The Vegan Party of Canada

Hunters: No Respect for Life

2011-12-14T22:18:00.006-05:00

Far be it for me to stereotype people, make sweeping generalizations or paint everyone with the same brush, but hunters are a despicable lot (despicable, adj. deserving to be despised; contemptible; morally reprehensible; vile).*

Case in point: I’m hiking out at Rockway Conservation Area last Sunday and I notice these two guys in the parking lot of the Rockway Community Centre doing something out of the back of one of their trucks. I didn’t think too much about it as I figured they were getting ready to go for hike as well.

When I returned a few hours later, they were still there, getting ready to leave. I also noticed something in the grass directly behind their trucks so I went over to investigate. Turns out it was a deer carcass, freshly killed and cleaned. The head was severed, the flesh removed and the innards stuffed into two garbage bags along with a rolled up sheet of plastic dripping blood.

The two guys jumped in their vehicles and took off as I went over to take pictures of the gruesome scene (and snapped a couple license plates in the process). One of the men drove slowly, smiled and gave me a little wave before pulling out of the parking lot.

I called the police when I got home, who suggested I contact the Ministry of Natural Resources. A very nice girl up in Sault Ste. Marie (who handles all hunting violation issues for Ontario) explained that although what these two men did was “unethical” and “not smart”, they did not violate any laws (providing they have a tag to hunt deer).

If anything they are guilty of littering, which, I was told, will be addressed by the local municipal bylaw office. However, killing a deer, stripping the flesh off his body and tossing his remains in a parking lot where people go hiking, walk their dogs and take their children to experience nature, is perfectly legal, if not “smart”.

According to the MNR, if these two Bungalow Bills had littered on Crown property, like a provincial park, then charges would be laid, but only for the garbage bags and the sheet of plastic. The nice girl on the phone explained that if a hunter dumps the bones or body of a deer back in the woods it’s a good thing, because he’s returning the animal to nature where other animals can benefit from it.

I wanted to ask her what was so natural about two weekend warriors, armed with high-powered weapons and driving a Hummer and an SUV, going in the forest (not exactly man’s natural habitat anymore) and taking down a healthy young buck when natural predators take down the sick and old, but fought the urge, knowing I would be wasting my time and hers.

The day before this happened I had taken a number of people to Short Hills Provincial Park - just down the road from Rockway - to do some nature photography. While we were on the trail, we spotted half-a-dozen deer, almost completely camouflaged in the tall grasses. We tried to get closer to take some pictures but they bolted across the field, their white tails flapping as they ran away.

No wonder they’re so afraid of us. Some people respect life, and feel lucky if they just get a glimpse of these beautiful and graceful animals in their natural environment. Others get their rocks off by destroying life. It makes them feel big and powerful to take down a helpless, innocent animal and kill it. I’m told it’s the way of the world. Maybe it is. But does it have to be?

* My apologies to all you despicable hunters who slaughter animals “responsibly” and “sustainably” and other such garbage like that, as if that makes it okay or means anything to the animal being killed. My advice? Get a life, instead of taking someone else’s.

Veganish: It's Okay to Hurt Animals Once in a While

2011-11-18T09:05:00.016-05:00

There’s a new fad strutting its stuff these days. It’s called veganishism. It’s also known as half-assed veganism, lazy veganism or veganism-for-people-who-think-it’s-cool-to-say-they’re-vegan-when-they-really-aren’t. It refers to people who are “mostly” vegan but still eat animal products now and then.

The Urban Dictionary (urbandictionary.com) defines it as “An eating practice for people who kinda want to be vegan, but sometimes just need to eat some cheese or chicken.” It is also described as “guilt free veganism”.

Surprisingly, a number of vegans are promoting the idea of “veganish” so as to, if I understand correctly, make people who care about animal suffering and exploitation, but can’t quite adhere to a 100% vegan diet* feel less guilty if they “fall off the wagon” from time to time.

Other advocates of occasional veganism are motivated by personal health or a cleaner, more sustainable environment, rather than violence to other animals. As noted above, many, if not most advocates for “veganishism” only focus on food issues and don’t address the other aspects of veganism, such as clothing, animal experimentation, hunting and fishing, and all other areas of animal oppression.

CarpeVegan.com explains veganish this way:

“If someone smokes a pack of cigarettes a day, they’re clearly a smoker; but if, once or twice a year, they get drunk at a party and smoke a cigar, then they’re a non-smoker who smokes every once in a while. We propose a similar way of thinking for veganism: if 95%’ish of the time you’re vegan, you’re vegan or veganish.”

Advocates for veganishism argue that as long as people are trying to be vegan, they should be referred to as vegans, or veganishes (?) because in spirit, if not actually in practice, they are vegans. They also contend that more people would be willing to try veganism if they didn’t have to be 100% vegan at the get-go, and if they weren’t attacked for not living up to some vegans’ perfect, yet “impossible” standards.

From an animal rights point of view, promoters of veganishism believe fewer “food” animals would suffer and die because given the choice between vegan and veganish, more people would choose the latter because it’s easier.

Now to me, veganish is no different from occasional vegetarianism or occasional carnism. I have no problem with the word vegan, its definition or adhering to its principles. But the bastardization or watering down of the word to make it more appealing to people troubles me.

To be vegan is to eliminate, as much as possible, ALL forms of cruelty towards other animals. And, I might add, ALL the time. Not whenever you feel like and not whenever it’s convenient. It’s a moral position (and a stand against violence), not one that you can ignore when it suits you and not one that changes day to day.

I have some friends who consider themselves "vegetarians in principle" because they say they love animals and they feel bad for them when they’re killed for food - but they still eat them. I think veganish is the same thing: you don't have to be vegan in practice, just in principle, kinda like Mark Bittman's Vegan Until Six program or the Conscientious Carnivores. If you cause suffering to animals once in a while, that's okay, because you're not really vegan - you're veganish!

Let’s look at it another way. If I reduced the amount of beatings I inflicted on my child by 95% I would still be a child abuser. If I was pulled over for speeding I could argue that since I go the speed limit 95%-ish of the time I really wasn’t speeding at all. The police officer would then tear up the ticket, tell me to have a nice day and let me go own my way - yeah right!

My point is that if you reduce your cruelty to animals, even by 80, 90 or 95%, but intentionally cause their suffering and death once in a while, you’re still causing their suffering and death. This is not something to celebrate.

Would we applaud the person who goes 364 days a year without sexually molesting a child or murdering another human being but “falls off the wagon” and destroys someone else’s life just that one time? How is this any different from “veganishism”? I’ll tell you: it’s no different because it still causes someone else to suffer.

And if you’re saying to yourself, “But he can’t compare the murder of a human being with the use of animals,” then you aren’t really an animal rights activist. That’s because equal consideration is at the heart of the animal rights movement. If you wouldn’t want someone to use, imprison, torture or slaughter you, then you don’t do it to someone else, whether that someone has two legs, four legs, wings or gills.

It’s easy to fall off the wagon if you’re vegetarian or vegan for health reasons or to reduce your carbon footprint. You can always assure yourself that, if you slip up, cheat or cave in one day, you can just make up for it the next day. What’s the harm?

We all consume things that aren’t 100% healthy for us, but we believe that “anything in moderation” is okay, or if we eat something bad “once in a while” it’s not going to kill us. After all, we’re not perfect and we all impact the planet negatively, to some degree, each and every day. In this context, falling off the wagon occasionally is no big deal.

But if you’re vegan for ethical reasons, because you believe that using and slaughtering animals are forms of violence and morally WRONG, then falling off the wagon occasionally becomes a BIG DEAL, because every time you consume animal products, you’re contributing to the suffering, exploitation and killing of other animals.

The whole idea of “veganish” seems to want to pat people on the back who aren’t fully committed to a lifestyle of compassion, and to make people feel good when they do eat animals. I think this is a mistake (and imagine how confusing it is to non-vegans!).

None of us are perfect and there's no such thing as a 100% consciously or unconsciously aware vegan - your car alone most likely contains animal by-products of one kind or another and we all support animal exploitation to a degree, even if it's buying vegan food at a grocery store that sells animal products - but the goal is to eliminate, as much as humanly possible, those products from your life.

If you want to cut down on your animal consumption for health, the environment or the animals, great! But making up a word to make people feel good about the occasional suffering and death they’re causing doesn’t change the fact that unless you’re vegan, you’re still part of the problem, just as you’re part of the problem if you murder, rape and steal (even if it’s only 5, 4, 3, 2 or 1% of the time).

I don't think anyone should be shamed or ridiculed because they're trying to be vegan, but stumble once in a while. If you’re vegan in every other aspect of your life but just can’t give up cheese, then you’re definitely reducing the amount of suffering in the world.

My advice to them is to do your best to be vegan. Don’t beat yourself up if you slip up once in a while, just get back on the wagon and move forward. Seek out vegan organizations to help you find cruelty-free alternatives and to reassure you that you’re doing the right thing when you’re feeling weak. You’ll find that other vegans will be more than happy to share their experiences and expertise with you!

But if you're “okay” with causing the suffering, exploitation and slaughter of other sentient beings, even once in a while, you're NOT vegan, and all the variations in the world (veganish, veganesque, etc.) won’t change the fact that until you DO go vegan, you’re still part of the problem, not the solution.

Does the individual cow, chicken or pig suffer any less if someone is veganish? As long as there is a demand for animal products - any amount of animal products - animals will continue to suffer and die. There’s no such thing as slaughter-lite, death-free death or exploitation-ish. The idea of veganish is just as absurd.

*According to Donald Watson, co-founder of the British Vegan Society and creator of the word, veganism “denotes a philosophy and way of living which seeks to exclude - as far as is possible and practical - all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose; and by extension, promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment."

A Bridge Too Far

2011-04-13T16:42:00.007-04:00

"No! No different! Only different in your mind. You must unlearn what you have learned." – Yoda to Luke, The Empire Strikes Back

I have this friend. He’s a great guy, concerned about the environment, social justice issues, local and international politics, sustainable living, heritage preservation and so on. He has so much integrity, passion and commitment that he started an online newspaper, devoting most of his free time and energy to inform and educate the masses (and he doesn’t even get paid for it!).

He’s also a huge animal lover. For as long as I can remember he’s written about issues concerning animals. He’s always condemned local and national acts of animal cruelty. He’s called for stronger laws to protect animals we call pets from abuse. He’s written against the insidious past-time known as sport hunting. And he’s been a relentless pain in the butt towards those who keep whales in captivity.

He supports local animal rights groups when they hold their protests and vigils, advertises and covers various lectures and symposiums to enlighten the public on animal issues, and even features animal adoptions on his website.

Yet despite all his concern and compassion for other living beings, he still supports the exploitation, suffering and slaughter of animals for food. He still EATS animals and animal products.

We’ve talked about it a lot, and I’ve even offered to take him out and treat him to a delicious vegan meal at a restaurant just down the street from his house. So far he hasn’t taken me up on it.

In a recent email, my friend wrote:

“please don't ask me if I am vegan yet .... as much as I share your passion for all creatures great and small on this planet, that probably ain't going to happen for me. .... not eating an egg is a bridge too far.”

It’s not the first time I’ve heard this. Many people I’ve spoken with over the years have expressed the same sentiments. But does this make my friend a hypocrite? Is it hypocritical to condemn those who exploit and kill animals for commercial gain or personal satisfaction, only to support other forms of violence towards animals?

What’s the difference between stealing whales from the wild (or breeding them in captivity) to live as slaves for human entertainment, and breeding cows, pigs and chickens to live as slaves destined for slaughter (yes, cows and chickens are slaughtered when they can’t produce any more milk or eggs) because people enjoy the taste of their flesh and secretions?

And what’s the difference between the family who buys a season’s pass to the marine park and the family who buys a ham for Easter?

I can picture my friend interviewing someone who kills animals for their fur. “Isn’t it cruel to kill an animal just to make someone else look good?” he asks. The fur trapper then replies:

“please don't ask me if I am going to give up killing animals for the fur industry .... as much as I share your passion for all creatures great and small on this planet, that probably ain't going to happen for me. .... not trapping animals is a bridge too far.”

Or how about the person who keeps whales in tiny concrete tanks?

“please don't ask me if I am going to stop displaying whales .... as much as I share your passion for all creatures great and small on this planet, that probably ain't going to happen for me. .... not displaying whales (and jeopardizing the success of my business) is a bridge too far.”

Cruelty is cruelty, and suffering is suffering. It is no less so just because it’s being done to a different kind of animal. That doesn’t mean I think my friend is a cold-blooded killer or cruel animal collector, but in regards to reducing animal suffering and ultimately the amount of unnecessary violence in the world, if you’re not part of the solution…

So what IS the solution for my friend? Put your money where your mouth is. Like Gandhi said, be the change you want to see in the world. If you’re against animal exploitation, slavery and cruelty, go vegan. Can’t give up eggs yet? Then give up everything except eggs. A little bit is better than nothing at all. But don’t write it all off because you’re too old or too set in your ways.

Or as Yoda would say, only in your mind is the bridge too far…

Who Made Your Eggs Today?

2010-11-07T12:22:00.009-05:00

It never ceases to amaze me how companies that exploit and slaughter other animals twist and bury the truth in order to sell their “products” or boost their public image. And they always get away with it.

Why is that? Oh right, because we let them. Otherwise, we’d be complaining and writing letters to those who regulate and guarantee truth in advertising.

If a billboard went up today advertising that cigarettes are good for you, or make you look cool, people would go ballistic. In fact, the ad would never get approved in the first place.

But when it comes to animal agriculture, we turn a blind eye. We allow false advertising, even encourage it, so we’re not reminded of how our meat and other animal products get to our table.

That’s why Ribfest uses a smiling pig in a chef’s hat (or coveralls) for its logo. That’s why milk and dairy products come in packages bearing pictures of happy heifers in idyllic fields. And that’s why the egg industry lies to its customers.

The question is: “Who Made Your Eggs Today?” And we have a picture of an egg farmer for the answer. Well my friends, the egg farmer didn’t make the eggs. He’s a man, a mammal, incapable of producing eggs. Chickens produce eggs, not humans.

If this billboard (one of many around the peninsula right now) was accurate, it would show a picture of six or seven birds, crammed into a battery cage, struggling to move around.

Their beaks would be cut off with a hot blade (and no pain-killers) so they can’t peck each other – a stress-induced behaviour – and risk damaging the production units (the industry’s term for chickens). And they might even be covered in fecal matter dripping down from the cages above them. Not a pretty picture.

So instead of the truth, we have a lie: a smiling farmer instead of a tortured little bird.

The truth is, the animals who make your eggs are sentient. That means they can feel pain, experience stress and terror, and suffer, just like your pet cat or dog. We shut down puppy mills that treat dogs in this manner, but support factory farms that treat chickens in this manner. Why?

I’d like to see some real truth in animal agriculture advertising. Maybe then people would consider going vegan.

Violent vegans

2010-03-24T06:45:00.000-04:00

“Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent.” - Isaac Asimov

This guy has a piece of celery in one ear, a carrot in the other ear and a zucchini up his nose. He goes to the doctor and asks him what’s wrong. The doctor tells him, “Well, for one thing, you're not eating right.”

Okay, maybe not the funniest joke in the world but I just wanted to show you that I do have a sense of humour. But what I read last week wasn’t funny to me at all. In fact, I thought it was quite appalling.

The incident I’m referring to is the pie-ing of Lierre Keith, former vegan and author of The Vegetarian Myth, by three hooded vegan extremists.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the assault took place at an anarchist book fair, where Keith was promoting her book, and the pies thrown at her were reportedly laced with chili peppers. For the complete story, click here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/03/17/MNGI1CGM1H.DTL

A similar occurrence happened here in Canada a few months ago, when a pie-wielding PETA member attacked the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans because she supported the annual east coast seal slaughter. PETA claimed responsibility for the pie assault and the woman, an American from New York City, was charged. Here’s the link to that story:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/755483--anti-sealing-peta-protester-smacks-minister-with-tofu-pie

Now there are a lot of things that people say and do that I disagree with, but I don’t go around throwing pies at them. It’s not only childish; it’s an act of violence. Veganism is supposed to be about NON-violence.

And while a number of people have applauded the pie-throwing episode in San Francisco, some vegans don’t even consider it an act of violence. According to a person who witnessed the assault:

“I was there and perhaps I should have snickered in silence, and I am the first one to condemn ‘violence’, but I firmly feel that this was not a violent act, but a clever and effective direct action. The only thing the pie throwing ninjas bruised was her ego. Lierre Keith's book is very dangerous to the vegan movement.”

For the record, hitting someone in the face with a pie IS a violent act. It’s a display of force meant to embarrass or humiliate someone else, and it’s doing something to someone else against their will - a violation. It doesn't matter that Keith wasn’t physically or seriously injured.

So what are these people trying to prove? Do they think they’re going to win the public over or be taken seriously by hitting people in the face with pies? What message do they hope to impart on society, other than if you support acts of violence against animals (or even write against vegetarianism/veganism), you will become the target of violence?

Some animal activists used to do the same thing to people who wore fur, but instead of throwing pies, they threw red paint (and apparently still do on occasion). But the tactics, and the message, are still the same: the use of violence to raise awareness of violence. It’s all pretty stupid if you ask me.

And it’s counter-productive. Throwing pies at people doesn’t make them think about animal suffering or animal rights. It will however, make them think that animal activists are a bunch of crazy idiots.

Since 99% of the population doesn’t see anything wrong with using or eating animals, a lot of people will use this stunt (and others like it) to denounce veganism, and label us all as angry, militant and irrational hypocrites, even though it's not true.

If these violent outbursts continue, the progress we’ve made as agents for peaceful change will suffer. We’ll be branded extremists and terrorists. Never mind Lierre Keith’s book; it’s the pie-throwings and other senseless acts of violence that could do the vegan movement the most harm.

In defense of James Cameron and Avatar (sort of)

2010-03-09T17:28:00.007-05:00

Stephanie Ernst over at Animal Rights & AntiOppression recently wrote that James Cameron’s new film Avatar, despite what the critics, or even some of the big animal rights organizations say, does NOT show respect for animals.

She takes particular offence to a scene in which the lead character forces himself onto (and into) another creature in order to control him. For Jake to become a full warrior, he must overpower and subdue an ikran, one of Pandora’s flying beasts. Stephanie writes:

“It is Jake’s duty, while the animal fights him off, to “bond” with the animal by overpowering him, tying him up, climbing on top of him, and inserting a part of his body into the body of the animal while his victim desperately fights him off.”

Click here for the full story:

http://challengeoppression.com/2010/02/16/domination-and-rape-in-avatar-this-is-respect-for-animals/

Stephanie also has a problem with the film’s message that as long as you pray or pay your respects to other animals, it’s alright to kill them (although we don’t actually know why Jake kills the animal and we never see the Na’vi eat animal flesh).

I saw Avatar twice and I personally thought it was an amazing movie. I loved the computer graphics, the music and the way the film brought attention to the environment, capitalism, the use of the military and the way we’ve treated (and continue to treat) indigenous peoples.

Nevertheless, I too was bothered by the “rape” scenes. I couldn’t quite put my finger on it at the time but something about it made me uncomfortable. I was reminded of the way wild stallions or elephants are “broken” but I think I saw it more as some kind of mind control than rape. I’m grateful to Stephanie for making me see what it really was.

I also found it disturbing that PETA would honour a film that promotes the exploitation of other animals, awarding James Cameron with a Proggy (PETA’s progress award) because of the film’s compassion and understanding towards animals.

According to PETA Senior Vice-President Lisa Lange, “We hope viewers will come away from Avatar with a new way of looking at the world around them and the way we treat our fellow earthlings. For helping animals with the positive message of this film, James Cameron is PETA’s ‘King of the World.’”

What? Okay, whatever. I learned long ago that PETA will do or say just about anything (or ride on anybody’s coattails) to get a headline. Remember CloFu (George Clooney sweat-flavoured tofu)?

But I don’t blame Cameron for making a film that promotes the slaughter, subjugation and rape of other animals. After all, Cameron isn’t a vegan or an animal rights activist. If he was, then I’d take issue with him exploiting animals in his films. But he’s not.

A friend of mine was also concerned that the use of violence towards the creatures in Avatar was going to send a message to the public that it’s okay to exploit and kill animals.

I had to remind my friend that the public ALREADY thinks that it’s okay to exploit and kill animals. We live in a society where it’s commonplace and acceptable to use animals for any reason whatsoever.

We kill them for fun, we kill them for food, we kill them for scientific curiosity and we kill them because we think we look good wrapped in their skins. We rape cows, we torture primates, we drown rats and we grind baby chicks alive.

We bash in the heads of turtles with hammers to study their heart rates and drill holes into the heads of hamsters to analyze their sex drives! We even cook and eat animals while they’re still alive. I could go on and on.

Aside from vegans, who make up a whole 1% of the population, everybody else eats and uses and kills animals.

So Cameron wrote and produced a film that depicts animal exploitation. Why are people surprised? Why would he write anything else?

We are not lions

2010-02-24T17:29:00.005-05:00

In an attempt to defend meat-eating, there are those who say it’s perfectly natural for us to kill and consume other animals, and since we’re at the top of the food chain, everything and anything (or anyone) is on the menu.

These people often cite lions, tigers and bears (oh my) to back up their beliefs that humans are supposed to eat flesh, because other animals eat flesh. I can see where they’re coming from because I thought the very same thing when I was very young.

“Bears are omnivores and so are we,” I once told my then vegetarian sister. “Get the bears to stop eating meat and I’ll stop eating meat.” I thought I was so clever!

Lions kill antelopes, wolves kill deer and bears kill fish. They’re animals and we’re animals. So what’s the big deal? What’s the difference?

The difference is we are not lions, wolves or bears. We’re human beings: a different kind of animal; a MORAL animal. Lions and other carnivores don’t have morals, nor do they have a choice. If they don’t kill other animals they’ll die. They can’t survive on fruits, grains and vegetables. It’s the same for omnivores. But we can. We have other options.

Maybe once, a long time ago, we had to eat animals to survive (humans also ate other humans NOT so long ago) but we’ve learned so much since then. Today we work with lasers, communicate instantly with people on the other side of the planet and send robots to other planets. We’re in the 21st century now, not the Stone Age. We don’t need to eat animals anymore.

Some readers might say: “Yes, but we’re omnivores too!” Are we? I’m not so sure. Our physiology seems to indicate we are not, and the health implications (not to mention the environmental consequences) of consuming animal products suggest it would be wiser for all of us if we gave up meat.

And just because we can do something, like eating someone else’s flesh, doesn’t mean we should. Our bodies can also handle cocaine, heroine and crystal meth in moderate amounts, but I don’t know anyone promoting widespread psychoactive drug use.

So meat advocates can use predators to try and make their meat-eating arguments if they like but I’m more inspired by the gorillas, elephants and rhinoceroses. These amazing animals are just as strong as lions (if not stronger) and they’re all vegans. They manage to survive without killing and eating the bodies of other animals and they do just fine.

But I don’t object to predatory animals killing other animals (even though I feel bad for the victims) because, as I wrote earlier, they have no choice; it’s either do or die. Humans on the other hand do have a choice. And that’s what it all comes down to: a moral choice.

We know that killing, unless absolutely necessary, is wrong. We also know that causing unnecessary suffering to others is cruel. That’s why we have laws. If we didn’t, society couldn’t function. So we’re taught from an early age about right and wrong, do unto others, and so on for the betterment of society and the good of its members.

We’re praised when we perform acts of kindness and punished when we commit acts of violence. We’re also encouraged to work together to strengthen our communities, protect the weak and vulnerable, and help the sick and elderly. We don’t live by the law of the jungle because we don’t live in the jungle.

We can’t be part of a moral community, and reap the benefits of that community on one hand, and then justify killing and eating animals “because other animals do it.” There are no rules in nature; it’s survival of the fittest. But WE don’t live like that. If we did, there would be no law enforcement agencies, no hospitals, no charitable organizations, no social services, no mercy and no compassion.

If you want to reject civilized society and all its rules, living “red in claw and tooth” and killing what you eat go right ahead. But leave behind all the protections and benefits that come from living in a civilized society, including all those fancy gadgets. Wild animals don’t have cars, kerosene generators or high-powered rifles and neither should you.

Either we live like human beings, and accept all the rights and responsibilities that come with that, or we live like animals. It’s one or the other. We can’t have it both ways.

The sanctity of life

2010-02-10T19:04:00.008-05:00

I’m reading the newspaper the other day when I come across the following headlines:

Innocent bystander shot in the head and killed while pumping gas.

12-year-old girl found raped, murdered.

I mention them to a number of people and their responses are typical:

What a shame. How could somebody do such a thing? What a waste of a life!

They all feel bad for the victims whose lives have ended so abruptly, brutally and needlessly, and their hearts go out to the grieving families, unable to imagine the suffering they’re going through.

They try their best to make sense out of such senseless violence. Some get angry. One person wonders how some people can have so little respect for another’s life. Another asks, “What’s wrong with this world?”

However, the one thing that nobody says, not even one of them, is, “Well, at least they had a good life up until then.” Could you imagine if someone did? What would the others think of that person? At best, he or she would be accused of being some kind of cold-blooded monster!

“How could you say such a horrible thing?” they’d ask. They’d be shocked, disgusted and angered. They’d probably find such a remark repugnant, offensive and insensitive. And rightly so.

That’s because most of us have a reverence for life; we believe it to be sacred. We also believe that everyone should have a chance to live out his or her life; to grow up into adulthood, get married, have children and pursue a career; whatever they want to do. To have that life cut short by an unnecessary act of violence is both terrible and tragic.

Yet people say this all the time when it comes to the animals, don’t they? “Well, at least they had a good life up until then,” as if a couple of months (or for cows, a couple of years) of not being tortured justifies a violent and horrific end.

But that’s the whole idea behind “free-range” and “certified humane” animal products; that it’s okay to butcher animals as long as they’ve had a good life (and it’s us humans, not the animals, who determines what a good life is and when it should end).

Thanks to the countless undercover investigations and You Tube videos, the public is now more aware than ever before of what happens in today’s factory farms. Still, most people see nothing wrong with eating other farmed animals as long as they’re treated “okay” (up until the time their throats are slit anyways). And this is exactly what the industry wants you to think.

“Free-range” and “certified humane” labels were invented for one reason: to sell animal flesh, eggs and milk products to so-called “conscientious” consumers. But make no mistake: this new breed of animal exploiter is no more concerned with animal welfare than the animal exploiters over at the factory farm.

They do understand one thing though. People care about animals, even if they won’t stop eating them (and of course, no animal farmer wants you to stop eating them), so they’ve come up with an innovative marketing strategy to relieve the customer’s guilt: free range and certified humane animal products.

The customer feels good because he thinks the animals aren’t suffering (or not suffering as much). The exploiters feel good because they’re able to sell their flesh, milk and eggs at a higher price. The only ones who aren’t feeling so good are the animals because, well, they’re dead!

These so-called “happy” animals (how else do you get happy meat?) are still mutilated, abused and slaughtered. Chickens still have their beaks burned off; cows still have their horns cut off and pigs still have their… well, they’re still castrated. All of this is done without anesthetic and in the end they are all mercilessly, painfully and brutally killed.

They’re still treated like machines (the industry prefers “production units”) instead of sentient beings who have interests of their own. These “happy” animals are slaves, plain and simple. Since when is slavery humane? Who ever heard of a happy slave?

Well, here’s a newsflash for you: there’s no such thing as happy meat and there’s no such thing as humane slaughter. If you wouldn’t do it to another human being, it’s not humane.

Approximately 145 million animals are slaughtered on a daily basis (that’s over 50 BILLION a year) because we like the taste of them. That’s the only reason. So we try to justify our eating habits and ease our guilt by convincing ourselves, or letting the exploiters do it for us, that certain kinds of slaughter are acceptable; even desirable. They are not.

Whether these animals are “humanely-raised” or reared in an intensive confinement facility, they are ALL OF THEM slaughtered. They don’t retire; they aren’t sent out to pasture; no old folks home for them. The only place they go to is the slaughterhouse.

Over 50 billion lives every year. What a waste of life. No wonder there’s so much violence in the world. Isn’t it about time we made the connection, that as long as we engage in any act of violence, we will never be free of violence?

The French poet, Alphonse Lamartine, said, “Do not raise your hand against your brother, and do not spill the blood of any living creatures who live on the earth, neither human beings nor pets nor wild animals nor birds. In the depth of your soul some divine voice stops you from spilling this blood. There is life in it. You cannot return this life.”

And that’s what we’re talking about here: life. Someone else’s life. In fact, 50 billion someone elses each and every year. Their lives are not ours to take. These animals, given the choice, would rather live than die. Their life has value to them just as yours does to you.

We need to start practicing what we preach. We need to start respecting the sanctity of life. We need to go vegan.

The Great Separation

2010-01-30T17:38:00.007-05:00

Thousands of years ago, man lived in harmony with the rest of the natural world. Through what we would call Telepathy, he communicated with animals, plants and other forms of life - none of which he considered "beneath" himself, only different, with different jobs to perform. He worked side by side with earth angels and nature spirits, with who he shared responsibility for taking care of the world.

The earth's atmosphere was very different from what it is now, with a great deal more vegetation-supporting moisture. A tremendous variety of vegetable, fruit, seed and grain food was available. Because of such a diet, and the lack of unnatural strain, human life span was many times longer than what it is today. The killing of animals for food or "sport" was unthinkable. Man lived at peace with himself and the various life forms, whom he considered his teachers and friends.

But gradually at first, and then with increasing intensity, man's Ego began to grow and assert itself. Finally, after it had caused many unpleasant incidents, the consensus was reached that man should go out into the world alone, to learn a necessary lesson. The connections were broken.

