Steaking a claim against chick pea-chomping vegetarians
|
Excuse us while we quote liberally from The Australian’s Saturday editorial:
If that’s food for thought, we’re still hungry. Who, or what, is a “global warming faithful”? And what do they have to do with Kim Beazley’s sore knees? If this editorial reflects the quality of coverage on climate science from the national broadsheet in an election year, then everyone’s in trouble, regardless of the position they take. Now pass the gravy. |
|
|
|
54 Comments
Gravy is cornflour, flavour and colouring, so that would be vegetarian.
And if the clown hadn’t been so usually preoccupied with the Right, and looked at the other half of that big picture , there is a “left”, of “North America” he could have seen “Vancouver - where the Winter Olympics come from and the snow doesn’t”?
Don’t optometrists advertise in that pre-used toilet paper - or are “staff” just there to “decorate”, and can’t bring themselves to read it?
Geez that’s a worry.
It’s called ‘playing to a market’ - a newspaper survival tale.
What’s strange is how at odds this playing is with their mandate to impartially report the news.
So it is a UK study where 94% of the products talked about are imported, hence big carbon footprint, and it assumes that vegetarians look for heavily processed substances that look and feel and taste like meat - meat substitutes. Wrong.
Not all the ‘global warming faithful’ are vegetarians (is that what the Oz is suggesting?). I’m terrified of climate change and applaud any efforts to address it - but a meatless society isn’t a solution. See Lierre Keith’s ‘Vegetarian Myth’.
Cue Geof Russell. This has all the hallmarks of more Oz sophistry.
WWF are known for their conservative views, CEO ex industry. Nor do I don’t buy the science:
As I recall most meat v veg arguments absent ethics of suffering and cloven hoofs, are about arable land needed to produce both. How much land/water per kg of beef. How much land/water per kg of plant protein. It really is as simple as that.
What if the switch leads to substitution of land use, not aggregation of more arable land? That’s the point - no doubt requiring regulation in a transition. What are the figures? Oh that’s right they left them out - convenient.
The closest the OZ gets to truth and accuracy these days in the astrology column of Mystic Medusa…
Some meat board most likely sent that one in. Anyone relying on mainstream news (or politician) for any kind of genuine-ness is just a total and utter moron.
Glad to oblige Tom.
Apart from totally misrepresenting the WWF report … yes, one
of the authors is pretty annoyed … the funniest thing is the
UK version of this garbage:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1250532/Being-vegetarian-does-harm-environment-eating-meat.html
Note the picture and the tag: “Switching from British-bred beef …”
Who eats British beef? Consult the FAO database and you’ll find
its 1 percent of daily calories in the UK. The british switched
away from beef many years ago. Unfortunately they switched
to pork … and the pigs consume the bulk of 7 million tonnes of
British wheat each year … which can, as a result,
no longer feed starving
people in other parts of the world. Which is exactly
what we in the colonies are doing also. Except Aussies prefer
chickens, we’d much rather feed chickens than starving people. Actually we’d rather feed anything other than starving people, hence our use of almost 12 million tonnes for the purpose. That’s
another 12 million tonnes that isn’t wasted in food relief! Send
food to starving people and the next thing you know they end up
on boats off our northern borders and pretty soon its hard finding
enough razor wire to keep them out. Feeding chickens is much
better. Just shut them up in sheds and they don’t bother
anybody. The buggers can’t walk much by the time they are ready to
eat, which makes catching that much easier.
The meat industry is clearly in panic mode. It is a fact, yes a fact, that red meat and dairy products are the most resource intensive (land, crops, water, energy) and environmentally harmful of all our foods (ghg, effluent, land degradation, loss of biodiversity, oh and I guess I could mention animal welfare but what on Earth has that got to do with anything?). If you need just do some reading …. State of the Environment 2006, CSIRO Land and Water, UN FAO Livestock’s Long Shadow, and of course the actual WWF commissioned report “How low can we go?” for starters. BTW, Rupert’s meagre investment portfolio also includes livestock (not sure about the Oz Eds). But of course I wouldn’t suggest that that has anything to do with the absolute tabloid rubbish they served up last weekend now …. that was clearly just a case of shoddy lazy journalism.
