Into The Mouths Of Babes
Ensuring your little vegetarians get all the nutrients they need
By Elisa Bosley — Delicious Living, September 2001

At age 7, Rachel made a decision: No more animals on her plate. “My main motivation was sympathy,” she recalls. “It disturbed me, the thought of eating another living thing.” Now a tall and vibrant 14-year-old, she’s been a vegetarian for most of her young life. And she’s got company: Citing environmental concerns, the ethical treatment of animals, parental influence or simply personal taste, a burgeoning number of youth are forgoing meat and thriving.

For years, studies have lauded the benefits of vegetarianism, including a reduced risk of heart disease, diabetes, obesity and cancer. But given children’s rapid metabolisms, it’s important to ensure that your plant-happy youngsters get the nutrition they need. Remember, if you have any concerns about your child’s diet, consult your health care provider.

Balanced meals form the basis of any healthy diet. “Variety is the key,” says Janet Zand, N.D., O.M.D., L.Ac., author of Smart Medicine for a Healthier Child (Avery, 1994). “It’s not enough to simply avoid meat.” Choose widely and wisely to maximize your child’s nutritional intake, and watch for these major nutrients:

Protein. Protein is essential for young, growing bodies. However, most nutritionists agree that Americans consume far too much protein, which can lead to excessive leaching of calcium through the urine. Also, animal protein is high in saturated fat and cholesterol well-known detriments to health. Extensive meatless options provide children ample protein for healthy development. “If children are lacto-ovo vegetarians [consuming dairy and eggs] and they like peanut butter and tofu, getting enough protein isn’t usually a problem,” says Mollie Katzen, mother of two and author of The New Moosewood Cookbook (Ten Speed Press, 2000). “If they’re vegan [excluding all animal products], they must have tofu, beans, nuts and nut butters in addition to whole grains.”

Iron. The cornerstone of healthy blood and tissues, iron is abundant in many plant foods, including beans, tofu, whole grains, dried fruits, fortified breads and cereals, cabbage, cauliflower, broccoli and spinach. Encourage vegetarian children to eat vitamin C-rich fruit, broccoli, green or red peppers and tomatoes as well, as this nutrient aids the absorption of plant-source iron.

Calcium. Gotta have milk? While dairy products contain calcium, they are by no means the sole source. For vegan children, calcium may be obtained through dark green leafy vegetables (broccoli, bok choy, mustard greens and kale); calcium-fortified tofu, orange juice and soy milk; almonds; many beans; and sesame seeds. Worried about your vegan daughter’s bones? A recent study (Pediatrics, July 2000, vol. 106, no. 1) indicates that regular exercise is far more important than calcium intake in building bone mineral density in adolescent girls.

Good Fats. Children need good fats for proper growth, particularly during adolescence. Replace bad-guy trans fats (hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated oils) with monounsaturated fats, found in olive oil, nuts and avocados. Ensure adequate essential fatty acid intake (omega-6s and omega-3s) by dressing veggies with flaxseed, walnut and hempseed oils.

Vitamin B12. “A big issue [for vegetarians] is vitamin B12,” says Zand, since this nutrient is not found in plants. Many cereals are now B12-fortified (check the label for cyanocobalamin), as are numerous nondairy beverages; Zand fills her family’s saltshaker with seaweed powder to help provide trace amounts of B12 and minerals. In general, a multivitamin/mineral is nutritional insurance for all children who, like adults, don’t always eat as they should. According to Michael Murray, N.D., author of Encyclopedia of Nutritional Supplements (Prima Publishing, 1996), vegetarian children should take extra vitamin B12 and zinc in addition to a multivitamin/mineral.

Pressure Points

As with any nonconformist behavior, vegetarian kids may experience teasing from peers, or even from family members. Arm your children with simple information about the vegetarian diet, and let them practice answering queries with you so they’re not caught off guard. Their resourcefulness may surprise you.

“People sometimes ask me, ‘If you were on a desert island and the only thing to eat was meat, what would you do?'” says Rachel. “I usually respond with, ‘Well, if there aren’t any plants, how did the meat get there?'”

“I would advise parents to tell their kids to just quietly state their preferences,” adds Katzen. “Most people are annoyed when others judge what they eat and brag about their own choices.” Sabrina Wilson, cofounder of the popular Web site, www.vegsource.com, agrees: “Gentle honesty goes a long way with most children, and with many adults, too.”

What if you’re a vegetarian parent but your child craves chicken nuggets? Don’t despair, says Sue Frederick, author of A Mother’s Guide to Raising Healthy Children Naturally (Keats, 1999). “As parents, we need to be educators more than enforcers,” she says. “If you help your child understand the value of good health, they’ll be much more likely to make good choices as they grow older. The idea is to raise your children with balance and love.”

Elisa Bosley is a freelance writer specializing in food, health and travel.

Top

Where’s the Beef?
Audrey Nickel – The Grapevine (Chapel Hills, NC)

It’s noon. You’re hungry. Unfortunately, you left your eggplant casserole on the kitchen counter this morning, and you don’t have time go home and get it. You dash into the nearest pizza joint and order a slice of the veggie special. . . heck, it’s not the healthiest option in the world, but at least it’s vegetarian, right?

Well. . . maybe not!

Hidden meat is still a big problem for vegetarians who eat out. Sometimes that meat hides in unexpected places. Earlier, someone caused a furor on a vegetarian (Internet) bulletin board by insisting that Pizza Hut uses beef stock in its pizza sauce. A month before that, someone raised the question of chicken meat in the rice at Taco Bell. While both rumors proved to be unfounded, our calls turned up information on hidden meat in other products from those restaurants.

