The latest issue of Time magazine has a cute Pug on the cover. Underneath the headline reads: "What animals think. New science reveals they're smarter than we realize." It's an interesting piece that raises some important questions about how we treat animals as a society. Among the new discoveries we're making is scientific evidence that animals are conscious, meaning they are aware that they are alive. They experience life. They feel fear, pain, joy and love -- maybe not exactly as we do -- but the point is, they are not merely automatons that react to stimuli, they are individuals with their own unique personalities, characteristics, and quirks.
Now, for those of us who live with dogs or cats, this comes as no surprise. But what about the animals we eat? Does it change our perception to think of them -- the cows, the turkeys, the pigs, the chickens - not just as dinner, but as individuals, billions of individuals that are slaughtered each year?
When I became vegan a few years ago, I learned some pretty startling things about how the animals we eat become food. One of the nastiest things I became privy to is how hamburger is made. I think most of us have the perception that when we bite into a burger, it's just the meat from one cow, but the truth is, it's actually meat from hundreds of cows. That's right, there may be pieces of 100-400 (sources differ) cows stuffed in one hamburger. When cows are "processed" the less desirable cuts and scraps of meat are all thrown together into a texturizer, fat is added (up to 30% of hamburger is fat) and voila! Still lovin' it?
Now, if you go to the USDA's website on how to properly handle ground beef, you'll literally feel like you're reading a report from a CDC investigation. Listeria, E. coli, and Salmonella are just a handful of the pathogens that can live in hamburger. And just so we're clear, infected meat from just one cow can contaminate up to 16 tons of beef!
But aside from the health issue, I just find something creepy about eating 100 animals at once -- 100 individuals at once. Imagine someone taking 100 dogs or cats and mushing them all together to make a burger for you. I wonder how many turkeys are in a turkey burger, or how many pieces of different animals are in, dare I even imagine it, a hot dog.
I know this stuff may actually taste good to some of us, but where, might I ask, do we draw the line? And why do we accept these Frankenfoods as American trademarks? I don't know about you, but I don't find any particular pride in hamburgers. Seriously, it's time to update this traditional American staple, peeps.
A local restaurant in Los Angeles, Hugo's, has an item on their menu called "The New American Burger," here is how they describe it:
An outstanding combination of organic sprouted mung beans, organic brown rice, assorted fresh vegetables, mushrooms, pumpkin & sunflower seeds, herbs and spices fried crispy. Served with onion, lettuce, tomato, Vegenaise and your choice of any burger toppings. This burger is "new", because it is more nutritious than meat and is a positive use of our agricultural resources. And most importantly, it's delicious.
Go ahead, read those last two sentences again. I'd like to add that Hugo's is not a vegetarian or vegan restaurant. They serve meat, but they acknowledge the benefits of reinventing the American classic.
I realize that a majority of Americans, at this time, are not willing to give up their meat. But I'd like to humbly request that we at least think about the animals we eat as the individuals they are. That may become slightly overwhelming when eating a hamburger.
Follow Ari Solomon on Twitter: www.twitter.com/VeganAri
Meathead Goldwyn: Meat Or No Meat: Tell Us What You Think And Why
There are books on both sides of the issue, but we would like to see point and counterpoint side by side. We would also like to debunk some myths.
I know that your main point is: Don't eat meat. But it's worth noting that if someone stops eating burgers and shifts to chickens, they'll eat more than 200 times as many animals, dead animal calorie for dead animal calorie. The average American eats about 35 chickens, but just one tenth of a cow (while eating roughly the same weight of both animals).
From a standpoint of concern for animals, bashing beef may be hugely counterproductive... Every person who says "I gave up red meat" makes me cringe, not because I'm opposed to progress, but because I see stopping red meat, if it means more chicken, as a huge step in favor of much more cruelty.
For readers who want to see the horrid abuse of both chickens and cattle: www.Meat.org (the Paul McCartney "Glass Walls" video is my favorite, but Alec Baldwin's "Meet Your Meat" is also superb).
Thanks for your continued voice for compassion, Ari. Thanks for raising these arguments so eloquently and so consistently.
Bruce
I realize that's not really what you want to hear since this is a vegan article but a good number of we meat eaters are conscious of what we're eating. The only frozen burgers in my home are ground moose meat from a friend who participated in last years moose hunt.