When it comes to a good old dose of bullshit, the Oz is sure to give you a good old fill. The paper is nauseating anyday of the week but the weekend it turns the nose even more than a dairy farm during clean up. If I want a good dose of bullshit on the weekend I’d rather walk through the beef rendered paddocks around where I live than spend my hard earned on ruperts weekend toilet paper. Give me a break, Red Meat the New Green!! I’ll throw my cards on the table and let it be known I’m a long term vegan, organic vegie & fruit grower and habitat restorer by trade and I’ve seen and been in a lot of places that have been destroyed by the shadow of livestock production. The land use, the water use, the crops & energy (as Sharon so rightly points out) in meat & dairy production outweighs 20 fold the growing of legumes (note that 98% of the soy produced in sth america is to feed animals). There are so many arguments , studies, facts & figures disputing this editorial bunk from the Oz editorial yet they choose to follow this route of absolute mistruth and lies. Why? Perhaps a perusal of the advertisements in the weekend edition? Who knows, but what I do know is that the climate change deniers at the Oz will continue to proselytize their ‘flat earth’ argument until the cows come home and boy oh boy if we eat red meat on the scale they and the Meat & livestock corp want us to, they will come home & the chickens to roost much sooner than we think…
Hmmm….I’d say your collective beef (P.I) is with factory farming - which is a horrible blight on civilisation and should be done away with right now! But there’s an alternative….have a squiz at these guys…http://www.polyfacefarms.com/ (you can/should have grain-free farming - even the chickens don’t have to eat grain, wild chickens eat bloody anything! - that BUILDS top soil instead of raping it) I don’t think meat is the demon here - it’s a terribly sick system (capitalism) that demands mass production of bloody everything!
What alternatives to capitalism can you suggest, that would be better? The USSR didn’t have a great environmental track record (I’d point you to the Aral Sea, if you could still find it)
We don’t necessarily have to dig up something from the past…perhaps there’s a new system. Clive Hamilton has an interesting suggestion at the end of his book, ‘Growth Fetish’.
Clive Hamilton? If you believe anything Clive Hamilton says then i am convinced you believe in fairies! I’m off to Vlados!
Because he’s wrong about a lot of things, doesn’t make him wrong about everything. Not that I’ve read his book.
@Mandy - Factory farming for sure is a blight but take a look at the drought stricken areas of Australia and see the barren plains created by massive deforestation and the top soil destruction by hard hoofed animals. By and by it is VERY obvious that we cannot continue to consume animals on the scale that we currently do and that we in the ‘developed’ world have to change our consumption habits acroos the board. Starting with our diets which not only are creating such a strain on our environment but also on our health & welfare systems.
SO we should be eating kangaroo / emu / rabbit instead of sheep/cattle. It’s healthier, anyway.
I don’t eat a lot of meat, but what I do eat I enjoy very much, thank you.
I’m sorry if my very natural desire to eat meat offends all you vegetarians … actually, no I’m not.
Human beings are omnivores; we always have and always will eat meat. Get over it already.
And I’m really resisting the urge to add “so stick that in your pipe and smoke it”.
@ CHINDA63 - do you hunt & kill your own meat or do you buy it in little styrofoam containers ? I’m not fussed if you want to eat meat, personally i haven’t for 21yrs but at least recognise the effect that meat has on our environment and our overrun health system! Cause and effect…
China, you show all the understanding of the newspaper report quoted above. The argument is about the dishonesty of the newspaper, not that everyone should stop eating meat. The fact remains that producing meat is multitude times more harmful to the environment than producing fruit, grains and vegetables. Do you have a problem with that fact? If you do you should just have the courage to say i don’t give a damn about the consequences of my actions, not use ridiculous arguments against non-existent people.
And the argument that humans have always been omnivores is open to dispute, and eating meat is ‘natural’ is a crock. Eat meat if you want to, I do, but i do it because I want to and I own the decision. I also believe that we eat too much meat and it is unsustainable if the rest of the world wishes to join in the great Australian barbecue.
