on the petro-chemical industry that has to
make said suppliments.


>
> John
>
>

"rick etter" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "John Coleman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Purple" > wrote in message
> > om...
> >> There is one vitamin (B12) that vegans must supplement and having
> >> accepted this, it presumably feels less unnatural to supplement others.
> >
> > Vegans don't have to supplement B12, it is simply the best option.
> >
> > It may be possible to obtain enough without supplements, and also
possible
> > from eating your own faeces. http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/int
>
> It's also possible by not washing your veggies. especially if grown
> organically. It's for the same reason though....

not reliable

>
> >
> > Personally I take a supplement though.
> ================
> Personally, I'd just eat a helping of grass-fed beef or game every now and
> then.

the B12 is destroyed by high temperatures typically used for preparing meat,
dairy actually works out as a better source on this basis

> Very healthy, very tasty, very good nutrition.

I see no data supporting the contention that it is healthy to eat meat, and
taste is a personal issue. I've always detested meat and animal products,
lots of kids do, hence the many varied attempts to hide its texture and
flavour. Meat does provide B vitamins and some minerals quite well, but
isn't the best food nutritionally, and certainly not as resource efficient
as utilising plant foods directly.

> It doesn't have to be
> every day.

Well practically it does. A 100g serving of bison would provide only 1.79mcg
of B12 http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcom...st_nut_edit.pl. I
take 50mcg/day of B12, and eating 2.5+ kilos of bison daily isn't practical,
eating 100g/day of animal products daily is also enough to increase risk of
degenerative diseases significantly. Short of eating ones own poo, insects
or other invertibrates are probably the most ecologically efficient way of
obtaining B12, but you don't seem to promote that.

> Also, less demand on the petro-chemical industry that has to
> make said suppliments.

B12 is made using deep fermentation, there are no petrochemicals directly
involved. I would imagine that the energy and waste produced by getting B12
from meat far exceeds that used to produce it from a vat of bacteria.
Animals poo out loads of the B12 as waste for a start.

John

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rick etter" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "John Coleman" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Purple" > wrote in message
>> > om...
>> >> There is one vitamin (B12) that vegans must supplement and having
>> >> accepted this, it presumably feels less unnatural to supplement
>> >> others.
>> >
>> > Vegans don't have to supplement B12, it is simply the best option.
>> >
>> > It may be possible to obtain enough without supplements, and also
> possible
>> > from eating your own faeces. http://www.veganhealth.org/b12/int
>>
>> It's also possible by not washing your veggies. especially if grown
>> organically. It's for the same reason though....
>
> not reliable
>
>>
>> >
>> > Personally I take a supplement though.
>> ================
>> Personally, I'd just eat a helping of grass-fed beef or game every now
>> and
>> then.
>
> the B12 is destroyed by high temperatures typically used for preparing
> meat,
> dairy actually works out as a better source on this basis
>
>> Very healthy, very tasty, very good nutrition.
>
> I see no data supporting the contention that it is healthy to eat meat,
=================
The longest lived groups of people in the world eat meat.

and
> taste is a personal issue. I've always detested meat and animal products,
> lots of kids do, hence the many varied attempts to hide its texture and
> flavour. Meat does provide B vitamins and some minerals quite well, but
> isn't the best food nutritionally, and certainly not as resource efficient
> as utilising plant foods directly.
==================
Another typical vegan ly. There is nothing efficient about petro-chemical
intensive mono-culture. You can try to pretend otherwise, but it doesn'r
fly at the personal level.

>
>> It doesn't have to be
>> every day.
>
> Well practically it does. A 100g serving of bison would provide only
> 1.79mcg
> of B12 http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcom...st_nut_edit.pl. I
> take 50mcg/day of B12, and eating 2.5+ kilos of bison daily isn't
> practical,
> eating 100g/day of animal products daily is also enough to increase risk
> of
> degenerative diseases significantly. Short of eating ones own poo, insects
> or other invertibrates are probably the most ecologically efficient way of
> obtaining B12, but you don't seem to promote that.
======================
Whay I don't promote is the ever increasing reliance on the petro-chemical
industry and the environmental damge it causes. You, on the other ahnd,
don't seem to have a problem with that, as long as it's not visible on your
plate.



