It's the holiday season, folks. And while for some reason I feel like I should be embarrassed by this fact (as in "real people don't do Christmas"), I love the holidays. Like many, I find the commercialism distasteful, but I also find it easy to resist, which frees me to focus on the many parts of the season that I cherish: the music, the anticipation of snow, decorating the barn with greens and berries that grow plentifully on our property, and planning Catskill Animal Sanctuary's annual holiday party, a way to honor those who give their time so generously to the cause we all believe in.
This is also a time of year that invites personal reflection, and I enjoy the discipline of sitting down each December, asking, "So how'd you do this year, girl?", and journaling both about how I've grown as a person and where I'm still stuck. In this way, writing is both therapeutic and instructive. But bigger, more philosophical questions present themselves, too, and these are the ones I'd like to share with you, in hopes that we can have an honest, frank, enlightening conversation.
If you know that:
If kindness is a value to which you ascribe, my guess is that you do your very best to apply it both unconditionally and universally. You probably don't say, "I'm gonna be nice to my dog but kick my neighbor's dog in the face when I see him", and you probably don't say, "I'm gonna be nice on Tuesday and an asshole on Wednesday." Rather, I truly believe that most folks aspire to be kind in all circumstances to all beings, unless the situation demands a different response. How can I help you understand that every time you eat a burger or a slice of pizza you're making an exception to that value you hold so dearly -- and how can I do it without sounding sanctimonious, angry, impatient or judgmental, when what I want to be is encouraging. When what I want to be is truthful.
So, yep. December has always been a time for reflection. I invite all you non-vegans out there to reflect with me. Meantime, warm wishes from all creatures great and small for a joyous and peaceful holiday season, and if any of what I've said has resonated, here are some websites that will hold your virtual hand as you journey toward a diet that honors not only the animals, but you... yes, you, kind person.
The Kind Life with Alicia Silverstone: 
The Kind Life is a hub to get valuable information and find resources to help make every aspect of your life as kind as possible; not just the food you eat (although that's fun too).Â
Compassionate Cooks: Compassionate Cooks gives people the tools and resources they need to prevent disease, optimize their health, and create new habits that benefit the Earth and all its inhabitants.
Crazy Sexy Life: Created by best-selling author Kris Carr, CSL provides readers with a daily dose of inspiration and education on how to live every day like you mean it.
VegNews: A magazine dedicated to vegetarian and veganism, providing the latest vegetarian news, interviews, travel features, food & health, celebrity buzz, delicious recipes, new veg products, and more.
Vegsource: 
Vegetarian and vegan recipes, discussion boards, articles, information from medical doctors, experts and nutritionists, and a community of vegans.
Happy Cow: Promotes vegetarianism as a compassionate, healthy, and environmentally sustainable way of living.
Follow Kathy Stevens on Twitter: www.twitter.com/casanctuary
Tim Harlan, M.D.: Holiday Parties: How to Avoid Holiday Party Pounds
A biochemical process called palmitoylation, in which the body uses palmitic acid in stabilization processes, although not very well known, is very important to our health.
When these important saturated fatty acids are not readily available, certain growth factors in the cells and organs will not be properly aligned. This is because the various receptors, such as G-protein receptors, need to be coupled with lipids in order to provide localization of function.
http://www.westonaprice.org/know-your-fats/528-importance-of-saturated-fats-for-biological-functions.html
For example, we could limit our species population growth through voluntary limits on reproduction, however non-cognitive animals may very well reproduce until they reach the carrying capacity.
You could use your same reasoning - "the animals do it!" - for cannibalism, eating one's young, murder, incest and any other thing animals are observed to do in the wild.
If humans stopped consumng animals en masse, if people did just that one thing, the ripple effect would extend to, quite literally, billions of lives. The torture would end. No one would starve. A healing would begin. It would be a first step in the direction of recognizing, we must change our ways. Or eventually, perish. Unfortunately, we, the self-proclaimed most intelligent species on Earth, are also Earth’s greatest pretenders. We will pretend until it is too late to change the course, and then, over the cliff’s edge we will go. As before us went the lemmings we so arrogantly called: foolish. Stupid. How could they not see the disaster their actions would bring to them? How could they be so blind?
How can we be so blind. A statement now, rather than a question. Falling into the abyss, we will still be arguing the merits of our mistakes.
The same thing that drives us to differentiate ourselves from each other in the competitive world. Anything and everything will be used to differentiate ourselves from others if it provides us a "benefit." If it were clear that killing and eating certain species enabled an advantage in some valued function, then those species would be consumed. Whether that advantage or benefit is meaningful in any absolute sense is questionable.
"How is it possible that despite the fact we adore our pets, and would never intentionally harm a living thing, but we continue to participate in the suffering of animals through our dietary choices?"