Meski, you’re right to say we should eat from a significantly more diverse base of meat - especially our natives. Combine that with sustainably produced, grass-fed ”traditionals” and we’d be making much less of an impact on the environment.
Dingbat, I don’t think grains are blame-free. I refer you to Lierre Keith’s book, ‘The Vegetarian Myth’ - grain production is arguably as energy intensive and dependent on fossil fuel as farm animals, and, from what I understand, doesn’t return anything to the soil (unlike animals whose manure - in a sustainable farming scenario, polyfacefarm being a wonderful example - nourishes the soil).
I might add as ‘factory farm animals’, since sustainably produced, grass fed meat requires little dependence on fossil fuels…
Mandy
Grains aren’t blame free i agree, they’re much higher than fruit and veg, but they’re better than meat, particularly given the high proportion of grain that is used to feed farmed meat.
We could also farm grains in the same fashion as sustainable meat, and that would reduce the inputs required.
If we stopped feeding grains to cattle (which is completely unnatural - they eat grass!) you’d start to see the problem unravel.
Sustainably farmed grains would, I imagine, require organic compost, the most nutritious of which - with the most favourable NPK ratio - is, no surprises, animal manure.
Put composted chicken manure on your vegie patch and watch it flourish!
@Mandy, our eating grain is also unnatural, if you regard farming as a relatively recent phenomenon. We were hunter/gatherer before that, and grain isn’t really a hunter gatherer diet.
@Alexander, whether you kill your own meat, or buy it, you’ve probably got an argument ready to roll. BTDT.
As it happens Meski, I completely subscribe to a hunter/gatherer diet.
I was a fairly avid follower of paleo until I fell pregnant (at which point my DNA went topsy turvy and I can’t seem to keep anything down I used to!) - and agree that, from what I’ve read, grains (and legumes, sugar, tubers and dairy for that matter - though ‘primal’ advocates would include dairy) aren’t traditionally a part of our diet or, more to the point, most (roughly 80-90%) of our evolution has happened without these food groups, so our biochemistry cannot properly handle them. (It isn’t too far fetched. Unfermented our unsprouted grains for instance, contain anti-nutrients - phytic acid is an example, it can combine with calcium, magnesium, copper, iron and especially zinc in the intestinal tract and block their absorption).
In fact, Dr Loren Cordain (who researches paleolithic nutrition) argues that all ‘diseases of civilisation’ can be traced to the beginning of grain agriculture.
My my, Meat and Livestock Australia will be delighted with this pig swill. The millions of square kilometres used to grow crops just to feed livestock in this nation, can now expand. And rather than dump some 40,000 critters overboard every year on their long sea journey to the ME, we can dump even more. No worries that millions of humans are starving.
And just think globally about the increase in livestock too, to feed 9 billion people because currently it’s estimated that worldwide, there are 1.5 billion cattle, 1 billion pigs, 2 billion other ruminants and 50 billion chickens.
Many of these critters are kept under scavenging conditions with little attention to disease control, housing or feed supplementation and suffer a high burden of endemic disease (then we eat them!)
“ Increases in the emergence or re-emergence of animal and human infectious diseases have been evident in many parts of the world for several years (Weiss & McMichael 2004; Gibbs 2005; Woolhouse et al. 2005). Over 1600 human pathogens are now described, an average of three new diseases is reported approximately every 2 years, and a new infecting organism is published every week.”
We humans feast from cattle which have had their ovaries hacked off by a rouseabout, castrated pigs whose tails are cut off, teeth filed down and battery hens with their beaks painfully seared to prevent any dust-ups in confined quarters. Humans need not concern themselves over the lack of pain killers - yay!
Up to 65% percent of all antibiotics in Australia are fed to livestock to keep them alive so we can salivate over the contents on our dinner plate, but at least we can obtain our medicine secondhand (whether we need it or not ) yay!
Naturally, we weren’t meant to be carnivores. If that was the case, we’d have the teeth and claws to rip a critter apart, the skills to run an animal down and the intestines to rapidly expel decaying flesh.