On his own, feeling alienated from the world he had been created from, cut off from the full extent of its abundance, man was no longer happy. He began to search for the happiness he had lost. When he found something that reminded him of it, he tried to possess it and accumulate more - thereby introducing Stress into his life. But searching for lasting happiness and accumulating temporary substitutes for it brought him no satisfaction.

As he was no longer able to hear what the other forms of life were saying, he could only try to understand them through their actions, which he often misinterpreted. Because he was no longer cooperating with the earth angels and nature spirits for the good of all, but was attempting to manipulate the earth forces for his benefit alone, plants began to shrivel and die. With less vegetation to draw up and give off moisture, the planet's atmosphere became drier and deserts appeared. A relatively small number of plant species survived, which grew smaller and tougher with passing time. Eventually they lost the radiant colors and abundant fruit of their ancestors.

Man's life span began to shorten accordingly, and diseases appeared and spread. Because of the decreasing variety of food available to him - and his growing insensitivity - man began to kill and eat his friends the animals. They soon learned to flee from his approach and become increasingly shy and suspicious of human motives and behavior. And so the separation grew. After several generations, few people had any idea of what life had once been like.

As man became more and more violent toward the earth, and as his social and spiritual world narrowed to that of the human race alone, he became more and more manipulative of and violent toward his own kind. Men began to kill and enslave each other, creating armies and empires, forcing those who looked, talked, thought and acted differently from them to submit to what they thought was best.

Life became so miserable for the human race that about two or three thousand years ago, perfected spirits began to be born on earth in human form, to teach the truths that had largely been forgotten. But by then humanity had grown so divided, and so insensitive to the universal laws operating in the natural world, that those truths were only partially understood.

As time passed, the teachings of the perfected spirits were changed, for what one might call political reasons, by the all-too-human organizations that inherited them. Those who came into prominence within the organizations wanted power over others. They downplayed the importance of non-human life forms and eliminated from the teachings statements claiming that those forms had souls, wisdom and divine presence - and that the heaven they were in touch with was a state of Unity with the Divine that could be attained by anyone who put aside his ego and followed the universal laws.

The power-hungry wanted their followers to believe that heaven was a place to which some people - and only people - went after death, a place that could be reached by those who had the approval of their organizations. So not even the perfected spirits were able to restore the wholeness of truth, because of interference of the human ego.

Down through the centuries, accounts of the Great Separation. and of the Golden Age that existed before it, have been passed on by the sensitive and wise. Today in the industrial West, they are merely classified as legends and myths - fantasies believed in by the credulous and unsophisticated, stories based only on imagination and emotion. And although colored and simplified accounts of the Great Separation can be found in the holy books of the world's religions, it is doubtful that many followers of those religions strongly believe them.

- Benjamin Hoff, The Te of Piglet

They're all good animals

2010-01-25T19:24:00.005-05:00

Rusty died a few days ago.

She was my mother’s cat and she was 18 years old, although you’d never know it to look at her. She seemed a lot younger. Perhaps it’s because she was so little. Still, 18 years is a pretty long life for a cat. And I can assure you she had a good life.

Actually, she wasn’t my mother’s cat at all; she was my sister’s. But mom had agreed to take care of her when my sister moved away to Arizona more than 10 years ago. So even though Rusty wasn’t technically my mom’s cat, she was my mom’s cat.

My mother was crying when she phoned me to tell me that Rusty had passed away. She was heartbroken and she still is. She said Rusty had been a part of her and now that she was gone, she felt like a part of her was missing too.

She told me how she had been petting Rusty the night before she died and how Rusty had been purring. “Oh, how she purred,” my mother had said. Rusty was still warm when my mom found her lifeless body underneath the dining-room table the next morning.

“She was such a good cat,” mom said as she wept.

“I know she was,” I replied. I was tempted to add, they all are, but decided not to.

My mom loved Rusty; of that I have no doubt. And I know she’ll get over losing Rusty in time; the pain and sorrow replaced by fond memories of her. It’s just too bad that my mother couldn’t (or doesn’t) have the same empathy and love towards other animals.

You see, my mother loves some animals and eats others. When she hears of animal abuse on television, she’s appalled. Yet she refuses to make the connection when it comes to animals who are killed for food.

Perhaps if she was able to know the other animals, one from every species, the way she was able to know Rusty, she might feel differently. After all, the cow who was killed for her hamburger was such a good cow. The pig who was slaughtered for her bacon was such a good pig. And the little chicken whose throat was cut so my mom can enjoy her sweet and sour chicken balls was such a good chicken.

Maybe then she’d see that all animals are worthy of compassion; that they don’t need to die or deserve to die or want to die. She might come to the realization that they are all good animals, and the needless suffering and death of any of them is tragic; something to mourn and more importantly, something to stop.

The only way to do this is to go vegan.

Rest in peace Rusty.

And rest in peace all you other good animals.

Veganism is hard!

2010-01-13T18:09:00.009-05:00

Of all the reasons not to go vegan, this is the one I hear the most. Now I’m not completely convinced that everyone who says it’s hard has ever tried it (or has ever really given it a chance), but I’m assuming they assume it is. I also think a lot of folks equate veganism with extremism and view vegans as uncompromising purists.

To some we’re seen as a special breed of humans with almost supernatural powers of self-control; strange beings who constantly deny ourselves all the good things in life and take pleasure in trying to make other people feel guilty all the time.

Not true. The vegans I know (including myself) lead rich and rewarding lives. They’re as normal (or abnormal) as anyone else and they enjoy and do many of the same things you do. They also respect life - all life - and have devoted themselves to peace, which just so happens to begin with what (or who) you put in your mouth.

And it’s not about trying to make people feel guilty; it’s about trying to make people feel something, anything! Because if they feel something for the animals, a connection, pity, something, maybe they’ll stop eating them.

Personally, I’ve never considered veganism hard and I’ve been vegan for 10 years now. I make almost all my own meals and when I do eat out, I go to places that have vegan selections. I’ve also found that most restaurants are willing to prepare your food the way you want it; all you have to do is ask (try ordering a vegan pizza in a restaurant and see how many people comment on how delicious it looks).

Instead of eating meat and other animal products, I enjoy a wide variety of plant-based foods I never dreamed of trying before becoming vegan. Chana masala (aka chick peas in a curry sauce) is now one of my favourite homemade dishes, although prior to going vegan I wouldn’t touch chick peas with a ten-foot pole. Oh how I’ve grown!

I don’t feel like I’m missing out on anything or depriving myself but I feel good knowing that my diet isn’t contributing to the suffering of others. Veganism isn’t about depriving yourself of things, but it does provide you with an opportunity to expand your food choices as well as your circle of compassion.

I also have no desire to use or wear anything that resulted in animals being tortured and killed, nor do I wish to see animals confined (zoos and marine parks) or abused (circuses and rodeos) for human amusement (the other part of veganism). Once I knew the truth about how these animals are made to suffer there was no going back.

But let’s say for a minute that veganism is hard (but not impossible). So what? A lot of things are hard, like waking up early for work, going to school, doing the dishes, cleaning your room, dealing with your mother-in-law, obeying the speed limit, telling the truth, being faithful to your partner and helping others. Did I miss anything?

My point is there are things that a) we need to do to survive and get by in the world, and b) we should be doing because they make us better human beings and the world a better place. Sometimes it’s hard to do the right thing but it doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t do the right thing. And going vegan is the right thing. Not just for me or a select few but for everyone who believes in kindness, compassion and the golden rule.

Veganism is a commitment to peace and a stand against the exploitation of those who are weaker than us. Excluding animal products from your life is not the end of the world, but it might just be the beginning of the end to all the violence and unnecessary suffering in the world.

Reasons to go vegan

2010-01-08T05:27:00.012-05:00

An article published by the Montreal Gazette yesterday commented on the growing popularity of veganism, stating that: "A novelty only 30 years ago, meat-free diets are rapidly becoming the fashion for people who care about their family's and their planet's health."

For the full story, click here: Vegans move into the mainstream

While I enjoy seeing stories like this in the newspapers, I wish the authors would also include the most important reason, and the number one reason most people go vegan: to stop the exploitation, suffering and slaughter of other animals.

I suppose right now it's trendy to reduce your meat consumption (or at least to say you do) but trendy or not, veganism is compassion in action. It's about recognizing how cruel and unnecessary it is to use, kill, wear, eat or experiment on other animals and then adjusting your lifestyle to reflect that awareness.

2012: The Year to go Vegan

2009-12-31T10:01:00.015-05:00

I love the new year. It comes with so much promise; so many wonderful possibilities. And it’s always my hope that the new year will be even more wonderful than the last.

I’m also a huge fan of making New Year’s resolutions and I believe everyone should make at least one resolution and try to stick to it.

Of course, my dream would be that everyone reading this blog makes it his or her New Year’s resolution to go vegan - to end the unnecessary suffering and death of other animals (and by doing so improve your health, help the planet and end world hunger).

And you can start to do all this by simply changing your diet. How cool is that?

Veganism is a journey; an adventure. Whether it’s a joyous and exciting one is entirely up to you (to learn why vegetarianism doesn’t go far enough to end animal suffering, please go to: http://veganpartyofcanada.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-is-veganism.html).

All that’s required to begin the journey is a positive attitude and the proper motivation. And here's the motivation:

If you care about animals or feel that there’s too much violence in the world AND WANT TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT, this is the way to start. As Kafka said, “Now I can look at you in peace; I don’t eat you anymore.”

So make it your New Year’s resolution to go vegan. If you feel you can’t go totally vegan right away then do it in steps. Try eating vegan once a week and then twice a week and so on and so forth. If you fall off the wagon, don’t beat yourself up BUT DON’T QUIT! Just get back on and try again.

If you need help, don’t hesitate to contact me and I’ll try to steer you in the right direction regarding recipes, resources or moral support. And, if you’re so inclined, send me the occasional progress reports to let me know how you’re doing (travel advisory: don’t embark on this journey alone; let others help you along the way and share in your adventure).

Good Luck & Happy New Year!

Daniel

Want peace on earth? Go vegan.

2009-12-17T07:04:00.009-05:00

I hate the holidays. There, I said it. And it has nothing to do with the fact that I was born two days before Christmas and that I always got ripped off by friends and family when it came to gift-giving. “Hey Dan, here is your birthday/Christmas present,” or “Sorry Dan, with Christmas so close, all I could get you was this crummy…” But I digress.

The reason I don’t like this time of year is because it really hits home just how different I am from all my friends, coworkers, and even family members. When you tell people you don’t celebrate Christmas, they often look at you as if you have three heads or something.

“Are you Jewish? Jehovah’s Witness? Seventh Day Adventist? Well then what the hell’s wrong with you? What have you got against peace on earth, goodwill to mankind and all that other crap? You’re not a Commie, are you?”

No, I’m not Jewish, a Jehovah’s Witness, a Seventh Day Adventist or a Communist. I’m agnostic (meaning I don’t know and I don’t care), but more importantly I’m vegan. To be vegan is to choose peace over oppression, compassion over cruelty and life over death (ironically, the same things that Christians claim to espouse).

That’s why I don’t celebrate Christmas. I think it’s a sham. And I don’t think most people who celebrate it really believe in it either, or at least what it’s supposed to be about. If they did, there’d be a lot less violence in the world. And if they do, then I suspect it’s only a seasonal thing, like the flu, and as soon as the Christmas tree is thrown to the curb, so too are those warm and fuzzy feelings; the ones we should have every day of the year.

To quote Abigail Adams, “We have too many high-sounding words, and too few actions that correspond with them.” Sure, we like to think of ourselves as kind, compassionate and peace-loving, but our actions don’t really reflect that, do they? We don’t really practice what we preach.

The only thing we do practice religiously is the law of instant gratification; the fine art of pleasing ourselves. And the only thing that seems to matter is what’s on sale. Instead of volunteering at soup kitchens and homeless shelters, people are trampling each other (in some cases to death) at retail outlets to save a few bucks on their favourite video game or dolly. The Big Box stores are our new gods and we spend more time inside them than we do in our churches.

We continue to wage war on our brothers and sisters to control and possess their natural resources. We support the exploitation of men, women and children for cheap labour so we can have our stuff. We pollute the land, sea and air knowing full well that we’re doing it and how harmful it is to our health. And we enslave, kill and eat other animals because God apparently told us to and because we’re at the top of the food chain, we’re special and we deserve it.

Then on December 25th we get together with loved ones to exchange presents, feast on the remains of tortured animals (with all the trimmings) and bask in our own arrogance and false sense of benevolence, never questioning our beliefs and traditions or the consequences of how we live and how our lifestyles affects others. And so I'll continue to boycott Christmas until we begin to live up to our high-sounding words.

But there is a light at the end of this dark Xmas tunnel: the year is almost at an end. That means a new year is just around the corner and with a new year comes the opportunity to start over; a chance to be the best YOU that you can be and improve the lives of others.

If you care about the suffering of others, the exploitation of the weak and the growing violence both here and around the world, then do something about it. Make it your New Year’s resolution to go vegan. It’s cheap, it’s easy and it’s guaranteed to reduce a lot of unnecessary suffering in the world.

Let there be peace on earth

And let it begin with me.

Let there be peace on earth

The peace that was meant to be.

Eating animals alive

2009-12-11T09:00:00.000-05:00

How low can we go? That was the question on my mind after viewing a number of You Tube videos that show various people cooking and eating dissected, disemboweled and fully conscious animals. Of course there are a lot of people outraged by this morbid and sadistic practice, but remarkably, a lot of people are defending it too.

I resisted watching them for quite a while, and they ARE sick, but if you want to see one for yourself, you can go to:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fGOjZjM0xQ&feature=related

This particularly gruesome method of serving sashimi (raw fish) is called ikizukuri, which apparently means “prepared alive” in Japanese. According to Wikipedia:

“Ikizukuri usually begins with the customer selecting, from a tank in the restaurant, the animal (shrimp, octopus, lobster, assorted fish) they wish to eat. The chef, almost always a sashimi chef who has undergone years of training and apprenticeship, takes the animal out of the tank and filets and guts it, but without killing the animal, which is served on a plate, sliced, with the heart still beating.”

Quite often the animal is “reassembled” after he or she has been cooked alive: the meat, once removed, is thinly sliced and put back on the animal in a decorative fashion. Vital organs are left intact and the animal, still gasping for breath or twitching on the plate lies helpless as diners pick and pull pieces of flesh off the body. The challenge for some people is to finish all the meat before the animal dies.

This tradition, art form or whatever you want to call it is either 2000 years old or a post World War II invention to boost local tourism for coastal resort villages, depending on which website you read. And though the practice is banned in Australia and Germany because of the obvious cruelty involved - and yes, fish, crustaceans and cephalopods feel pain - it is gaining popularity in North American (mostly Japanese) restaurants.

When I first found out about ikizukuri - icky is an understatement - it only strengthened my belief that we are one fucked up species; utterly insensitive to the suffering of others, and willing to subject other animals to such excruciating pain and terror for a laugh, for entertainment and to do something shocking and risqué.

Although many people consider it inhumane, fans of the “delicacy” justify it because of the flavour, quality and freshness. Others claim that even though it may not be their cup of tea, people should still show respect for other cultures and not criticize their ways.

I guess you'd have to be pretty “fresh obsessed” to want to eat a wriggling and writhing little animal and not care if that animal is suffering or not. Still, why is almost every act of animal exploitation considered a proud tradition or cultural activity, and why are all traditions and cultural activities involving animals - bullfights, whale slaughters, pigeon tosses, circuses, rodeos, hunting, fishing and ikizukuri - beyond reproach?

Why did you poke your sister in the eye with that stick?

Tradition.

Why did you run that red light?

Tradition, officer.

And the fish you gutted, fried and carved up even though it was still alive?

Ummm, ... because I’m an asshole?

That’s right. If you get your kicks by torturing and killing other animals, then you’re an asshole. And if your personal choice, religion, tradition or culture results in the pain, suffering or death of another, then that choice, religion, tradition or culture is cruel and wrong.

Being vegan is more than just a personal choice

2009-12-04T07:30:00.000-05:00

As far as some people are concerned, us “holier-than-thou” vegans can take our self-righteous and condescending views and stick them where the sun don’t shine (and while I’m tempted to say this attitude only comes from meat-eaters, I know a number of vegetarians who feel the same way).

What we put in our mouths is a personal choice, they argue, and if we don’t want to eat animal products then fine, but we have no business telling others what to do and are often accused of “ramming” our beliefs down other people’s throats.

Aside from the fact that we still live in a part of the world where we can freely offer our opinions without fear of persecution, and that stating an opinion isn’t the same as forcing someone to do something, most people really don’t “choose” to eat animal products at all.

Instead we’ve been conditioned to eat what we do, just as we’ve been conditioned to believe in one religion or another. In most cases it was our parents who trained us to eat animal products, literally shoving their own beliefs down our throats when we were young, which in turn had been shoved down their throats by their parents, and so on, just as religion has been passed on from one generation to the next. We teach what we know; it’s human nature to nurture.

Still, a lot of people defend their eating habits on the grounds of personal freedom, saying it’s their “right” to eat whatever they want. And while the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of conscience, religion, thought, belief, expression, the press, peaceful assembly and association, it doesn’t guarantee the freedom to "eat whatever you feel like". Neither does the United States Constitution nor the Bill of Rights (I checked).

But in the end it doesn’t really matter. Let’s say meat-eating is a personal choice. So what? Rape and murder are personal choices too. Does that mean it's okay? So instead of defending one's choice to eat animal products, we need to ask ourselves, is it the right choice? Does it justify our claims of being a peace-loving and moralistic society? Is it a true reflection of our concepts of mercy and compassion?

We concluded long ago that the murder of other humans is morally unacceptable so laws were created to reinforce that position. Slavery, child labour and racial and sexual discrimination have also been outlawed (for the most part anyways). We don’t condone or encourage these activities even though they too are “personal choices”.

Killing animals for food (among other things) is still legal, but since there are other ways to maintain good health and nutrition, it's wrong because it causes unnecessary suffering and death and deprives other animals of their freedom and their desire to live.

Being vegan is more than just a personal choice. It’s a commitment to non-violence and a reverence for all sentient life. No one has the "right" or "freedom" to eat or do whatever they want if it causes injury, suffering and death to others.

Cheap & Easy! Creative vegan education that is...

2009-11-27T06:37:00.001-05:00

A lot has been written about how we can reach out and educate people about veganism so I’m going to try not to repeat what I’ve already read. It’s out there and it’s easy to find online.

What I would like to do is share a few things that my friends and I have done (and do) to speak up for animal justice. Activism doesn’t have to take a lot of time or cost a lot of money. And the great thing about it is that we’re only limited by our imaginations!

Bumper stickers are great, especially the magnetic kind, but a friend of mine has gone one step further and spray-painted GO VEGAN on the hood of his car. All it took was a can of spray paint and some masking tape and viola! A mobile billboard.

T-shirts with messages on the back are also effective, if you consider how much time we spend in lines (at the bank, the grocery store, the movies, concerts, coffee shops, and the DMV) and because it’s on the back, you aren’t confronting someone directly. Instead, they’re able to read your shirt without getting all defensive.

Buttons are also useful. I have a number of buttons on my backpack that I wear when I go hiking with my outdoors club. Which brings me to another great way to raise awareness: join a club!

As a member of a club, you’ll be able to interact with people and influence the way the club operates. I joined a hiking club last year and I manage to work veganism into the conversation on almost every hike. In the spring I was able to steer a conversation about the smell of wildflowers to veganism and sure enough, people started questioning me on what I eat. The club now serves veggie burgers and veggie dogs at their barbecues and vegan pizza at their fundraisers.

You can also turn the conversation to veganism in restaurants, on the bus, at the coffeemaker at work (discussing news, entertainment or about what you did on the weekend) or even at the dentist’s office, which I was able to do by talking about my vegan toothpaste.

The health food section of the grocery store is also a good place to strike up a conversation with other shoppers, or you can ask the manager to carry more vegan products and why.

If you’re adventurous, you can also attend environmental events and hand out leaflets about veganism, explaining that a plant-based diet is not only good for the animals, it’s good for your health and the planet too. Last summer I “crashed” a Green Party meet-and-greet where they were cooking up animals on the grill, and since then they’ve invited me to table at two of their events by promoting veganism, with the last one featuring a vegetarian potluck (it’s a start).

Library displays are another good way to educate the public about veganism. Most libraries will provide you with a table and let you set up for a week or even a month, depending on the branch. This is where you can let your creative juices flow, or if you choose, you can rely on literature and posters from some of the bigger animal rights organizations.

Hosting a vegan potluck (whether on your own at your house or through your animal rights group) is another fantastic way to really impress upon people that going vegan isn’t difficult and that vegan food CAN taste great! Potlucks are also useful for networking with others, sharing recipes and providing support for people either making the transition or those who feel alienated from family and friends because of their beliefs.

Writing letters to the editor of your local newspaper is a free and easy way to reach a lot of people about veganism (and a lot of newspapers now offer an online comments section too). Whether it’s in response to a story, an ad promoting animal exploitation (a circus, rodeo, fish fry or even a sale on turkeys), or about someone else's letter to the editor, you can let people know how you feel on the issues.

Finally, keeping brochures in your backpack, in your car or in your desk at work is a great idea too. You never know when the opportunity will arise and it’s always good to be prepared.

Two great places to download and print your own vegan brochures are Gary Francione’s Abolitionist Approach website:

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/media/pdf/ARAA_Pamphlet.pdf

and Peaceful Prairie Sanctuary:

http://www.peacefulprairie.org/prairiePress.html

The Boston Vegan Association also has a wonderful, free, full colour brochure for qualifying activists:

http://bostonvegan.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=354&Itemid=126

Good Luck and Happy Educating!

Homo sapiens or Homo psychopathiens?

2009-11-17T08:45:00.000-05:00

By Daniel K. Wilson

psychopath, n. a person having a character disorder distinguished by amoral or antisocial behaviour without feelings of remorse

amoral, adj. 1. without moral quality; neither moral or immoral. 2. lacking or indifferent to moral standards, criteria, or principles

moral, adj. 1. of, or pertaining to, or concerned with the principles of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical

I watched Earthlings for the first time last week with a group of university students that were also seeing it for the first time. Now I’ve been fighting and speaking up for the rights of animals for almost 10 years and I’ve seen a lot of sickening, twisted and horrible animal cruelty caught on tape. I thought I was immune!

But what I saw on the screen was so vile and so overwhelming that it truly disgusted me to be associated with the rest of humanity. I wasn’t myself for days. I won’t go into the graphic details of the film, as I’m sure most of you reading this have already seen it. But if you haven’t, I recommend you do, animal activist or not (albeit armed with a good supply of tissues).

As I facilitated the post-film discussion, I asked the teary-eyed kids in attendance if they thought the people committing the incomprehensible acts of violence in the film were psychopaths or if our entire society was psychopathic to allow, promote and participate in the institutionalized cruelty we so easily and without provocation inflict upon the animals.

I believe our society, hell, our whole damn species, is psychopathic. I can’t think of any sane reason for what we do to the animals. We know they feel pain. We know they suffer and bleed and fear death. We know that when they’re beaten they cry out in agony.

We know they can sense when they’re about to be slaughtered and we know they try to avoid it with every fiber of their being. We know they experience terror and we know that their screams are screams of terror and not of indifference. We know it but that knowledge doesn’t stop most of us from doing it.

And what do we make of people like ourselves; part of this violent and sadistic culture yet dedicated to peace and compassion? What makes us different? Not everyone who sees Earthlings, or sees the inside of a slaughterhouse for that matter, will go vegan (although I’m certain many will). Why do some people change while others do not?

Is it perhaps that we are the next link in the evolution of humankind; homo sapiens pathiens (from the Greek pathos meaning to evoke pity or compassion): the wise and compassionate human? I don’t know. I don't have all the answers.

But I do know that sooner or later some of us will ask ourselves: how do we go on? How do we keep on fighting when 99% of humanity - our friends, family, co-workers and community leaders - have such utter contempt and disregard for the feelings and suffering of animals? How do we go on when it seems like we’re powerless to protect the animals from the evils of the human race?

The answer is we just do.

There's always enough time to help the animals

2009-11-05T21:37:00.001-05:00

Talking to some people, I get the impression that if they only had more time, they’d be a lot nicer to animals. People generally think it’s great that I speak out against animal exploitation, and when they ask me what they can do to help the animals, I usually start off by saying, "Don’t eat them."

A brief pause (oh, he’s that kind of animal person) is usually followed by, "Yeah, but isn’t it hard giving up meat?" Once I explain that it isn’t, and that there are plenty of delicious and nutritious vegan foods available practically everywhere, some will infer that eating vegan must be so time-consuming.

Learning what to eat, looking for vegan food, preparing vegan meals, finding vegan recipes to their liking and cooking two different meals (for those family members who won’t give up their animal products), all require more time than most people have, considering their hectic lifestyles. There just aren’t enough hours in a day, right?

But I think people have more time than they realize. Just look at what we do have time for: shopping, watching television, eating out, getting in a round of golf, going to the movies, playing video games, talking on the phone, losing money at the casino, checking out yard sales, sitting around the coffee shop, surfing the web and going for a Sunday drive.

So for those of you who are serious about helping the animals but just can’t seem to find the time, consider this…

Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) was arguably the most diversely talented person that ever walked the face of the earth. Not only was he a great artist (painting the Mona Lisa, The Last Supper and drawing the Vitruvian Man), he was also a scientist, mathematician, engineer, anatomist, botanist, musician, writer, sculptor and inventor.

He invented or conceptualized numerous flying machines, including the helicopter and hang glider, an armoured car, the submarine, concentrated solar power, the calculator, the compass, contact lenses, scissors, a giant crossbow, rapid fire guns, ball bearings and the centrifugal pump, for draining wet areas such as marshes, as well as designing canals, bridges, cathedrals, and other buildings.

Da Vinci was also a hardcore animal rights activist, publicly criticizing the killing of animals for food and promoting a plant-based diet in its place. He also regularly purchased birds at the marketplaces only to open their cages and allow them to fly away.

Leo Tolstoy (1828-1910) was an essayist, dramatist, educational reformer and social anarchist. He is also considered one of the greatest writers of all time and in 2007, two of his novels made Time magazine’s ten greatest novels of all time (Anna Karenina was #1 and War and Peace was #3). Tolstoy's collected works consist of some 90 volumes.

Although born into nobility, Tolstoy preferred to lavish his wealth on transients, beggars and the working poor. His pacifism was influenced by the horrors he witnessed during the Crimean War and his Christian beliefs, particularly Christ’s Sermon on the Mount, which inspired him to give up meat, tobacco and alcohol.

After the war, Tolstoy opened several schools for peasant children, believing that education was the secret to changing the world, and published many magazines and textbooks on the subject. His ideas on non-violent resistance had a profound impact on Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.

Tolstoy was also very critical about the way animals are treated, and longed for the day when we no longer ate them. "That movement has during the last ten years advanced more and more rapidly. More and more books and periodicals on this subject appear every year; one meets more and more people who have given up meat; and abroad, especially Germany, England, and America, the number of vegetarian hotels and restaurants increases year by year. One cannot fail to rejoice at this."

Mohandas K. Gandhi (1869-1948) is revered as the "father of the nation" in India and considered the embodiment of peace and non-violent political resistance worldwide.

After studying law in England, Gandhi spent 20 years defending the rights of immigrants in South Africa. He returned to India in 1914 and became the leader of the Indian National Congress. With India under British control, Gandhi used non-violence and civil disobedience to gain his country’s freedom, which quite often landed him in jail.

When public demonstrations and protests turned violent, Gandhi staged hunger strikes until the rioting stopped. In 1947, he participated in negotiations that led to Indian independence the following year.

An advocate of simple, peaceful living, Gandhi had few possessions, made his own clothes and refused to eat animals. According to Gandhi, "You can judge a nation, and its moral progress, by the way it treats its animals."

George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) was an Irish playwright, critic and political activist. He wrote more than 60 plays including The Devil’s Disciple, Man and Superman, Major Barbara, Pygmalion, Candida, Doctor’s Dilemma, and Caesar and Cleopatra.

A passionate socialist, he also used his writing skills to criticize the exploitation of the working class, and spoke out in favour of equal rights for men and women, as well as promoting healthy lifestyles.

Shaw gave up meat-eating, what he called cannibalism, when he was 25 years old and often wrote about the immorality of eating animals in his plays and prefaces. He also despised the killing of animals for sport and vivisection. He is best known however, among vegetarians and vegans anyways, for his simple maxim: "Animals are my friends, and I don’t eat my friends."

Albert Schweitzer (1875-1965) was a German-French pastor, theologian, writer, musicologist, physician, philosopher and acclaimed organist. He based his personal philosophy on a "reverence for life" and a deep commitment to serve others, so in 1913, after receiving his medical degree, he moved to Lambarene in French Equatorial Africa and founded The Albert Schweitzer Hospital.

In 1917, Schweitzer and his wife were sent to a French internment camp as prisoners of war. After their release, he spent 6 years in Europe preaching, giving lectures and concerts and increasing his medical knowledge. He also wrote numerous books, including Civilization and Ethics, and Christianity and the Religions of the World.

Schweitzer returned to Lambarene in 1924 where he served as doctor, surgeon, pastor, village administrator and superintendent. Except for brief periods of time, he spent the remainder of his life there. For his many years of humanitarian efforts, Schweitzer received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1953.

With the prize money, along with donations and funds received from royalties and personal appearances, he expanded the hospital to 70 buildings (which could take care of over 500 patients at any given time) and started a leprosarium. Schweitzer also spoke out against atmospheric nuclear test explosions and the nuclear arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union.

Because his reverence for life included the animals, he would not eat them, and reminded people to, "Think occasionally of the suffering of which you spare yourself the sight."