I think that if people stopped mindlessly eating items they don't know the origin of, we'd have a lot of happier animals (and healthier people). My family is at 70% in the 100 mile diet and striving to do better. We eat a diet that's about 10% meat and have cut packaged food down to almost nothing. We're very mindful about the things we eat.
while i eat very little meat anyway i'd rather eat a little good meat than a lot of the gunge commonly sold.
plus the thought of animals abused is not apetising.
the farmshop butcher believes that treating animals badly makes their meat tast bad because of stress and tension. as good a reason as any to be nicer.
Speak gently to the herring and kindly to the calf,
Be blithesome with the bunny, at barnacles don't laugh!
Give nuts unto the monkey, and buns unto the bear,
Ne'er hint at currant jelly if you chance to see a hare!
Oh, little girls, pray hide your combs when tortoises draw nigh,
And never in the hearing of a pigeon whisper Pie!
But give the stranded jelly-fish a shove into the sea,--
Be always kind to animals wherever you may be!
Oh, make not game of sparrows, nor faces at the ram,
And ne'er allude to mint sauce when calling on a lamb.
Don't beard the thoughtful oyster, don't dare the cod to crimp,
Don't cheat the pike, or ever try to pot the playful shrimp.
Tread lightly on the turning worm, don't bruise the butterfly,
Don't ridicule the wry-neck, nor sneer at salmon-fry;
Oh, ne'er delight to make dogs fight, nor bantams disagree,--
Be always kind to animals wherever you may be!
Be lenient with lobsters, and ever kind to crabs,
And be not disrespectful to cuttle-fish or dabs;
Chase not the Cochin-China, chaff not the ox obese,
And babble not of feather-beds in company with geese.
Be tender with the tadpole, and let the limpet thrive,
Be merciful to mussels, don't skin your eels alive;
When talking to a turtle don't mention calipee--
Be always kind to animals wherever you may be.
_J. Ashby-Sterry_.
FACT is, atypical BSE is causing sporadic CJD, AND THE USDA ET AL NO THIS, but they don't care, should you ?
Sunday, August 15, 2010
ATYPICAL BSE NOW LINKED TO CAUSING SPORADIC CJD OVERSEAS Commonwealth of Australia
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2010/08/atypical-bse-now-linked-to-causing.html
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Seven main threats for the future linked to prions
http://prionpathy.blogspot.com/2010/08/seven-main-threats-for-future-linked-to.html
http://prionpathy.blogspot.com/
Saturday, August 14, 2010
BSE Case Associated with Prion Protein Gene Mutation (g-h-BSEalabama) and VPSPr PRIONPATHY
(see mad cow feed in COMMERCE IN ALABAMA...TSS)
http://prionpathy.blogspot.com/2010/08/bse-case-associated-with-prion-protein.html
Monday, August 9, 2010
National Prion Disease Pathology Surveillance Center Cases Examined
http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/2010/08/national-prion-disease-pathology.html
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
re-Freedom of Information Act Project Number 3625-32000-086-05, Study of Atypical BSE
http://bse-atypical.blogspot.com/2010/07/re-freedom-of-information-act-project.html
Tuesday, August 03, 2010
Variably protease-sensitive prionopathy: A new sporadic disease of the prion protein
http://creutzfeldt-jakob-disease.blogspot.com/2010/08/variably-protease-sensitive-prionopathy.html
Monday, August 9, 2010
Variably protease-sensitive prionopathy: A new sporadic disease of the prion protein or just more Prionbaloney ?
http://prionunitusaupdate2008.blogspot.com/2010/08/variably-protease-sensitive-prionopathy.html
another stat not commonly known, 30 percent of the US beef supply, mostly in the form of hamburger, comes from 'retired' dairy cow, usually 5-6 years old when the *diminishing returns* starts with their milk, and less than 1/2 of the cow's expected age.
Have not had hamburger in years, and having it cooked in my house has been forbidden for years as well.
We can sit here and debate _now_. We can pelt one another with evidence supporting animal and plant consciousnesses, the good of the planet, etc. But the outcome of this debate is predestined. As more people fight for diminishing resources, devoting bales and bales of otherwise useful grains to the raising of 1 animal that can feed a limited amount of people...isn't going to make much sense. My prediction is that the Western diet- a hundred years on- is going to be heavily based on vegetables and a few meat substitutes- for "hot dogs" and "hamburgers" and other tastes people crave. Further on- I would bet that the "meats" people eat are going to be largely synthetic and much different from what we eat today.