And if you believe consuming flesh will give you the strength of a gorilla, not true. Apart from a few termite and insect treats, the gorilla’s a vegetarian.
If you desire to live until you’re a hundred, consult with Jumbo the elephant about his dietary preferences. Now there’s a fine example, if only neanderthal man would cease pillaging his ivory tusks!
@Flower: *YOU* were the only one to mention carnivore. The rest of us were saying omnivore. ‘Naturally’ if we weren’t meant to eat meat we wouldn’t be able to digest it. However, we can. Your argument mixes morality science and pseudoscience in equal parts, in an attempt to make them equally valid.
@meski - if we are able to digest it so well why is it killing us so efficiently? simple comparison of carnivore and herbivore digestive tracts point it out not to mention cardiovascular being the main cause of death in the meat eating ‘developed’ nations…
well said FLOWER…
I’m sure we can all dig up stats n scientists for either side of the meat argument (here’s my two cents on the nutrition of beef, for what it’s worth http://www.westonaprice.org/It-s-the-Beef.html) but I tend to go with what seems logical to me. Personally, I don’t recall any cave paintings depicting tofu and bread. They’re usually funny little stick figures chasing big animals with sticks. If we’ve been hunting and eating meat for that long, surely our biochemistry has evolved to digest and use it efficiently. I’d argue, Alexander, it’s the more recent additions to our diet - grains, dairy and especially sugar - that are causing the health problems.
Sigh. AGAIN with the carnivore. Study the OMNIVORE digestive tract, you’re obscuring the argument with fallacious arguments. You COULD argue with equal validity that we aren’t meant to eat cellulose because we cannot digest it without something like a ruminant digestive system, and yet cellulose can be helpful for us (aka fibre in diet) As for what kills us with such efficiency, might I suggest it’s more a sedentary lifestyle, and not meat. Certainly, an all meat diet is not good, any more than an all grain diet.
@ Mandy -West A Price is a front for the US meat & dairy corporations so no dice on that one- if meat isn’t a mjor cause then why is the govt, cancer councils anyone who talks health and isn’t funded by the animal industries tellign us to eat less meat and more fruit & veg? I guess the point being made is not what we can & cannot eat, more what we eat and what are the repercussions of our diet, in the affluent (effluent?!) west a vegan diet is environmentally the best one can choose, for water use, land use, greenhosue emissions etc.
I think it’s short-sighted to presume a vegan diet is far and away the most sustainable. Compared to factory farmed meat in an omnivorous diet, yes, but compared to sustainably, organically grown, grass-fed meat in an omnivorous diet, I’m not so sure. I refer you to Lierre Keith’s book, “The Vegetarian Myth”.
@Alex: and you’re a representative of Vegans, although you aren’t presenting compelling arguments. Governments tell us to eat a low meat diet, but you’re conflating this with no meat, no dairy, no leather, and whatever else the vegan religion follows.
Damn, forgot to change my pseudonym back.
“Your argument mixes morality science and pseudoscience in equal parts”
Ah…the old switch and bait morality card eh Meski? And what’s with the “pseudoscience?” Please direct us to this “pseudoscience”.
Well for most, morality is better than the lack of it, however, those with a vested interest like to make a mockery of morality when it comes to Man’s dominion over other species and the trashing of the biosphere. Seemingly, you believe that throwing some 40,000 drug-laced animals overboard, to poison marine life, is lots of fun?
“‘Naturally’ if we weren’t meant to eat meat we wouldn’t be able to digest it.”
Well not quite Meski. You see humans can digest plenty of things which are harmful including shite with sugar on it if they so chose and without any immediate symptoms. Just ask the industries who fertilize commercial crops with human sewage sludge, laced with dioxins, heavy metals, pharmaceuticals plus the residues from chemotherapy and radiation.
Then you may ask the victims of starvation, how long they think they’ll survive on the mud pies they digest with ease. Hmmm? Total ingredients: dirt, salt and vegetable shortening.
Then alcoholics can easily digest grog for some time, without any obvious symptons, especially those who never suffer hang-overs.