The regular pizza sauce at Pizza Hut is indeed vegetarian, but the sauce on the stuffed crust pizza contains chicken fat, and the pasta and bread stick sauce is beef-based. Both the plain and the Mexican style rices at Taco Bell are meat-free, but the sour cream contains gelatin, and the guacamole is made with the sour cream. In addition, the sauce used on the new Veggie Fajita Wrap contains both chicken meat and clam extract (a seafood).

Some would say that the best option is not to eat out at all, or at least to avoid fast-food restaurants. But what is a hungry veggie on the run to do? ASK. Never assume that, just because there are no visible chunks of meat in a product, that it is vegetarian (at least not unless you’re really desperate!). And don’t just take a harried employee’s word for it — ask to see the package, or speak with a manager. If you’re dealing with a national chain, you can often call a consumer hotline for a rundown of ingredients (usually these are toll free numbers, which you can obtain by calling 1-800-555-1212).

Top

Beef in Big Mac French Fries
www.Indya.com  * News Bureau * Maryland * March 9, 2001

An irate Indian consumer in the US has discovered that McDonald’s uses beef in its French Fries.

Sanjeev Dahiwadkar, who lives in Columbia, Maryland, was horrified to discover in a book review that the flavoring of McDonald’s French Fries comes from a flavor extracted from animals. That discovery angered Dahiwadkar because he is a vegetarian and very particular about what he eats — especially when it comes to food which is described as vegetarian.

As Fast Food Nation, written by investigative journalist Eric Schlosser, points out, McDonald’s originally used beef tallow to fry its French Fries.

But after switching to vegetable oil in 1990, it began using a natural flavor that, on the record, comes from an “animal product”.

However, in its declaration of ingredients, McDonald’s does not say that any animal extracts are used in its French Fries. Worried after reading this, Dahiwadkar shot off e-Mail to McDonald’s asking the company to comment on the revelation.

The reply he received shocked him.

It said, “….for flavor enhancement, McDonald’s french fry suppliers use a minuscule amount of beef flavoring as an ingredient in the raw product…”

The reply — carrying the reference no. 665483 — signed by a member of the company’s Home Office Customer Satisfaction Department went on to explain that “…beef is not listed as an ingredient because McDonald’s voluntarily (restaurants are not required to list ingredients) follows the “Code of Federal Regulations” (required for packaged goods) for labeling its products. “As such, like food labels you would read on packaged goods… the ingredients in “natural flavors” are not broken down,” it said. “Again, we are sorry if this has caused any confusion,” the reply concluded.

The official list of ingredients of McDonald’s French Fries lists, “potatoes, partially hydrogenated soybean oil, natural flavor, dextrose, sodium acid pyrophosphate (to preserve natural color).” They are “cooked in partially hydrogenated soybean and corn oils, TBHQ (to protect flavor)” it adds.

The realization that he has been consuming beef in some fashion, simply because the ingredients did not list them, has angered and shocked Dahiwadkar.

While Schlosser’s book is a savage indictment of many aspects of McDonald’s functioning, Dahiwadkar is worried about the fact that thousands of Indians in the US may have consumed something they didn’t want to simply because the truth wasn’t told on the list of ingredients.

“They think that they are having just a potato chip and they eat it on even at the day of holy fasting,” they said.

Actually, the revelation that McDonald’s uses beef in its French Fries is not a new one, although Schlosser’s book, published in January this year, has drawn attention to the fact.

A January/February 1998 issue of The Vegetarian Journal, for instance, says: “McDonald’s informed us on telephone that the natural flavor in their French fries is a “beef product.” At that time, they declined to send us this information in writing. In July 1997, McDonald’s sent us a fax stating that “the natural flavor used in French Fries is from an animal source,” it added.

McDonald’s claims it does not use beef at all in the food served at the restaurants in India.

(Would you trust their claim? I won’t. They deliberately lied, insulted our religious feelings, and then called us ‘confused!’ — Editor)

Top

Milk & its impact on Health, Cruelty, and Pollution The Times of India – Tuesday 11 April 2000 By Pritish Nandy, interviewing Maneka Gandhi

Submitted by Pravin K. Shah, Raleigh, NC

Ayurveda actually lists milk as one of the ‘five white poisons’. She has stirred a hornet’s nest with her campaign against milk. Even hardcore veggies have attacked Maneka Gandhi and religious leaders have openly come out to contradict her. Curiously, on her side now is global research and modern science, of which she has been a long-term critic. They are the ones who are defending her now.

You have come out very strongly against milk. Why are you so hostile to it?

There are three reasons.

• People’s health is compromised by milk and its products

• Cruelty to cows and

• Pollutants in milk

Would you like to explain why you think milk is unhealthy?

There is this belief that milk is a complete food and an important source of protein, iron and calcium.

* Milk has no iron, however it also blocks its absorption.

* The ability of the body to absorb calcium from milk is barely 32%. Whereas the body can absorb, 65% from cabbage and 69% from cauliflower.

* Milk has less protein than most vegetables.

Even if we assume it contains more protein, it would be useless for human beings. Because human beings require only 4 to 5 percent of their daily calorie intake in proteins and the daily consumption of Indian bread (Chapattis) and potatoes would give more protein than the requirements.

So milk is not the best food in the world as it has been touted for generations?

Milk is very difficult to digest particularly for Asians and Africans. Why do I not eat plastic? The reason is: I have no enzyme to digest it. We do not have lactose in our body and so we cannot digest lactose. If we cannot digest milk, how do we get any of its ingredients?

Apart from this, milk has something called the IGF-1. All cancer studies show that when IGF-1 rises in the body one gets cancer. All the IGF-1 in milk stays in the body, making you prone to cancer. It is also a very strong cause of asthma decease. In fact, doctors recommend asthma patients to avoid milk and milk products.