So what’s my point? It’s that these people, who had the same hours in a day as the rest of us, were able to accomplish incredible feats, speak out on behalf of the oppressed, tend to the sick and injured, advocate against violence, even liberate an entire nation and still help the animals (mostly by not eating them).

If they could find the time, can’t you?

The very first vegan newsletter

2009-11-04T05:18:00.001-05:00

Gary Francione published this over at http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/ and I thought that I'd publish it too. It's the very first vegan newsletter ever printed, back in 1944 by Donald Watson of the then newly-formed Vegan Society.

The points Watson makes are witty, eloquent, and as relevant today as when he wrote them over 60 years ago! It's just an awesome piece of writing. I believe it also reinforces what many of us believe to be one of the core concepts of veganism - abolition with no apologies or excuses. Enjoy!

THE VEGAN NEWS

(QUARTERLY MAGAZINE OF THE NON-DAIRY VEGETARIANS.)

Price 2d. (Post free 3d.) Yearly Subscription 1/-

NO. 1. NOVEMBER 1944.

The recent articles and letters in "The Vegetarian Messenger" on the question of the use of dairy produce have revealed very strong evidence to show that the production of these foods involves much cruel exploitation and slaughter of highly sentient life. The excuse that it is not necessary to kill in order to obtain dairy produce is untenable for those with a knowledge of livestock farming methods and of the competition which even humanitarian farmers must face if they are to remain in business.

For years many of us accepted, as lacto-vegetarians, that the flesh-food industry and the dairy produce industry were related, and that in some ways they subsidised one another. We accepted, therefore, that the case on ethical grounds for the disuse of these foods was exceptionally strong, and we hoped that sooner or later a crisis in our conscience would set us free.

That freedom has now come to us. Having followed a diet free from all animal food for periods varying from a few weeks in some cases, to many years in others, we believe our ideas and experiences are sufficiently mature to be recorded. The unquestionable cruelty associated with the production of dairy produce has made it clear that lacto-vegetarianism is but a half-way house between flesh-eating and a truly humane, civilised diet, and we think, therefore, that during our life on earth we should try to evolve sufficiently to make the 'full journey'.

We can see quite plainly that our present civilisation is built on the exploitation of animals, just as past civilisations were built on the exploitation of slaves, and we believe the spiritual destiny of man is such that in time he will view with abhorrence the idea that men once fed on the products of animals' bodies. Even though the scientific evidence may be lacking, we shrewdly suspect that the great impediment to man's moral development may be that he is a parasite of lower forms of animal life. Investigation into the non-material (vibrational) properties of foods has yet barely begun, and it is not likely that the usual materialistic methods of research will be able to help much with it. But is it not possible that as a result of eliminating all animal vibrations from our diet we may discover the way not only to really healthy cell construction but also to a degree of intuition and psychic awareness unknown at present?

A common criticism is that the time is not yet ripe for our reform. Can time ever be ripe for any reform unless it is ripened by human determination? Did Wilberforce wait for the 'ripening' of time before he commenced his fight against slavery? Did Edwin Chadwick, Lord Shaftesbury, and Charles Kingsley wait for such a non-existent moment before trying to convince the great dead weight of public opinion that clean water and bathrooms would be an improvement? If they had declared their intention to poison everybody the opposition they met could hardly have been greater. There is an obvious danger in leaving the fulfilment of our ideals to posterity, for posterity may not have our ideals. Evolution can be retrogressive as well as progressive, indeed there seems always to be a strong gravitation the wrong way unless existing standards are guarded and new visions honoured. For this reason we have formed our Group, the first of its kind, we believe, in this or any other country.

ORGANISATION OF THE GROUP

Our 25 Members are scattered far and wide, therefore a Committee is not possible. In the absence of other volunteers I have undertaken the duties of Hon. Secretary, Hon. Treasurer, and Hon. Auditor, and if this undemocratic Constitution offends, I am open to receive suggestions of any scheme that would enable me, either intentionally or accidentally,to embezzle the Group's funds from subscriptions of a shilling a year!

The work of the Group at first will be confined to the propaganda contained in the bulletin. Very great interest has recently been aroused by our arguments, and it seems certain that the bulletin will be widely read. Many orders for the first four quarterly issues have already been received, and more will come when we advertise. Mr J.W. Robertson Scott, Editor of "The Countryman", has written to us - "I should be glad to hear what success you have in collecting non-dairy produce consumers. I have always felt that from the agricultural point of view the vegetarian occupies an illogical position, for just as eggs cannot be produced without killing cockerels, dairy produce cannot be economically got without the co-operation of the butcher." The clarity by which vegetarians generally are seeing this issue is well represented by the result of a recent debate arranged by the Croydon Vegetarian Society, when the motion was carried almost unanimously 'That vegetarians should aim at eliminating all dairy produce'. If we remember rightly the voting was 30 to 2.

Our Members are pronounced individualists, not easily scared by criticism, and filled with the spirit of pioneers, and one feels they will never allow their magazine to degenerate into a purely secretarial production. All are invited to subscribe something periodically to make the magazine interesting, useful, and thought provoking. Could we have a series of articles (of about 600 words) on "My Spiritual Philosophy"? Articles, letters, recipes, diet charts, health records, press cuttings, gardening hints, advice on baby culture, advertisements (free toMembers), all will be welcome. Letters of criticism from those who disagree with us will also be published. This is real pioneer work, and if we cooperate fully we shall certainly see an advancement in humanitarian practice, and perhaps we shall reveal some otherwise inaccessible dietetic truths. Let us remember how very much of modern dietetic research is fostered by vested interests and performed in vivisection laboratories, and that incidentally we are still without much data concerning the merits of diets free from animal food. We know that domesticated animals today are almost universally diseased, therefore so long as 99.9999% of the population consume the products of these diseased bodies, how are we to measure the mischief such foods maybe doing? A hundred people living strictly on a 'live' non-animal diet for a few years would furnish data of inestimable value. Government grants have been made for much less useful social work!

WANTED - A NAME

We should all consider carefully what our Group, and our magazine, and ourselves, shall be called. 'Non-dairy' has become established as a generally understood colloquialism, but like 'non-lacto' it is too negative. Moreover it does not imply that we are opposed to the use of eggs as food. We need a name that suggests what we do eat, and if possible one that conveys the idea that even with all animal foods taboo, Nature still offers us a bewildering assortment from which to choose. 'Vegetarian' and 'Fruitarian' are already associated with societies that allow the 'fruits'(!) of cows and fowls, therefore it seems we must make a new and appropriate word. As this first issue of our periodical had to be named, I have used the title "The Vegan News". Should we adopt this, our diet will soon become known as a VEGAN diet, and we should aspire to the rank of VEGANS. Members' suggestions will be welcomed. The virtue of having a short title is best known to those of us who, as secretaries of vegetarian societies have to type or write the word vegetarian thousands of times a year!

OUR RELATIONS WITH THE LACTO-VEGETARIANS

The object of our Group is to state a case for a reform that we think is moral, safe and logical. In doing so we shall, of course, say strongly why we condemn the use of dairy produce and eggs. In return we shall expect to be criticised. It will be no concern of ours if we fail to convert others, but we do think it should concern them if, deep in their hearts, they know we are right. In any case, there need be no animosity between ourselves and the 'lactos'. We all accept that lactovegetarianism has a well appointed place in dietary evolution, and for this reason several of us spend a great deal of our time working for the lacto-vegetarian Cause. During recent years the two national vegetarian societies have devoted much space in their magazines to this question of the use of dairy product, and we have every reason to believe they will attach importance to our work and occasionally report on it. (Before forming the Group, the suggestion was made to The Vegetarian Society that such a Section be formed as part of the Society. The suggestion was considered sympathetically by the Committee, who decided that the full energies of the Society must continue to be applied to the task of abolishing flesh-eating, and that any such Group would, therefore, be freer to act as an independent body.) The need to prove that it is possible to thrive without dairy produce is, of course, far too important for any lacto-vegetarian to ignore. To resign oneself to lactovegetarianism as a satisfactory solution to the diet problem is to accept a sequence of horrible farmyard and slaughter-house incidents as part of an inevitable Divine Plan. Need it be added that it would imply too accepting the spectacle of a grown man attached to the udder of a cow as a dignified and rational intention on the part of Nature!

Without making any claims to self-righteousness, we feel in a strong position to criticise lacto-vegetarianism, because the worst we can say will be but a repetition of criticism we have already levelled against ourselves. Therefore we shall express the Truth as we see it and feel it,and though our friends the lacto-vegetarians may reject our ideas if they wish, we hope they will not reject us for stating them.

CONCERNING OURSELVES

So far as we are aware, every Member of our Group has discarded the use of dairy produce for humanitarian reasons. We are not by any means ignorant of orthodox dietetic theories, and in exercising our moral conviction we find we must refute some of these theories. We do so without fear because we feel that a moral philosophy combined with a dash of common sense is a more rational guide than theories hatched in vivisection laboratories. We will not accept that adequate nutrition need violate conscience. We question very strongly whether those dieticians who laud the praises of animal proteins have ever tried living on a sensible diet free from such proteins, and if they have not, we fail to see how they can pass useful judgment. We know that man's anatomy is unquestionably frugivorous. We know that milk drinking by adults is an absurdity never intended by Nature. We know that we are at least as well without dairy produce as we were with it. We know that 40% at least of cows are now tubercular. We know that pasteurisation enables the milk retailers to sell milk several days old. We know what happens to those who feed on the 'nourishing first-class proteins' recommended by orthodox dieticians - they nearly all die of malignant and filthy diseases. Heaven help us if our diet fails us to anything like the same degree!

Apart from saying that we are 'Quite well, thanks', we consider the time perhaps premature to make any great claims for the physiological superiority of our diet. Humbly, your Secretary is able to state that he can now cycle 230 miles in a day, whereas years ago when he stoked himself with milk and eggs he was ready for Bed and Breakfast after doing half that distance. He can also dig his allotments for ten hours a day without feeling any different next morning, but we must be careful in making claims lest the world hears of us and expects to meet eight foot rosy cheeked muscular monsters who are immune to all ills of the flesh. We may be sure that should anything so much as a pimple ever appear to marr the beauty of our physical form, it will be entirely due in the eyes of the world to our own silly fault for not eating 'proper food'. Against such a pimple the great plagues of diseases now ravaging nearly all members of civilised society (who live on 'proper food') will pass unnoticed. It is as well that we gird ourselves to meet our critics! In our more reflective moments we cannot help thinking that there are greater risks in life than living on clean salads, fruits, nuts, and whole cereals. We can hardly wish to be classed as moral giants because we choose to live on a diet so obviously favouring self preservation.

Believing that some Members may wish to correspond with each other,we propose to publish in our next issue their names and addresses. Any Member preferring not to be included in the list should let me know.

We hear that a pamphlet opposing the use of milk was written 40 years ago by a Harley Street specialist. Does any Member happen to know anything of this publication?

CONCERNING THOSE NOT YET WITH US

We agree that to eliminate all dairy produce creates personal difficulties which vary in magnitude from one individual to another. We agree also that the present is not the easiest time to make such a change, but we think that in laying the foundations of our Movement now, many will soon join us as one of their 'Peace Aims'. We know that there is particular unrest in the minds of vegetarians generally concerning the use of rennet in cheese making, and as this appears to be the most glaring inconsistency of lacto-vegetarianism, we suggest that others do as we did and eliminate cheese first. Our friend and fellow member Dugald Semple tells us he has never tasted cheese, therefore it cannot be considered as an essential 'binding agent' for body and soul! The following passages from the editorial of the current issue of "The Vegetarian News" does not, we think, allow of much argument: "Most vegetarians are doubtless aware that the use of calve's rennet in the production of cheese has always presented a problem to anyone of humane principles, necessitating as it does the killing of calves to obtain the rennet. In the supposed absence of any purely vegetarian substitute for rennet some vegetarians abstain altogether from the use of cheese, except for the simple cottage varieties, while probably the majority of vegetarians take their ration of ordinary cheese and try to forget the incidence of the calve's rennet in its making." Should moralists dissipate their energies trying to forget such things?

During the war eggs have all but vanished, and they can readily be dispensed with for good without any sense of loss if one dwells on the fact that they are for the most part nothing more than reconstituted grubs and beetles! The elimination of milk undoubtedly presents the greatest difficulty. Nut milk is a good substitute, but it does not go well in tea (therefore cut out the tea and add yet another ten years to your life!)

Those of us who have lived for long periods without dairy produce are able to give the assurance that we remain well and strong; that we enjoy our food as much as ever, and that once the new diet has been arranged the sight and smell of dairy produce is soon forgotten.

"The incidence of disease of one kind and another continues to be a great limiting factor in milk production, besides involving loss to the farmer. Tuberculosis is one of the most intractable sources of trouble, so much so that a speaker at the Farmers' Club recently said we had made no progress in the last 40 years." - The Agricultural Correspondent,"The Yorkshire Post",18.11.44.

"Give me a drink of whisky, I'm thirsty."
"You should drink milk - milk makes blood."
"But I'm not blood-thirsty."

67 Evesham Road, Leicester. Donald Watson.

Big Meat's Scare Tactics

2009-10-27T06:33:00.002-04:00

This is so cool! The meat industry is squirming and scaremongering over the Baltimore public school board's decision to introduce "Meatless Mondays" to their school cafeterias Meat lobby sinks teeth into local issue.

They're warning folks that students already aren't getting enough protein in their diets, and that if this insanity - one vegetarian meal a week - doesn't stop it'll turn America's youth into pasty-skinned, hardcore vegan animal rights terrorists (or something like that).

Sound ridiculous? Well my friends, it gets better. According to an earlier story http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55355 the president of the American Meat Institute sent a letter to Andres A. Alonso, CEO of Baltimore City Schools, urging him to abandon "Meatless Mondays", as if mandating vegetarian chili and grilled cheese sandwiches were a violation of the First Amendment and infringing upon American's freedom to choose:

"Now you are removing a meat or poultry entrée on Mondays and depriving children and their parents of the ability to determine what is appropriate for their diets and their own personal circumstances." - J. Patrick Boyle, American Meat Institute

This from an industry that has successfully brainwashed people into believing that they can't survive without eating meat, and has infiltrated the school system with their dangerous and self-serving propaganda.

But I think the best part is this. In an attempt to convince Big Meat that he isn't some kind of new-age, tofu-eating health fanatic, Triple A has assured them that, "I have the world's worst eating habits. If the meat industry folks sat at my family dinners, we would be their poster family."

Okay, so is it just me or did Mr. Alonso, chief of Baltimore schools, just say that meat-eating is a bad habit? That's what it sounded like to me. Oh yes it did! Which leads me to my next question. Who you gonna believe, a greedy corporation that peddles in the death and dismemberment of innocent, defenceless animals, or the head of Baltimore's education system?

I love it!

What about plants?

2009-10-22T05:36:00.001-04:00

By Daniel K. Wilson

There are some people, in an attempt to discredit vegetarians and vegans, who argue that plants have feelings too and it’s just as cruel to eat them as it is to eat animals. Of course, these people don’t abstain from eating plants themselves; quite the opposite. They raise the issue to justify eating animals. In other words, it doesn’t matter what you eat because something had to die, so why worry about any of it?

It may sound ridiculous (or like something from a sci-fi movie) to say that plants are intelligent and cringe at the thought of being eaten but it’s worth remembering that not so long ago people scoffed at the idea of animal sentience, likening the screams of tortured dogs to a clock striking twelve. And while I’ve never heard of anyone protesting the mistreatment and slaughter of carrots (vegetable rights activists?), I’d still like to give them the benefit of a doubt.

The idea of plant sentience was first recorded in 1848 by Dr. Gustav Fechner, who believed plants were capable of emotions just like humans and animals, and would grow big and strong if only they were spoken to with love and affection. Even early Buddhists and some present-day Jains consider plants to be at least borderline beings, meaning they are partly sentient, and apply the principle of ahimsa, or non-violence, to them.

Perhaps the most famous advocate of plant sentience is Cleve Backster, a polygraph expert and founder of the FBI’s polygraph unit. In 1966, Backster decided to hook up a lie detector to his Dracaena Massangeana and measure the electrical impulses of the leaves. He thought to himself, “I am going to burn that plant leaf, that very leaf that's attached to the polygraph,” and immediately the machine “went into a wild agitation.” Backster was convinced that the plant was reading his mind and reacting to his intent to burn it.

His partner at the polygraph school was able to get the same results, so long as he intended to burn the plant leaf. If his partner only pretended to intend to burn the leaf, it wouldn't react, leading Backster to the conclusion that the plant could distinguish between real intentions and made-up ones.

Backster’s findings were published in the International Journal of Parapsychology in 1968 and he wrote a book on the subject called Primary Perception. He also believes the bacteria in yogurt are conscious and that plants can communicate with humans and other life forms.

Supporters claim that his experiments have been reproduced thousands of times with exactly the same results, thus “proving” that plants are sentient. Backster’s work was also the inspiration for the best-selling book, The Secret Life of Plants, which promotes the idea that plants are telepathic and experience emotions such as fear and love.

But Backster’s experiments were heavily criticized by the scientific community because he had not used proper controls during his research. When a group of scientists in the late 70’s conducted their own tests under controlled laboratory conditions, the plants did not react to thoughts or threats of violence and it was concluded that the readings Backster had recorded could have been the result of a number of factors including static electricity, movement in the room, changes in humidity, etc.

More recently, the idea of primary perception was put to the test on an episode of Mythbusters (to prove if plants are telepathic). A polygraph machine was connected to a number of plants, and then the “busters” inflicted both physical and imaginary harm to the plants, and other plants nearby. The polygraph recorded some kind of reaction, but it wasn’t consistent, occurring only about a third of the time. The researchers concluded that “if it’s not repeatable, it’s not science,” and plants are NOT telepathic.

As far as we know, all living beings need to have a brain to experience emotions and a central nervous system to feel pain. Plants have neither. A plant can react and respond to stimuli, such as light, gravity and touch, but whether they feel pain, are conscious and have interests is doubtful.

Some believers however, argue that just because plants don’t have brains, they may still be sentient, and note that animals need hearts to live but plants do not. They say that plants may be alive through different principles that we currently don’t know about and therefore could have senses that don’t rely on the same systems that animals do, including a brain. Plants may be conscious through different principles as well.

But if plants are sentient, their existence would be the cruelest joke of nature or God; beings capable of suffering yet possessing no means whatsoever of escaping that suffering. Animals have adapted to feel pain and fear to avoid dangerous situations, something plants are unable to do. It simply wouldn’t benefit plants to possess these characteristics.

So is it possible that plants are sentient? Sure, anything’s possible. Is it likely? No, I don’t believe it is. But if it turns out that vegetables are sentient, I guess I will have to become a fruitarian (someone who eats only raw fruits and seeds). I went vegan when I found out that animals, even dairy cows and egg-laying chickens, suffer and die simply because we like the taste of their flesh. If vegetables also suffer, then as a pacifist, I would have to stop eating them as well. Right now, there’s no convincing evidence that they do.

Are helper animals exploited animals?

2009-10-15T08:01:00.004-04:00

I was shopping at Whole Foods the other day when the cashier at the checkout, a very friendly and cheerful young girl, asked if I’d be willing to donate to the Dog Guides, a program created by the Lion’s Club to train dogs and dog handlers, to help physically challenged Canadians “in the areas of mobility, safety, and independence.”

According to their website, http://www.dogguides.com/, the lives of over 1200 men, women and children across Canada have been enriched by the program, including people who are blind or visually impaired, and those with hearing and other medically and physically limiting disabilities, at absolutely no charge.

“Dedicated trainers spend six to eight rigorous months training the dog for its ultimate role as a working companion.”

Sounds like a noble cause, right? But is it animal exploitation?

A lot of veganism is focused on what we eat, and not what we do. But can vegans, who oppose animal exploitation of any kind, in good conscience support such programs?

Or is it going a bit too far to call the employment of dogs to assist the disabled (or helper monkeys, horse-assisted therapy, and the like) exploitation?

What are your thoughts?

Vegans against veganism

2009-10-03T20:40:00.004-04:00

Rant by Daniel K. Wilson

I recently attended a vegan potluck hosted by a local animal rights group who had a person from a national animal welfare organization speak about factory farming.

According to the speaker (a vegan), this national charity (consisting of a mostly vegan board of directors) is working to improve the conditions of farm animals by trying to eliminate battery cages, reduce transport times for animals on their way to slaughter, provide sick and injured animals with proper veterinary care, and generally make the lives of “food” animals better during their exploitation and as they’re killed.

Did I mention they also promote “certified organic, humane certified, free range or free-run” animal products? I thought I was dreaming, and pinched myself to make sure. Then I asked how a group of vegans can, in good conscience, promote the killing and consuming of animals in any way, shape or form, and suggested that it might be a better use of their time, energy and money to actually promote veganism instead.

That didn’t go over too well with a number of vegans in the room, who accused me of being too extreme. They also told me that vegan education and legislative reforms are not mutually exclusive and since everybody reacts differently to different approaches based on their life experiences, all forms of awareness need to be utilized, including happy meat campaigns, instead of just vegan outreach.

Someone said that people can’t just go vegan overnight because it’s too hard, so baby steps are necessary (baby steps in this case meaning animal welfare reforms and humane meat campaigns) to help the animals. Another said it would be counterproductive if all animal rights groups were only promoting veganism, because most people aren’t ready to embrace it yet.

I had to think about that one for a minute - all the animal rights organizations in the world only promoting veganism. Yeah, that would be horrible. And for the record, I’m so tired of animal rights people and vegans saying veganism is hard. It’s not, especially with all the meat and dairy alternatives available today.

One of the many problems, as I see it, with animal rights groups promoting animal welfare is that it’s dishonest. These groups don’t really want people to eat certified organic or humanely-raised animals at all but they’re afraid to say so out of fear of alienating people. So they lobby governments for more humane methods of confining, transporting and killing animals, hoping the public will jump on that bandwagon and pressure the government for reforms.

And if the government listens to them and passes legislation five or ten years down the road, then they can claim victory: the animals are now a little bit more comfortable and killed a little bit more humanely (whatever that means) and that’s great because it’s what these animal rights groups wanted all along, right? Wrong. What they really wanted was for people to stop killing and eating animals.

Still unsatisfied (even though it’s what they said they wanted), they’ll start a new campaign for even more humane treatment of animals being exploited and killed for their flesh, fluids and eggs, and if they get that, they’ll ask for even more reforms! This song and dance will go on and on until one day, perhaps a million years from now, they might actually get around to encouraging people to give up animal products altogether.

What a monumental waste of time, energy and animal lives! It’s also deceitful. If you want people to stop eating animal products, say so. If veganism is your end goal, then have the conviction to state it up front. If you don’t, the public will feel that they’ve been lied to and you’ll lose all credibility, with those you’re trying to educate, and with those fighting for animal liberation. Have a little bit of faith in the people you’re trying to educate. Not everyone is going to become vegan but a lot will. And we’re only going to find out how many are willing to embrace veganism when we start promoting it.

The other problem with these kinds of campaigns is that it confuses people. Upon hearing about the horrors of factory farms, a person at the potluck asked, “So you’re saying free-range is good, right?” And that’s when the “ums”, “wells” and “actuallys” started. The speaker said that um, well, she wasn’t actually personally endorsing free-range (but the group’s literature and website does) and um, well, they would actually prefer that people eat less, or no meat. These are mixed messages. People concerned about animal suffering are looking for leadership and direction. And young people are the next wave of vegan activists so we have to be clear about what we’re trying to do and teach them the right way from the start.

If you think that negotiating with the exploiters or petitioning the government to do the right thing is the way to go, you’re sadly mistaken. And tricking the public into believing you’re for one thing when you’re really for another is false advertising. The answer is vegan education, at the grass-roots level, one person at a time, one day at a time. As the number of vegans increase, the demand for animal products will decrease. It’s as simple as that.

But if vegans aren’t going to promote veganism, who will?

Leo Tolstoy, why I went vegan and why we can NEVER stop spreading the word

2009-09-24T20:42:00.003-04:00

“If it were not so blindly accepted as part of our customs and traditions, how could any sensitive person accept the thought that in order to feed ourselves we should kill such a large number of animals, in spite of the fact that our earth gives us so many different treasures from plants?” - Leo Tolstoy

When I was 25, my sister announced to the family that she had “gone vegetarian.” Curious, I asked her why, and she said it was because she wouldn’t eat anything that had a face, whatever THAT meant. My response, as I recall, went something like this: “Well we’re omnivores, just like bears, so when you convince a bear to stopping eating meat, then I’ll stop eating meat.”

That was almost 20 years ago and I’ve been vegan for nearly 10. It just goes to show you that anyone can change, even a numbskull like me. My “epiphany” came about 12 years ago, after reading a book called A Calendar of Wisdom, by Leo Tolstoy; a collection of quotes from such thinkers as Lao Tzu, Socrates, Mohammed and Henry David Thoreau, as well as bits of wisdom by Leo himself.

Reading this particular quote (above) was the turning point for me. It just made good sense. Why would I cause the unnecessary suffering of other animals if I didn’t have to? If I could survive by eating vegetables, fruits, grains and other plant foods (foods my mother always said were good for me), then to have animals killed merely for my eating enjoyment would just be cruel.

This was at a time when I didn’t know any other vegetarians (my sister eventually went back to eating animal products) and as far as I knew, PeTA was a type of bread from the Middle East, but within a few weeks, I had given up all animal flesh, and I didn’t die! Not only that, but it was easy to make the switch to a vegetarian diet because I just replaced the hotdogs, hamburgers and burritos - all I was really eating at the time - with veggie dogs, veggie burgers and veggie burritos.

I felt pretty good about myself, knowing that I wasn’t causing the suffering and death of all these animals, and then in 2000, a friend of mine invited me to go listen to a guy who was giving a talk at the local university. It was during Professor Francione’s lecture that I learned what happened to dairy cows and egg-laying chickens, and so I vowed that night to go vegan, and have been ever since.

So when people say that promoting veganism is hopeless, I remind them that I used to be just like the people we’re trying to educate today, and look at me now! There is always hope.

I know it might seem like we’re not getting anywhere but we are. We have to remember that this is a new movement and it’s going to take some time to undo thousands of years of anthropocentrism and animal oppression. But more and more people ARE going vegan, and while it might not be popular right now, at least people know about it, which wasn’t the case 20 years ago when hardly anyone even knew what it meant.

And I know it’s frustrating and heart-wrenching to know that millions of animals are being killed each and every day which is why we need to get out there and spread the word and NEVER LOSE HOPE. The animals are depending on us.

But I thought you said Brock already WAS vegetarian friendly???

2009-09-24T06:52:00.009-04:00

Rant by Daniel K. Wilson

According to peta2, if you're a university student in Canada these days, it's easy to find top-notch vegetarian and vegan foods - unless you attend Brock University in St. Catharines (near Niagara Falls). For the complete news release, click here: http://www.peta.org/mc/NewsItem.asp?id=13580

Okay, so this kinda ticks me off. Not that I'm against a campaign to increase the number of vegetarian and vegan options on college and university campuses; in fact I think it's a great idea (greater if they were pushing for all VEGAN options). I just don't like the way this one was done.

Last November, peta2 put out a press release praising Brock University for their meatless options. "Brock is showing its respect for students by offering them food choices that are good for their health, animals and the planet," said Ryan Huling, a peta2 spokesperson. Check out the complete story here: http://veganpartyofcanada.blogspot.com/2008/11/brock-recognized-for-meat-less-options.html

And now, 10 months later, Brock is the scourge of North America for "consistently" failing to provide students with healthy, humane meat alternatives. It would've been nice if they'd actually interviewed some of the students or members of BARC (Brock Animal Rights Club) instead of using Ryan Huling, peta2's college campaign coordinator, who last year was commending the university, and is now flunking it.

It just feels like a lie.

Leaving the Bees Be: Why Vegans Won't Eat Honey

2009-09-20T12:48:00.004-04:00

Pacific Free Press - Saturday, September 19, 2009

By Mickey Z.

There are many valid reasons, including Colony Collapse Disorder.

Most non-vegans seem to get why some people won't eat meat. It gets a little less clear when the topics are eggs and dairy products...but the reasons can be provided and debated. When things turn to bees and honey, however, the reactions range from incredulity to sheer mockery.

In other words, a good explanation of why vegans eschew honey is needed. It starts with a core understanding of what it means for most people to be a vegan.

"Veganism is a way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life," writes Jo Stepaniak.

[For complete article links, please see source at Planet Green here.]

As detailed by PETA, "Like other factory-farmed animals, honeybees are victims of unnatural living conditions, genetic manipulation, and stressful transportation ... Profiting from honey requires the manipulation and exploitation of the insects' desire to live and protect their hive."

To which, Stepaniak adds: "Even the most careful keeper cannot help but squash or otherwise kill many of the bees in the process. During unproductive months, some beekeepers may starve their bees to death or burn the hive to avoid complex maintenance."

It should not be a surprise that many of those seeking to exclude "all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom," would avoid the conscious manipulation of bees. The goal is not purity, of course. Instead, veganism often comes down to an issue of intent.

I know what some of you are thinking: They're just bees. Lighten up. It just so happens that bees are extremely intelligent and studies have demonstrated that they feel pain. Plus, the standard retort of "they're only insects" the above description of why some people would adopt a compassionate vegan lifestyle in the first place.

Recent events have provided the most powerful - and very, very green - reason why the earth-friendly crowd might refrain from honey consumption: Colony Collapse Disorder. Like many things about nature, we humans take honeybees for granted. But, as we're learning, a major portion of our food relies on bees at the critical early stages of its development. This is why the sudden disappearance of honeybees, a.k.a. Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD), is all the more alarming. "The bee losses are especially distressing in light of a study last year that concluded that pollinators such as bees, birds and bats affect 35% of the world's crop production, increasing the output of 87 of the leading food crops worldwide," writes Jasmin Malik Chua.