The benefit of companionship of pets overrides any benefit of consumption. For the animals being consumed, the opposite is true.
"What would it take for you to change your diet?"
In the short term, to consider all animals as potential life-long companions would change dietary habits.
Soy, which tofu is made from, is now one of the largest sources of rainforest destruction in South America. Soy farming in the American west has also destroyed millions of acres of native prarie land/grasses. Displacing antelope, prarie birds, mammals and insects.
Western soy and corn growing requires masive amounts of irrigation water from the underground Ogalla Aquifer, which is rapidly running dry becuase of this. Western soy and corn require massive inputs of synthetic fertilizers made from petroleum and also large inputs of pesticides and herbicides.
Free range/grass fed cattle ranching out west (if done properly) is far less destructive than soy and corn and the cattle fill an ecological niche created by buffalo.
Between 1991 and 2000, the total area of forest lost in the Amazon rose from 415,000 to 587,000 km2, with most of the lost forest becoming pasture for cattle. Seventy percent of formerly forested land in the Amazon, and 91% of land deforested since 1970, is used for livestock pasture. Further, the U.S. imports 100 million pounds of beef from central America every year - much of it grown on deforested land. (Deforestation in Central America is happening most rapidly in Costa Rica and Honduras...not surprisingly, the same two Central American countries that export large amounts of beef to the U.S.)
Here is a great resource to look at if you are genuinely interested in what happens to deforested land:
http://raiÂnforests.mÂongabay.coÂm/0812.htm
In terms of the "niche filled by the buffalo" argument that is offered in defense of meat eating: although some parts of the Great Plains were grazed by mobile herds of large herbivores, most ecosystems west of the Continental Divide evolved in the absence of large herding animals such as bison - yet those areas are intensively ranched despite never being adapted to support bison or cattle.
But still, what is the ethical defense for bringing sentient, intelligent individuals into existence simply to kill and eat them? Why is that a "better solution" (as you said) to vegetarianism or veganism?
Also, there was a time when large herds of elk, bighorn sheep, mountain goats and deer roamed the lands west of the Continental Divide.
http://www.humanemyth.org
But don't forget the bigger picture. The dying oceans, their balance ruptured by our greed. The anti-biotics and hormones, fed to animals, but also, consumed by humans. The greed: taking more than our share, in lives--a priceless commodity. Grass vs. factory farmed is not the issue. Choosing not to get it is going forward with eyes wide shut. Reality is what things truly are, and it is this: we cannot respect only human life, and progress. Or even, ulitmately, survive.
All species needs at least one effective predator. This includes the human species. Alas, we have the intelligience to discover ways to neutralize our most effective predators (bacteria, viruses, parasites... disease) and so we have become our own predator through warfare and other acts of terrorism.
Meanwhile, there are some species that have thrived because they have joined their destinies to ours. Most of these species live to feed us. In return, we guarantee that they continue to survive as a species.
Do you understand what I am trying to say?
To take a (mostly) non-food animal example, dogs are essentially seriously retarded wolves with a weak jaw (dogs have ~2/3 wolves cranial capacity, and even the dogs with the most powerful bites are weak in comparison to wolves).
If they were in direct competition, the wolves would annihilate the dogs in most ecosystems, as would coyotes and foxes (probably). From a species perspective I'd argue we have essentially made most of our domesticated species weaker and smaller as individuals. This makes them easier for us to manage. This is why as I understand it, it's generally inefficient economically to try to breed non-domesticated species for food eg buffalo: they are, in comparison to cattle*, rather aggressive and intractable.
From a numbers perspective, and from other outlooks, there is no question that the bargain has worked out for our domesticated species.
I'd argue that we are also domesticating ourselves (*our* bite force and jaw sizes are decreasing over time, too . . .) but that's a whole different set of arguments.
*Another example is the forebears of our domesticated cattle. They were larger and more aggressive. We have bred cows for thousands of years now to be smaller and more docile.
In the end, we may end up breeding animals artificially to end up as our prey with no other predators. Maybe it's just me, but it's sounds so macabre that we breed animals primarily for our feeding.
I would prefer we leave the existing predator-prey relationships alone, and develop a system to co-exist in such environments.
In any case, there is no absolute moral scale, and everything and anything can be justified depending on the arbitrary scale and cost function being used.
But yes, I take your point.
2.) I don't have to believe animals are "inferior" in order to eat meat. To say they are "different" will suffice.
3.) Cultivating crops does much more harm to plants and animals than pasturing livestock. And it's not just how crops are cultivated. Where most crops are cultivate is also a disaster waiting to happen.
4.) I base my diet on foods that can be raised on my own land or purchased from local farmers. All things considered, I see no reason why I should change this.