To quell your innuendo, Meski, I’m not quite yet a vegetarian. It’s a goal I’ve not yet achieved but I’m working on it for both health, environmental (and dare I say it) moral reasons?
Of course, those who remain indifferent to the eventual prospect of a colostomy bag, a crook prostate, breast cancer , high blood pressure and cholesterol problems, arthritis, thyroid malfunctions and the grotesque anatomy of a flesh eating mammal, should eat, drink and be merry - yay!
Well, ethics is a pseudoscience. As are strawman arguments.
A few more points to digest …
What about all those nasty bacteria common in meat, unpasteurised milk, eggs, that we can’t quite digest safely … E.coli, listeria, toxoplasmosis, Campylobacter, salmonella? Health authorities warn of the dangers of not only eating raw or undercooked meat, but also cross-contamination and even handling it! If meat, cows milk and eggs are so natural for humans, why can’t we cope with the various bacteria naturally present in the raw product?
The risks relating to fresh raw salads are more often than not due to contamination from meat or animal faeces, or the dairy or egg containing dressings!
Also, why is it that most children and many adults instinctively cringe at the thought of killing an animal and eating it’s flesh, but are fine with a fruit and veg garden? Why are tours of abattoirs and meatworks not a standard part of the school curriculum or family outings, if it is all so “natural” and “good for us”?
“Well, ethics is a pseudoscience. As are strawman arguments.”
What’s with the shoe shuffling quickstep, Meski? Speak up man, address the topic if you have anything sensible to say.
“Why are tours of abattoirs and meatworks not a standard part of the school curriculum or family outings, if it is all so “natural” and “good for us”?”
Good point there Sharon Hutchings (shudder shudder!) And what about a few surprise visits to the intensive feedlots and pastoral properties? Hey you don’t come from Tassie do you? Have a look at how one heinous brute (on the run) and recently arrested (214 charges of animal cruelty) processes cows’ milk for the consumer but please don’t show the children:
http://rspcatas.org.au/press-centre/infamous-dairy-farmer-mitchell-found-guilty
The real ghastly details are not revealed on the link above - nuff said!
FSANZ advise that an estimated 5.4 million Australians now fall victim each year to food poisoning and many more go unreported.
All this on top of consumers ingesting residues of hormone growth promotants (banned in the EU), antibiotics and numerous veterinary pharmaceuticals to keep these critters alive.
Some Australian farmers actually do grow cattle without hormone growth promotants but guess who gets to eat them? Not us - only the EU consumers, naturally. Well, as the influential Meat and Livestock Australia would say about Australian consumers: “Let them eat cake - it’s the economy stupid!”
@Mandy: in relation to your comments …
“I was a fairly avid follower of paleo until I fell pregnant (at which point my DNA went topsy turvy and I can’t seem to keep anything down I used to!)”
It is interesting that meat is one of the foods that many women actually go “off” during pregnancy. And of course health authorities all strongly warn pregnant women off handling or eating or undercooked raw meat, most seafood, soft cheeses, “deli” meats, unpasteurised milk, raw egg, pate or liver products.
Btw, I’ve got two highly energetic, intelligent, extremely healthy primary school age children who were born when I was 38 and 39 (late by choice) following extremely healthy normal pregnancies on a mostly vegan organic diet, with no iron deficiencies or complications. I had been vegetarian for several years prior to the first pregnancy and in great health the whole time. I’ve never had an iron deficiency and am a regular blood donor. My children have never eaten meat or fish but do occasionally have dairy and egg products at parties. They are highly energetic, intelligent, have always had a good appetite and slept well, never suffered from constipation (which seems common amongst friends young children), and been in great health with rarely more than a minor brief cold once a year. I have several very healthy vego friends who also have vibrant, energetic, intelligent, very healthy kids.
If you do your research (there’s a plethora of info available, including at: http://www.pcrm.org) it is not at all difficult to eat a very nutritious, varied and healthy vegetarian or vegan diet. It’s great for human health, animals and the environment. It’s all about doing less harm. Choosing to eat less meat and dairy will do less harm. It is a real pity that vested interests (both financial and tastebuds) continue to mislead and advocate the more harm approach instead.