The cause (or causes) of CCD are not yet understood. Some of the proposed causes include "environmental change-related stresses malnutrition, pathogens (i.e., disease including Israel acute paralysis virus), mites, pesticides such as neonicotinoids or imidacloprid, genetically modified (GM) crops with pest control characteristics such as transgenic maize, and migratory beekeeping."

What does drizzling some honey on your morning granola have to do with all this? Here's PETA again: "BeeCulture magazine reports that beekeepers are notorious for contributing to the spread of disease: 'Beekeepers move infected combs from diseased colonies to healthy colonies, fail to recognize or treat disease, purchase old infected equipment, keep colonies too close together, [and] leave dead colonies in apiaries.' Artificial diets, provided because farmers take the honey that bees would normally eat, leave bees susceptible to sickness and attack from other insects. When diseases are detected, beekeepers are advised to 'destroy the colony and burn the equipment,' which can mean burning or gassing the bees to death."

All this for something not necessary for human nutritional needs. "Humans can live quite well without sugar or honey," says Stepaniak. "As a rule, extensive use of sweeteners is found only in affluent societies." In other words, honey is a novelty food that has not only spawned a massive global industry, it's also helped put one of nature's critical species in danger. *If the demand for honey were to lessen and ultimately vanish, the bees might be saved along with much of the human food supply.

Let's bring it down to basics: After a bee swallows floral nectar, it is partially digested in its primary stomach where the bee adds its own digestive secretion. It is then regurgitated. This bee vomit is called honey and is considered to be food by the people who take it from the hives. However, whether honey is produced locally or on an industrial scale, two realities remain:

1. Bees will inevitably be killed in the process

2. There is no nutritional reason for humans to consume honey

Four Ways Vegans (and non-Vegans) Can Potentially Help the Bees and the Planet:

1. Stop buying and eating honey (along with beeswax, propolis, royal jelly, and other products that come from bees).

2. If you have a serious honey habit and need to transition slowly, choose locally produced honey for now.

3. Learn more about CCD and what you can do.

4. Switch to delicious, non-exploitative green sweeteners.

Show Your Support - Buy a Shirt!

2009-09-14T07:14:00.005-04:00

We still have a few "Priceless" shirts available for anyone who couldn't make it to the Toronto Vegetarian Food Fair.

The front has our logo and the back has our rant. They come in small, medium and large (extra large sold out) sizes and in both unisex and ladies styles.

They're $20.00 each (no tax) plus shipping. Email me at dkw1@sympatico.ca for yours!

Calcium in the vegan diet

2009-08-29T10:35:00.004-04:00

Examiner.com, Friday, August 28, 2009

By Devon Bruce, Tampa Vegetarian Examiner

Vegans are vegetarians who do not eat diary or eggs. Since vegans do not eat diary, it is common to believe that they are at risk for being calcium deficient. Calcium is an essential nutrient that aids in making stronger teeth and bones. While most of the calcium in our bodies is stored in these two places, it is also important in assisting with proper nerve and muscle functions.

Calcium prevents dangerous health conditions like osteoporosis, kidney stones, high blood pressure and colon cancer. Symptoms of a calcium deficiency include tingling in your hands and feet, bone fractures, and muscle pain. Most people get their recommended amount of calcium through milk and cheese. However, there are many ways to get calcium into a vegan diet:

Dark, Leafy Vegetables

Vegetables like spinach, turnip greens, and collard greens are packed with calcium. These kinds of vegetables are very versatile in a vegan diet because they can be a main course or a side dish. Options for serving these vegetables include adding to salads and soups. Also, make a wrap with other vegetables like avocado, onions and tomatoes.

Tofu

Tofu is an excellent way to get calcium since there are two different ways it is eaten. The first is soft or silken tofu, which is used for smoothies, sauces, dressings, and desserts. The other type is regular or firm tofu, which is used for stir fries, sandwiches, and mixed with pasta.

Broccoli

Even though broccoli is a common vegetable, most people do not know that it has a good amount of calcium. Add it to stir fries, vegan omelets, soups, salads, casseroles, sauces, or as a side dish.

Fortified Rice, Almond, or Soy Milk

The best part about this example is that all of these fortified drinks are available at your local supermarket. This is an easy way to get more calcium into a diet because there are so many uses for it. Examples include smoothies, cereal, tea, coffee, sauces and vegan ice cream. In addition to these drinks, orange juice that is fortified with calcium is another option.

Calcium Supplements

Since most people do not get the recommended daily amount of calcium, supplements are available in most supermarkets and pharmacies. There are two main types of supplements: one with just calcium or calcium with vitamin D added. The recommended supplement is the latter because vitamin D helps absorb calcium in the stomach.

Vegan 101: Can plant foods provide enough iron?

2009-08-28T11:00:00.000-04:00

Examiner.com - Friday, August 28, 2009

By Virginia Messina, MPH, RD, Seattle Vegan Examiner

It's a myth that vegan diets are low in iron. Studies show that vegans consume at least as much iron as omnivores and sometimes more. Vegans definitely have an advantage over lacto-ovo vegetarians when it comes to iron since dairy foods don’t contain this mineral. It’s true, however, that iron from plant foods isn't absorbed as well as from animal foods.

Most iron is found in hemoglobin, the blood component responsible for transporting oxygen throughout the body. Much of the rest of it is stored in the liver, spleen and bone marrow as a form of iron called ferritin.

Vegans tend to have lower iron stores than omnivores, but there is actually no known advantage to having higher stores of iron. In fact, there is some evidence that the lower iron stores seen in those eating plant-based diets is associated with better glucose tolerance which could reduce risk for diabetes.If stores drop below what is normal, however, hemoglobin production is affected. Low hemoglobin values indicate iron deficiency.

Iron is lost through normal shedding of intestinal cells, perspiration and urine, and also via blood loss. Premenopausal women have higher iron needs than men because they have significant losses through menstruation.

Getting enough iron on a vegan diet

The type of iron in plant foods is sensitive to a number of factors that can either decrease absorption or boost it. For those eating a plant based diet, managing those factors is every bit as important as getting adequate iron.

Here are some ways to maximize iron absorption:

Avoid coffee and tea with meals since they contain compounds called tannins that inhibit iron absorption. (Some Indian spices - turmeric, coriander and tamarind - also contain tannins.)

If you use calcium supplements, take them between meals since high doses of calcium also interfere with iron absorption.

Eat more bread than crackers; leavening (by yeast) makes iron more absorbable.

Eat a good source of vitamin C with every meal and snack. Vitamin C is one of the best ways to increase iron absorption but it must be consumed at the same time as the iron-rich food.

Do vegans and vegetarians have higher iron requirements?

Because of lower bioavailability of iron from plant foods, the Food and Nutrition Board established separate iron RDAs for vegetarians and vegans. For pre-menopausal women, they suggested getting 33 milligrams per day compared to 18 for omnivore women - nearly twice as much. They recommended 14 milligrams for vegetarian men.

Their recommendations weren’t based on studies of actual vegetarian populations, though. Rather they used a test diet that was designed to reduced iron absorption; it was high in factors that inhibit iron absorption and low in vitamin C. In essence, it was kind of a worst case scenario. And it is not at all the way most vegans eat.

There is no reason to think that vegans who pay attention to maximizing iron absorption actually need those very high iron intakes. In addition, there is evidence that vegetarians adapt to lower iron intakes over time. Most vegan and vegetarian women don’t consume 33 milligrams of iron per day and are not iron deficient as a result.

Those who eat a variety of plant foods and include good sources of vitamin C with meals can be assured that their iron needs will be met. Good sources of vitamin C include melons, citrus fruits, pineapple, strawberries, kiwifruit, broccoli, peppers, tomatoes, and potatoes. Include some of these foods at every meal!

Here are some of the best sources of iron (measured in milligrams of iron):

1/2 cup firm tofu - 6.6
1/2 cup soybeans - 4.4
1 tbsp blackstrap molasses - 3.5
1/2 cup lentils - 3.3
1/2 cup spinach - 3.2
2 tbsp tahini - 2.7
1/2 cup kidney beans - 2.6
2 tbsp pumpkin seeds - 2.5
1/2 cup chickpeas - 2.4
1/2 cup Swiss chard - 2.0
1/4 cup dried apricots - 1.5

Where do vegans and vegetarians get their protein?

2009-08-25T19:43:00.003-04:00

Examiner.com - Tuesday, August 25, 2009

By Lindsay Nixon, Manhattan Vegan Examiner

The most common question any vegan or vegetarian receives is "but where do you get your protein?" The terms "protein" and "carbohydrate" became buzz words roughly a decade ago when Atkins, a popular fad diet centered around eating an abundance of protein and few carbohydrates, became popular. Prior to the popularity of Atkins, most dieters or individuals did not pay much attention to their protein or carbohydrate consumption. Now, dietary protein and carbohydrates are the forethought on every mind, particularly when it comes to vegetarian diets.

What is protein?

Protein is an essential nutrient needed by the body in order to function properly. Protein's primary function is to build and repair muscles but it also keeps the immune system functioning properly and is involved with the synthesis of hormones and enzymes. Protein may also be used as an energy source when there has been insufficient carbohydrate consumption. This occurs during the Atkins diet. Since the Atkins diet is deficient in carbohydrates, the body is forced to use protein for energy.

Protein is made up of 20 building blocks, known as amino acids. Amino acids are classified as essential and non-essential amino acids. Essential amino acids are not created in the body and therefore must be consumed through dietary protein.

How much protein do we need?

There are two ways to calculate total protein needs. The U.S. Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) for protein is 0.4g of protein for every pound of healthy weight (or approximately 0.8g per every kilogram of weight). For example, a man who weighs 150 pounds needs approximately 60g of protein per day (150 x. 0.4 = 60).

Alternatively, protein can be calculated based on total caloric intake. Generally, 15 percent of total caloric consumption must come from protein. For example, on a 2,000 calorie diet, 300 calories must come from protein. To determine the number of grams needed, divide the resulting number of calories by 4. Thus, on a 2,000 calorie diet, 75 grams of protein must be consumed.

As seen from these figures, the body actually needs very little protein to function properly.

What are protein sources?

Protein is commonly associated with meat, eggs and dairy products but these foods are not the only sources of protein nor are they necessarily the best sources for protein. Protein is found in every food. Fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts, seeds and legumes all contain protein. It is impossible to become protein deficient eating a well-balanced vegan diet, largely due to the fact the body needs very little protein to perform. For example, one cup of black beans contains 15.2 grams of protein (roughly 30.5% of the daily value for protein), plus approximately 74.8% of the daily value for fiber. The total calories for a cup of black beans is only 227 calories and there is virtually no fat. Similarly, 100 calories of spinach contains more protein than 100 calories of steak. Like black beans, spinach also delivers a boost of fiber, anti-cancerous properties and iron for only a small amount of calories and no fat. Steak on the other hand, which not only provides less protein and no fiber, it also contains fat and harmful cholesterol.

Another powerhouse protein food is quinoa, a grain. Quinoa is not only high in protein, but it is also a complete protein, meaning it contains all nine essential amino acids. Vegans and vegetarians concerned with protein intake should incorporate this healthy grain into their meals. Quinoa is also a good source of magnesium, iron, copper, phosphorous and is well-endowed with the amino acid lysine, which is essential for tissue growth and repair.

Cooked soybeans also rank 10th on the World's Healthiest Foods Containing Protein List beating out eggs including egg whites, all dairy and most meats. In the nutritional community, soybeans are regarded as equal in protein quality to animal foods. One cup of soybean provides approximately 57.2% of the daily value for protein for less than 300 calories and with only 2.2 grams of saturated fats. Studies have also shown that soy helps reduce cholesterol levels while consumption of animal proteins makes cholesterol levels rise. Soy is also rich in iron, magnesium and omega-3 fatty acids. Soy can also be found in a variety of forms such as soy milk, soy yogurt, soy cheese, soy ice cream, tempeh, meat substitutes, miso, soy protein powder and tofu. Mustard greens, artichokes, corn, lentils, nuts, seeds, meat substitutes, hot cereals and other beans are also excellent sources of dietary protein.

Can athletes be vegan?

Another myth is that athletes and body builders cannot be vegan. This is simply untrue. Consider the following current professional vegan and vegetarian athletes: Prince Fielder (MLB), Tony Gonzalez (NFL), Mac Danzig (Martial Arts), Pat Neshek (MLB), Scott Jurek (Ultra marathoner), Brendan Brazier (Iron man), Kenneth Williams (Body Builder), Christine Vardaros (Cyclist). Other vegan and vegetarian athletes include: Peter Brock, Carl Lewis, Salim Stoudamire, Ricky Williams, Ed Templeton, Bill Pearl (former Mr. Universe) and many more Olympians, world record holders and top athletes.

Brendan Brazier also developed Vega, a fitness and supplement line committed to sustainability and wellness through a vegan diet. Vegan athletes can also supplement with soy, brown rice and hemp protein powders.

Is too much protein harmful?

According to U.S. RDA calculations, the average person in America consumes 100 to 120 grams of protein per day with the majority of it coming from animal sources. Considering an individual on a 2,000 calorie diet only needs 75 grams of protein, the average American is consuming an excess of 25 to 45 grams of protein per day.

An excess of protein, particularly animal protein, is exceptionally harmful to the body. The China Study examined the relationship between the consumption of animal products and diseases such as cancer, diabetes, heart disease, osteoporosis, autoimmune diseases, obesity and other degenerative diseases. The authors of the study concluded that based on long-term scientific studies, diets high in animal proteins from both meat and dairy are strongly linked to heart disease, cancer and type 2 diabetes. The authors recommended a whole food, vegan diet as a means to minimize and/or reverse the development of chronic diseases.

Excess protein, especially coupled with America's sedentary lifestyle, is also taxing on the kidneys. Animal proteins are inherently stressful on the kidney's, but overages will cause kidney's to underperfom. When the kidney's are not operating optimally, the risk for premature aging or developing kidney stones sharply increases. Bone health is also effected by excessive protein consumption. Excess protein consumption causes calcium to be leached from the bones which may cause osteoporosis, acid reflux, obesity, plaque build-up in the arteries, high blood pressure (hypertension), high cholesterol, arthritis and/or bad breath.

Get it Local: Elm Health has a wide assortment of dry grains, beans and lentils including hard-to-find varieties such as raw groats, buckwheat and millet.

For more info: visit happyherbivore.com for healthy and delicious protein-packed vegan recipes.

"... a little tired of ribs, but..."

2009-08-05T09:09:00.013-04:00

The Rotarians were at it again last weekend, serving up body parts of tortured little animals as part of Ribfest in St. Catharines (see complete story below).

http://www.stcatharinesstandard.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1684442

What kills me, aside from people killing animals for fun, are comments from individuals like the lady quoted at Ribfest, who say they are bored or tired of eating this or that animal. How many times have you heard someone say after Thanksgiving or Christmas, "Awh, turkey again!" They just want a little variety when it comes to eating somebody else's flesh.

What they haven't considered - or don't care about - is that the boring food they are getting sick of used to be a living, breathing animal, forced to live in misery and filth before he or she was hauled off to the abbatoir to be butchered and dismembered so other people could get tired of eating him or her.

I'm also reminded of all the animals that are discarded by grocery stores: animals that are slaughtered, carved and cut up and then put on display at the deli counter, just to be "DISCOUNTED FOR QUICK SALE" and, if not sold by the end of the day, thrown out with all the other garbage. What a waste of life!

Anyways, I think I'm going to send the Rotarians a letter, along with a Compassionate Choices booklet, with the hope that they will at least think about the suffering they are causing, and let them know that there are many other ways to raise money that do not involve the taking of another's life, no matter how tasty those others may be.

Vegan 101: tips for spreading the message

2009-07-28T06:15:00.003-04:00

examiner.com - Tuesday, July 28, 2009

By Ed Coffin, Philadelphia Vegan Examiner

Veganism is finally receiving the attention it deserves. Whether or not people agree with it, veganism is quickly becoming one of the most pressing social justice issues of our time. Veganism is appearing everywhere from local restaurant menus to mainstream media coverage.

For those of us who already subscribe to the idea that animals should exist for their own reasons and not be subject to exploitation or interference by humans, we need to begin questioning the productiveness and effectiveness of our efforts.

Ask yourself the following questions:

Am I taking action to influence others?

Do I stay calm when people don't agree?

Is my message clear and consistent?

Do I know what I'm talking about?

Does my message reflect my ethics?

Is my message easy to understand?

Do people generally agree with me?

Do people return to me with additional questions?

Do I know the common rebuttals to my ideas?

Am I friendly and approachable?

If you answered "no" to any of the above questions, you may want to consider how changing your behavior could have a direct impact on the amount of people that adopt your ideas.

People are more willing to follow the ideas of those that they like and trust. Think back to a time when you were in an academic setting. Were you more receptive to professors that you liked or those that you hated? When people don't like you, they're generally not going to like your ideas whether they agree with them or not.

Don't be discouraged if you haven't had successful conversations with others in the past. Everyone has made irrational decisions in the heat of a debate that they regret. Take it as a learning experience. Think about how you can change your tactics in the future to get people to agree with you.

Tips for improving effectiveness of communications with others:

Agree and relate often with the other person.

Become informed in the subject you're discussing.

Use a tone of voice that is not aggressive or condescending.

Try to steer away from abstract, hypothetical questions.

Make sure your appearance does not discredit your opinion.

Recognize when the other person is no longer receptive.

Attempt to incorporate as many personal experiences as possible.

Let the other person express their opinion and listen sincerely.

Try not to use an abundance of unfamiliar terms that they don't understand.

Don't lie or exaggerate if you don't know the answer.

Remember, you can't force someone to understand and agree with you on the first try. Most of the time planting the seed is more important than winning the debate.

If people think about what you have to say and have questions in the future, it's likely that they'll ask you more about it if they feel comfortable approaching you about it.

Unfortunately, despite the media attention and exposure, a vegan world is only going to occur through a grassroots effort. We need to change the way society thinks about animals. The more effective we are at convincing people to reconsider their habits, the sooner we will have a compassionate world.

New Vegan Party Display!

2009-07-25T17:22:00.005-04:00

The new Vegan Party of Canada display is finally done! We have our banner and a number of free-standing posters too, which we will be displaying at the Toronto Vegetarian Food Fair in September.

We are also in the process of getting our CHOOSE COMPASSION - GO VEGAN t-shirts printed for the food fair. Woo hoo!

If you know of any upcoming event or venue - eco-fair, library, etc. - that we could set up our new display, please let us know.

We are also displaying brochures - Vegan Outreach's Compassionate Choices and Guide to Cruelty-Free Eating, along with our Vegan Party of Canada brochures, at a number of businesses in St. Catharines and Niagara Falls.

If you know a place that would be willing to let us put our brochures in their window or on their countertop, send us a note.

Thanks a million!

Dan

Vegan Nutrition

2009-07-20T13:20:00.004-04:00

A well balanced vegan diet is easier than you think and can provide all the essential nutrients you require. Nutritional guidelines for vegans are essentially similar to those for vegetarians, with the exception that vegans use plant sources to gain certain nutrients that vegetarians get from dairy products and eggs.

Protein

Obtaining adequate amounts of protein on a vegan diet is not a problem. Nuts, seeds, grain and wholegrain foods, tofu, soy products and a variety of vegetables all supply the necessary protein required to maintain good health.

Essential Fatty Acids

Most people consume too much fat, but few people get enough of the healthy Omega-3 fatty acids. These essential fats can be found in walnuts, canola oil, and flax seeds. For maximum absorbtion, flax seeds should be ground up in a blender or coffee grinder, then added to smoothies or sprinkled on top of other foods. Flax seeds are also rich in protein, potassium, magnesium, boron, and lignans, which may help prevent cancer.

Vitamin B12

Vitamin B12 is important in the formation of red blood cells and the maintenance of a healthy nervous system. Vegans can obtain B12 from a wide range of foods which have been fortified with the vitamin. These include veggie burgers and veggie dogs, breakfast cereals, vegetable margarines and soy milks. You should check the packaging to see which individual products are fortified with B12.

Vitamin D

Vitamin D is present in oily fish, eggs and dairy products but vegans can obtain vitamin D from vegetable margarines, some soy and rice milks and certain other foods which are fortified with the vitamin. Vitamin D is also synthesised by the skin when exposed to sunlight.

Synthesis of vitamin D in this way is usually adequate to supply all the body's requirements. Most vegans will obtain sufficient vitamin D providing they spend time outdoors on bright days. Vegans who get little sunlight or live at high latitudes should take a vitamin D supplement or consume foods fortified with vitamin D.

Calcium

Calcium is important in the formation and maintenance of bones and vegans can get their calcium needs from plant sources. Good sources include tofu, leafy green vegetables, dried fruit, seeds and nuts. Soy milks and veggie dogs are also fortified with calcium. High calcium foods include kale, broccoli, collards, and fortified soy milks & orange juice.

Infants

It is perfectly safe to raise a child on a vegan diet. Vegan children should be given plenty of nutrient rich foods and need good sources of protein, calcium, vitamin B12 and vitamin D. High fibre foods can fill up a child without filling their nutritional needs as well as interfering with mineral absorption from the intestine. For these reasons, foods high in fibre shouldn't be overused.

Sources: The Vegetarian Society, chooseveg.com

Farmers aren’t living high on the hog

2009-07-19T16:11:00.010-04:00

Pork producers protest in a bid to get financial help from province, feds

Niagara This Week - Friday, July 17, 2009

BY ALISON BROWNLEE

In amongst the tourists, about 50 beginning hog farmers and their families found themselves marching around Simcoe Park in Niagara-on-the-Lake, urging the federal and provincial governments to help them save their farms.

“We’ve been hit by a ‘perfect storm,’” said rally organizer Teresa De Wetering, a hog producer from Stratford. “There was circo-virus in 2006, high feed costs, low prices, U.S. country of origin labelling, the recession and now H1N1, which has nothing to do with the pork we eat.”

Because of these factors, many hog farmers in Ontario are so far in debt, they are on the brink of losing their farms, said De Wetering.

De Wetering said beginning farmers – those who either started a farm or switched from contract to full-ownership production after 2004 – are some of the hardest hit.

The federal and provincial governments have created programs, like the Ontario Cattle Hog and Horticulture Payment and Cost of Production, aimed at aiding hog farmers, but De Wetering said these programs are based on a producer’s historical production data, which beginning farmers like her don’t have.

The rally was held in Niagara-on-the-Lake to coincide with the July 8 Federal, Provincial and Territorial Agricultural Ministers Meeting attended by Ontario Agricultural Minister Leona Dombrowsky.

In a statement, Dombrowsky’s office said, “The government provided $150 million in assistance to Ontario hog, cattle and horticulture producers last spring.” The money was given as a one-time payment to producers “most affected by low prices and high costs.”

Dombrowsky’s office said the money was given to producers based on Cost of Production and the Ontario Cost Recognition Top-up payment data.

The statement also said the ministers “discussed the situation of the pork industry and how programming is responding.” They also heard proposals from the Canadian Pork Council.

According to the Ontario Pork Producers’ Marketing Board, there are 36 hog producers in the Niagara region, who were responsible for 83,630 hogs marketed in 2008.

Smithville producer John Sikkens, Jr. said he and his father don’t qualify for government assistance payments.

“We switched from dairy 10 years ago,” he said. Although he had previously been farming with his father, he got married three years ago and started his own hog farm. Together, he and his father, John Sr., have 4,200 finishing hogs.

“The pig income isn’t covering our mortgage,” he said. “If it wasn’t for my parents, we would have been broke already.”

John Sr. is considered an established farmer, but also attended the rally. He has been farming full-time since 1963 and said he’s never seen the industry fall so low.

“No year has ever been this bad,” he said. “Times are tough. Last year we lost $70,000 on hogs.”

________________________________________________

Blogger's Note:

While I usually feel sorry for anyone who is hard hit during these times of economic "uncertainty", I find it hard to sympathize with the "producers" of domestic animals destined for slaughter.

Aside from the fact that a number of these hog farmers are newcomers to the business - raising hogs for as short a time as 3 years - yet expect the government to bail them out as if they are due some special treatment, what really browns me off (to use my mother's expression) is that my tax dollars are going to subside animal killers.

Why should I have to support an industry that I am ethically and morally opposed to with every fiber of my being; an industry that commits atrocious acts of violence against other living creatures each and every day and reduces them to commodities, inanimate objects, production units while butchering and disassembling their bodies to become bacon, ham and pork chops?

I chose to live a vegan lifestyle because I am against such needless exploitation and destruction. Why should I be forced to assist the exploiters and destroyers?

If business is so bad, get out of it. Find a profession that doesn't cause so much suffering and torment. Invest in something that celebrates and promotes life, instead of peddling in misery and death.

Groceries 101: The best vegan dairy-free alternatives

2009-07-17T14:45:00.003-04:00

Examiner.com - Friday, July 17, 2009

By Joy Harris, Minneapolis Vegetarian Examiner

These are recommendations for the best dairy-free alternatives for vegans, some vegetarians and those with dairy allergies. I buy these products on a regular basis and believe they offer the best taste and texture in the non-dairy grocery product category. Most of the products are good sources of calcium and protein.

So Delicious Cultured Coconut Milk. Contains live active cultures, is sweetened with cane juice and comes in many flavors including plain, vanilla, strawberry, blueberry, mango, pina colada and chocolate. I use the plain in Greek and Indian sauces and vanilla in muffin recipes.

Purely Decadent Non-Dairy Frozen Dessert. These pints of frozen goodness are available in non-dairy flavors made with soy and non-dairy flavors made with coconut milk (no soy). I prefer the coconut-based version in flavors including chocolate, cookie dough, mint chip, coconut, mocha almond fudge and vanilla bean.

Tofutti Better than Sour Cream and Better than Cream Cheese. I love Better than Sour Cream. I use it in mashed potatoes and on baked potatoes, to make chip and veggie dips, with burritos and fajitas, and to top my famous veggie chili. The cream cheese comes in several flavors and is a great cracker spread. Tofutti products are a blend of tofu and oils.

Silk Creamer. Made of non-genetically engineered soybeans and sweetened with cane juice, this comes in several flavors – original, French vanilla and hazelnut cream. I’m sure it’s great in coffee. But for those who don’t drink coffee, the creamer has other uses. I use this on my morning oatmeal, poured over berries and peaches/nectarines and the original flavor is great for making creamy soups.

Silk Soymilk. Of all the nut- and grain-based milks I’ve tried, Silk is my favorite. It comes in original, chocolate, vanilla and very vanilla. Most flavors are also available in a Light version with half the fat. It’s wonderful on cereal, for recipes, or just to drink.

Earth Balance Vegan Buttery Sticks. These are conveniently-packaged as four half-cup sticks in a box and are perfect for baking – especially vegan cookies. Earth Balance products are non-GMO and free of hydrogenated oils and artificial ingredients.

365 Everyday Value brand margarine in a tub. This is Whole Foods private label made with a blend of organic, non-hydrogenated oils. It’s great anywhere you’d use a spreadable margarine – on toast, muffins, pancakes and waffles or melted on veggies.

NaSoya sandwich spread. This used to be called Nayonaise, but they’ve updated the packaging and now call it vegi-based sandwich spread. It’s great on sandwiches and for making pasta salads, potato salad and tofu eggless salad.

VPC on Facebook!

2009-06-16T21:16:00.002-04:00

That's right. The Vegan Party of Canada is now on Facebook. So what are you waiting for? Join the Party!

think VEGETARIAN for dad's day

2009-06-12T07:20:00.004-04:00

The St. Catharines Standard - Tuesday, June 9, 2009

Posted by LAURIE SADOWSKI

A plant-based diet might not be deemed as the most manly for Father's Day, with thoughts of simple salads, dainty tofu quiches and chilled tomato gazpacho. Instead, a thick-cut slab of Man-Certified rib eye with a slow baked potato on the side, slathered with sour cream and pad of butter, seems to be the menu that comes to mind.

Add to that a barbecue, patio set, sausages and cream-laden salads, and it sounds like you have the typical Father's Day (June 21) feast. Although everything in moderation is fine, this special day spread might also just be a precursor of what is to come in these summer months: heavy, meat-laden meals.

Veganism, on the other hand, is often assumed as the antithesis of masculinity; the dietary choice touted for those with less testosterone. But these gender generalizations are as ancient as assuming that vegans nosh on carrots all day. Just ask Kansas City Chiefs' tight-end Tony Gonzalez; professional Ironman triathlete and two-time Ultra Marathon winner Brendan Brazier; Atlanta Hawks' Salim Stoudamire; or Mac Danzig, winner of The Ultimate Fighter. Yep, all vegans.

When thinking of plantbased cuisine that would appeal to the y-chromosome, hearty stews and chilies are the first things that come to mind. But these heavy meals - ones that heat up our kitchens during the summer months - aren't perhaps our dinner of choice once June rolls around. The answer isn't tossing vegan meals aside for half the year; instead, it lay in finding a way to please those pickier palates.

Given that, opting for a plant-based diet - at least a few times a week - has its benefits. In addition to animal rights and environmental concerns, health is a No. 1 issue. A recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, for example, followed half a million individuals for 10 years, finding those who consumed red meat had an approximate 33 per cent increase in early death, along with up to 50 per cent increased risk in heart disease and cancer. Conversely, those who didn't consume red meat had a decreased risk.

Not only that, many plantbased foods also contain vital nutrients designed with the man in mind. In North America, 220,000 men are diagnosed each year with prostate cancer; 34,000 of those men die from the disease. Foods rich in animal fats have been shown to increase the risk, whereas studies have indicated foods such as soy products, garlic and almonds decrease the risk.