5.) Whoever created tofurkey should be run out of town on a rail.
Pt. 4 is a great one, but I'd mention a couple things about it. In this regard, you're doing a lot better than most Americans. Personally, as a vegetarian, I don't have a serious problem with killing animals--for me it's confining animals in factory farms for their whole lives that I can't tolerate. I'd encourage anyone to follow your example.
On a very large scale, however, farming does take a very large toll, and feeding grains to animals in order to feed the animals to people is very inefficient. Enough so, that this kind of farming system could not feed the world's population.
1. There is overwhelming evidence about the link between meat consumption and the diseases I mentioned. Check out Dr. Joel Fuhrman, http://www.drfuhrman.com. He's a moderate guy who does indeed believe that a tiny quantity of meat does not damage one's health. But along with strict vegan medical doctors and nutritionists, he's had great success reversing disease by having patients adopt a largely vegan diet.
Also wondering if you followed the Bill Clinton health story recently? Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn prescribed a vegan diet to reverse Clinton's heart disease.
2. Do you believe that animals exist for our purposes...that they have no inherent right to happiness simply by virtue of the fact that they share this planet with us? The wonderful book Dominion by Matthew Sculley explores the question of God's intent when he gave man "dominion over animals" -- Sculley asks whether, through his use of the term "dominion" god gave man the right to exploit animals for any purpose he chose or instead whether he intended us to be the animals' caretakers and protectors.
4. Local is great, and growing your own is even better! Good for you. We have a wonderful raised-bed garden at Catskill Animal Sanctuary -- soil is 100% composted manure from our animals -- it is one PROLIFIC garden. The reason to consider changing your diet? I refer you back to my comment in #2. It's as simple for me as it is for sunnyskys: all hearts yearn to sing.
It does not require the use of artificial fertilizers or pesticides (both derived from fossil fuel); or diesel fuel to run agricultural machinery to plow, cultivate and harvest; or artificial irrigation; or GM seeds.
It is completely independent of farms and all of the agricultural machinery that destroys topsoil and kills millions of ground-living animals. It eliminates the need for any of the products produced by the pesticide, fertilizer, and GM AgriGiants, or the need for feed-lots, egg-breeders, or dairy farms.
It does not use anything made by Monsanto, Archer Daniels Midland, Syngenta, Dean Foods, Heinz, Nestle, Kraft, General Mills, Betty Crocker, Solae, Kellogg, Nabisco, Stonyfield, Yoplait, ConAgra, Cargill, etc.
The ecological footprint of this diet is estimated to be much smaller than either a vegan, vegetarian, or Standard American Diet. It arguably is the most nutrient dense, and respects the ethical treatment of both animals and plants - something unavailable in any other diet.
A description of this diet, along with supporting references, can be found in "The Original Diet - The Omnivore's Solution".
Roy Mankovitz, Director
http://www.MontecitoWellness.com
A research organization
I'm wondering if, in your view, your diet could be tweeked for vegans, still meet what you view to be folks' nutritional requirements, and still maintain its minimal ecological footprint?
The results of this research produced an eating plan that met my stringent pre-requirements - nutritionally sound, ecologically sustainable, low in natural and human-made toxins, and providing ethical treatment of both animals and plants.
From my research in the field of ethnobotany, I found enough studies to convince me that plants are sentient beings, and that nature had established a remarkable plan as to which plants (and animals) were designed to be eaten by primates, including us. This is the diet that sustained our ancestors for the last 99,000 generations, and you can see its origins in our cousins, the chimps and bonobos. We started to deviate from it about 10,000 years ago, when our health plummeted.
The diet includes foods from animals raised and treated as nature intended – free to roam with their family on pasture. They are also protected from their natural prey, never milked, and never want for food or water. Their lives are ended at maturity in the most humane way possible, compared to nature’s design – torn apart by carnivores.
I want to address this, as it is not true. The poster was not factoring in all of the plowed acres that go into the raising of grains to feed the factory farm animals--grains that are, indeed, an unnatural diet to almost all of them and only add to their level of stress. The poster is also not factoring in the billions of prey fish raided from the sea, ground to fish meal, and fed to: factory farm animals. Fish taken in such numbers, the oceans' predator creatures are starving in their own element. Also not included are the lives lost and damaged from the extensive pollution created by this terrible industry. If the acres now used to raise corn for the factory farm industry were used, instead, to raise nutritious plant alternatives to the carnivorous diet, the change would be almost seamless as far as negative impacts to the environment are concerned. Animals would no longer live torturous lives, people would be healthier, and the planet would, itself, be a better place for all to live.
www.eatwild.com
On the micro scale, all it takes is cooking and inviting people over. Once people see that a vegetarian meal isn't so foreign or disgusting, they become more open. On the macro scale, it would take a Edward Bernays engineering of consent. Do a search for "The Engineering of Consent". Tap into peoples unconscious desires to be healthy, seem intelligent, be free of the toxic industrial livestock system. That's the way you get them.