>
>> Also, less demand on the petro-chemical industry that has to
>> make said suppliments.
>
> B12 is made using deep fermentation, there are no petrochemicals directly
> involved. I would imagine that the energy and waste produced by getting
> B12
> from meat far exceeds that used to produce it from a vat of bacteria.
> Animals poo out loads of the B12 as waste for a start.
====================
Then show your numbers. As it is, b12 from grass fed beef or game cost very
little environmentally, or in habitat damage as opposed to *any* process
involving power generation, killer.

>
> John
>
>

In article >, John Cartmell > wrote:
>In article >,
> Purple > wrote:
>> > 1) Where do the supplements come from ?
>
>> At the moment, I don't know exactly.
>
>They're not meat products which is the only relevant question.

Aren't they ? ... oooookkk ... if you say so


Bruce

------------------------------
Health nuts are going to feel stupid someday, lying in hospitals
dying of nothing.

-Redd Foxx


Caution ===== followups may have been changed to relevant groups
(if there were any)

Bruce Sinclair wrote:
>>>>>I guess your cows live on air alone. Do you not realize that a pasture
>>>>>is a crop.
>>>
>>>Except most corn in the US is fed to cows.
>>
>>Not the kind of corn you'd eat. What's fed to cattle is generally unsuitable
>>for
>>human consumption.
>
> Even if true,

It is.

> what relevance does this have ?

It disabuses the error of veg-ns and animal rights activists of their claims
that all these grains and legumes (e.g., for finishing cattle or hogs or
poultry) can be put to better use feeding humans. It also goes against their
claims that all the land used for livestock is somehow "wasted." It isn't. Their
errors start with the fallacies that all land is the same and that every kernel
of every grain is the same. Both assumptions are patently false.

The following is from a farm action council in Canada. I realize they're
protecting their own industry and the information they provide is self-serving,
but I also say the same is true of their opposition. In fact, perhaps more true
since activists are free to make wild claims and distortions without
repercussions from trade commissions or other regulatory agencies.

Beef cattle do not compete with humans for grain. In past years,
year-end surpluses of grain and oilseeds were four times as large as the
amount fed to cattle. Livestock are not in competition for the use of
any land of crop resources that could be reassigned to any other
“higher” purpose. Much of the grain used for cattle feed is not
suitable for human consumption. No one in this world is being denied
access to human food because of livestock production. In fact,
livestock allow more food to be produced by using plants and by-products
that are inedible for humans. Additionally, the cost of grain for human
consumption would not be reduced in the absence of feed grain
production.
http://www.ofac.org/factsheets/fact7.html

Significant consumption of aquatic animals as food is only thought to date
back 20,000 years - it's a dietary fad in evolutionary terms. Chimps fish
for termites, not shellfish.

John

"John Cartmell" > wrote in message
...
> In article . net>,
> rick etter > wrote:
> > We are, however designed to include meat in our diets.
>
> But almost certainly not the meat that you expect. We're almost certainly
> designed to include a small amount of shellfish in a diet of fruit,
> vegetables, and algae. Dropping the shellfish (especially the way we've
> poisoned much of it) is a far smaller step than taking to eat large chunks
> of red meat that we are certainly not designed to cope with.
>
> --
> John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527
> Qercus magazine & FD Games www.finnybank.com www.acornuser.com
> Qercus - a fusion of Acorn Publisher & Acorn User magazines

this should be checked out - I think chicken and fish material can still be
fed to cows, but not cows to cows

John

"Scented Nectar" > wrote in message
...
> > > The rest of cow food is made up
> > > of garbage like meat and bone meal (MBM)
> >
> > Not, I think, in the UK these days.
>
> You're right. In the UK, they've wised up. Other
> places are starting to also, but it's going slowly.
>
> I used to work in a candy factory about 25 years
> ago. Misshapen candy was sold to pig farmers
> for fattening up. That shocked me at the time.
>
>

"Bill Dearth" > wrote in message
news:W9tqd.681690$8_6.487081@attbi_s04...
8<
> A few quotes from the Oct 2004 Discover magazine article titled "The Inuit
> Paradox":

The Innuit are not healthy folk, they get osteoporosis on trad diets, and do
not live into old age. They have different genetic makeup to the rest of the
population. They have a god of constipation called fartman.