Alas, convincing your meat and potatoes partner that you're going to celebrate his holiday animal-free might not result in the most enthusiastic of replies. But a little magic acronym known as the BBQ is sure to ignite his digestive juices.

Yes, firing up the grill will not only spark any man's appetite, but also your creativity. We're accustomed to grilling our favourite meats and kabobs, but it's time to think outside that basic barbecuing box: salads, meat-free mains and side dishes seared to perfection. And while you're busy manning the barbecue (no pun intended), the kids can whip up a two-minute dessert for daddy dearest.

And if it doesn't fly (although I am sure it will), then hand him a Guinness and call me over for dinner.

Laurie Sadowski, one of our rotating team of food writers, is a St. Catharines resident with a passion for food, fitness and helping others. Her cookbook is called Mission in the Kitchen, and she is editorial director of Ecoki.com,an eco-lifestyle community. She can be reached at or http://whiskingandwriting.wordpress.com/

- - -

STUFFED GRILLED PEPPERS

Using colourful peppers results in a taste reminiscent of homemade roasted red peppers. The stuffing is delicious on its own, perfect as a side dish or mixed with greens for an impromptu salad.

4 large red, yellow or orange bell peppers
2 Tbsp. (30 ml) extra-virgin olive oil
1/2 cup (50 g) almonds, walnuts or pecans, coarsely chopped
3/4 cup (60 g) dry brown basmati rice (or other rice)
1 garlic clove, minced
1 1/2 cups (425 ml) water
3 green onions, chopped
2/3 cup (90 g) sliced cherry tomatoes
handful of fresh basil
handful of fresh parsley
4 x 1 m (100 cm each) kitchen string, for securing peppers (if you don't have kitchen string, hemp string soaked in water works perfectly)

Heat the oil in a medium pan and add the nuts, until lightly toasted and fragrant. Add the rice, and continue to stir, until grains are glossy. Stir in the garlic, cooking for about 30 seconds more. Add the water and bring to a boil, then cover, reduce to a simmer and cook for about 35 to 45 minutes, until water is absorbed.

Meanwhile, prepare the peppers. Cut around the stalk of the pepper, setting aside for later. Make one slit down the length of the pepper and open gently. Remove any seeds and membrane. Repeat with other peppers.

When rice is finished cooking, remove from heat, cool slightly, and stir in green onions, cherry tomatoes, basil and parsley. Season with salt and pepper to taste.

Spoon some stuffing into each pepper, careful not to overfill. Take string and wrap around the centre about three times, tying the pepper securely. There should be string left over on each end. Top with the stalk, then tie in the other direction, securing the filling. You want to ensure the filling doesn't fall out - no matter how you end up tying it. Repeat with other peppers.
Preheat the barbecue to medium heat. Place peppers on grill for about 20 minutes, turning frequently so they are evenly browned. If they char - no problem, just slip off the skin; the pepper will still taste fabulous. You can also grill them on foil if you prefer.
Serves four

- - -

STUFFED HASSELBACKSWEET POTATOES

This Swedish dish takes its name from Hasselbacken, the Stockholm restaurant where the original -- with baking potatoes -- was served. If you don't wrap them and bake them at 400°F (200°C) in the oven, they get a nice crispy texture, instead.

4 medium-sized sweet potatoes
3 Tbsp. (45 ml) extra-virgin olive oil
3 cloves garlic, crushed
1 large onion, sliced
6 sprigs of fresh thyme
sea salt to taste
fresh ground pepper to taste
grill-worthy aluminum foil

Preheat one side of the barbecue to medium heat. Leave the other side off. Make several slits in the potatoes (about 15 to 20). Mix together olive oil and crushed garlic, drizzle in the potatoes. Top with onions and thyme, making sure to get into the slits. Season with salt and fresh ground pepper.

Wrap each potato in aluminum foil. Place potatoes on cool side of the barbecue and close the lid. Let roast approximately 35 minutes. They will be soft and bottoms will be slightly caramelized. Top with Pseudo-Sour Cream.

Serves four

- - -

PSEUDO-SOUR CREAM

After pureeing the tofu, add salt and lemon juice to taste. After a few hours in the fridge, the flavours will mellow with the onions. Chives are a great addition, too.

1 (10.5-ounce) package of lite firm silken tofu (I recommend Mori-Nu)
2 -4 tsp. (10-20 ml)lemon juice (fresh is best)
2 green onions, finely chopped
sea salt to taste

In a blender or food processor, whizz the tofu until smooth. Add half the lemon juice and a few pinches of salt. Add the green onions. Add additional lemon and salt to taste.

- - -

GRILLED CAESAR SALAD

With romaine currently growing locally, this is the perfect time to enjoy this grilled variation of a longtime favourite - vegan style.

For the dressing:

2 Tbsp. (30 g) ground almonds
2-4 cloves of garlic
2 1/2 Tbsp. (37g) nutritional yeast 1 Tbsp. (15 ml) tamari
juice of 1 small lemon
1 Tbsp. (15 ml) grainy mustard
1 Tbsp. (15 ml) olive oil
2 Tbsp. (30 ml) non-dairy milk or water
fresh ground black pepper to taste

For the salad:

1 head romaine lettuce, cut in half length wise
Extra-virgin olive oil for brushing
salt and fresh ground pepper to taste

For the dressing, combine all dressing ingredients, and puree until smooth. If possible, chill for at least two to three hours before serving. Thin with additional non-dairy milk as needed. medium-high heat. Brush cut side of romaine with oil, and sprinkle with salt and pepper. Place romaine on grill, season the other side with salt and pepper, and grill until its outer leaves are wilted and lettuce is tender.

You can either roughly chop the lettuce and toss with the dressing, or serve family-style, placing both romaine halves face up in a shallow bowl, and drizzle with dressing.

- - -

TWO-MINUTE BANANA-CINNAMON CARAMEL CRUNCH ICE CREAM

You'd never think that popping a few bananas in the freezer would result in an ice-cream-like indulgence. And to correspond with the patience that dad will have while he awaits his Dad's Day Dessert, it'll be done in a snap. The dates give a sweet taste akin to smooth caramel, while the pecans add an extra crunch.

4 overripe bananas, peeled, cut in three pieces each, and frozen*
3/4 tsp. (4 g) ground cinnamon
1/2 cup (125 ml) honey dates, chopped
1/3 cup (30 g) pecans, chopped

Toss bananas in food processor with cinnamon. Let sit about five minutes, until lightly thawed, and whiz until smooth. Stir in dates and pecans. Serve immediately. (If it gets too soft, you can put it in the freezer for about 10 minutes.)

*Using overripe bananas adds extra sweetness to the end result.

Serves four

City Goes Vegetarian to Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions

2009-05-19T10:10:00.006-04:00

Finding Dulcinea - Monday, May 18, 2009

By Hayley A. Lovett

The Belgian city of Ghent will encourage residents to not eat meat every Thursday, highlighting the environmental and health benefits of a reduced-meat diet.

Cutting one day of meat consumption may cut greenhouse gas emissions for the city of Ghent by as much as 18 percent, one of the promoters of Ghent’s "VeggieDag" (Veggie Day) told Reuters.

A 2006 report from the United Nations found that cattle farming emits more harmful greenhouse gasses than cars and other modes of transportation. The report also explains that a great deal of land on Earth is dedicated to livestock, "which now use 30 per cent of the earth’s entire land surface," adding that most of it is for grazing, "but also including 33 per cent of the global arable land used to producing feed for livestock," said a UN News Center piece on the study.

Ghent officials want to help reduce the environmental impact of animal farming. The town is not forcing its citizens to become vegetarian, but rather encouraging citizens to choose not to eat meat on Thursday. Government employees and politicians will be eliminating meat one day a week, and restaurants are encouraged to provide one vegetarian option during the "Veggie Day." In September, schools will start offering a meat-free lunch, but Veggie Day started last week, the BBC reported.

According to the BBC, Ghent is the first city in the world to go vegetarian one day a week. But the "veggie day" is not the first campaign encouraging people to follow a reduced meat diet. Meatless Monday is a nonprofit based in the United States that encourages people to avoid animal products on Monday. The organization, started in 2003, has a goal to reduce U.S. consumption of saturated fat by 15 percent by the year 2010. The main focus of the Meatless Monday campaign is to prevent heart disease, stroke, diabetes and cancer caused by diets high in saturated fat.

Australia recently started a campaign to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from livestock by 30 percent by the year 2030. Currently, animal flatulence (methane gas) creates more than one tenth of the country’s total greenhouse gas emissions. One method of reducing methane emissions is to encourage residents to farm and eat more kangaroo, an animal which naturally produces less methane due to special bacteria in its stomach.

In the United States, an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) mandate that required some livestock farmers to report estimates of animal emissions angered both pork farmers and environmentalists alike. The farmers felt that the EPA did not provide enough guidance for how to comply with the new mandate, while environmentalists felt that the rule, requiring only very large livestock operations to report numbers, was not comprehensive enough.
______________________________________________

Blogger's Note:

While I think it's great that people around the world are considering reducing their meat intake for health and environmental reasons, it's too bad they aren't also doing it out of compassion for animals. A lot of people love animals and would never think of eating their cat or dog, yet they don't extend their love to other animals such as pigs, chickens and cows. This needs to change.

Panacea for what bothers vegans

2009-04-11T07:18:00.005-04:00

Annex emporium owner gave up engineering career to open `oasis'

Toronto Star - Saturday, April 10, 2009

By ERIN KOBAYASHI

Imagine walking into a store and not being able to impulsively buy the cheese, chocolate and marshmallows on offer.

For vegans, satisfying a sudden craving can mean scrutinizing ingredients, buying online (and delaying gratification) or pushing a cart down the same aisles where a tried, tested and true product awaits them. Surprise and choice are not readily available.

Ken Bontius wanted to change all that.

"A comment I hear a lot from shoppers is, `We don't have to read labels here'," says Bontius, owner of Panacea, Toronto's first all-vegan store, "People can do regular shopping here and not feel threatened."

A vegan and animal rights activist for 19 years, Bontius left a six-figure job as senior engineer at a successful firm. "The last couple of years, I was struggling with what I wanted to do with my life," he says. "Even though I had seniority in the company and could say yes and no to a lot of things, there was still a lot I just had to live with."

Bontius, with no retail experience, partnered with Pam Hryskiw to open his dream store on Bloor St. W. at the border of the Annex and Koreatown.

Now Panacea is an "oasis for me," he says.

Inside the neatly stocked shop, hard-to-find items such as Sweet & Sara Marshmallows, Boardwalk Chocolate vegan truffles and dairy-free Tease Cheese are presented in second-hand store displays and commercial refrigerators. Mineral cosmetics by Herbs of Grace, Freeset bags (made by former female sex trade workers earning fair wages), new spring clothing from Gramicci's eco line, Greenicci, and an abundance of personal care and household items also line the walls.

"Although veganism is a growing community, we are spread out," Bontius says, noting some patrons travel 30 minutes to the store. "We have a lot of regular customers and I also have great conversations with people who aren't even vegetarian but like the product range and the business being here."

Bontius hopes the large array of vegan products will help educate non-vegan consumers about the sustainable, socially responsible and animal-free options available.

He says has no regrets about opening his store during a recession and thinks the business will grow more organically as a result.

"I opened up at the worst time during the year," he says of the store's November opening. "January and February have been slow, but it is picking up. Instead of double-digit annual growth, it will be a single-digit annual growth."

Although Grassroots is nearby, and other eco-friendly stores are regularly popping up, Bontius views them more as a community than competition.

Since Panacea does not sell produce, he sends customers down the street to Organics on Bloor.

When people ask about vegan shoes, he suggests Left Feet in Kensington Market.

"It's all about promoting the products and the lifestyle, I don't see it as competition," Bontius says, "We all have to help each other out."

Panacea is at 588 Bloor St. W.

Erin Kobayashi is a writer based in Toronto. Ecologicerin@gmail.com

Becoming Vegetarian Seminar

2009-04-08T18:04:00.003-04:00

This workshop is ideal for Vegetarians, Vegans or anyone who is simply looking to include more meatless meals into their diets. Together we will explore a variety of vegetarian foods, products, resources, supplements, essential vitamins and minerals and so much more!

WHEN: Tuesday, April 14th 5:30-6:30pm

WHERE: Sukha Yoga & Nutrition Centre, 142 Lake Street, St. Catharines

Presented by Melissa Aubertin-Coutu, Registered Dietitian.

Pre-registration is required

$15 for Sukha members
$20 for guests

For more information visit: http://www.sukhayogaandnutrition.com/

New Vegan Party of Canada brochure!

2009-04-01T19:41:00.004-04:00

Wow! Look at me, I'm actually writing a blog on my blogsite!

Anyways, things have been busy as usual and I haven't been posting a lot of news articles because I was getting ready for the 2nd Annual Eco-Fest Niagara which took place on Sunday, March 29th at Club Roma in St. Catharines.

Judging by how many vegan carrot muffins were taken from our basket, I'd say the number of people attending was way down over last year.

And I'm always surprised how many people come to these environmental fairs with Tim Horton's coffee cups that they probably got from the drive-thru on their way to the event (Tim Horton's is one of the official sponsors of Earth Day this year).

People just aren't getting it! The organizers from St. Catharines Climate Action Now should perhaps mention this in their ads for next year's Eco-Fest. A friend of mine suggested that everyone who comes with a reusable coffee mug receive a door prize or something.

But one thing Eco-Fest visitors were getting was our new Vegan Party of Canada brochure! A special thanks to Sarah Salvatore from George Brown College who designed this edgy, informative and very attractive brochure, which addresses health, the environment, animal suffering and world hunger.

I'd also like to thank Dinesh for helping out at the event and everybody who stopped by.

Of course, printing these brochures isn't cheap so if anyone has some loose change or a few hundred dollars they aren't using, we'd really, really, REALLY appreciate the financial help.

Any and all donations go to the printing and purchasing of educational materials to distribute to the public at events such as Eco-Fest.

Thanks!

Dan

We need to solve the 'meat problem'

2009-02-26T18:36:00.012-05:00

The St. Catharines Standard - Thursday February 26, 2009

By Daniel K. Wilson, NIAGARA VOICES

“Other than not driving a car, not eating meat is the second most important positive environmental decision that a consumer can make.” – Union of Concerned Scientists

I’ve been meeting a lot of people who are truly concerned about the environmental crisis we’re facing. They’re also frustrated because they feel powerless to make changes.

Greening your home, installing a backyard windmill or buying a hybrid vehicle is unfeasible for most. It seems like only the wealthy can afford to be energy efficient.

Well, I have some good news. If you want to be eco-friendly without going into debt, then go vegetarian.

It’s true! Switching to a vegetarian diet is the single best thing you can do to slow down climate change and make the world a cleaner, better place in which to live.

In 2006 the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization released a report that found animal agriculture to be one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gas emissions and responsible for almost 20% of human-caused climate change. That’s more than the entire world’s transportation combined!

Henning Steinfield, a senior official with the UN says, “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems,” adding, “Urgent action is required to remedy the situation.”

Every aspect of livestock production: growing and transporting the crops to feed the animals; operating the factory farms, slaughterhouses and meat processing plants; and finally transporting the animals to those slaughterhouses, meat-processing plants and grocery stores as packages of meat requires staggering amounts of fossil fuels.

It’s estimated that for every pound of hamburger produced, 500 pounds of carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere.

The raising of animals for their flesh, milk and eggs is also responsible for other greenhouse gases including methane, which comes from belching and flatulent livestock.

Methane has 23 times the global warming potential of CO2 and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency lists livestock as the largest source of methane emissions in the world, generating more than 500 million tons of it annually.

Nitrous oxide, another byproduct of animal agriculture, is 300 times stronger than carbon dioxide at trapping heat inside our atmosphere, and the meat, egg and dairy industries account for nearly 65% of the planet’s nitrous oxide emissions.

As if that weren’t enough, roughly 80% of the world’s forests have been destroyed for animal agriculture, which release even more CO2 into the atmosphere. In Central and South America, much of the rainforest has been cleared to provide grazing land for beef cattle and we’re losing another 50 million acres every year.

According to Worldwatch Institute, an environmental research group in Washington, D.C., “the human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future,” including deforestation, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution and climate change.

By changing our eating habits from the Standard American Diet (SAD) to a vegetarian one, we do more for the environment than if we all drove hybrid vehicles. For example, it takes eight times more fossil fuel energy to produce animal protein than it does to produce plant protein.

Researchers at the University of Chicago agree. When geophysicists Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin compared energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions with what people ate, the vegetarian diet turned out to be the most energy efficient.

“However close you can be to a vegan diet and further from the mean American diet, the better you are for the planet,” concluded Eshel.

Fifty years ago, when the world’s population was around 3 billion, the world’s total meat supply was 70 million tons. Now there are over 6 billion of us and the global meat supply is approximately 290 million tons.

With our numbers expected to reach 9 billion by the middle of this century, and with nations like China and India adopting the Standard American Diet as a result of their growing economies, we need to address the 'meat problem' sooner rather than later. Moving away from an animal-based diet does.

And because eating lower on the food chain is cheaper, going vegetarian is good for the planet and your pocketbook. So if you’re serious about helping the environment but don’t know where to start, try going vegetarian. If you’re already vegetarian, then go vegan.

An Apologia For Not Being Apologetic About Hunting

2009-01-06T20:11:00.001-05:00

Townhall.com - Sunday, January 4, 2009

BY DOUG GILES

I live in the oh-so-sassy city of Miami, Florida, and when I tell people down here that I am a hunter they give me that look a woman gives when she plops down on the toilet when the seat’s up. Y’know what I’m talking about, don’t ‘cha?

They screech, “You hunt? Oh my Gawd!” (Usually followed by putting one hand over their mouth and one hand on their hip, followed by putting both hands on their hips and then to their final resting place in the disapproving arm cross. At least that’s what the guys do).

It’s as if I said I eat live kittens or something. Their gobsmacked, tsk-tsk disapproving stare used to bug me at first, but now I quite enjoy giving the Miami metrosexuals a headache as I revel in the fact that I thoroughly enjoy the sport of kings because it’s such a noble and crucial God-ordained activity.

Hunters, like everything else that is just and good within this wussified, politically correct, bovine scat based culture, are under attack. Hunters are made to feel ashamed of hunting animals by the animal-loving, pro-abortion crowd.

The MSM paints us as a stupid, bloodthirsty brood of line-bred rednecks who get high off death. The reality is that hunting and hunters provide a bazillion times more for our country and planet than the anti-hunting goofs.

For instance, let me make this personal, anti-hunting boys and girls: You salad guys wouldn’t have your veggies to worship and enjoy if it weren’t for hunters. I love the ironic fact that the PETA vegans couldn’t eat their salad or their edamame burger if it weren’t for the blistering truth that farmers/hunters have to shoot animals who are after their crops so that the vapid vegans can smugly eat their eggplant lasagna. I wouldn’t let it bug you now, PETA.

Before you eat your salad just drop another tab of acid and forget about the fact that it entailed a farmer putting the bam to Bambi for you to have that spinach.

Not only do hunters protect you ingrates’ precious vegetable grub, but we also provide massive amounts of food for the poor. Unlike you, the liberal blowhard, who talks about helping the poor, many hunters practically do it by giving them food. Imagine that. I know, I know hunters are supposed to be—according to Disney—a calloused cabal; however, the reality is that hunters provide a massive, benevolent source of high-protein, low-fat food to the poor at our own expense. What about your mouthy backside, weepy vegan? I wonder how much food you give to the “poor” in reality. I bet most moist-eyed liberal humanitarians don’t even come close to what little old conservative me and my hunter brethren do.

In addition to defending PETA’s carrots and supplying folks who are down on their luck with high protein, low fat venison, the hunters put their money where their mouth is when it comes to conservation. The yarbling libs and the pusillanimous PETA crowd would love to make us all believe that they are true heroes of nature and that hunters are Dr. Evil to animals and land.

However, if the truth can still be told, it’s the hunter who doles out nearly $300 million a year in special surtaxes on guns, ammo, gear and other outdoor supplies which goes to state conservation programs. The tree humpers don’t pay these taxes, Dinky, the hunters do.

And the list could literally go on and on and on with what hunting and hunters do for the overall well-being of people and places. That’s just a taste of why we suck less than you do, anti-hunters.

It’s time that hunters answer the obstreperous anti-reality police’s blather when it is leveled at our grand group. Yep, sometimes the lies get so egregious that it demands that you, the hunter, pony up and say, “now wait a minute, Mr. Crapmeister . . . you’ve got hunting and hunters all wrong . . .” whenever you hear some clod diss this great sport and what it truly brings to the table of life.

Hunters normally don’t say squat about what they do or why they do it. It’s not so much because they’re ashamed of hunting and want to keep it a secret like John Edwards did his psycho mistress chick. Hunters by and large are a humble crowd and thus keep to themselves, going about their business not really wanting to evangelize folks into their hunting lifestyle—principally because in the field with the hunter, less is more.

However, the more PC-addled our culture gets, the more our nation becomes Nancy-fied, the more traditional values get spit on, the more masculine staples of our time-honored heritage need a 1,000 word column to beat back the jackanapes who jack with a primal way of life, the more informed hunters need to let it rip.

Here’s what you do, hunter: Get Frank Miniter’s book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Hunting, get the facts, get proud, get an attitude, and if in public or private anyone attacks hunting and hunters, then imagine they’re a three-hundred pound wild boar charging you that has four inch teeth and you have to stop them or they’re going to slice your boys off. Make sure you use words, of course, and not your 30/06.
____________________________________________

Blogger's Note:
What's scary about this article is that it's not a joke. Not only that but according to the comments posted, there's a lot of people who agree with him! Still, if you'd like to give Doug a piece of your mind (I'm sure he could use any you could spare), you can post a comment at: http://townhall.com/columnists/DougGiles/2009/01/04/an_apologia_for_not_being_apologetic_about_hunting?comments=true#postComments

2009-01-01T07:34:00.000-05:00

I'm not a weirdo or a health nut.

And I don't dislike people, eat salad three times a day or lack a sense of humour.

And I don't know any chickens, pigs or turkeys although I am certain they would thank me if they could.

I have a great respect for life - all life.

I speak from the heart, not from industry conditioning; and I pronounce it 'VEE-gan', not 'VAY-gan'.

I can proudly look any animal in the face and not feel guilty.

I believe in coexistence, not domination; greenhouses, not slaughterhouses; and that the cow is a truly proud and noble animal.

Bean curd is delicious, tofu tastes like anything and yes, I do get enough protein!

Look mom, I'm eating all my vegetables, I'm saving lives and I'm helping the environment.

My claim is compassion so I AM VEGETARIAN.

Reichert: What I don’t get about vegetarians

2008-12-01T18:06:00.002-05:00

The University Daily Kansan - Saturday, November 30, 2008

By GRANT REICHERT

Save the environment - stop eating so much of it!

You know who I’m talking about. Thick, black-lensed glasses, ironic yet socially aware T-shirts, Netflix queue a veritable discography of African poverty-related documentaries and teeth like miniature lumberjacks, that chomp away at chlorophyll, destroying millions of Mother Nature’s solar energy panels, all to sate their terrible hunger.

The vegetarians.

Vegetarianism, or “recreational anemia,” is one of the leading behavior-modifying ethical beliefs, meaning that its adherents practice what they preach. As a Catholic, I find this troubling.

We must destroy it. Vegetarianism presents a challenge to the very nature of man.

We’ve struggled and clawed and basically devoured our way up to the top of the food chain. We have an urge to discover life on distant planets and then eat that too.

The pursuit of edibility is what drives mankind, no matter the cost or the effect.

To illustrate, draw the circle of life, like the one from “The Lion King,” where Simba’s father tries to explain why Simba will eventually devour the animated entrails of his best friends, Timon and Pumbaa. Now draw a big, gaping mouth in the middle of it. That is mankind, devouring its way through life, consuming animal, vegetable and mineral alike.

But not vegetarians. No, they insist on limiting their dietary drive to vegetable matter, for ethical reasons. Vegetables! Vegetables are just fruit that didn’t try hard enough, fruit from the bad side of the tracks, toughened by life and social circumstance into surly imitations of edibility. Cucumbers are bananas with a jailhouse tattoo.

“Oh, yum, this one tastes like chewy water! Oh, try this one, it tastes like crispy water! And have you tried that mushy water one over here … Delicious!”

Yuck. I had to stick in a plug of jerky chew just get myself through this column. I’m a third degree Carnivoran, which means I eat things that have eaten other things that eat things. Like if a lion ate a gazelle and was then eaten by a whale, I could eat that whale. Or if you went cow to wolf to supercow, I could make a supercow hamburger.

“But vegetarians are such nice, caring people!” Oh, I don’t dispute that. Some of my best token friends are vegetarians. But, remember, it is exactly because vegetarians are such nice people that their behavior-modifying ethical beliefs are such a threat.

The disgusting sincerity of vegetarians presents a direct challenge to the moral hypocrisy that we normal people hold dear.

How will it be possible to believe in things if we must also then do those things with our hands and mouths? How can we be good people in our minds if must also be them with our bodies?

So, like every great movie villain, I will offer vegetarians a choice. We are not so different. If one takes circles seriously, then it follows that plants thrive on decomposing animals and each carrot has devoured a thousand little rabbit corpses.

Join the Dark Side, vegetarians. Join us, or if Earth is ever invaded by giant beets, I will tell the Beetonians of the terrible deeds you have committed against their kin.

- Reichert is an Oberlin graduate student in law.

Vegan Education Made Easy Part 2

2008-11-16T07:55:00.002-05:00

May 8, 2008

Posted by: Gary L. Francione in Blog

A friend of mine recently asked the following question: “What do you say to people who are vegans and who educate others about veganism but who are also concerned about circuses, hunting, and other particular forms of animal exploitation. Do you advise that they not address those issues at all and just focus on veganism?”

Of course not.

It is certainly the case that I do not advise that advocates spend their time and resources on single-issue campaigns. The reason is simple: single-issue campaigns invariably convey the impression that some forms of animal exploitation are morally distinguishable from others and are worse or should be singled out for special criticism. For example, a campaign against fur conveys the impression that there is some morally relevant difference between fur and other forms of animal clothing, such as leather or wool. A campaign against eating animal flesh conveys the impression that eating flesh is morally more objectionable than drinking milk or eating eggs. A campaign against conventional battery eggs suggests that “cage-free” eggs are morally desirable.

This problem is inherent with single-issue campaigns in a society in which animal exploitation is regarded as normal. If X, Y, and Z are all considered as normal practices in a society and are closely related, then a campaign against X, but not against Y and Z, suggests that there is some relevant difference between X on one hand and Y and Z on the other. For example, we live in a society in which it is considered as normal or “natural” to eat animal flesh and other animal products. A campaign that focuses on flesh conveys the impression that there is a moral difference between flesh and other animal products, which is not the case. The proof of this is found in the fact that many animal advocates are vegetarians but are not vegans. If they draw a distinction, then what can we expect from the general public?

This situation is to be distinguished from one in which X, Y, and Z are all regarded as objectionable activities or practices. For example, we all regard genocide as a bad thing whether it is happening in Darfur, Somalia, or Bosnia. If we have a campaign to stop genocide in Darfur, that does not mean that we think that genocide in other places is acceptable. We regard rape and pedophilia to be morally objectionable. A campaign against one does not imply any tacit approval of the other or any view that one is morally distinguishable from another.

This inherent problem with single-issue animal campaigns is exacerbated by the fact that animal groups that promote these campaigns often explicitly praise exploiters who may stop or modify some exploitative practice but who continue to engage in other, related practices. For example some animal advocates praise “cage-free” eggs as the “socially responsible” alternative to conventional battery eggs. Many large animal advocacy organizations sponsor or approve of “humane” labels that are placed on animal products. A prominent animal ethicist claims that being a “conscientious omnivore” is “a defensible ethical position.” This conveys a very clear and explicit moral message: some forms of animal exploitation are morally acceptable.

Moreover, single-issue campaigns not only create the misimpression that some forms of exploitation are qualitatively different in a moral sense from others, but often result in false “victories.” For example, the single-issue campaign in California against foie gras (1, 2) resulted in a law that was actually supported by the one foie gras producer in California because it immunized him against any legal action until 2012 and will probably be repealed before it ever comes into force if foie gras production can be made to be more “humane.”

So I am not a fan of putting time and money into single-issue campaigns. I maintain that our time, effort, and other resources are better placed in promoting veganism.

As long as 99%+ of the planet regards the eating of animal foods and consumption or use of animal products to be acceptable, we will never make the paradigm shift that we need to make if we are going to dislodge the notion that humans have a moral right to exploit nonhumans. We need to build a nonviolent movement for abolition that has veganism as its moral baseline.

But that does not mean that we should not oppose particular types of exploitation.

For example, last weekend, a horse, Eight Belles, who ran in the Kentucky Derby was killed immediately after the race and on the track when her ankles gave out as a result of her running for a duration and at a speed for which she was not suited. I was interviewed on a radio show and asked about my views on the matter of Eight Belles.

I explained that I opposed all horse racing but as part of my general view that humans have no moral justification for using nonhumans at all, including for food.

The host of the program picked up on that and talked about how he very much loves and cares for his dog but had a barbecue that past weekend at which he consumed other animals. So in a matter of a few minutes, the connection between horse racing and other forms of exploitation, particularly eating animal products, was made.

When we do discuss and criticize particular forms of exploitation, it is important to make clear that we regard the particular practice as morally unjustifiable and not that we think that the practice or activity can be made to be better if only we regulate it so that it is more “humane.” And it is crucial to make clear that our opposition to the practice or activity is part of our overall opposition to all animal use. We should not shrink away from making clear that we seek the abolition of all animal exploitation.