The problem with doctors is that they learn no nutrition in medical colleges. So they have a limited knowledge of food. Their knowledge of nutrition comes from the same source as yours and mine: Grandmothers and teachers. Add to this the confusion caused by our local religious leaders, particularly the ones who espouse vegetarianism.

What is specifically wrong in milk? What is specifically harmful?

The calcium contained in milk actually becomes a health hazard as undigested portions of it are deposited in the urinary system and become kidney stones. Another condition that milk aggravates rather than alleviates is osteoporosis or bone loss. Studies have shown that it is excess protein rather than lack of calcium that causes osteoporosis. So the more milk you drink, the more you are prone to osteoporosis. Countries like Sweden that have the highest milk consumption also have the highest incidence of osteoporosis.

Another misconception is that milk helps ulcers. Ulcers are caused by the corrosion of the stomach lining. When you drink milk it gives you immediate pain relief. But that is only temporary. Milk actually causes acidity and further destroys the stomach lining.

Also, ulcer patients who are treated with dairy products are found to be 2 to 6 times more prone to heart attacks. This seems only logical because milk is designed to be the food on which a calf increases its body weight 4 times over in one month! It is so naturally high in fat that it leads to obesity, the cause of all modern diseases. Ayurveda actually lists milk as one of the five white poisons.

Indians have been drinking milk for centuries. All of them did not fall sick.

It depends on what you call illness. Most people disregard arthritis, osteoporosis, asthma, headaches, and indigestion as normal for the body and cancer as an act of God.

By looking at milk as evil, are we not turning our back on our tradition and culture?

For thousands of years people thought the sun went around the earth. Copernicus was the first person who said it did not. There was a huge backlash against him. In the past in India there existed a tradition of Sati (cremating widow with her husband’s dead body) and thugee and opium eating. Should they have been continued?

I have written a book on Hindu names for which I had to read every single Hindu scripture (sastra). Nowhere is there any milk drinking mentioned. There is ghee (liquid butter) mentioned and that too for havans (fire). Unfortunately our memories are short and the things we are most adamant about are those we know the least about. Dr. Spock was the guru for child nutrition, now apologizes for having advocated milk and says that children must be kept away from it.

Dr. Kurien has described the dairy industry as the gentle industry. You claim it is just the opposite?

The dairy industry is not gentle. The fact that supplies cater to demand makes the cow the ultimate victim. It may have been gentle when each household had its own cow and treated it as a member of the family. This is no longer true.

How is milk produced now in India?

The cow is forced into yearly pregnancies. After giving birth she is milked for 10 months but will be artificially inseminated during her third month. So she is milked even when she is pregnant. The demanded production of milk is more than her body can give. So she breaks down body tissues to produce milk. The result is an illness called ketosis.

Most of the day the cow is tied up in a narrow stall usually wallowing in her own excrement. She gets mastitis because the hands that milk her are rough and usually unclean. She gets rumen acidosis from bad food and lameness. She is kept alive with antibiotics and hormones. Each year 20 per cent of these dairy cows are sent illegally by truck and train to slaughterhouses. Or they are starved to death by letting them loose in the cities.

It is no secret that the slaughterhouse in Goa was constructed by Amul Dairy. No cow lives out her normal life cycle. She is milked, made sick, and then killed. Even worse happens to her child. The male calves are tied up and starved to death or sent to the slaughterhouses. It is not by chance that a calf is no longer called bachda in India. It is called katra, which means one who is to be killed. Even Dr. Kurien admits that in Mumbai every year 80,000 calves are forcibly put to death.

But milkmen (doodhwalas) love their cows. They live off them.

Have you seen how cows are milked? In the villages they practice phukan, a method of milking a cow. A stick is poked into the cow’s uterus and wiggled, causing her intense pain. Villagers believe this leads to more milk.

In the cities they are given two injections of oxytocin every day to make the milk come faster. This gives her labor pains twice a day. Her uterus develops sores and makes her sterile prematurely. Oxytocin is banned for use on animals but it is sold in every cigarette shop around a dairy. Every illiterate milkman knows the word. In human beings, oxytocin causes hormonal imbalances, weak eye sights, miscarriages, and cancer.

Recently Gujarat started raiding dairies for oxytocin. In one day they found 350,000 ampules in just Ahmedabad!

You mentioned pollution in milk. What does that mean?

The ICMR did research on milk for 7 years and took thousands of samples from across India. What did they find?

* Large amounts of DDT, poisonous pesticides called HCH. Under the food adulteration act only 0.01 mg/kg is allowed of HCH. They found 5.7 mg as an average!

* They found arsenic, cadmium and lead. These cause kidney damage, heart diseases, brain damage and cancer.

Their findings were based on 50,000 samples and the report was released at a press conference. What did Dr. Kurien and the Operation Flood people have to say? “More samples should have been taken!”

Other things put in your milk is sewage water, vegetable oil, and liquid soap. In some cases earthworms are put in because they excrete slime which increases the density of the milk!

You have said that drinking milk is drinking the cow’s blood?

Milk and blood come from the same source: the body cells of the cow. Every time you drink a glass of milk, remember it comes from a sad, suffering mother whose own child was killed and who herself will be killed when she dries up.

Won’t the stoppage of milk lead to thousands being unemployed?

A large number of people are dependent on smuggling, thievery, begging, drug pushing, gun running and terrorism. Do we buy their products to help them?

What is the substitute for milk?

What is the substitute to a placebo? Anything else such as soya bean milk, all green vegetables, and lentils (dal). My son has never drunk milk in his life. He is 6 feet and has never been sick a single day!