> "What the diet of the Far North illustrates, says Harold Draper, a
> biochemist and expert in Eskimo nutrition, is that there are no essential
> foods-only essential nutrients."

Who cares about arbitrary definitions of what is essential, I want to know
what is optimally healthy for me.

> "A key difference in the typical Nunavik Inuit's diet is that more
than
> 50% of the calories in Inuit native foods comes from fat, much more
> important, the fats come from wild animals."

so we all have to go back to being hunter gatherers?

> The final conclusion must be this: In the absence of over the counter
> vitamins, supplements etc., humans can live on a 100% animal diet, but can
> not on a 100% plant diet.

This has not been established yet, there are millions of plants to
investigate, yet modern diets typically exploit arounf 5 major plant foods.

> As important, if not more so is the fact that anthropologists state that
we
> humans were able to become sentient ONLY because of the increased proteins
> we consumed, first from scavenging carrion, and later from our own kills
of
> animals.

These anecdotes have no science, and are nothing to do with the issues. It
is the Egyptians who often get credit for starting civilisation off, but
they were farmers, not hunters.

> Plants simply didn't provide the protein boost we needed to turn
> from hairy ape-like creatures near the bottom rung of the food chain, to
> where we are now, at or near the top, depending on where you live, lol.

BS - how did gorillas evolve bigger brains than proto gorillas? Why do
elephants have bigger brains than humans? The brain grows very slowly and
has stable proteins unlike muscle. In order to evolve a larger brain you
simply adjust the gene that determines when the brain needs to stop growing.
Protein turnover can be lowered easily by not swinging abound in trees all
the time, and walking around instead.

Humans do not have large brains, they have small bodies. Reducing body size
increases the amount of remaining brain available for stuff other than body
motor control. The brain can also fold to obtain more density. Social and
environmental pressures (hard times?) probably drove brain evolution, not
protein intake. Even people in poor countries with low protein intakes do
not develop smaller brains.

further reading http://www.unm.edu/~hmahn/deacon.html

John

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill Dearth" > wrote in message
> news:W9tqd.681690$8_6.487081@attbi_s04...
> 8<
>> A few quotes from the Oct 2004 Discover magazine article titled "The
>> Inuit
>> Paradox":
>
> The Innuit are not healthy folk, they get osteoporosis on trad diets, and
> do
> not live into old age. They have different genetic makeup to the rest of
> the
> population. They have a god of constipation called fartman.
>
>> "What the diet of the Far North illustrates, says Harold Draper, a
>> biochemist and expert in Eskimo nutrition, is that there are no essential
>> foods-only essential nutrients."
>
> Who cares about arbitrary definitions of what is essential, I want to know
> what is optimally healthy for me.
=======================
And overall, that's been shown to be a diet that includes some meat, not an
absence of all meat.


snippage...

"John Coleman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill Dearth" > wrote in message
> news:W9tqd.681690$8_6.487081@attbi_s04...
> 8<
>> A few quotes from the Oct 2004 Discover magazine article titled "The
>> Inuit
>> Paradox":
>
> The Innuit are not healthy folk, they get osteoporosis on trad diets, and
> do
> not live into old age. They have different genetic makeup to the rest of
> the
> population. They have a god of constipation called fartman.
>
>> "What the diet of the Far North illustrates, says Harold Draper, a
>> biochemist and expert in Eskimo nutrition, is that there are no essential
>> foods-only essential nutrients."
>
> Who cares about arbitrary definitions of what is essential, I want to know
> what is optimally healthy for me.
=======================
And overall, that's been shown to be a diet that includes some meat, not an
absence of all meat.


snippage...