So when you are confronted by a particular practice or activity and want to or are asked to comment, you should do so if you are inclined. Just be clear that the solution to the problem is not to make the activity or practice more “humane,” but to recognize that the practice is transparently frivolous, as are most of our uses of nonhumans, and should be abolished - as should all animal exploitation.

Here are two examples:

Q: I was reading about foie gras. The way they make it is terrible, isn’t it?

A: It surely is. But it’s not really different from everything else we eat. The steak you had tonight, or the glass of milk you drank this morning, involved a production process every bit as horrible as that involved in foie gras. And we have no right to kill nonhuman animals just because we think they taste good irrespective of how well we treat them.

Q: The circus is coming to town. What do you, an animal advocate, think about the use of animals in circuses?

A: I think it’s terrible. We impose suffering and death on animals for sheer amusement and that is really inconsistent with what we claim to believe when we express our agreement with the idea that it’s wrong to inflict “unnecessary” suffering on animals. But then, using animals in circuses is really no different from eating animals, which is also something that involves our pleasure or amusement and is just as inconsistent with what we say we believe. There is no way to make sense out of the fact that we treat some nonhuman animals as members of our families and we stick forks into others or torture them for our enjoyment in circuses, zoos, or rodeos.

Whether you should spend your time and energy on legislation concerning circuses is another matter. As I have said, at this point in time, the cultural context is such that it makes far more sense to spend our time focused on the use of animals for food, which is the primary practice that, in effect, legitimizes other forms of exploitation.

But if you do decide to campaign against circuses, your campaign should, at the very least, oppose the use of all animals in circuses and have no exceptions, and make clear that circuses are no better or worse than other forms of animal use, all of which should be abolished if we are to take animals seriously.

Gary L. Francione

© 2008 Gary L. Francione

Vegan Education Made Easy Part 1

2008-11-16T07:32:00.002-05:00

March 25, 2008

Posted by: Gary L. Francione in Blog

One of the things that I hear frequently is that educating people, particularly strangers, about veganism, is difficult.

On the contrary, our everyday interactions with people provide us with many opportunities to discuss veganism. This essay will discuss a couple of examples. I will discuss more examples in future essays.

For example, in January of this year, I had to take Robert, one of our dogs, to see a specialist at the University of Pennsylvania Veterinary School. There was a woman - I will refer to her as “Jane” for purposes of this essay but that was not her real name - sitting with me in the waiting area. Jane had a greyhound with her. And, as always happens when two humans are in such a place with their nonhuman companions, we got to talking about what health problems had brought us to Penn. And that led to how Jane had adopted her dog from a rescue group and how our dog was found living under an abandoned car.

After a minute or two of discussing how horrible the greyhound racing industry is, I told Jane that I used to teach at the University of Pennsylvania many years ago, and that Penn was notorious for the horrible experiments, testing, and “educational” procedures that it performed on dogs and other nonhumans. She said that she had heard about Penn’s animal experiments and I mentioned how strange it was that one part of the building was devoted to the application of veterinary medicine to help the animals who were loved by humans and another part of the building was devoted to torturing nonhumans who were not members of anyone’s family. Jane made the point that it really made no sense that we treat some dogs or cats as family members and we treat some dogs and cats as “research tools.”

“How true,” I said. “But in many ways, we’re all just like these Penn vets. We treat some animals as family members and we harm others.”

She look bewildered. “What do you mean? I would never hurt a dog or cat.” I moved the conversation away from dogs and cats and starting talking about cows, pigs, and chickens, and how they are really no different from dogs and cats. There is something very strange about the fact that we regard some nonhumans as family members, as beings whom we love and whose personhood we recognize, while, at the same time, we stick forks into other animals who are no different - morally or empirically - from those whom we love.

Jane was silent for a moment and then asked, “are you a vegetarian?”

“I’m a vegan,” I replied.

“You mean you don’t even drink milk?” she asked.

“That’s right. I don’t eat eggs, or any dairy products.”

“I can understand not eating meat. But what’s wrong with dairy and eggs?”

“Everything. The animals used in the dairy or egg industry are kept alive longer than most of their ‘meat’ counterparts, are treated worse, and end up in the same horrible slaughterhouse.”

Jane looked troubled.

“But isn’t it really hard to be a vegan?” she asked.

“Absolutely not,” I replied. “It’s unbelievably easy and it’s better for you and for the planet, in addition to being the right thing to do if you regard nonhumans as members of the moral community.” I spent a few minutes talking about the health benefits of a vegan diet and the ecological disaster of an animal-based agriculture.

Our conversation stopped for about 30 seconds and then Jane asked, “could you get me some information about how to go vegan?”

“Sure. Give me your email address.” She did.

We talked for a few more minutes about the wide range of vegan foods that are now available, and Robert and I were then called in to see the vet. Jane was gone when we came out. That afternoon, I sent Jane a number of things to read about veganism - both about the moral, health, and environmental issues concerning veganism, and some practical information on nutrition and making quick and easy vegan food. That evening, I got a short reply, “Thanks. I will read these with interest.”

Two weeks ago, I got an email from Jane - the first I have heard from her since sending her the materials. It read, in part: “I am about 60% vegan already and am working toward 100%. I already feel better both as a matter of my spirit and my body. I am using the vegan dog food that you recommended and she loves it! Thanks for taking the time.”

Veterinary hospitals and offices are always great places to start up conversations about veganism. People are focused on their nonhuman companion and are emotionally very open to thinking more abstractly about nonhuman animals as a general matter. I cannot recall ever being in a veterinarian’s office (and we have had up to seven rescued dogs at one time, so we’ve had plenty of experience at the vet’s office) where I did not start up a conversation with someone that drifted to veganism.

Another great place to talk about veganism is on an airplane.

When you order any sort of special meal on a flight, those meals are usually served first. The air host comes over and asks whether you ordered a “special meal.” I always respond, “yes, I ordered a vegan meal with no animal products whatsoever.”

Most of the time, the person sitting next to me, or the two people sitting on either side (if I am in a middle seat) ask me whether I have allergies or why I have requested such a meal. This, of course, opens the door to a discussion about why it is that I am a vegan. Depending on the delay between getting my meal and the distribution of everyone else’s, I have had about 20% of the people I talk to ask the air host whether there is another vegan meal when the cart comes around. (Actually, I never start eating my meal until the cart comes around in the event that this happens and there is no extra vegan meal as I will happily give mine to my neighbor and have done so on a number of occasions.)

Some of the best discussions I have had on animal rights and veganism have occurred on airplanes, particularly transatlantic flights. You are stuck next to someone for about 7 hours and people are often very happy to spend at least some of that time talking with the person sitting next to them.

One of my favorite stories occurred several years ago. I was on my way to Paris and was seated next to a woman who had a fur coat. She was not wearing the coat, but had it against her seat. I was reading a copy of my Introduction to Animal Rights, which, at the time, I was thinking of doing a second edition and I was considering changes that I might make. The flight was delayed leaving Newark Airport, so we had some small talk about connecting flights that we had in Paris. She saw my book and asked, “is that a good book?” I smiled and said it was an “excellent” book! She asked me if I was an “animal rights type.” I replied that I was, and she spent the next 30 minutes (during which we were still at the gate) talking about her 2 dogs and how much she was going to miss them while on the business trip to France, etc.

And then she raised the issue of her fur coat. She said, “my coat must offend you. I’m sorry.” She started explaining to me that it was a “ranch raised” fox coat and that the animals were not caught in traps. I explained how “ranched” animals are tortured as much as trapped ones, but I made the point that I found her fur coat - whether “ranch raised” or trapped - no more offensive than a coat made of leather or wool.

She seemed astounded by this. “You don’t wear wool or leather?” “No,” I replied, “I am a vegan.”

I spent the next 15 minutes (still at the gate) explaining what veganism is and assuring her that veganism provides a wide variety of exciting and healthful food choices, and is the logical choice for anyone who cares about nonhuman animals. I then suggested to her that the foxes that were killed to make her coat were no different from the dogs that she was very sad to be leaving behind in New York for two weeks. We then started talking about our “moral schizophrenia” that affects and infects our thinking about nonhumans.

The plane took off, the meal service started, I was given my vegan meal and my neighbor asked the air host immediately whether there was an extra vegan meal on board. There was an extra meal and she requested it. We spent the next several hours talking about animal rights and veganism and I confessed to being the author of the book that she had asked about!

About two months after that flight, I got an email from this person. She had given her fox coat to an animal group that would use it in anti-fur demonstrations and she had ordered Introduction to Animal Rights from Amazon.com and had read it. She was working toward veganism, using a technique that I had suggested to her where she gave up all animal products for one meal, then for 2 meals, then 3, and then for all snacking. Another 2 or 3 months went by and she wrote to say that she was completely vegan.

Vegan education is challenging. We live in a culture in which most people assume without thinking that consuming animal products is “normal” or “natural.” Vegan education is time-intensive work; it often means working one-on-one and spending a good deal of time.

But every day life presents us with all sorts of opportunities to educate others and the most effective opportunities are calm, friendly exchanges between two thinking human beings.

And every person who goes vegan is a vital contribution to the nonviolent revolution that will eventually shift the paradigm away from animals as property and toward animals as persons.

Gary L. Francione

© 2008 Gary L. Francione

Brock recognized for meat-less options

2008-11-04T07:15:00.001-05:00

Campus nominated for vegetarian-friendly award

The Standard - Tuesday, November 4, 2008

Posted By STANDARD STAFF

Brock University has been nominated for the title of most vegetarian-friendly campus in North America.

Brock is up against 47 other post-secondary institutions to win the Most Vegetarian-Friendly Universities competition, which is organized by peta2, an international youth animal rights organization.

The St. Catharines campus offers a wide range of meatless options, from vegetarian shepherd's pie to vegan burritos to mushroom pot pie.

"Brock is showing its respect for students by offering them food choices that are good for their health, animals and the planet," said Ryan Huling, a peta2 spokesman.

Other Canadian nominees include the University of Guelph, the University of Toronto, and the University of Waterloo.

University nominations were based on student recommendations.

Everyone is eligible to vote. The school with the most votes will be announced in November and will receive certificates to display in its campus dining halls.

To vote, go to www.peta2.com/college.

A Brief History of Veganism

2008-11-01T11:15:00.005-04:00

TIME USA - Thursday, October 30, 2008

By Claire Suddath

Photo by Simon Reddy/Alamy

November 1 is World Vegan Day, a celebration of people who don't eat meat. Or eggs. Or cheese. Or mayonnaise. Or honey. Or whey. Or gelatin. Or anything that comes from or includes an animal. Nor do they use any clothing, accessory or object made from an animal. No leather, no wool, no pearls, no ivory-keyed pianos. The animal-free holiday began in 1994, to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the Vegan Society.

Veganism is an extreme form of vegetarianism, and though the term was coined in 1944, the concept of flesh-avoidance can be traced back to ancient Indian and eastern Mediterranean societies. Vegetarianism is first mentioned by the Greek philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras of Samos around 500 BCE. In addition to his theorem about right triangles, Pythagoras promoted benevolence among all species, including humans. Followers of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism also advocated vegetarianism, believing that humans should not inflict pain on other animals.

The meatless lifestyle never really caught on in the West, although it would sometimes pop up during health crazes and religious revivals. The Ephrata Cloister, a strict religious sect founded in 1732 in Pennsylvania, advocated vegetarianism - as well as celibacy. The 18th century utilitarian philosopher Jeremy Bentham believed that animal suffering was just as serious as human suffering, and likened the idea of human superiority to racism.

The first vegetarian society was formed in 1847 in England. Three years later, Rev. Sylvester Graham, the inventor of Graham crackers, co-founded the American Vegetarian Society. Graham was a Presbyterian minister and his followers, called Grahamites, obeyed his instructions for a virtuous life: vegetarianism, temperance, abstinence, and frequent bathing. In November 1944, a British woodworker named Donald Watson announced that because vegetarians ate dairy and eggs, he was going to create a new term called "vegan," to describe people who did not. Tuberculosis had been found in 40% of Britain's dairy cows the year before, and Watson used this to his advantage, claiming that it proved the vegan lifestyle protected people from tainted food. Three months after coining the term, he issued a formal explanation of the way the word should be pronounced: "Veegan, not Veejan," he wrote in his new Vegan Society newsletter, which had 25 subscribers. By the time Watson died at age 95 in 2005, there were 250,000 self-identifying vegans in Britain and 2 million in the U.S. Moby, Woody Harrelson and Fiona Apple are vegans. So is Dennis Kucinich.

Strict veganism prohibits the use of animal product, even if it isn't food, but like any lifestyle choice that ends in "-ism," there are plenty of people who cheat. The vitamin B12 is found almost entirely in animal products, so many vegans eat fortified food or take a vitamin to get the right amount. And while American vegetarianism has broken free of its philosophical and religious roots, becoming an accepted health choice - many restaurants offer vegetarian options and most dinner party planners now ask "is anyone vegetarian?" before planning the menu - veganism is still tied to the animal-rights movement and is out there on the fringe.

Vegans can be as strict or lax as they want to be in their food choices: the International Vegetarian Union's website includes vegan-friendly reminders about baking pans greased with animal fat, grain cereals that include animal-based glycerin, and sugar refined with bone charcoal. Then there's raw veganism, which is an offshoot of veganism in which none of the food can be cooked. Take that a step further and you get "mono meals," the idea that the stomach should only digest one type of food at a time. Basically, if you eat it, there is probably someone else out there who won't.

Should We All Be Vegetarians?

COUNT HER FEET: The moral high ground is meatless

2008-10-23T07:11:00.003-04:00

The McGill Tribune - Tuesday, October 21, 2008

BY RIVA GOLD

I'm not a zealot, an animal liberationist, or dedicated to the pursuit of global misery. But I've been a vegetarian for nine years-for moral reasons. I don't claim to live among intolerant, meat-eating hooligans who throw cooked flesh into my mouth when I'm not looking in order to relieve me of the disease that is vegetarianism. However, I don't understand why meat eaters don't concede the moral high ground to us.

I agree wholeheartedly with Eric Weiss when, in his last column, he described People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals as a truly, deeply evil organization (see FOOT IN MOUTH: Stay out of my kitchen, PETA) . I agree with PETA that humans should treat animals better in a broad sense, but PETA's extremist and often criminal actions make them as alien to moderate vegetarians as they are to meat-eaters. Any group that opposes animal testing for life-saving medical purposes is deplorable.

My anti-PETA stance often gets me the instant, albeit fleeting, approval of meat-eaters. To them, I am one of the rare "reasonable ones," who are vegetarian perhaps by accident. This good impression lasts until I explain that, for most people, a vegetarian lifestyle is a morally superior choice. And while vegetarianism alone doesn't guarantee my moral fibre, it should count in my favour rather than against it.

We've all heard of vegetarianism's many moral perks. I won't explain all of them in detail, but consider two important ones: the meat industry is often incredibly cruel, and vegetarianism is much more environmentally sustainable. If you don't believe me, do some research. However, the main argument for vegetarianism's moral superiority is this: animals aren't necessarily equal to humans, but as sentient beings, we ought to care about them at least a little bit.

In his article, Eric wrote that "Eating meat is not wrong. Our ancestors ate meat in order to survive and we've inherited their place at the top of the food chain." Ah, the good old naturalistic fallacy. Being natural or traditional doesn't make something morally legitimate. This is especially true about eating meat, because the context of dietary decisions has changed dramatically in recent years. Our ancestors didn't have access to modern soy protein, vitamin supplements, and the like. Meat was often their only option. But just because meat was the right choice then doesn't mean it's the right choice now, when being vegetarian is easier than ever.

Don't get me wrong-like Eric, I think that humans are superior to animals. But our superiority isn't based on our place "at the top of the food chain." (Besides, any lion you meet alone in the jungle will beg to differ.) Humans are uniquely important because we're capable of making moral judgements. We have the capacity for compassion, for reason-in short, for humanity. Only humans can weigh the minor pleasure of eating beef against the pain and suffering that produced it.

Human superiority is precisely why we shouldn't be needlessly cruel to animals. We're not special because we happen to have a perch atop the food chain. We're special because only we are in a position to use our power ethically. For every cow we kill when we could easily eat tofu, for every chicken we needlessly coop up, we lose a little bit of our humanity.

Aside from cases of anaemia and poverty, I have yet to hear a compelling moral argument for eating meat. And until I do, I will continue to take the moral, and distinctly human, high ground at every animal-free meal I enjoy.

Ultimately, every individual makes their own choices. I have no intention of joining radical, anti-meat protest groups, or proclaiming that animals are equal to humans. It's precisely because humans are not like other animals that we shouldn't be acting like them when we make dietary choices.

To view this story and some pretty interesting comments, go to: COUNT HER FEET: The moral high ground is meatless

Family brings vegetarianism to Orillia

2008-10-18T08:50:00.004-04:00

The Orillia Packet & Times - Saturday, October 11, 2008

Posted by Sara Ross

Jocelyn Losole-Stinger, 11 and her 9-year old sister Natalie have never eaten meat before in their lives.

Once Jocelyn accidentally began chewing meat, believing it was something else, but she spit it out when she realized her mistake.

“It was kind of strange because I had never tasted it before,” Jocelyn said. “It wasn’t like anything I’ve tasted before.”

Natalie said when she goes to friend’s houses and they eat meat it’s sometimes hard for her, but she has a friend whose family that will cook a veggie burger for her.

“I say they taste just like hamburgers, but I don’t know that because I’ve never tasted (hamburgers) before,” she laughed. “I’m going to be a vegetarian all my life. I know what happens to animals in factories, so I don’t want to be eating that.”

Janet Losole, the mother of the two girls said she and her husband Lloyd Stringer decided to become vegetarians 14-years ago for their own personal beliefs.

“For me it was a boycott as an expression of the unfair distribution of the earth’s resources. Most grain is used to feed beef cattle and the vast majority of humans on the earth are starving as a result of not having access to those grains,” Losole said.

“For my husband it was animal rights all the way. He has a view that animals are treated unfairly and he couldn’t tolerate the cruelty.”

She said that the amount of water and acres of land required to feed about 10 head of cattle could feed thousands of people.

“I think, especially today, over consumption has gotten us into a lot of trouble,” she said. “Over consumption, no matter what it is, means that some people on the earth are not going to have enough.”

Recently the family began to be even more thankful for their decision 14-years ago as there are so many problems with the current food system.

“Look at the news all these recalls and bacteria,” she said. “I want to take control of my own health. The decision I made with my husband was ever a good one because every year the food supply gets worse.”

Losole said it’s a myth that humans require meat in their diets, adding that people can be healthy without it.

“Once the kids were born a lot changed. Not only were we going to continue eating vegetarian, we were like what else are we consuming that isn’t good not just for the earth, but (also) for our bodies. Then it became local, organic,” Losole said.

When the couple first decided to become vegetarians they were living in Barrie and found it extremely difficult to find vegetarian alternatives.

“Back then it was very basic just pasta and salad. There weren’t very many options,” she said. “We’ve come along way in 14-years.”

Losole said going out for dinner in restaurants is still hard in a small town like Orillia, however she does know a place in town that offers a wide-range of vegetarian foods.

“You can go to any restaurant and you have to get a salad, but Brewery Bay is the best restaurant in town because Steve (Clarke, the owner) is a vegetarian, so he’s got loads of options on his menu.”

In January of this year the couple decided to start the Orillia Vegetarian Club as a way to meet more people in the community they had just moved to.

The 20-person club meets once a month for a potluck dinner, where they socialize and share recipes. There are also “meat-eaters” in the club who joined to learn how to cook healthy dishes.

Losole said she would like to see the group expand and be able to host guest speakers during their monthly meals.

“I’d like to see people coming as a response to not being happy with the food supply.

(The club) is a support system and it’s nice to be with people who think the same way,” she said. “It’s all about what is on your plate, where does that come from and what’s in it.”

For more information on the Orillia Vegetarian Club visit http://orilliaveg.blogspot.com/.

PETA’s complaints to ice cream company an embarassment

2008-10-11T19:54:00.000-04:00

The Badger Herald - Tuesday, October 7, 2008

BY PATRICK JOHNSON

Ice cream is the quintessential summer treat and the best late-night binge. Smooth, sugary and… made from human breast milk?

Or so People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals urges Ben & Jerry’s.

I don’t think so, PETA. If you’re ready to eat ice cream made from milk of the lactating teats of pregnant women, you can form your own commune to churn your mammary cream and make your idealistic sundaes elsewhere because no one’s going to market frozen breast milk as a dessert here.

The ice cream controversy began with a new PETA campaign that took the form of a letter to Ben & Jerry’s, imploring them to stop using dairy in their ice cream. They cited animal rights and health reasons to support their ridiculous request and drew inspiration from a Swiss restaurant that uses donated breast milk in their soups, stews and sauces.

I’m a vegan myself, and I don’t get it. Sure, the motives are clear, but why not suggest something less… human excrement-filled? Perhaps soy ice cream, which is just as delicious and a whole lot more appetizing than human breast milk, unless you’re under the age of 12 months.

By urging Ben and Jerry’s to switch their ice cream production into a lactation station and processing plant, PETA made their organization look absolutely dimwitted. It’s embarrassing for many vegans to be associated with such dolts and supposed animal rights advocates.

PETA’s version of ice cream simply wouldn’t sell, unless there was some sort of “buy one, get one free” deal for mothers. Ben & Jerry’s knows this, as does PETA. Such a proposal probably wouldn’t even make it past bathroom humor among co-workers. PETA most likely sent their letter as a rhetorical request, whose premise was flawed ad absurdum and ad nauseum. They created an analogy that made drinking another animal’s milk equal in displeasure to the milk of the breasts of a plethora of pregnant women. Most people, however, are too busy laughing in derision at the idea to see any logic in it.

In fairness to them, PETA had several valid reasons for their request, though it was disguised behind a “Fear Factor”-type challenge that involved drinking human excrement.

Their motives were completely right - drinking milk supports a harmful practice. Cows are sucked dry in dairy plants; for cows to be able to produce milk, they are artificially inseminated and their young are deported to be tortured as veal, Holocaust-style, while they produce 10 times the amount of milk that is natural for them. Humans are also the only mammals that drink milk past infancy, which is why some people have lactose intolerance. What makes cow’s milk so covetous? What about horse milk? Or bobcat milk?

But then again PETA is right - what about breast milk? We drank it when we were young. It makes some sense. The reason why the idea of breast milk in normal dessert consumption is so disgusting is just because of our societal eating patterns. People eat gross stuff like hot dogs all the time, but everyone’s used to it.

I think I’ve milked this for what it’s worth, so vegan morality aside, PETA made the wrong move once again. They only furthered their reputation as a radical terrorist group that propagates unrealistic measures for real moral issues. And they do it with a blithe unawareness that makes them look absolutely foolish.

Take, for example, PETA’s 2001 “Eat the Whales” Campaign, which solicited meat-eaters to eat whales instead of conventional animals like chickens or cows. The idea was that one whale could be slaughtered instead of the thousands of smaller animals which were raised in factory farms. In this case, the logic is completely sound: There would be thousands fewer animals in crammed factory farms because the whale can swim the expanse of the ocean, and everyone is fed. What’s irrational about the campaign is that it gives meat-eaters the opportunity to mock animal rights advocates as freaks. And no one likes to eat whale, even if it is a mammal.

PETA just gives being vegan a bad name. The organization itself isn’t inherently evil, but its practices are often out of touch with its motives. The leader of PETA has single-handedly done a great deal for animal rights, but when some vegans get together, being more radical supposedly means they care for the animals more. The organization’s work doesn’t make anyone more sensitive to animal rights because of how detached their requests are from reality. When PETA makes proposals such as this, it distracts the everyday omnivore from any sort of compassion regarding the issue at hand. And because of this detachment, no one is willing to put down a hamburger to hear what PETA says anymore.

Patrick Johnson (prjohnson3@wisc.edu) is a freshman majoring in English and journalism.

For comments on this article, click on:
PETA’s complaints to ice cream company an embarassment

FOOT IN MOUTH: Stay out of my kitchen, PETA

2008-10-09T19:45:00.002-04:00

The McGill Tribune - Tuesday, October 7, 2008

By Eric Weiss

I was at Oktoberhaus last week, drinking a beer and pondering the sexual implications of sausage on a stick, when something occurred to me. Back when I named this column, I intended to put my foot in my mouth with controversial material-something I have yet to do. So instead of writing another self-indulgent piece about some movie you should have seen, I'll discuss something a little meatier.

I'm not a vegetarian. Why? Because I sleep better at night knowing that something died for my dinner.

Alright, that isn't true. But like most people in this country, I enjoy meat and I don't think my dietary indulgences are morally reprehensible. It's about time somebody explained why it's okay to chow down on a succulent, juicy hamburger. And it's about time somebody told People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals to fuck off.

I eat meat because it's delicious. I don't care about scientific or philosophical explanations-eating meat is intrinsically pleasurable, and I don't want to live the rest of my life without tasting bacon. According to the Canada Food Guide, meat is an important part of a balanced diet and I would much rather get my protein from poultry than soy.

Beyond the sensory pleasure of consumption, meat has real cultural significance: it brings people together to share good food. Some of my fondest memories were formed around my family's kitchen table, and with Thanksgiving right around the corner, a festive turkey dinner will be on Canada's collective menu. Like most foods, meat transcends social boundaries. People of all persuasions can unite thanks to the harmonizing influences of filet mignon or pepperoni pizza.

For me, vegetarianism can't compete: tofu, tofurkey, toveal, and to-whatever are inadequate substitutes for meat. Don't get me wrong-I don't hate tofu. When prepared properly, it's quite tasty. But no matter how well it's made, tofu still tastes like tofu-not meat. It's not the same, so don't pretend it is.

Eating meat is not wrong. Our ancestors ate meat in order to survive and we've inherited their place at the top of the food chain. Like most people, I distinguish between humans and animals in questions of morality. I might risk my life to save a child, but never to save my neighbour's cat. So why should I apologize to the cow I'm having for lunch?

I don't have anything against vegetarianism. It's a popular lifestyle choice that can be made for any number of reasons, ranging from health concerns to spiritual fulfillment. If that's your preference, more power to you (and I mean that). But it's not for me, and I'm sick and tired of zealots turning vegetarianism into a moral crusade.

Believe it or not, I don't eat meat to be cruel. Yes, I've been known to club baby seals and feed puppies to sharks, but that has nothing to do with my diet. I'm sympathetic to many criticisms of the meat industry. Foie gras and veal (neither of which I eat) can only be produced through torture, so I understand why people oppose their production. I also support greater regulation and accountability in the meat industry.

A diet that includes meat is still compatible with the humane treatment of animals. The condescending and inflammatory propaganda of groups like PETA-who tried to exploit Tim McLean's murder for publicity this summer-is insulting to meat lovers and drives us away from the animal rights movement. Turning vegetarianism into an all-or-nothing proposition creates an unnecessary divide between those who eat meat and those who don't. The ways in which animals are raised and slaughtered should be improved to avoid needless cruelty, but my diet isn't responsible for an industry's shortcomings.

Alienating the majority has never been a recipe for progress. I'll support campaigns to improve the meat industry, but only with a compromise. Dear PETA: I stay out of your kitchen, so please stay out of mine.

It's a vegan recipe even carnivores can enjoy

2008-10-07T06:42:00.002-04:00

The St. Catharines Standard - Monday, October 6, 2008

St. Catharines resident Laurie Sadowski a runner-up in Canadian Living magazine's cook of the year competition

Posted By CHERYL CLOCK

Laurie Sadowski tested her vegan recipe on a bunch of carnivores.

And they loved it.

That's precisely what the 25-year-old St. Catharines resident hoped would happen when she served the dish to her family.

Sadowski, a vegan, created the Tofu-Stuffed Eggplant Rolls with Mushroom Ragout for Canadian Living magazine's cook of the year competition.

She made it to the semifinals and in August went head-to-head with three other amateur chefs at a cookoff in Toronto.

Sadowski was a runner-up. The winner was Montreal-resident Tania Chugani, who first made her winning Anytime Seafood Bake when she was pregnant and craved lobster.

Finalists were chosen from hundreds of entries from home-based cooks across Canada.

Recipes and details of the competition can be found in the November 2008 issue of Canadian Living, on shelves today.

Another St. Catharines resident, Gennie Wright, made it to the semi-finals - the final 16 - with her Parmesan-Crusted Tilapia with Roasted Pepper and Arugula Salsa.

Sadowski, who writes occasionally for The Standard's Flavours section, has Celiac disease, a condition that prevents her from eating grains like wheat, and also has a food allergy to dairy. In addition to eating a vegetarian diet, she also avoids eggs and dairy.

"I wanted to make something that could be enjoyed by everyone," says Sadowski.

Her personal challenge was to come up with a novel use for tofu, and make it tasty enough that even the most devout meat-eater would find it tasty.

She decided to stuff the tofu mixture into an eggplant roll.

She also wants people whose diets are restricted to know that eating healthy, delicious food is still possible.

"You just have to have an open mind and get creative," she says.

Sadowski is in the process of completing her master's degree in musicology from York University. She plans to open her own business related to cooking and fitness.

TOFU-STUFFED EGGPLANT WITH MUSHROOM RAGOUT

Makes eight servings

Recipe by Laurie Sadowski

Canadian Living says: This fresh-tasting vegetarian dish impressed us because it is suitable for not only vegetarians, but also for vegans, as well as people who eat gluten-and dairy-free diets, making it perfect for gatherings of those with food allergies and intolerances. Nutritional yeast, such as that from Bob's Red Mill, can be found in health food and some grocery stores.