Top

Try These Non-Dairy Itemes

Banana Split

6 bananas 1 Tbsp carob powder 1/4 cup rice milk 1 tsp vanilla 1 tsp maple syrup

2 Tbsp pecans

Peel 4 bananas and slice them into circles and freeze for a minimum of 5 hours

Sauce: In a little bowl mix rice milk, carob powder, maple syrup and vanilla until smooth.

Ice Cream: Once frozen blend them in a food processor with 1 Tbsp or more of rice milk to get the consistency you desire.

Serving: Slice the unfrozen bananas in half lengthwise and place in a bowl. In between the two slices of bananas out in the ice cream and top with carob sauce and pecans.

Apple Pie

Crust:

2 ˝ c oats flakes 2 c almonds 3/4 coconut 1/3 c almond oil

3/4 sucanant mix with water

Grind 2 cups of almonds and 1 cup of oats in a blender until they become powdery. Then pour into a bowl and mix in the rest of the crust ingredients until everything is well bound and press the crust into a oiled pie plate.

Filling:

slice 3 apples ˝ pint strawberries 3/4 tsp lemon juice ˝ tsp cinnamon

sucanant (optional to taste)

Finely slice the apples and strawberries in a food processor or by hand. Mix in lemon juice and cinnamon. Then pour in the pie plate and refrigerate for ˝ hour or serve immediately.

Almond Fruit Smoothie

1 ˝ frozen bananas handful of frozen blueberries 1 date 1 tsp vanilla

1 cup water

Blend all ingredients until smooth.

Source: Internet

Top

Rendering Plants
Recycling of Dead Animals and Slaughterhouse Wastes

Huge mass killing in modern slaughterhouses create a big pile of carcasses. Rendering plants are developed to get rid of them and other stuff from various sources. Let’s take a peak at them…

Rendering Plants:

Rendering plants perform one of the most complementing functions for modern slaughterhouses. They recycle dead animals, slaughterhouse wastes, and supermarket rejects into various products known as recycled meat, bone meal, and animal fat.  These products are sold as a source of protein and other nutrients in the diets of dairy animals, poultry, swine, pet foods, cattle feed, and sheep feed.  Animal fat is also used in animal feeds as an energy source.

Besides, without running rendering plants nearby each modern slaughterhouse, our cities would run the risk of becoming filled with diseased and rotting carcasses.  Fatal viruses and bacteria would spread uncontrolled through the population.

One estimate states that some 40 billion pounds of slaughterhouse wastes like blood, bone, and viscera, as well as the remains of millions of euthanised cats and dogs passed along by veterinarians and animal shelters, are rendered annually into livestock feed.  This way they turn dairy cows, other cattle and hogs, which are natural herbivores (vegetarians), into unwitting carnivores (non-vegetarians).

This is a multibillion-dollar industry, and these facilities operate 24 hours a day just about everywhere in America, Europe and other parts of the world.  They have been in operation for years.  Yet so few of us have ever heard of them.

Raw Material:

The dead animals and slaughterhouses waste which rendering plants recycle includes:

• Slaughterhouses waste such as heads and hooves from cattle, sheep, pigs and horses, blood, bones, etc.

• Thousands of euthanised cats and dogs from veterinarians and animal shelters

• Dead animals such as skunks, rats, and raccoons

• Carcasses of pets, livestock, poultry waste

• Supermarket rejects

Along with the above material, the rendering plants unavoidably process toxic wastes as indicated below.

Toxic Waste:

The following menu of unwanted ingredients often accompany with dead animals and other raw material:

• Pesticides via poisoned livestock

• Euthanasia drugs that were given to pets

• Some dead animals have flea collars containing organophosphate insecticides

• Fish oil laced with bootleg DDT

• Insecticide Dursban in the form of cattle insecticide patch

• Other chemicals leaked from antibiotics in livestock

• Heavy metals from pet ID tag, surgical pins and needles

• Plastic from:

• Styrofoam trays from packed unsold supermarket meats, chicken and fish

• Cattle ID tags

• Plastic insecticide patches

• Green plastic bags containing dead pets from veterinarians

Skyrocketing labor costs are one of the economic factors forcing the corporate flesh-peddlers to cheat.  It is far too costly for plant personnel to cut off flea collars or unwrap spoiled T-bone steaks.  Every week, millions of packages of plastic-wrapped meat go through the rendering process and become one of the unwanted ingredients in animal feed.

Recycling Process:

The rendering plant floor is piled high with ‘raw product’ all waiting to be processed.  In the 90-degree heat, the piles of dead animals seem to have a life of their own as millions of maggots swarm over the carcasses.

First the raw material is cut into small pieces and then transported to another auger for fine shredding.  It is then cooked at 280 degrees for one hour. This process melts the meat away from bones in the hot ‘soup.’  This continuous batch cooking process goes on non-stop for 24 hours a day, seven days a week.

During this cooking process, the soup produces fat of yellow grease or tallow (animal fat) that rises to the top and is skimmed off.  The cooked meat and bone are sent to a hammermill press, which squeezes out the remaining moisture and pulverizes the product into a gritty powder.  Shaker screens remove excess hair and large bone chips.  Now the following three products are produced:

• Recycled meat

• Yellow grease (animal fat)

• Bone meal

Since these foods are exclusively used to feed animals, most state agency spot check and test for truth in labeling such as: does the percentage of protein, phosphorous and calcium match the rendering plant’s claims; do the percentages meet state requirements? However, testing for pesticides and other toxins in animal feeds is not done or is done incomplete.

Recycled Products and Usage:

Every day, hundreds of rendering plants across the United States truck millions of tons of this ‘food enhancer’ to dairy industry, poultry ranches, cattle feed-lots, hog farms, fish-feed plants, and pet-food manufacturers.  This food enhancer is mixed with other ingredients to feed the billions of animals.