@Sharon: E Coli: The harmless strains are part of the normal flora of the gut, and can benefit their hosts by producing vitamin K2,[3] or by preventing the establishment of pathogenic bacteria within the intestine.[4][5] - Look at wiki if you want to know more.
Toxoplasmosis: Yeah, well, if you enjoy cat as part of your diet. You might catch it from your pet cat’s excrement, too.
Listeria monocytogenes is a bacterium commonly found in soil, stream water, sewage, plants, and food.
Salmonella contaminated tomatoes
http://efoodalert.blogspot.com/2008/06/stewing-over-salmonella-contaminated.html
No mention of how they were contaminated, but eliminating contaminated water would have been easy.
I wont go on with the rest of what you’ve listed. Suffice it to say that it’s hardly unique to meat, more an issue with handling.
@Flower: Lots of things aren’t part of the school curriculum or family outings. When was the last time you visited a flour mill? Or perhaps had a picnic in a wheat field? Why would this be relevant to the education process? Where’s the shoe-shuffling quickstep you’re wittering on about? I point out that your arguments are based in large part upon ethics, a philosophical pseudo-science.
Deli / processed meats can be wise to avoid, anyway, being high in salts / nitrates.
@meski _ I think we’re missing the point, 1) the Oz’s fabrication and outright lies 2) That a meat based diet is much more damaging than a vegetarian diet to our environment 3) That what and how much we consume has a direct affect on the future of our planet. @Gollum I represent myself as a vegan not all vegans and to find out the effect on the environment of meat production just type it in to a search engine, if you really want to know the truth it involves doing some of your own research. It just comes down to what sort of future you want to see for our children , grandchildren etc and cutting down on eating meat is one of the best things you can do to ensure a sustainable future for the generations to come
“I point out that your arguments are based in large part upon ethics, a philosophical pseudo-science.”
Tut tut Meski – Without ethics, science IS pseudo-science. Just ask Socrates. Let me ask: If your cow could speak English, would you send it to the slaughterhouse to be strung up alive from the ceiling rafters?
Does the cow desire to torture you because you can’t speak “Cow?”
In eastern philosophy, it is said that sentience is a metaphysical quality of all things that requires our respect and care. As an example: If you had to put your wife down, you would do it in the most painless and humane manner (I imagine!)
And as a former employee in education, I must point out that flour mills are included in school excursions – slaughterhouses are not. You see, to the best of human knowledge, wheat is not considered sentient. Ah but my good fellow since your rationale includes an indifference to the slaughter processes of sentient beings, I provide you with a video which your own children may find entertaining:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIjanhKqVC4&feature=related
You see Meski, I don’t think you understand that I argue well. Just ask any of my remaining friends. Smart people know this, and steer clear of me at parties and often, as a sign of their great respect, they don’t even invite me!
Tooroloo
@Flower - thanks for taking the sentient being line, it seems that it is so easy for peopel to justify meat eating when they aren’t the ones taking the responsibility of killing the animals. Take a deep look into their eyes, see the pain, the fear, the lack of understanding as to why this is happening to them. You don’t need meat to survive, you don’t need any animal products at all! why am I vegan? How about ethical, moral, spiritual, environmental and health. None of which can be disproved apart from the line of ‘we are meant to eat meat’ - well 21years without it, labourer for a profession, healthy, fit , strong and happy..! ‘nuff said…
Indeed Alexander Berkman – Your post encourages me in believing that sections of humanity are in fact evolving into a new and higher form of consciousness. These sections of humanity understand that the more animals are abused, the more humanity’s health is compromised.
There is nothing useful to learn about life by torturing and killing. By 2004, 6 million animals were used in Australia’s experimental laboratories – up 67% from the previous year. Yet the emergence of zoonoses is rapidly escalating. The more we gorge ourselves on our ill-gotten gains, the sicker we become. When scientists believe humanity is two steps ahead of zoonoses, Nature forces them two steps back.
The role of ethics and compassion in the corporate world and vivisection labs is not a requirement in the minds of the unevolved. As Einstein said, “you can’t solve a problem at the level which originated it. You’ve got to get up-level from it.”