2 large eggplants (about one pound/500 grams each)
3/4 teaspoon (4 mL) salt 2 tablespoons (25 mL) extra-virgin olive oil
1/4 teaspoon (1 mL) pepper

Tofu stuffing:
2 tubs (each 12 ounces/375 grams) silken or soft tofu, drained
1/3 cup (75 mL) chopped sun-dried tomatoes (oil-packed or dried and reconstituted)
1/4 cup (50 mL) thinly sliced fresh basil
2 teaspoons (10 mL) nutritional yeast flakes (optional)

Mushroom ragout:
1 tablespoon (15 mL) extra-virgin olive oil (approx)
1 small red onion, diced 2 cloves garlic, minced
1 1 /2 pounds (750 g) mixed mushrooms (such as cremini, oyster, shitake and button), sliced
1 tablespoon (5 mL) dried Italian herb seasoning
1/4 teaspoon (1 mL) each salt and pepper
1/2 cup (125 mL) red or white wine
3 tablespoons (45 mL) tomato paste

Thinly slice eggplants lengthwise into eight slices each; sprinkle all over with salt.

Place in colander, pressing with plates and let stand for 30 minutes; pat dry.

Brush both sides of eggplant with oil; place on two large parchment paper-lined baking sheets. Sprinkle with pepper. Bake in top and bottom thirds of 400°F (200°C) oven, switching and rotating sheets halfway through and turning eggplant once, until golden and softened, about 20 minutes.

Tofu stuffing: Meanwhile, place tofu in large cheesecloth-lined strainer and let stand for one hour, pressing to release as much water as possible.

Transfer tofu to bowl; discard water. Add tomatoes, basil and nutritional yeast.

Place eggplant on work surface. Place about one tablespoon (15 mL) tofu stuffing at end of each slice; roll up eggplant to enclose stuffing. Place rolls in 13x9-inch (3 L) glass baking dish. (Make ahead: cover and refrigerate for up to four hours.)

Mushroom ragout: In large nonstick skillet or Dutch oven, heat oil over medium-high heat; saute onion and garlic until softened, about three minutes.

Add mushrooms, Italian seasoning, salt and pepper; saute until mushrooms are softened, adding more oil if necessary, about eight minutes.

Add wine; cook, stirring, until evaporated. Add tomato paste and 1 1 /2 cups (375 mL) water and bring to boil; reduce heat and simmer until thickened, about five minutes. Remove from heat. Spread over eggplant rolls.

Bake, covered, in 375°F (190°C) oven until heated through, 20 to 25 minutes. Let stand for five minutes.

Tip: To reconstitute the dehydrated tomatoes for this recipe, place about 10 in heatproof bowl. Add about one cup (250 mL) boiling water and let stand for 10 minutes. Drain, reserving liquid to add to ragout instead of the water.

Animals Farmed For Meat Are The No. 1 Source Of Food Poisoning Bug, Study Shows

2008-09-27T09:54:00.001-04:00

ScienceDaily - September 26, 2008

A study by researchers from Lancashire, England, and Chicago, IL, found that 97 percent of campylobacteriosis cases sampled in Lancashire were caused by bacteria typically found in chicken and livestock. The work is based on DNA-sequence comparison of thousands of bacteria collected from human patients and animal carriers.

Campylobacter jejuni causes more cases of gastroenteritis in the developed world than any other bacterial pathogen, including E. coli, Salmonella, Clostridium and Listeria combined. Wild and domestic animals act as natural reservoirs for the disease, which can also survive in water and soil. However, the relative importance of these sources is unclear, and recent work has suggested that livestock are not the main reservoir for human disease.

Researchers led by Daniel Wilson, of the University of Chicago, and formerly Lancaster University, United Kingdom, sequenced the DNA of bacteria collected from 1,231 patients and compared it to Campylobacter jejuni DNA sequences collected from wild and domestic animals, and the environment. They used evolutionary modeling to trace the ancestry of human C. jejuni back to one of seven source populations.

In 57 percent of cases, the bacteria could be traced to chicken, and in 35 percent to cattle. Wild animal and environmental sources were accountable for just three percent of disease.

"The dual observations that livestock are a frequent source of human disease isolates and that wild animals and the environment are not, strongly support the notion that preparation or consumption of infected meat and poultry is the dominant transmission route," Wilson said.

Further studies are underway in the United States, the United Kingdom and New Zealand to determine the generality of the result. But the authors say they hope the current study will add impetus to initiatives aimed at controlling food-borne pathogens.

This research appears September 26 in the open-access journal PLoS Genetics.

Adapted from materials provided by University of Chicago Medical Center, via EurekAlert!, a service of AAAS.

"Free Range" is Still Factory Farming

2008-09-14T12:16:00.010-04:00

Published 01/15/06 Source: Animal Issues, Volume 32 Number 4, Winter 2001

Every year billions of animals are raised and killed for human consumption. On today’s high-production farms, animals are crammed into tiny cages or crowded pens, unable to express natural behaviors, see sunlight, or even breathe fresh air.

Farm animals undergo painful mutilations and surgical procedures performed without anesthetic that would be illegal if performed on cats or dogs. In fact, 30 U.S. states have enacted laws that specifically exempt farm animals from certain parts of their anti-cruelty statutes. Thereby certain acts, no matter how cruel, are outside the realm of legal protection as long as the acts are deemed accepted, common, customary, or normal farming practices.

Happy Farm Animals

Responding to growing concerns over farm animal treatment, some meat, egg, and milk producers have introduced products that claim their animals are treated humanely. However, consumers purchasing such products may not be getting what they think they are paying for. While terms such as humanely raised, free range, or cage free conjure up images of happy farm animals frolicking in open pastures and sunshine, gleefully offering their bodies for human use, the reality is less than idyllic.

“Free-range” cows and sheep must be “grass fed and live on a range,” and birds must have some form of access to the outdoors, but no other criteria - such as the size of the “range,” the amount of space individual animals must have, or animal care and handling - are required. The Washington Post Magazine reported that, especially in the case of birds, the term free-range “doesn’t really tell you anything about the [animal’s] quality of life, nor does it even assure that the animal actually goes outdoors.” Moreover, the accuracy of these claims is rarely if ever verified because the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), which defines free-range and free-roaming for labeling purposes, relies “upon producer testimonials to support the accuracy of these claims.”

Karen Davis, president of United Poultry Concerns, visited Happy Hen Organic Fertile Brown Eggs, a “free-range” egg farm in Pennsylvania. According to flyers for Happy Hen eggs, the hens run free “in a natural setting” and are “humanely housed in healthy, open-sided housing, for daily sunning - something Happy Hens really enjoy.” Davis’s observations stood in stark contrast to the farm’s claims. “Inside, the birds were wall to wall. They were severely debeaked and their feathers were in bad condition - straggly, drab, and worn off.” More than 7,000 birds were housed in each Happy Hen barn, and individual hens had no more than 1½ square feet of space, not room enough even to spread their wings. Happy Hens were also occasionally force-molted (denied food for several days to shock the hens into losing their feathers and prematurely starting a new laying cycle).

Recently, the American Humane Association (AHA) introduced its own “Free Farmed” labeling program. Unlike other labels that rely solely on producer’s claims, the “Free Farmed” label uses an independent third party verification system to ensure that producers, processors, and haulers meet the Animal Welfare Standards set forth by the AHA. AHA standards require that livestock have access to clean and “sufficient” food and water, protection from weather elements, space, and other features to ensure the safety, health, and comfort of the animal. In addition, the standards require that managers and stock keepers be thoroughly trained, skilled, and competent in animal husbandry and welfare.

Inherent Cruelties

Animals raised to produce “free-farmed” and other such labeled products may be given a little more space, spared certain cruel procedures, and afforded a bit more consideration than their factory-farmed counterparts, yet meat, milk, and eggs can never be considered truly humane products.

Even the best labeling programs fail to address some cruelties inherent in animal agriculture. For example, like other chickens, “free-range” meat-type chickens have been genetically altered to grow abnormally large and as a result their bones are often unable to support the weight of their muscle tissue, causing them to hobble in pain or become totally crippled prior to slaughter.

The parents of these birds suffer as well. According to Ian J. H. Duncan, Ph.D. and Professor of Poultry Ethology at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada, meat-type chickens used for breeding are “obviously suffering,” as a result of only being allowed 40-50% of food they would normally eat to satisfy their hunger. This state of constant starvation is considered necessary to keep the birds’ weight down and avoid the crippling that plagues their offspring. Turkeys are so genetically altered that they can not even breed naturally, so all turkeys are forcefully inseminated by artificial means.

Producers who allow their cows to graze in pasture and claim to treat animals humanely offer no explanation for the fate of the calves produced on their dairies. To continue to produce milk a cow must have a calf each year. Calves normally stay with their mothers for a year or more.

However, on the dairy farm, calves are immediately removed from their mothers so that the milk can be sold for human consumption. The female calves are usually used to replace worn-out dairy cows. Many of the male calves are confined and chained in small wooden crates to produce “white” veal.

Like their feedlot and factory farmed counterparts, “free-range” cattle, sheep, and pigs are castrated without anesthesia, and, when large enough, they too are crammed into metal trucks and taken to slaughter. On the way to the slaughterhouse livestock may travel for hours in freezing or sweltering temperatures with no access to food or water. Worn-out “free-range” dairy cows are often literally dragged to slaughter; 91% of “downers” (animals to sick or injured to walk) at slaughterhouses and auctions are dairy cows.

Slaughterhouse Cruelty

Another aspect of meat production that “free-farmed” and other labeling schemes are incapable of addressing is the actual slaughter of the animals. Through the Freedom of Information Act, The Washington Post obtained enforcement documents from 28 slaughter plants and exposed horrific acts of cruelty that occur on a daily basis in slaughterhouses throughout the United States. The Post also interviewed dozens of current and former federal meat inspectors and slaughterhouse workers who admitted to routinely witnessing the strangling, beating, scalding, skinning, and butchering of live, fully conscious animals. According to The Washington Post, “Enforcement records, interviews, videos and worker affidavits describe repeated violations of the Humane Slaughter Act at dozens of slaughterhouses ranging from the smallest, custom butcheries to modern, automated establishments.”

While the Humane Slaughter Act regulates the transport, handling, stunning, and slaughter of farm animals at federally inspected slaughterhouses and is supposed to be enforced by USDA inspectors stationed inside the slaughter facilities, abuse is commonplace. In recent years, the large number of animals produced on factory farms has greatly increased the number of animals slaughtered and processed. In the biggest operations, one animal is killed every three seconds.

This mass killing of farm animals for profit makes federal inspectors hesitant to stop the production line when they see a violation. “In plants all over the United States, this happens on a daily basis,” says Lester Friedlander, a veterinarian and formerly chief government inspector at a Pennsylvania hamburger plant. “I’ve seen it happen. And I’ve talked to other veterinarians. They feel it’s out of control.”

Even if labeling schemes could eliminate all cruelties associated with the rearing, transport, and slaughter of farm animals, for many there is an obvious conflict between caring for animals and supporting their deliberate and unnecessary killing. Those who cannot reconcile this conflict attempt to avoid animal products altogether. But even for the most adamant animal lovers, dietary habits can be hard to break. For some, “humane” meat, milk, and eggs offer a way to reduce animal suffering while working toward eliminating animal products from their lives.

Moreover, helping farm animals does not have to be an all or nothing proposition. Animal advocates can support “improved” conditions for farmed animals even if the larger goal is to eliminate their exploitation entirely. Working to improve conditions for farm animals may not match our ideals but it does make a difference to the animals who as a result of incremental changes may be spared some suffering in their short lives.

Confinement

While “free range” suggests that the animals live in conditions close to their “natural” state, the reality is probably closer to “confinement” or “factory” farming. The extremes of natural and confined conditions are contrasted below.

Pigs

Natural: Pigs are intelligent, sensitive, and clean animals. When provided with ample space they establish a well-defined social order and allot separate areas for resting and defecating. Pigs are very active: they enjoy running, digging in the dirt (rooting) and splashing in puddles, and playing with other pigs. At term a pregnant sow will isolate herself from the herd and build a nest out of leaves, branches, grass, or straw in which to give birth to her piglets. She will then wait several days after birth before leading her piglets out to meet the herd. Before nursing her piglets, the careful mother sweeps the nest or the ground with her snout, pushing piglets out of the way, then drops to her front knees and slowly lies down to allow her piglets suck.

Confinement: More than 80% of all pigs raised in the U.S. are raised on farms which keep more than 1,000 animals. The pigs are crammed into indoor, near-dark, windowless confinement sheds, where the air is filled with eye- and lung-burning ammonia created from the waste that collects below the floors. Young pigs destined for slaughter are raised in crowded pens while their mothers spend most their lives in metal crates so small that they cannot even turn around. Some farms also use a “tether system” in which sows are tied by a neck collar and chain or girth strap inside an open backed crate — such crates are sometimes referred to as “rape racks” because sows can not escape the advances of the breeding boar. Denied adequate space and freedom of movement, crated sows often develop stereotypic behavior. Stereotypic behavior consists of repetitive movements that serve no practical purpose, such as head bobbing, jaw smacking, and rail biting. While farmers claim that such crates are necessary to prevent sows from crushing their piglets and to make breeding easier, pigs have survived in the wild and on farms for centuries without the “benefit” of confinement crates.

Chickens

Natural: Chickens are highly social animals with a hierarchy commonly known as a “pecking order.” Chickens can maintain a stable pecking order in a flock up to 90 birds with each bird knowing every other bird’'s individual place in the flock. Chickens spend most of their day foraging for food, grooming, nesting, dust bathing, and sunning. Mother hens spend most of their time nurturing their chicks by diligently searching for and offering various food items, covering chicks for naps, and fiercely defending them even against terrible odds and predators much larger than themselves.

Confinement: More than 99% of egg-laying hens in the U.S. are kept in “battery cages” in which the average space for each hen is 48-54 square inches - little bigger than a half-sheet of notebook paper. Studies of chicken behavior have determined that the absolute minimum area required for a hen to stand comfortably is 72 square inches. Battery cages do not allow hens to express any normal behaviors such as dust bathing, nesting, or foraging (60% of an unconfined hen’s day consists of foraging). Without the outlets for these instinctive behaviors hens become stressed, lose much of their feathers, and begin to peck each other excessively. Rather than provide more space for the hens to prevent pecking, farmers cut off the sensitive upper portion of the beak with a hot blade.

Dairy Calves

Natural: A calf is nurtured and nursed by its mother for up to eight months. He or she receives all the necessary immunities and nutrients from milk, and strength and coordination by romping with other calves in an open pasture. So strong is the bond between cow and calf that if separated they may bellow and pace for hours in an attempt to find one another.

Confinement: On the dairy farm calves are taken away at 24-48 hours after birth, so humans can drink the milk. A calf separated from his or her mother at an early age does not receive all the necessary immunities through the milk, and is therefore vulnerable to disease. A 10% mortality rate is common.Calves destined for veal production are often confined to small crates typically no larger than 22" wide and 58" long, making it difficult for them achieve normal posture for comfort. They are fed an all-liquid diet of milk powder mixed with water, which lacks adequate iron. This diet deliberately causes anemia to keep the flesh pale. The absence of fiber in the diet also leads to chronic indigestion and diarrhea. So deprived are these calves that they will constantly lick at the crates and their own hair in an effort to obtain the roughage they need. This isolation, confinement, and nutritional deprivation lasts four to six months. Scientific research indicates that calves confined in crates experience “chronic stress” and exhibit abnormal coping behaviors associated with frustration, and suffer from leg and joint disorders.

What's in a Name?

Free Range or Cage Free: No government laws or standards regulate the use of terms such as “free-range” and “free-roaming” on egg cartons. For eggs, these or similar labels generally mean that hens are uncaged yet confined indoors in crowded sheds. For animals raised for meat, the U.S. Department of Agriculture stipulates that free-range chickens must have “access to the outdoors” and free-range cows and sheep must be “grass fed and live on a range.” No other criteria - such as the size of the “range,” the amount of space individual animals must have, or animal care and handling - are required.

Natural: “Natural” foods "contain no artificial ingredients and are only minimally processed.” Animals raised for natural meats are given no hormones or antibiotics, although they may be fed corn and other grain grown with pesticides. No animal care, treatment, or housing standards are required.

Organic: For dairy or meat products to be certified organic, farmland must be free of synthetic pesticides, herbicides, and fungicides for at least three years. After this transition period, the farmland may be used to grow organic crops that are used for pasture or feed for farm animals. Animals are not treated with antibiotics or growth hormones and must be fed only 100% certified organic feed. All organically raised animals must have “access to the outdoors”; this includes access to pasture for cows, sheep, and goats. Some organic certification agencies require that laying hens be provided food and water during their molting period. Confinement, mutilation, transportation, and other animal welfare issues are not addressed.

Kosher or Ritual Slaughter: Ritual slaughter is performed according to the religious requirements of the Jewish or Muslim religious faiths. The animal is slaughtered without being stunned, with a sharp knife. The animal is fully conscious as its throat is slit and the blood drains out of its body. A major concern with kosher/ritual slaughter is the stressful and cruel methods of restraint that are used by some plants in which the animals are shackled by one or both hind legs and are hung upside down prior to slaughter. This method can result in torn flesh and ligaments, ruptured joints, and bone fractures. Some plants have installed modern restraining equipment that holds animals in a more comfortable upright position. Pre-slaughter animal husbandry issues such as confinement, mutilation, and transport are not addressed.

I think I smell a stunt

2008-09-13T16:01:00.000-04:00

Toronto Sun - Friday, September 12, 2008

News Toronto & GTA

PETA wedding at KFC vegan to the cake

By MIKE STROBEL

Queen West Village at hot, high noon. We're feeling extra crispy. At Augusta Ave. hunkers a KFC, an atoll of fast food in a sea of java, jazz, tattoos and purple hair. Nice day for a white wedding.

A man in a milky tux and bowtie paces before a Family Fun Bucket poster in the window. Colonel Sanders," someone exclaims. No, he's dead. And don't say "milky." Think of those cruelly squeezed teats. No. That's Vegan Outreach leader Jack Norris, 41, of California. He's the groom.

The bride is Alaskan Alex Bury, 38, fundraiser for the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). She fusses with her gown in the parking lot.

PETA has done some wacko things. I once met a lovely lass who dressed in lettuce and threw fake blood at the fur crowd.

But a wedding of animal activists on the sidewalk outside a KFC? I think I smell a stunt.

The KFC staff look jumpy, like they're expecting a bucket of chicken blood. Fear not. Now PETA likes KFC, or at least its Canadian wing, which has agreed to kill chickens nicely and to serve a mock-chicken wrap. So, it's a friendly stunt.

"We hope that when people visit KFC, they'll choose the Delicious Vegetarian Sandwich," says PETA rep Nicole Matthews, up from headquarters in Virginia.

Sheesh, now PETA is promoting KFC.

Yesterday's wedding may be gimmicky, but it's legal. And (sigh) beautiful. Alex is stunning. And guilt-free. No silkworms died for that dress. I had no idea they boiled those worms alive. I don't know how they kill polyesters, but apparently it is painless.

Makeup artist Sherry Vanstone, 34, tells me the bride's face is free of products tested on animals. Jack's tux has no wool (shearing hurts?), his shoes no leather. The wedding cake is sans eggs or milk.

Alex walks down the aisle - alley I should say. The Alexander Ensemble strikes up The Wedding March. It occurs to me violin strings are catgut, but I don't want to make a scene.

Presiding, is Unitarian lay chaplain Margaret Rao. The usual I dos, but meat-free. Each vows to take the other "to be my partner in work to make this world a kinder place for animals."

A passing firetruck gives the couple a toot. So does one of those goofy amphibious Hippo tour buses. Now, there's a critter I wouldn't mind sending to the meat-packers.

As for chickens, the PETA/KFC treaty ends the Kentucky Fried Cruelty campaign. The chain's suppliers must handle their birds tenderly and gas them rather than zap them, slit their throats or other ghastly things. Slicing off their beaks so they can't peck each other is still okay.

"We're not compromising," insists the bride. "I'd love to see the whole world go vegan tomorrow, but I realize it won't happen. "Before we get everyone to go from A to Z, we have to get them from A to B."

So, back to the wedding. Julia Rufo, 26, watches from across the street at the Java House. "I hate to criticize a wedding, but that's the last place I'd want to get married. Better at a McDonald's."

Oh, Julia, don't get me started on what happens to cows.

Alex fell for Jack at a meeting of activists. Both are veterans of the vegan wars. Alex's first skirmish was one snowy day in Anchorage. She took off her clothes to protest furs. Jack's younger brother also had a vegan wedding last week in Cincinnati. In a lovely park.

So, Alex, your big day's at a KFC. Where's the romance, the spice, the 11 different herbs? "I thought this was so romantic," she says. "We met through fighting for animals. It's one of our most important bonds."

I'm a meat-eater of long standing, but I was once wed to a Toronto Vegetarian Association organizer. So I've had my share of tofu.

KFC's new faux chicken wrap ain't half bad. And no bones. They serve it at the reception inside.

I wait for Alex to toss the bouquet, but it never happens.

I guess they're afraid it will land on a squirrel.

The U.N.'s meatless drive

2008-09-10T07:05:00.002-04:00

Our appetite for steaks and burgers is a huge contributor to global warming.

Los Angeles Times - Tuesday, September 9, 2008

EDITORIAL - So it turns out that meatless Fridays, which for generations inflicted fish sticks and tuna casseroles on millions of school-age children, Catholic and otherwise, were actually saving the planet. The United Nations is now urging wealthy nations to make a dramatic shift in eating habits, saying the best way to curb climate change is for people to go at least one day a week without meat.

And Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - which shared the Nobel Peace Prize last year - isn't just asking diners to bypass a burger now and then. After achieving a weekly day without meat, he said, they should embark on a progressive reduction of their meat intake.

The problem isn't so much with hamburger patties as it is with cow patties. Meat production accounts for nearly a fifth of global greenhouse gas emissions, according to the United Nations. Cows and other ruminants, such as sheep and goats, release methane and nitrous oxide in amounts that put to shame the carbon dioxide belched out by cars. In fact, a red-meat-eater in a Prius is probably hurting the environment more than a vegan in a Hummer.

The U.N. also is calling for governments to launch campaigns to reduce meat eating. If they do, such efforts will probably start in Europe, then sweep through every city, town, village and hamlet in Asia, Africa, Australia and Antarctica before the U.S. Department of Agriculture stops propagandizing on behalf of meat without any regard for human or environmental health.

Which brings us back to individual abstinence. We're not calling for a vegan revolution, but this page has noted that a sincere personal effort to fight global warming must include a reduction in eating red meat. Were fish sticks on Fridays really that bad?

Vegetarians get all the nutrients they need

2008-08-31T20:38:00.003-04:00

Windsor Star - Thursday August 28, 2008

Re: No Meat? No Problem, Aug. 21.

I have been a vegetarian for 18 years and when people hear I don't eat animal products, they are often concerned about where I get enough calcium or protein.

Though times are changing, I still notice vegetarian diets are often criticized as extreme or unhealthy, when, in fact, a growing number of studies indicate animal products can increase the risk of obesity, stroke, heart disease, cancer and diabetes.

Plant-based diets protect against these conditions and diseases. Calcium can be absorbed from vegetables as well, if not better, than from milk products and without the harmful cholesterol and fat that come with dairy.

Although protein is certainly an essential nutrient, we do not need huge quantities as most people believe. It is easy for a well-balanced vegetarian diet to meet recommendations for protein. Nearly all vegetables, beans, grains, nuts, and seeds contain some, and often much, protein.

What your article didn't include was that many people turn to vegetarianism after becoming aware of the enormous suffering farm animals endure to produce meat, milk and eggs.

Often when people learn about the ways in which animals are raised for food, they are appalled by the cruelty these beings endure. Thanks again for such an educational article.

SOFI MORA
Windsor

Maple Leaf Foods plant linked to Listeria outbreak

2008-08-24T10:13:00.004-04:00

CTV.ca - Saturday August, 23 2008

CTV.ca News Staff

Test results indicate a Maple Leaf Foods plant in Toronto is the source of a Listeria outbreak that has killed four people, public health officials confirmed late Saturday.

The company plans to recall all products produced at the facility as a precaution.

"Results of genetic testing from three samples of the products recalled by Maple Leaf Foods show that two tested positive for the outbreak strain of listeria," the Public Health Agency of Canada said in a statement.

The third sample was a close match to the outbreak strain and is undergoing another test.

There have been 21 confirmed cases of listeriosis across the country. Three people have died in Ontario and one in British Columbia.

Michael McCain, CEO of Maple Leaf Foods, gave his "deepest and sincere condolences" on Saturday to the families of those who died.

"This week, our best efforts failed and for that we are deeply sorry," McCain told reporters. "This is the toughest situation we've faced in the 100 years of this company's history."

Although the company plans to recall all products made at the Toronto plant on Sunday morning, he said it was a precautionary measure and no trace of listeriosis had been found on any products not already pulled from the shelves.

The plant has been temporarily shut down. Company spokesperson Linda Smith said all of its previously recalled meat products had been taken off store shelves by Thursday. However, finding out where products ended up after being purchased by distributors had proven to be more difficult.

"There is a very active effort to work with all the food distribution customers. But it is not as direct, because there are customers, and then those customers have customers," she said.

"We are very confident, but I can not give you a percentage, but virtually all of it has been removed."

Federal Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz said Saturday he is confident that health officials will quickly get the outbreak under control.

"I mean we always have these types of situations," Ritz told CTV News on Saturday.

"There have been outbreaks like this before. We are getting better at what we do."

Meanwhile, consumers in Toronto are being warned not to eat Shopsy's deli-fresh Classic Reuben sandwiches over contamination fears.

The sandwiches are sold in 180-gram packages. They have best-before dates of up to and including Aug. 22 and 24. The UPC code is 7-76393017001-8.

CFIA initiated the recall because the sandwich contains sliced corned beef -- one of the deli meat products recalled by Maple Leaf Foods earlier this month.

The sandwiches were sold at a number of locations in Toronto. The CFIA and Royal Touch Foods list the following locations:

Shoppers Drug Mart 390 Queens Quay
Shoppers Drug Mart, 388 King Street West
Shoppers Drug Mart 10 Dundas Street
Shoppers Drug Mart, 465 Yonge Street
Shoppers Drug Mart, 4990 Yonge Street
Shoppers Drug Mart 5776 Yonge Street
Bloor Superfresh Mart, 186 Bloor Street

"My understanding is there were 96 sandwiches produced and 23 sandwiches are outstanding, which I think speaks to the level of detail that everybody is going to to get the product back," Maple Leaf spokesperson Linda Smith told CTV Toronto on Saturday.

There have been no illnesses reported yet in association with consumption of the sandwiches. Generally speaking, eating Listeria-tainted food can lead to high fever, severe headache, neck stiffness and nausea.

In some rare cases, people can die, but those most at risk are the elderly and those with health problems.

A recall of Maple Leaf products began last weekend. The company recalled 23 packaged meat products, including sliced cooked turkey breast, roast beef and salami. All were processed at a plant in Toronto - specifically, two production lines.

The products that are part of the recall have been distributed to nursing homes, delis and restaurants across Canada, including McDonald's and Mr. Sub.

Maple Leaf had closed its plant earlier this week. Decontamination efforts continued at the plant Saturday.

With a report from CTV's Graham Richardson and CTV Toronto's Chris Eby

Here is the current list of affected products, including individual product codes and best-before dates:

26365, Sliced Cooked Turkey Breast, 470 grams, Sept. 30;
02106, Schneiders Bavarian Smokies, 1 kilogram, Oct. 28;
02126, Schneiders Cheddar Smokies, 1 kilogram, Oct. 28;
21333, Sure Slice Roast Beef, 1 kilogram, Sept. 30;
21388, Sure Slice Combo Pack, 1 kilogram, Sept. 30;
60243, Deli Gourmet Roast Beef slices, 1 kilogram, Sept. 30;
02356, Seasoned Cooked Roast Beef, 500 grams, Oct. 7;
42706, Roast Beef, Seasoned and Cooked, 500 grams, Oct. 7;
21334, Sure Slice Turkey Breast Roast, 1 kilogram, Oct. 14;
21444, Sure Slice Corned Beef, 1 kilogram, Oct. 14;
44938, Montreal Style Corned Beef, 500 grams, Oct. 14;
21440, Sure Slice Black Forest Style Ham, 1 kilogram, Oct. 21;
21447, Sure Slice Salami, 1 kilogram, Oct. 21;
21331, Sure Slice Smoked Ham, 1 kilogram, Oct. 21;
48019, Schneiders Deli Shaved Corned Beef, 200 grams, Oct. 21;
48020, Schneiders Deli Shaved Smoked Meat, 200 grams, Oct. 21;
48016, Schneiders Deli Shaved Smoked Ham , 200 grams, Oct. 21;
48018, Schneiders Deli Shaved Smoked Turkey Breast, 150 grams, Oct. 21;
48017, Schneiders Deli Shaved Fully Cooked Smoked Honey Ham, 200 grams, Oct. 21;
21360, Burns Bites Pepperoni, 500 grams, Jan. 21, 2009;
99158, Turkey Breast Roast, 1 kilogram, Sept. 30;
71330, Roast Beef Cooked, Seasoned, 2.5 kilograms, Sept. 30;
71331 Corned Beef, Smoked Meat, 2.5 kilograms, Sept. 30.
________________________________

What You Can Do

Instead of asking the Ontario government why it took them so long to inform the public about the outbreak (it was first made aware of the bacteria problem on July 25th), and instead of asking Maple Leaf Foods to improve their inspection standards, the best thing you can do to reduce the risk of disease from contaminated meat (and save countless animals from unnecessary suffering and death) is to go vegan!

Effective Advocacy

2008-08-04T18:07:00.001-04:00

From A Meaningful Life by Matt Ball, Vegan Outreach

All advocates are faced with two main challenges. The first, and arguably more important of the two, is how to open people’s hearts and minds, so that they may deliberately and conscientiously consider new ideas.