Rendering plants have different specialties.  Some product-label names are: meat meal, meat by-products, poultry meal, poultry by-products, fishmeal, fish oil, yellow grease, tallow, beef fat and chicken fat.

A 1991 USDA report states that approximately 7.9 billion pounds of meat, bone meal, blood meal, and feather meal was produced by rendering plants in 1983. Of that amount:

• 12 percent was used in dairy and beef cattle feed

• 34 percent was used in pet food

• 34 percent was used in poultry feed

• 20 percent was used in pig food

Scientific American cites a dramatic rise in the use of animal protein in commercial dairy feed since 1987.

The Story of North Carolina

In an article entitled “Greene County Animal Mortality Collection Ramp”, states that: “With North Carolina ranking in the top seven states in the U.S. in the production of turkeys, hogs, broilers and layers, it has been recently estimated that over 85,000 tons of farm poultry and swine mortality must be disposed of annually.

To meet this disposal need, in 1989 the Green County Livestock Producers Association began using an animal carcass collection site.  Livestock producers bring the dead animal and bird carcasses to the ramp and drop them into a water-tight truck with separate compartments for poultry and other livestock parked behind the retaining wall.

A local farmer, contracted by the Livestock Association, hauls the animal and bird mortality to the rendering plant each day and maintains the collection site.  The rendering plant pays the Livestock Association each week based on the current prices of meat, bone, feather meal, and fat.

During the first 16 weeks of operation in 1989, over 1 million pounds or a weekly average of 65,000 pounds of dead animals and birds (mortality) were collected and sent to the rendering plant.

The end result of this very successful project is that Greene County livestock and poultry producers have a convenient, safe, and economical alternative to disposal of animal and bird mortality.

Now it must be very evident that the dairy cows are no longer vegetarian animals.  The dairy industry feeds them recycled meat products, which is derived by recycling slaughterhouses waste and other dead animals such as millions of euthanised cats and dogs from veterinarians and animal shelters.  Hence the milk produced by cows contains non-vegetarian elements.

Please send your feedback to author, Pravin K. Shah:
[email protected]

Top

GMOs: Future Foods or Foul Play?
by Todd Runestad (Associate editor for Nutrition Science News)
Reprinted from www.Healthwell.com, September 2000.

The Arctic flounder uniquely evolved through time to thrive in freezing waters. It’s safe to say that, until recently, this fish has never had any contact with tomatoes. And tomatoes have never considered the flounder a partner in procreation. Yet biotechnology has integrated these two species in a way Mother Nature never intended. By inserting a flounder gene into tomato DNA, scientists have created a tomato that is less susceptible to freezing, has a longer shelf life and whose larger size may make it appear tastier. Flounder genes have also been inserted into strawberries for the same reasons. What’s not to like?

• Vegetarians might not like the idea of biting into a berry that contains fish blueprints.

• Ecologists might wonder about genetic pollution and the wisdom of tinkering with Mother Nature.

• Consumer-rights advocates might feel shoppers should be notified via product labels as to exactly what is in their food.

• Natural-living types might be put off by the whole idea of eating something so… well, unnatural.

But what about the promise of feeding the world with more nutritious foods and less pollution? Can biotech grow an edible silver bullet?

Let’s back up a half-century to the birth of the agricultural-industrial complex. In the 1950s, America’s crops and livestock began being sprayed, ground, canned, milled, stripped, reconstituted, adulterated, fortified, packaged and sold to the public. Processed cereal — Corn Pops (1950), Sugar Smacks (1953) and Alpha-Bits (1958) — was born. Nutritious and delicious, they said. These wonder foods build strong bodies 12 ways!

In 1962, U.S. Fish and Wildlife biologist Rachel Carson documented the effects of that foray into high-tech food processing in her seminal book, Silent Spring (Houghton Mifflin). All over the country, DDT was being sprayed from airplanes to control mosquitoes. “Better living through chemistry” was a common phrase. As an unintended consequence, however, DDT also killed songbirds, poisoned animals throughout the food chain — some to near extinction — and, in 1969, the National Cancer Institute declared, it caused cancer in humans. The federal government banned DDT in 1972.

So here we are today, at the threshold of the next great leap forward in food-making — genetic engineering (GE). Should it strike us as ironic that the GE pioneers of today are some of yesteryear’s chemical giants, including Monsanto and DuPont? Backers of this new technology believe the technology is much better this time around and can be trusted.

“At what point in history have we been required to know everything before we go forward?” asks Eric Ward, president of Novartis, a multinational biotech giant with U.S. headquarters in North Carolina. Mistakes can be improved upon, he says, “like a Microsoft upgrade.”

Genes 1.0 — System Error

The Bill Gateses of biotech create genetically modified organisms (GMOs) first by identifying a gene with a desired trait from a plant, animal or bacterium. The gene is isolated and removed. Next, it is inserted into a bacterial cell that copies it millions of times over and ferries it into a target organism. Genes can also be directly injected into a target organism, without being multiplied, by using a particle gun. From there, it’s up to nature to weave the protein string into a new strand of DNA.

The trouble is, it’s not as exact a science as it sounds. When the target cell takes up the inserted gene, it’s anybody’s guess where it will end up. The gene may attach in the middle of another gene and interfere with the normal functioning of the cell. It might damage the DNA of the host, which can lead to foods that contain allergens or toxins. Engineered proteins from living things people have never consumed could end up on store shelves, with unknown health effects.