Alas, we are witnessing a debilitated, weakening planet where livestock destroy soil carbon, and consume massive amounts of precious resources ( a lactating cow requires up to 250 litres of water/day) while other dead species abound, creating potentially devastating global transformations and placing the planet in an ever more precarious imbalance.
Man speaks often of the level of suffering which is so great in the world in certain areas, however, narcissistic man concerns himself only with the suffering of his own species.
Nevertheless I am buoyed by Matthew Scully’s book. Scully was a republican (usually my least favourite people) former Special Assistant and speech writer to George Bush and a respected journalist and former literary editor of National Review, and has worked under some of the most powerful Republican leaders.
His higher form of consciousness - an enlightened and evolutionary “Homo Noeticus”, has given us the opportunity to ponder his:
“Dominion: The Power of Man, the Suffering of Animals, and the Call to Mercy:”
http://www.curledup.com/domianim.htm
On the specific issue of The Australian’s vested interest bias and blatant false misreporting, I thought you might all be interested in the letter that one of the original report authors sent to The Australian below (cc’d to me following direct enquiry). As you might guess, The Australian has not printed it,nor any other letters sent in response to their editorial or articles last weekend. Clearly they are not interested in the inconvenient truth. Of course most intelligent people who actually genuinely care about the important things in life other than money and short-term material or selfish gain already know that. I did forward a copy of this to Crikey, but so far it hasn’t appeared (perhaps next week
. I believe it is important to post it here so at least some of you will know the truth. Please feel free to confirm the email below with the author.
……….
Von: Donal Murphy-Bokern [mailto:donal@murphy-bokern.com]
Gesendet: Sonntag, 14. Februar 2010 13:25
An: ‘letters@theaustralian.com.au’
Betreff: Letter for the editor
Readers who might have got the impression that recent British research is an environmental green light for meat eating will be disappointed (February 13, ‘Tuck in to save the planet’). I am one of the authors of the report looking the carbon footprint of food. Our report shows quite the opposite.
The carbon footprint of UK food is dominated by emissions from the livestock sector. Livestock products directly account for nearly two-thirds of food greenhouse gas emissions while providing less than a third of food energy.
Reducing livestock consumption offers the single most effective way of reducing the carbon footprint of our food consumption. For consumers, the desired direction of travel for helping the environment is clear - eat less meat and dairy products. Combining this with other measures, including using science and technology to improve farming, adds to the benefits.
In providing balanced scientific report we look at all potential consequences of a move in this direction so as to help ensure we get the best out of a low livestock product diet. A low impact diet is a balanced diet - lower in livestock products than the average UK diet today, with more of a wide range of plant foods - cereals, fruit and vegetables.
The report is available at http://www.wwf.org.uk, http://www.fcrn.org.uk and http://www.murphy-bokern.com
Dr Donal Murphy-Bokern
Lohne-Ehrendorf
Germany
http://www.murphy-bokern.com
Alexander, you don’t consider plants sentient beings? Have a read of The Lost Language of Plants by Stephen Harrod Butler and perhaps you’ll think differently. Lierre Keith quotes him in her book saying that plants ‘defend themselves, they communicate with eachother, they sometimes sacrifice themselves for the good of all. Other plants will send an injured one carbon phosphorus, sugars and more”. She goes on with Stephen’s description of the behaviour of Spruces, “when under attack by spruce budworms most of the trees produce terpenes that kill the budworms but a few trees don’t. These trees aren’t sick or defective, they are just choosing not too because by not raising antifeedant actions in all the trees, the forest makes sure that resistance is not developed in spruce budworms as it does in crop insects exposed to pesticides. Plant communities literally set aside plants for the insects to consume so as not to force genetic rearrangement and the development of resistance” - seems like these trees are willfully sacrificing themselves for the good of their community. If sentience is perception and the capacity to feel, I think plants qualify nicely. Or has the definition of sentience been reduced to “having a face”? Is killing and eating a plant really very different from killing and eating an animal?
Oh Mandy, you are really being very comical now.