I invite you to take a look at Dr. Milton Mills' presentation titled something like "Are Humans Designed to Eat Meat?" It's pretty fascinating, as he argues that anatomically, humans are FAR more like vegetarians than like carnivores. Take a look if you're interested. It's at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFROlwe-m3Y
Regarding our approach, we don't use "one size fits all." Instead we try our damndest to see where each visitor to Catskill Animal Sanctuary "is" and how we can most effectively engage him. For some folks, Edward Bernays might indeed be the way to go! Others only need to sit in the middle of the pig field watching happy animals play, sun, get in trouble, look them in the eye...and I think plenty of folks, as you suggest, just need to be convinced that vegetarian cooking can be delicious
What people DON'T need is to feel judged for their choices. All that we vegans do should be designed to foster intelligent dialogue, share delicious food, convey honest information with love not rancor, encourage meaningful connection with animals most people never consider unless they're choosing which part of their bodies to cook for dinner.
I think vegans have done an admirable job of creating a movement and supporting that movement in the internet age by sharing recipes. All with little institutional support. However, I think dairy remains a significant stumbling block. As does taste and texture mimickry and the over-reliance on soy (particularly heavily processed soy). Society loves competitive cooking. It wouldn't be such a bad idea to try to tap into that.
Also, the idea of meat needs to be expanded to include all animal protein, of which fish is by far the most optimal.
People are actually starting to understand a diet high in sugar and saturated fat will cause our present young people to possibly be the first generation which did not live as long as their parents.
Tofu is simply a back-up protein when a good steak is not available.
Anyone raised on a ranch who has not tested their mettle at least once by climbing through the fence into the Angus bull's breeding enclosure raise your hand. Now you know why cattle are food.
Maybe 100,000 years from now humans will have evolved into plant-based protein processors, but don't bet on it.
We don't have 100,000 years left to evolve into vegetarians--agribusiness is the leading cause of global warming and and either the leading contributor (or a main one) to species extinction, the killing of our waterways, the destruction of the ozone, the destruction of rainforests so critical to planetary health. I could go on, as vegan readers know.
This is not propaganda. These are facts. If you'd like to learn, let me know. I'll point you in the right direction.
All I can say is that I was born and raised on a ranch, and Angus were some of the meanest, dumbest animals on the planet. Not to be confused with our Gurnseys, which were docile and gentle dairy cattle and would follow you around like puppies if you carried apples, carrots or ice cubes to give them.
Since our Angus were range-fed, they produced less methane and supported no agribusiness except my Grandfather's meagre cultivation of hay for emergencies.
We destroyed no ozone and we cut down no rainforests--or any other trees--as the area around Solvang on California's SouthCoast didn't have any to begin with.
Pasture raised animals don't contribute as much to environmental problems as agriculture.
Pasture raised cattle are part of an ecosystem whereas agriculture destroys an ecosystem to replace it with crops.
As omnivores we need plant foods too, but if meat were taken out of the picture ALL ecosystems on the earth would have to be developed, despite their suitability, for crops.
Contrary to popular belief rice paddies produce an incredible amount of methane, more even than ruminants and large areas of rain forest are destroyed to grow tropical fruits such as bananas.
Our waterways are devastated by fertilizer and pesticide run off from crops and refrigeration is necessary for non-animal foods as well.
These are the facts.
We cannot respect only human life, and human individuality, and progress. Or even, survive. Our disrespect will, indeed, in time, be the foundation of our undoing.
What we routinely experience at Catskill Animal Sanctuary is that the animals (more than statistics about numbers of deaths per minute or descriptions of abysmal conditions endured by 99% of animals grown for food) are what create in people the desire -- sometimes the urgency -- to change their diets.
When a chicken climbs in your lap and tilts his head to make eye contact, or when a cow licks your cheek until it burns, or a pig comes hauling ass toward you when you call his name -- these are the experiences that Americans are missing with the animals most of us eat. To know farmed animals in the same way that most of us only know our dogs and cats is often all it takes for folks to say, "Oh...I get it now. If this is who they are, I don't want to eat them anymore."
I started raising chickens about 15 years ago (after having a pet chicken as a child), and I've been raising sheep and turkeys, pigs, ducks, and geese for about the last eight years. I've even had a "house chicken." I've never had the slightest inclination to stop eating them. In fact, I feel better about eating them than I ever did before I raised my own. My animals have a great life and I know their meat is very healthy for me and my family also.