In 1996, researchers at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, found that people allergic to nuts became allergic to soybeans engineered to contain a nutritious protein from a Brazil nut (Bertholletia excelsa). Although the biotech company shelved the product before it hit retail stores, “the next case could be less ideal, and the public less fortunate,” according to a companion editorial in the same issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (1996, vol. 334) that reported the case of the GE soybeans.

Natural foods advocates are also beginning to ask questions about unintended consequences of this most recent tinkering with our food supply. Most difficult is the patience required to gauge environmental effects that can take years to fully blossom. Once GMOs cross-pollinate with their wild counterparts and weeds, there is no way to put the genie back in the bottle. And pollen dispersal from GE crops has been recorded at up to 3 kilometers by airflow and 4 kilometers by insects (The Soil Association Report, 2000).

“They’re making fundamental and irreversible changes in the food supply,” says Mike Liguori, communications coordinator for Citizens For Health, which is coordinating a GMO labeling campaign (see “What You Can Do,” p.52). “The long-term effects are unprecedented and unknown, and there’s no thought put into it.”

In what has been called the smoking gun against the biotech industry, a now-famous laboratory study by Cornell University researchers found that pollen from genetically engineered corn can kill monarch butterfly larvae. Monarch caterpillars were fed milkweed leaves, their only natural food source, which had either no pollen, regular corn-pollen dust or pollen dusted with GE “Bt” pollen. After four days, 44 percent of those fed Bt corn pollen died, while all those fed the other milkweed leaves survived (Nature, 1999, vol. 399). The study was even more significant because half of the summer monarch population is concentrated in the U.S. corn belt — not to mention that this study took place after 25 million acres of Bt corn had already been planted (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 1998, vol. 95). In response, a consortium of biotech-backed scientists in November 1999 released six months of studies that took place in and around actual GE cornfields, as opposed to the strict confines of the lab. Conclusions varied; some studies found Bt corn does not release pollen, while other studies found close to 100 percent overlap. Ultimately, they concluded, monarchs are as much at risk from habitat destruction in Mexico, where they reside in winter, as from poisoned pollen (Natural Biotechnology, 1999, vol. 17).

In another study, researchers fed six rats potatoes genetically engineered to make their own lectins, which are a group of chemical proteins — including poisons — found in some bean varieties. Six other rats were fed potatoes injected with the protein. After 10 days, the rats eating the GE potatoes suffered greater atrophy in the small intestine and other organs. The researchers said this suggests that something in the modification process itself may contribute to organ damage (Lancet, 1999, vol. 354).

Just Good Business?

Despite marketing hype about how genetic engineering makes foods more nutritious, only one in five current GE foods is actually designed to improve product quality, according the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The rest are only beneficial for agribusiness entities concerned with cultivation and distribution; fully 28 percent are aimed at increasing crop tolerance to herbicides. Biotech’s balancing act is predicated on seed sales to farmers, who save money if fewer pesticides are needed. The problem is, farmers then have to sell it to consumers. But the more consumers learn about GMOs, the more wary they become. Consequently, the biotech industry is scrambling to create a “better nutrition through genetically engineered foods” angle.

Researchers at Children’s Hospital Medical Center in Cincinnati and the Center of Ethics and Toxics in Gualala, Calif., raised questions about better nutrition. They compared two varieties of GE soy to their conventional counterparts grown in similar conditions. In 12 of 21 analyses, the GE soy demonstrated a 12 to 14 percent reduction in genistein and daidzein, the two major soy isoflavones of benefit to menopausal women (Journal of Medicinal Foods, 1998, vol. 1).

As a rejoinder, much ado has been made of the recent unveiling of so-called “golden rice,” engineered to contain the vitamin A precursor beta-carotene, a nutrient lacking in some diets. UNICEF research shows that 300,000 children in developing countries were saved in 1998 by vitamin A supplementation. With one consumer success finally under its belt, Big Biotech comes just a little clean about its checkered past.

“What if, when they invented electricity, the first two products were the electric chair and the cattle prod?” asks Novartis’ Ward. “Would you say electricity is bad?”

Conspiracy theorists shrug off the golden rice news. “The timing of this is so clear,” says Charlie Kronick, head of Britain’s Greenpeace genetic engineering campaign. “[Proponents] are talking about the potential benefits of the second generation of GE crops when almost no questions raised by the first have been answered.”

Plus, as former USDA scientist James Duke, Ph.D., says, people can get satisfactory vitamin A levels with rice without technological assistance: Simply eat the vitamin A-rich weeds that grow alongside rice. “We’ll call them herbs or leafy veggies instead of weeds,” says Duke. “A new mantra might be ‘Eat your weedies!'”

This low-tech idea, however, begs the question: Can GMOs really feed the world? It might be nice to engineer a seed to withstand drought and poor soil. But it seems the real issues may be Third World affordability and distribution.

“There are 10 simple steps we could take right now to feed a billion hungry people,” says Margaret Mellon, Ph.D., of the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington, D.C., “from building roads to encouraging people to grow their own gourds.”

A recent poll of 1,800 U.S. households found 40 percent were concerned about GMOs, 11 percent were not and almost 50 percent had no opinion. Those fence-sitters are the object of biotech’s affections: A group of biotech giants will spend $250 million during the next five years on a public relations campaign to win over the agnostics.

In the end, the success or failure of GMOs will likely be determined by consumer education and analysis. For now, here’s food for thought: We’ve come to revere the technology on our computers; will we equally trust the technology on our plates?

Top

The Right to Know

It’s probably no coincidence that national organics regulations — 10 years in the making — are finally set to be unveiled by the federal government at just the time the public has picked up on the pratfalls of GMOs.

Ironically, food GMOs might be contributing to the current boom in organics, since buying organic food is the only way consumers in a label-less land can be assured of avoiding GMOs. On the other hand, many people see the tactics of biotech corporations as nothing short of an insidious campaign to undermine the organics foothold.