It makes a lot more sense for the majority of the population to limit their animal protein addiction and stick to locally raised vegetables, fruits, and legumes when possible.
Is RMankovitz making an underhanded jab at veg*nism? Is his argument that plant-eating causes as much suffering as meat-eating? Even if it were true, which I cannot see that it is, given that farmed animals are fed a whole heckuvalotta plant material before they are slaughtered it seems fairly obvious that a veg*n eliminates the "middleanimal" and consequently consumes far fewer plants than a meat-eater. Basic math, no?
The whole "as nature intended" rationale bewilders me. Considering that we're born naked, one might reasonably assume that "nature intends" for us to remain naked until we die from disease, accident, infection, exposure, starvation, childbirth, etc. According to "nature" we also probably ought to go everywhere on foot and eat everything raw --including fistfuls of insects.
Revealingly, proponents of "Paleo/Primal" or "Natural" type diets tend not to include insects on the menu despite the fact that insects, since the earliest times, have been (and in some places continue to be) major sources of animal protein. So, until folks like RMankovitz are regularly sitting down to plates of pan-fried meal worms (protein-rich, cheap and so sustainable they can be cultivated in a bucket of scraps under the sink) I will continue to suspect that modern people's meat-eating habits have far more to do with culture than nature.
But, anyway, you made some excellent points in your comment - thanks!
I am responding to the author of the original article by bringing to his attention that there is a "new kid on the block" when it comes to a choice of eating plans. In other words, there is an option to the CAFO SAD diet, the vegetarian diet, and the vegan diet.
Remarkably, the new diet is not new at all. Not only that, from my analysis, it is the most nutrient dense, has the lowest profile of natural and artificial toxins, is the most sustainable, and provides the most ethical treatment of both animals and plants.
My posts, like all of yours and MyVesta, are my personal opinions, and for information only. Your opinion of this eating plan is just that - your opinion. I am not out to convince anyone to change their eating plan.
Regarding my books, as stated on my website, I donate them to public and university libraries. If you want to read one, and your library does not have a copy, they can contact the publisher, who will donate one.
I wish you the best of health.
Evidence is mounting that, like animals, plants are also capable of feeling pain, thinking, and defending themselves. I suggest "The Lost Language of Plants" by Buhner and "The Secret Life of Plants" by Tompkins and Bird. Plants are capable of communicating with each other, defending themselves with toxins made to order, and remembering which animals hurt them, including humans.
Research shows plants recognize their relatives and form communities:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8076000/8076875.stm
They are so smart they can fake illness to deter predators:
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1708770/first_discovery_of_plant_that_fakes_illness/index.html
Plants can think and remember:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10598926
They have learned to manipulate behavior of insects for self-protection:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8383577.stm
They can also manipulate behavior of insects to insure reproduction:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8632814.stm
A description and references regarding what nature intends humans to eat from the plant community can be found in "The Original Diet."
Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com
But I truly think it's a joke that someone would think a plant should be given consideration over an animal.
Now, regarding your comment on feeding plants to animals. The eating plan I follow is the one designed by nature, not humans. Here is how nature works. You do not feed plants to animals. The animal foods I eat come from pastured animals that eat their natural food - grass. Eating grass does not destroy it - grass is a perennial. It will grow essentially forever as long as it is provide with water (rainfall) and nature's nutrients (manure). Therefore, pastured animals do not harm plants, require near zero gallons of artificial irrigation, zero pounds of grain or soy, zero pounds of artificial fertilizer, and zero pounds of pesticides. Ain't nature wonderful?
Not only that, ranches that are devoted to pastured animals provide perfect living conditions for those wonderful animals. They provide a life free from confinement, where they can roam with their calves, are never milked, free from starvation and predators, and a humane end of life. As you know, animals in the wild have an end of life experience that is quite violent.
As for your comment that it's a joke that someone would think a plant should be given consideration over an animal. I am in favor of the ethical treatment of all sentient beings, plants and animals. I am not so arrogant as to choose which should be given more consideration.
The concept is simple. Humans need to eat to survive. Eating as low as possible from the food chain is more humane and healthier for people and the planet. Becoming vegan is a sure step toward alleviating the unnecessary pain, stress, and death suffered by animals raised to provide food.
BTW, RMankovitz, the eating plan you say is designed by nature for humans is very arguably not as natural to our species as a vegan diet, and likely inferior health-wise.