Effective advocates - those who are truly successful in fostering change - are thoughtful psychologists. They understand that each of us is born with a certain intrinsic nature. We are then raised to follow certain beliefs, and taught to hold specific prejudices. Over time, we discover new “truths” and abandon others; we mix and match, supplement and refine, continually altering our collection of attitudes, principles, and values.

Even though we can recognize that our belief system changes over time, at any given point, most of us are likely to believe that our current set of positions and opinions are “right” - that our convictions are well founded, our actions justified, and that we are each, at heart, a good person. Even when, years later, we find ourselves reflecting on previously held beliefs with a sense of bemusement, it does not occur to us that we may someday feel the same way toward the attitudes we now hold.

Similarly, effective advocates understand that they don’t change anyone else’s mind. No matter how elegant an argument is, ultimately, real and lasting change comes only from opening a person’s heart and mind, allowing them the freedom to explore new ideas and new ways of viewing the world. Of course, there is no magic way of doing this. The simplest way to encourage other people to open their hearts and minds is for our own hearts and minds to be open - and not just for the sake of advocacy or argument. Rather, we must be truly open, able to sincerely consider anything and everything that is said during interactions with others. I believe an open heart and mind is imperative for a sincere advocate, because no one person has all the answers.

So, in the interest of moving forward, let me suggest we set aside everything we believe we “know,” and try to find the core of our concern, what is fundamentally important.

After many years of struggling to distill my advocacy to its purest form, I have come to believe that virtually all of our actions can be traced to a desire for fulfillment and happiness and a need to avoid or alleviate suffering. That is to say, something is “good” if it leads to more happiness, and something is “bad” if it leads to more suffering. This is a simplistic view, of course, but does cut through confusion, leaving us with a simple measure by which to judge the consequences of our actions and evaluate our advocacy.

Given that pain - be it physical, emotional, or psychological - is generally the single greatest barrier to contentment, I believe suffering must be our first priority, especially since there is so very much suffering in the world. In essence, then, my advocacy philosophy can be best described as a desire to decrease the amount of suffering in the world.

Principles of Advocacy

If you are reading this, I would guess that you are concerned about more than just the pursuit of your own happiness. The question then is: How can we make a difference in a world where suffering is so widespread?

In addition to starting with open hearts and minds, a basic understanding of human nature shows that people have an affinity for the known and the immediate. This is true not only of the population as a whole, but for advocates as well. In general, most people working for a better world concentrate on those closest to them, geographically and/or biologically. Even those who look beyond species focus on either the familiar or the fantastic, with a disproportionate amount of resources and effort spent on cats and dogs, endangered species, or individual animals in high-profile situations.

This is not surprising, given our basic human desire to have a visible impact on the world. We all want to feel like we are accomplishing something, that we’ve been victorious. It often doesn’t matter how significant the accomplishment or victory is – or even if the world is truly better off - but rather that something tangible has been achieved. This need for visible results is what leads some people to say they are unable or unwilling to support Vegan Outreach, because what we do is too slow or too abstract, and there is no way to see the animals saved.

Understanding human nature and recognizing the primacy of suffering has led Vegan Outreach to formulate two guiding principles for advocacy:

We should, as much as possible, strive to identify and set aside our personal biases and needs. Vegan Outreach’s approach to advocacy tries to orient itself through a straightforward analysis of the world as it is, motivated solely by the suffering of others.

When we choose to do one thing, we are choosing not to do others. The people who want to create a better world, including those who make up Vegan Outreach, have extremely limited resources and time. So instead of choosing to “do something, do anything,” we pursue actions that we believe will lead to the greatest reduction in suffering. Once again, this may sound simplistic, but given the endless demands on advocates, we believe it is an important principle to follow.

Why Vegan?

Based on these two principles, we choose to focus on exposing the cruelties of factory farms and industrial slaughterhouses, while providing honest information about how to pursue a cruelty-free lifestyle. Let me repeat - our emphasis on ethical eating is derived from our principles of advocacy, not vice versa. No specific diet - conscientious carnivorism, veganism, etc. - has any value in and of itself. Rather, the importance of promoting cruelty-free eating is that it allows us to have the maximum impact on the amount of suffering in the world.

How to Promote Veganism

The rationale outlined above seems logical, but we didn’t arrive at these conclusions overnight. Before founding Vegan Outreach, Jack Norris and I sought to end many different forms of animal exploitation and pursued various methods of advocacy - from letter writing campaigns to scores of protests and everything in between, including civil disobedience.

Even within the realm of promoting vegetarianism, there are many different opinions and options. For example, the Christian Vegetarian Association works within the context of the most commonly practiced religion in the United States. The CVA’s booklet Honoring God’s Creation reaches out to people through their existing ethical framework. This approach allows the CVA to advocate - quite successfully - to a vast audience for whom other approaches would be less effective.

Other advocacy organizations focus on harnessing the power of video footage, such as Meet Your Meat. Some groups take out free spots on public access stations, and sometimes can afford to purchase commercial airtime. A different approach is to go right to the public via “FaunaVision” vans (equipped with large TV monitors, speakers, and portable power units) and “Faunettes” (small mobile units that can be wheeled on sidewalks and inside buildings), which act like magnets, attracting people who may otherwise ignore someone leafleting. Many regional groups provide important resources and support, from publishing local shopping and dining guides to organizing social gatherings.

Maximum Change

At Vegan Outreach, we work for maximum change, seeking to achieve the greatest reduction in suffering per dollar donated and hour worked. We believe the way to accomplish this is to present the optimal message to our target audience. This leads to two basic questions: Who is our audience, and what is the message that will elicit the greatest change?

Of course, with infinite resources, we could reach out to everyone. Given our very limited resources, though, the goal of maximum change leads Vegan Outreach to focus on students (especially college-age), for three main reasons:

1. The Relative Willingness and Ability to Change

Of course, not every student is willing to stop eating meat. But relative to the population as a whole, college students tend to be more open-minded - even rebellious against the status quo - and in a position where they aren’t as restricted by parents, tradition, habits, etc.

2. The Full Impact of Change

Even if students and senior citizens were equally open to change, over the course of their lives, students can save more animals. Young people not only have more meals ahead of them, but also have more opportunities to influence others.

3. The Ability to Reach Large Numbers

College students are typically easier to reach in large numbers. For a relatively small investment of time, an activist can hand a copy of Even If You Like Meat or Why Vegan? to hundreds of students who otherwise might never have viewed a full and compelling case for compassion.

Our message for this audience is the suffering on factory farms and in industrial slaughterhouses. We have found that this simple and straightforward message has many benefits, including the following:

1. Honesty

In general, people can sense insincerity. They don’t respect the tactic of bait and switch, and few people believe that vegetarian advocates are truly concerned about everyone else’s health. Nearly every new vegetarian, though, goes through the phase of, “Even though I care about animals, other people won’t. People are selfish - I’ll appeal to their self-interest!” But look around - is the health argument working? For years we’ve known that being obese is the single greatest threat to good health; yet every year, more and more people in the United States become more and more overweight! Is this really the message with the best chance to create the real change that will save animals?

2. Impact

Many animal advocates buy the “trickle up” theory of change: “If they oppose wearing fur coats, they might eventually stop eating meat!” Does anyone really believe that an hour spent holding a sign outside a furrier does more to help animals than spending that hour handing out Even If You Like Meat brochures? Even if a person doesn’t become vegetarian right after reading Even If You Like Meat, they are far more likely to be sympathetic to other cases of animal abuse than they would be after seeing an antifur poster - the “trickle down” approach to animal liberation!

3. Motivation

We don’t want to get people to just consider changing their diet. We want them to change and maintain that change. If someone gives up meat to improve their health, the next time they hear someone praise the Atkins diet, that same person might switch and end up eating even more animals than before! So we should try to get them to consider boycotting factory farms for reasons that are sustainable.

I’m not fooling myself - I know that exposing what goes on in factory farms and slaughterhouses isn’t going to reach everyone. But feel-good arguments that avoid the horrors of meat production are easily dismissed, and thus simply not compelling enough. We don’t want people to nod in agreement and continue on as before. It is far better if 95% of people turn away revolted and 5% open their minds to change, than if everyone smiles politely and continues on to McDonald’s (for a chicken sandwich).

Let me repeat: Trying to appeal to everyone hasn’t worked, and it won’t work. It is well past time to give up the fantasy that there is some perfect self-centered argument that will magically compel everyone to change.

Conversely, showing people what goes on behind the walls of factory farms and slaughterhouses does work! We have found cruelty to animals to be the most compelling reason to change one’s diet - and maintain that change - in the face of peer pressure, tradition, the latest fad, etc. During the two years that Jack devoted to leafleting colleges around the country, he found a tremendous willingness among students to take and consider information about the realities of modern animal agriculture and the compassionate alternative. Other activists have found the same.

We constantly receive feedback like, “I had no idea what went on! Thank you so much for opening my eyes!”

And yet, there are many, many more willing people to reach. Obviously friends and family, but we can’t spend all our time and emotional resources on the immediate. The simplest way to get information to interested people is to stock displays in your area: libraries, music and bookstores, co-ops and natural food stores, coffeehouses, and sympathetic restaurants.

Youth, though, is where the animals get the biggest bang for the buck. Vegan Outreach’s Adopt a College program, where activists leaflet at local campuses, serves to reach out methodically to our prime audience. This is the first systematic plan for bringing about animal liberation by targeting our most receptive audience.

The animals can’t afford our continued, reactionary, try-everything-and-anything campaigns. We know what works. We just need the dedication to do it! You can join up at our web site - VeganOutreach.org.

Pitfalls

Anyone who has been vegetarian for more than a few minutes knows the many roadblocks - habit, tradition, convenience, taste, familiarity, peer pressure, etc. - that keep people from opening their hearts and minds to consider the animals’ plight. Our message must overcome all of these!

When it comes to advocating for the animals, people are looking for a reason to ignore us - no one sits around thinking, “Wow, I really want to give up all my favorite foods and isolate myself from my friends and family!” Knowing this, we can’t give anyone any reasons to ignore the terrible and unnecessary suffering on factory farms and in slaughterhouses.

If we want to be as effective as we possibly can be for the animals, it is absolutely essential that we recognize and avoid common traps. Remember: Our message is simple. We shouldn’t distract people from it by trying to present every piece of information that sounds vaguely pro-vegetarian. Nor should we try to answer every tangential argument - advocacy isn’t about how much we know. We can’t, for instance, let the discussion degrade into an argument over sterility and impotence, third-world starvation, Jesus’ loaves and fishes, impending dust bowls, abortion, chickens being smarter than human toddlers, the President, bone char, or Grandpa’s cholesterol level. Whatever is said cannot counter the fact that eating animals causes unnecessary suffering.

Similarly, we can’t afford to build our case from questionable sources. Factory farms and slaughterhouses are hidden from view, and the industry’s PR machine (“Animals are treated well, slaughterhouses are well regulated”) denies standard animal agriculture practices. The public won’t believe otherwise just because we say so.

However, there is no need to cite “biased” sources; the cruelties of factory farms and industrial slaughterhouses are well documented by nonpartisan third-party sources and the industry itself. Just as our case is perfectly strong without the most extreme claims, it is also complete when based on sources most people will regard as indisputable.

We should always stay focused on the animals, not ourselves or our particular diet. Ethical eating is not an end in itself. It is not a dogma or religion, nor a list of forbidden ingredients or immutable laws - it is only a tool for opposing cruelty and reducing suffering.

Remember:

We don’t want to attack anything or anyone.
We don’t want to express our rage at how animals are raised and killed.
We don’t want to show how smart and enlightened we are.
We don’t want to “win an argument with a meat eater.”
We don’t want to gross out someone so they don’t eat meat at their next meal.
We want people to open their hearts and minds to change. It all simplifies to this:
Buying meat, eggs, and dairy causes unnecessary suffering.
We can each choose not to cause this suffering.

Staying Healthy

For many, maintaining a change in diet is a far more significant undertaking than most advocates admit - or even realize. While leafleting colleges across the country, Jack was often told, “I was veg for a while, but I didn’t feel healthy.…” He heard this so frequently that he sometimes felt he met more failed vegetarians than current vegetarians!

Contrast this with the messages many activists like to present, such as “Meat is a deadly poison!” Just consider a meat eater hearing a friend’s story of feeling unhealthy on a vegetarian diet, and then being faced with the nearly desperate-sounding activist chant of “Meat causes heart disease! Colon cancer! Breast cancer! Diabetes!”

As we know, even a moderate health argument doesn’t hold much sway over most people - especially young people. But the health argument is not only an inefficient use of our limited resources: when we regurgitate extremist-sounding, black-and-white propaganda, we hurt animals. Everyone who tries a vegetarian diet because of its “magical properties” will quit if they don’t immediately lose weight and increase their energy. They will then tell everyone how awful they felt as a vegetarian, and how much better they feel now as a meat eater. Just one failed vegetarian can counter the efforts of many well-spoken advocates.

It is well past time that we accompany the case for ethical eating with an honest and thorough plan for staying healthy. The nutritional case historically presented by advocates is so bad - and has led to so many failed vegetarians - that Jack went back to school to become a registered dietitian, so he could evaluate nutrition research and provide sound recommendations.

If we want to do our best to prevent suffering, we must learn and present a complete, unbiased summary of the nutritional aspects of a cruelty-free diet, including uncertainties and potential concerns. Doing so not only leads people to trust that we are not just partisan propagandists, but also creates healthy spokespeople for the animals!

Countering the Stereotype

Perhaps the biggest problem for advocates is society’s stereotype of vegans. No longer does “vegan” need to be explained when referenced on TV or in movies, but unfortunately, the word is often used as shorthand for someone young, angry, deprived, fanatical, and isolated. In short, “vegan” = “unhappy.” Just like one failed vegetarian counters the efforts of many honest advocates, this caricature of vegans guarantees that veganism won’t be considered - let alone adopted - on a wide scale.

Regrettably, the “angry vegan” image is based in reality, and fighting this stereotype just reinforces it. Not only have I known many fanatical vegans, I was one. Like every error I have tried to point out in this essay - inefficient tactics, obsessing over ingredients, arguing minutiae, etc. - this is another I’ve been guilty of. My self-righteous indignation gave many people a lifetime excuse to ignore the hidden realities of factory farms and the compassionate alternative.

It is not enough to be a vegan, or even a dedicated vegan advocate. If we want to maximize the amount of suffering we can prevent, we must actively be the opposite of the vegan stereotype. The animals can’t wait until we get over our despair. We must learn “how to win friends and influence people.” We must - regardless of the sorrow and outrage we rightly feel - leave everyone we meet with the impression of a joyful person leading a fulfilling and meaningful life.

Summary & Questions

This isn’t a particularly exciting or inspiring prescription:

Focus on preventing animals from being bred for factory farms.
Accept that, at this time, only a minority will listen, and many others will react with disdain.
Avoid extreme claims, absolutism, and self-righteousness.
Accept and admit to uncertainty.
Be a happy, respectful, and mainstream “people person.”

It is understandable to want something more immediate, more rewarding. Nearly every time I give a talk, at least one person says something like, “We have to do it all, now!” “We have to save them all!”

Of course, I can’t dismiss the possibility that there is a better way, but history is not encouraging. Millions of people before us have been outraged and furious with the state of the world; yet today, there is more suffering than ever before. Obviously, anger and dedication aren’t enough.

Look at this country’s animal advocacy movement. In just the past few decades, hundreds of thousands of people have donated hundreds of millions of dollars and worked hundreds of millions of hours on behalf of the animals. What is there to show for it?

Most who became active during this time have burned out and quit.
Average per-person animal consumption has gone up, not down.
The amount of animal suffering in the United States has exploded!

Still, many activists insist, “Animal liberation by any means necessary! I’m willing to do anything!” If this is the case, we need to ask ourselves these questions:

Are we willing to give up - i.e., refocus - our anger?
Are we willing to direct our passion, rather than have it rule us?
Are we willing to put the needs of unseen animals before our own desires?
Are we willing to accept slow change over no change?

The Final Challenge

I’d be lying if I said this was easy. Often, the logical response seems to be, Why bother? I’m doing enough by being vegan. Changing the world is hopeless.

This brings us to the second of the two challenges mentioned at the beginning: Why care?

It is relatively easy to look at horrible pictures or watch footage of brutality to animals and be angry and motivated in the short term. But what about a week down the road? A month? A year - after being rejected by relatives, ignored by coworkers, mocked while leafleting?

In many ways, remaining dedicated and motivated is a harder challenge than opening other people’s hearts and minds.

Is the situation hopeless? If you look at the big picture, I do believe that there is reason for optimism. Indeed, anyone interested in creating a fundamental change for the future is advised to take the long view - at least longer than the next year, or even the next decade. Although it is frustrating how slow the pace of progress can seem to us, the rate of change has been unprecedented in the past few centuries. As Bruce Friedrich points out:

Socrates, considered the father of philosophical thought, was teaching more than twenty-five hundred years ago. It was thousands of years later that we saw the beginnings of our democratic system. Not until the 19th century was slavery abolished in the developed world. Only in the last century was child labor ended, child abuse criminalized, women allowed to vote, and minorities granted wider rights.

When viewed in this context, it seems clear that today we have the great and singular opportunity to make The Economist’s prediction come true:

Historically, man has expanded the reach of his ethical calculations, as ignorance and want have receded, first beyond family and tribe, later beyond religion, race, and nation. To bring other species more fully into the range of these decisions may seem unthinkable to moderate opinion now. One day, decades or centuries hence, it may seem no more than “civilized” behavior requires.

Is this enough to keep an activist going, day in and day out, when trying to do the hard work of promoting ethical eating - especially while not surrounded by other activists to provide support? We aren’t robots. We each want to be happy.

Yet our desire for happiness, I believe, is the answer to the final challenge.

Ultimately, happiness isn’t to be found in “stuff.” While the United States is the richest country on earth, Americans aren’t the happiest people on earth. The phrase isn’t “the pursuit of happiness” for nothing! Over the millennia, those creatures who were satisfied found themselves erased from the gene pool by our unfulfilled ancestors. Those that passed on their genes always desired more, leaving us with a basic nature that pursues happiness but isn’t able to acquire it.

Where does this leave us? The best answer I’ve found is that happiness is the result of a meaningful life, and meaning comes not from things, but from accomplishment.
I believe that meaningful accomplishment comes from living life beyond ourselves, viewing our existence beyond the immediate. Doing my thoughtful best to make the world a better place is as meaningful a life as I can imagine.

To paraphrase Martin Luther King, Jr.:

The arc of history is long
And ragged
And often unclear
But ultimately
It progresses towards justice.

I want to be a part of that progress.

Further Reading

The Health Argument
Staying a Healthy Vegan
Activism and Veganism
Feedback On "Activism and Veganism" and earlier versions of "A Meaningful Life"
How Are We to Live?
Anger, Humor, and Advocacy
Veganism a Religion?
Choosing Information for Advocacy
Effective Advocacy: Stealing From the Corporate Playbook
The Moral Animal: Why We Are, the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology

Subscribe to Vegan Outreach enewsletter to keep up on events.

A farm boy reflects on animal rights

2008-08-04T17:22:00.000-04:00

The Dallas Morning News - Saturday August 2, 2008

BY NICHOLAS KRISTOF

In a world in which animal rights are gaining ground, barbecue season should make me feel guilty. My hunch is that in a century or two, our descendants will look back on our factory farms with uncomprehending revulsion. But in the meantime, I love a good burger.

This comes up because the most important election this November that you've never heard of is a referendum on animal rights in California, the vanguard state for social movements. Proposition 2 would ban factory farms from raising chickens, calves or hogs in small pens or cages.

Livestock rights are already enshrined in the law in Florida, Arizona, Colorado and here in Oregon, but California's referendum would go further and would be a major gain for the animal rights movement. And it's part of a broader trend. Burger King announced last year that it would give preference to suppliers that treat animals better, and when a hamburger empire expostulates tenderly about the living conditions of cattle, you know public attitudes are changing.

I'm a farm boy who grew up here in the hills outside Yamhill, Ore., raising sheep for my FFA and 4-H projects. At various times, my family also raised modest numbers of pigs, cattle, goats, chickens and geese, although they were never tightly confined.

Our cattle, sheep, chickens and goats certainly had individual personalities, but not such interesting ones that it bothered me that they might end up in a stew. Pigs were more troubling because of their unforgettable characters and obvious intelligence.

Then there were the geese, the most admirable creatures I've ever met. We raised Chinese white geese, a common breed, and they have distinctive personalities. They mate for life and adhere to family values that would shame most of those who dine on them. While one of our geese was sitting on her eggs, her gander would go out foraging for food - and if he found some delicacy, he would rush back to give it to his mate.

Once a month or so, we would slaughter the geese. When I was 10 years old, my job was to lock them in the barn and then rush and grab one. Then I would take it out and hold it by its wings on the chopping block while my dad or someone else swung the ax.

The 150 geese knew that something dreadful was happening and would cower in a far corner and run away in terror as I approached. Then I would grab one and carry it away as it screeched and struggled in my arms.

Very often, one goose would bravely step away from the panicked flock and walk tremulously toward me. It would be the mate of the one I had caught, male or female, and it would step right up to me, frightened out of its wits, but still determined to stand with and comfort its lover.

We eventually grew so impressed with our geese - they had virtually become family friends - that we gave the remaining ones to a local park. (Unfortunately, some entrepreneurial thief took advantage of their friendliness by kidnapping them all - just before the next Thanksgiving.)

So, yes, I eat meat (even, hesitantly, goose). But I draw the line at animals being raised in cruel conditions. The law punishes teenage boys who tie up and abuse a stray cat. So why allow industrialists to run factory farms that keep pigs almost all their lives in tiny pens that are barely bigger than they are?

Defining what is cruel is, of course, extraordinarily difficult. But penning pigs or veal calves so tightly that they cannot turn around seems to cross that line.

More broadly, the tide of history is moving toward the protection of animal rights, and the brutal conditions in which they are sometimes now raised will eventually be banned. Some day, vegetarianism may even be the norm.

Nicholas Kristof is a New York Times columnist.

Animal Suffering & Compassion

2008-07-29T19:37:00.001-04:00

"You can judge a nation, and its moral progress, by the way it treats its animals." - Mohandas Gandhi

About 95% of all animals killed in North America are killed for food every year. In Canada, over 1.5 million animals are killed for their flesh each and every day. The majority of them live and die in factory farms, where their suffering is hidden from most of us.

Anyone who shares their home with a cat or a dog knows that these animals have feelings; they experience joy and fear, and retreat from pain. A chicken doesn't feel any less pain than a cat, a dog, a cow, or for that matter, a human being.

We've been conditioned however, to view food animals as commodities instead of living, feeling beings and throughout our history, we have justified our exploitation of other animals as necessary, if not kind.

But today, as our knowledge of animals and nutrition increases, and with the abundance and variety of healthy, meat-free foods available, there really is no excuse. As Franz Kakfa said, "Now I can look at you in peace; I don't eat you anymore."

When we begin to look at animals as individuals rather than products, we see that they are just as vulnerable as we are and therefore equally deserving of compassion and respect.

age at which dairy calves from factory farms are taken from their mothers: less than 24 hours
percentage of dairy calves taken from their mothers within 24 hours of birth: 90%
pigs raised in total confinement factories (where they never see the light of day until being trucked to slaughter): 65 million
percentage of pigs that have pneumonia at time of slaughter: 70%
amount of veterinary care a farmed pig receives every four months: 12 minutes
percentage of commercial laying hens that spend their lives in 18 by 20 inch wire cages with at least six other birds: 99%
U.S. broiler chickens killed in 2004: more than 9 billion
percentage of U.S. fish catch thrown away each year: 22%

“Do we, as humans, having an ability to reason and to communicate abstract ideas verbally and in writing, and to form ethical and moral judgments using the accumulated knowledge of the ages, have the right to take the lives of other sentient organisms, particularly when we are not forced to do so by hunger or dietary need, but rather do so for the somewhat frivolous reason that we like the taste of meat?” - Peter Cheeke, PhD, Contemporary Issues in Animal Agriculture

World Hunger

2008-07-29T19:36:00.001-04:00

According to Bread for the World Institute's 2005 Report, 852 million people around the world are suffering from hunger and it is estimated that over 20 million people will die this year as a result of malnutrition.

Part of the problem is that governments of developing nations choose animal agriculture over plant crops because selling livestock food to wealthier nations is more profitable than growing fruits, vegetables and grains that could feed local people.

Since far more land is needed to raise food animals than to grow plant crops, less land is available for local farmers to grow their own food. If crops grown for livestock production were instead used for human consumption, over 10 times more people could be fed.

In North America, livestock consumes over 80% of the corn and over 95% of the oats grown. And while one acre of land produces 165 pounds of beef, that same acre can produce approximately 20,000 pounds of potatoes.

According to the Humane Society of the United States, if people reduced their meat intake by just 10%, there would be 12 million more tons of grain available each year. This reduction would be enough to feed the world’s hungry.

acres of U.S. land producing hay for livestock: 56 million
acres of U.S. land producing vegetables for humans: 4 million
amount of land needed to feed a pure vegetarian for a year: 1/6 of an acre
amount of land needed to feed a meat-eater for a year: 3 1/4 acres (or about 20 times as much)

"It now seems plain that [a vegan diet] is the only ethical response to what is arguably the world's most urgent social justice issue." - The Guardian

The Environment

2008-07-29T19:34:00.001-04:00

Livestock production is one of the main sources of greenhouse gas emissions and water pollution. According to a 2006 United Nations report,

“Climate change is the most serious challenge facing the human race. The livestock sector is a major player, responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions measured in CO2 equivalent. This is a higher share than transport.”

The rainforests pay a heavy price too. We need oxygen to survive, and rainforests provide us with much of that oxygen. Still, about one-third of all rainforest destruction is to provide grazing land for beef cattle.

Animals that are raised for food produce 13 billion tons of waste every year, which is 100 times more toxic than human waste. Along with pesticides, fertilizers and other chemicals in feed crop runoff, waste from industrial farms is washed into our streams, rivers and lakes.

Adopting a vegetarian or vegan diet is far less demanding on the Earth's resources.

amount of water needed to produce one pound of steak: 2,500 gallons
amount of water needed to produce one pound of lettuce, wheat, tomatoes or potatoes: 25 gallons or less
amount of excrement produced by farmed animals: 130 times more than humans
amount of water pollution caused by livestock production: 10 times that of the human population

"Yet, as environmental science has advanced, it has become apparent that the human appetite for animal flesh is a driving force behind virtually every major category of environmental damage now threatening the human future: deforestation, erosion, fresh water scarcity, air and water pollution, climate change, biodiversity loss, social injustice, the destabilization of communities, and the spread of disease." - Worldwatch Institute, "Is Meat Sustainable?"

Human Health

2008-07-29T19:29:00.002-04:00

Studies have shown that vegetarians and vegans are not only healthier than non-vegetarians; they're also less likely to be obese or suffer a heart attack.

According to The China Study, the most comprehensive study on nutrition ever conducted, people who eat animal-based foods increase their risk of certain cancers (including breast cancer), diabetes, coronary heart disease, multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis, kidney disease, macular degeneration and cataracts (eye problems), Alzheimer's and dementia.

Vegans, on the other hand, tend to consume less fat, more fiber, and their cholesterol levels are usually lower than their meat-eating counterparts. And vegans can get all the protein (and calcium) they need from plant sources.

“The human body has no more need for cows’ milk than it does for dogs’ milk, horses’ milk or giraffes’ milk.” - Michael Klaper, MD, author of Vegan Nutrition: Pure & Simple

"Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer." - The American Heart Association

What is Veganism?

2008-07-29T19:22:00.002-04:00

Veganism, coined in 1944, is a philosophy and way of living that seeks to exclude, as much as possible, all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, animals for food, clothing or any other purpose.

It also promotes the development and use of animal-free alternatives for the benefit of humans, animals and the environment.

In dietary terms veganism denotes the practice of avoiding all products derived wholly or partly from animals. While some people may become vegetarians strictly for the health benefits, most people become vegan to promote peace and compassion while reducing suffering.

Why veganism?

"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for survival of life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet." - Albert Einstein

Choosing a vegan lifestyle is the single-most important thing you can do to help yourself, your fellow human beings, the animals and the planet, and while going vegetarian reduces a great amount of suffering and death for animals that are killed for their flesh, millions of other animals, such as dairy cows and egg-laying chickens, suffer in large factory farms.

As Gary Francione explains, "There is no morally significant difference between meat and dairy or between meat and fish. There is as much (if not more) suffering in a glass of milk as in a pound of steak."

This is because dairy cows tend to live longer than beef cows and dairy cows are confined to the miseries and horrors of factory farms. Once their usefulness is over, they too are slaughtered. A person who goes vegan helps reduce their suffering and death as well.

Our Core Beliefs

2008-07-29T19:19:00.001-04:00

WHEREAS millions of sentient beings are needlessly slaughtered each and every day for food; and

WHEREAS a vegan diet is just as healthy, if not healthier, than a meat-centered diet; and

WHEREAS food that is currently fed to animals could instead be used to feed the world’s hungry; and

WHEREAS the raising of animals for food is a major cause of land degradation, water shortage, air pollution and global warming,

We, The Vegan Party of Canada, assert that the transformation to a vegan lifestyle is the most important decision anyone can make.

We also believe that Canadians are by nature kind and caring, and that once properly informed, they will choose compassion over selfishness, common sense over tradition, and peace over violence.

“Having heard all of this, you may choose to look the other way… but you can never say again that you did not know.” - William Wilburforce, 1759-1833

About Us

2008-07-29T19:06:00.002-04:00

The Vegan Party of Canada is a non-profit, non-partisan organization, dedicated to raising public awareness about veganism in order to reduce animal suffering, improve human health, eliminate world hunger and protect the environment.