“Within a few years, all traditional food crops will be contaminated with GMOs, and there’ll be no more pure food seeds to grow,” says Bob Canard, an organic farmer in Sonoma, Calif. “It’s a direct assault on me as an organic farmer.”

Genetic pollution of organic crops has been documented: An early 1999 organic corn-chip export to Europe was tested and found to contain genetically modified corn, a result of wayward pollen. The entire shipment was returned.

Whose fault, then, does genetic pollution become? Some biotech advocates say the onus is on organic farmers to keep genetically engineered (GE) pollen out. No easy feat, no matter who’s responsible. The Spanish government, meanwhile, has decided that companies producing or planting GMOs must contribute to a $100 million insurance fund intended to cover environmental accidents. Although it’s a nice gesture, money can’t reverse the problem.

For organic shoppers, particularly many vegetarians, soy is a favorite meat replacement — and soy is one of the more common GE crops. They can always eat organic soy, but what of pollen drift? GE crops, like other crops, are grown in the fields of this windswept world.

Perhaps worst of all is farmers’ widespread use of crops engineered with a natural soil bacterium called Bacillus thuringiensis, or Bt. For 40 years, organic growers have used Bt to effectively thwart acute insect infestations. When sprayed on crops, Bt dissipates in a few days, but it is not to be applied within three weeks of harvest. To fight the European corn borer, which costs U.S. farmers an estimated $1.2 billion in annual crop losses, biotech companies slip Bt into corn so that cells of the plant exude this insect toxin. Bt potatoes, commonly used to make fast-food french fries for many major food chains, are actually registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as pesticides, not foods.

Because the engineered Bt insecticide is as permanent as a corn kernel, researchers predict insects will develop immunity to Bt within five years. By then, it is surmised, biotech firms will simply unveil the next generation of genetically engineered bug spray — leaving organic farmers without one of their few safe, natural pest-management tools.

Top

Why Do Organics Matter?
Jean Weiss — Editor, Delicious Living

In recognition of National Organics Month, our September issue focuses largely on topics surrounding organic foods. Most of the news is exciting. Several studies have verified what organic farmers, retailers and shoppers have always known: Organics contribute to healthier people and to a healthier planet.

Consequently, the new USDA national standard for organic certification couldn’t come at a better time. Uniting the industry under a single certified-organic label will provide you, the consumer, with assurance that your choice is a smart one. You will know that when buying organics, you’re giving yourself and your family toxin-free, healthy food.

We remain committed to providing the information you need to continue making educated wellness choices. With this same mission in mind, the Environmental Working Group, a nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C., researched produce items to determine which are more and less likely to carry high pesticide content.

The following produce items, with strawberries and bell peppers topping the list, are found to retain the most pesticide residue and therefore make the wisest organic-variety choices:

Strawberries Bell peppers Spinach Cherries Peaches Mexican cantaloupe Celery Apples Apricots Green beans

Imported grapes Cucumbers

While organic foods are always the best option in terms of avoiding toxic pesticides, preliminary studies also show they are higher in nutrient content. Should you be in a store that doesn’t offer organic options for a particular type of produce, it’s helpful to know which items tend to retain less pesticide residue and would be safer options than, say, strawberries, spinach or the other items listed above. These include: avocados, corn, onions, sweet potatoes, cauliflower, Brussels sprouts, grapes (domestic only), bananas, plums, green onions, watermelon and broccoli.

While these conventional items may carry fewer toxins than other conventionally grown produce, their risk of containing genetically modified organisms (GMOs) remains high. Corn and sweet potatoes are two of the crops most likely to be genetically modified. And unfortunately, to date there is still no legislation requiring that foods containing GMOs be labeled. Only organic certification ensures your foods are natural and free of genetic modification.

Between pesticide content and GMO risk, there is no question that organic foods are healthier for your body and the environment. When wondering if you should pay the extra for organic foods, consider the alternatives: What is the cost of good health? What is the cost of clean air, soil and water? The organic choice matters.

Organics Prove More Nutritious

Organic farming proponents have long suspected that organically grown foods contain higher levels of important vitamins and minerals as compared to conventionally farmed produce. Now research backs this claim (Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 2001, vol. 7, no. 2).

For her doctoral dissertation at Baltimore’s John’s Hopkins University, Virginia Worthington, Ph.D., reviewed 41 studies comparing the levels of 35 vitamins and minerals in organically and conventionally grown produce. Organics rated higher in most nutrients measured and, as a bonus, contained 15 percent less of potentially harmful nitrates from nitrogen fertilizers. The greatest nutritional differences were found in magnesium (organics had 29 percent more), vitamin C (27 percent more), and iron (21 percent more).

Using the USDA recommendation of five daily servings of fruits and vegetables, Worthington calculated that organic-produce eaters would consume an average of 89 mg vitamin C daily compared with 70 mg for conventional-food eaters; 3.7 mg iron compared with 3.0 mg; and 80 mg magnesium compared with 68.6 mg. This suggests that going organic might make the difference between a nutrient-deficient diet and an adequate diet.

— Marilyn Sterling

Organic Farming Yields Bounty And Taste

A six-year apple-farming study provides quantitative data showing organic farming methods to be superior to both conventional and integrated methods (Nature, 2001, vol. 410, pp. 927-930).

“As a scientist, I wanted to find out which of the three systems [organic, conventional or a combination of both, called integrated] is more sustainable,” says John Reganold, co-author of the study, “meaning it must produce adequate food of high quality, be environmentally sound, conserve resources, be socially responsible and make a profit.”