I’ll humour you a little though … given that I do need to eat and drink some matter to stay alive, I’m really quite happy with my choice of plant matter over animals with faces.
I am curious … can you look into the eyes of a cow, lamb, pig, chicken, kangaroo, or whatever other creature is your preference, prior to slaughter and consumption and see anything different to the eyes of a potato?
Mandy
I’m unable to see the logic in your hypothesis – though I haven’t given it much thought but how you can possibly compare the harvesting of plants to the deliberate, abject brutality inflicted on food animals is beyond me.
1. Grains are seasonal. If they’re not harvested in a season, I imagine they quickly die off – dropping seeds to propagate the species.
2. Most vegetables have short life spans. If they’re not harvested, they too die off quickly, leaving behind their seeds to continue the cycle.
3. Fruit (and nuts) can be harvested every season without harming the tree which lives for decades. Indeed, if the tree IS sentient, then I imagine the tree is delighted to provide sustenance for other species because if the fruit is not meant to be consumed by other species, it would rot on the ground.
In comparison, the poisoned livestock sector is the largest source of soil and water pollution, contributing to eutrophication, ‘dead’ zones in coastal areas, degradation of coral reefs, human health problems and the emergence of antibiotic resistance.
Chemicals, fertilizers and pesticide runoff from dairies, feedlots, chicken and pig farms are a primary source of water pollution damaging aquatic ecosystems and making the water unfit for consumption and killing marine life. The impacts from the use of bioaccumulative, organochlorinated pesticides and insecticides could last for centuries.
But Aussies, asleep at the wheel, are an uncomplaining lot - “Yeah….she’ll be right mate, no worries!”
“Lemmings lemmings everywhere
Brown rodent bodies all a-pile
Suicidals mounding ‘round
Seems to be the new thing in style.”
Sharon & Flower - thank you again for your intelligent and well thought posts, it really lightens my mood and heart to know that the thinking people are not a totally dying species over run by those who can’t tell the difference between opinion and ‘news’ in corporate media and take it as gospel only for it to then become the basis for their knowledge and opinions. As for Mandy - just because 1 disgruntled former vegan writes a book it doesn’t discount the entire ideal of vegan/vegetarianism, for her book their are 1000 books arguing the complete opposite. Eye of the potato or eye of a cow -please - that sentient argument is fallacious at best, of course plants have feelings but as sharon stated can you truly believe their is no difference. it seems you are someone who obviously is confronted by others taking a moral & ethical stand in their consumption. The truth will set you free, I suggest you read a few other things other than Keith’s book . btw Keith herself is anti-civilisation and anti-transgender -just fyi. http://veganic.net/whyvegan.htm http://veganic.net/links.htm
“Without ethics, science IS pseudo-science. Just ask Socrates” - I feel that a philosopher would be biased in regard to this question, ethics being nothing but philosophy / religion.
“3. Fruit (and nuts) can be harvested every season without harming the tree which lives for decades. Indeed, if the tree IS sentient, then I imagine the tree is delighted to provide sustenance for other species because if the fruit is not meant to be consumed by other species, it would rot on the ground.”
Mere anthromorphism. Is this the best you can do? As an aside, I’d point out that you may be damaging it as a species.
Yes, I *can* understand Flower, that the number of your friends must diminish, when you use such condescending phrases as “my good fellow” in your arguments.
Anyway, I respect your right to eat vegetables, but it seems that you do not respect other’s rights to eat meat.
“Mere anthromorphism. Is this the best you can do? As an aside, I’d point out that you may be damaging it as a species…….. Anyway, I respect your right to eat vegetables, but it seems that you do not respect other’s (sic) rights to eat meat.”
Meski
Perhaps there should be more anthromorphism to mitigate the planetary impacts caused by narcissistic and destructive Neanderthals. I’m sure you know what I mean.
However, Neanderthals are not competent in English comprehension because as I posted to you earlier, I too eat meat (albeit as little as possible) therefore, your post is merely another dump truck load of jabberwanky.
http://www.adpunch.org/images/freschello-pig_25.jpg
Oink oink!