From 1994 to 1999, Reganold and his colleagues tracked soil quality, yield and crop quality, environmental impact, energy efficiency, and profitability for three apple production systems, using organic, conventional and integrated methods, in Washington state. Results showed that all three systems produced comparable yields; however, the organic and integrated systems showed higher soil quality and lower environmental impact, and the organic system produced sweeter apples, higher profit and greater energy efficiency.

“We see this as a wake-up call,” says Reganold. “When you put all the factors together, organic [farming] is a slam-dunk winner, with integrated next. It doesn’t take a brain surgeon to see that these are two systems that [farmers] might want to consider.”

As critics note, the current financial premium afforded organic growers unfairly affects profitability; however, this government-sponsored benefit kicks in only after three years of applying organic techniques, making the transition a financial burden to small and midsize farmers. “The challenge facing policymakers is to incorporate the value of ecosystem processes into the traditional marketplace,” the study concludes, “thereby supporting food producers in their attempts to employ both economically and environmentally sustainable policies.”

To receive national organic certification, foods must meet the following stipulations:

• Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) meaning gene transfer across species are prohibited.

• Irradiation and the use of processed sewage sludge as fertilizer are prohibited.

• Organic livestock must have access to pasture, organically grown feed and humane treatment; antibiotics and growth hormones are not permitted (sick animals are treated, but removed from the herd).

• Synthetic pesticides and herbicides are not used. Organic farmers instead rely on a repertoire of practices including cover crops, crop rotation, beneficial insects, companion planting, and use of compost to create the healthy and fertile soil that results in hardy plants.

• The land must be free of applied chemicals for three (3) years.

Products Ingredients

Shaving cream Stearic acid Anae Lecithin Shampoo Egg, animal protein, ceramides, fatty acid Conditioner Silk oil

Deodorant Quaternium (derivative of animal tallow)

Top

The New Organics
What the USDA’s seal of approval means to you
Delicious Living — September 2001

After a 10-year roller-coaster ride through Washington’s rule-making process, the mandate of the Organic Foods Production Act of 1990 was fulfilled in late 2000 with a final ruling. For the first time in the United States, this action creates a single, national standard for certified organic foods.

While much of the organic food found in the marketplace has been certified, the standards have varied among a network of private and government certifiers; the new national standard eliminates these discrepancies and establishes the same requirements for all. Once the federal rule is instated and the “USDA Organic” label appears on foods in late 2002, consumers will have the benefit of knowing exactly what the standards are and that they are consistent from store to store and state to state.

“There are a lot of good things about having a federal rule [for organics],” says Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of the Organic Trade Association (OTA), based in Greenfield, Mass. “The primary benefit for everyone is that there’s a consistent regulation applied throughout the United States. If you think an organic product is fraudulent, you can at least check on it. Organic isn’t just a term to convince you to buy a product without any guarantee.”

And that guarantee includes many of the principles of organic methods that consumers and the organic community have always held dear.

To earn certification, organic farmers and processors must keep ongoing detailed records and audit trails of methods used, and land must be free of applied chemicals for three years before its crops can be labeled organic.

The rule’s 18-month implementation period is well under way, and consumers can expect to see the USDA’s organic seal and new labeling scheme on organic products in October 2002 (see “Labeling Guidelines”).

Until the implementation period is complete, conscientious consumers should shop as usual: Look for certified organic foods (many of today’s private and state certification agencies will simply become accredited under the USDA law), and buy from reputable grocers who take seriously their role as gatekeepers in the chain of organic integrity. And when you can, visit farmer’s markets or join a community-supported agriculture (CSA) farm and buy directly from farmers who can tell you exactly what methods they use.

Why Organic?

In short, the organic label means reducing risks for the future of the environment and future generations. Under the new law, all foods bearing the organic label (except those from very small producers) must be certified to USDA standards, with oversight by the National Organic Program (NOP), a division of the Agricultural Marketing Service of the USDA.

For many of us, organically grown foods have always represented the very best choice. Organic farming methods restore and protect the environment, support biological diversity and healthy farms, and protect the health of farmworkers. And from a more immediate perspective, organic foods are appealing for their quality, freshness and flavor. While many proponents have always considered organics more wholesome, studies are just now being done on the nutrition content of organic foods vs. their conventionally grown counterparts. One preliminary study showed organics to have a significantly higher nutrient content for example, 27 percent more vitamin C (see “Organics Prove More Nutritious”).

The organic choice has always meant more. When we buy organically certified foods, we buy the assurance that the foods we’re giving ourselves and our families are free of toxic pesticides. And, the purchase of organic foods sends a message: We deserve to know where our foods come from and how they are grown, and we have the right to know what’s in them. That message is being heard.

From humble beginnings, the organic market has grown to reach heights that very few predicted in its early years. Today, organic foods (including both fresh and processed items) are estimated to be a $6-7 billion market in the United States, and about $21 billion globally, growing at double-digit rates.

From The Ground Up

Organic agriculture is, first and foremost, a choice in favor of clean soil, water and air. Many billions of pounds of pesticides have been released into the environment since these chemicals were first widely introduced for use in agriculture after World War II. Today, annual pesticide use remains at about 5-6 billion pounds per year, according to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) research.

Many of these chemicals are toxic and highly persistent, remaining in the soil, water and air for decades after their use. For example, DDT a highly poisonous insecticide whose damaging effects were chronicled by Rachel Carson in her landmark book, Silent Spring (Houghton Mifflin Co., 1962) was outlawed for use in this country nearly 30 years ago, yet it’s still found in the environment. As these chemical pesticides are spread through wind, water and movement up the food chain, there is virtually no place left on the planet that is truly pesticide-free. And every season, pesticides spread further throughout the environment.

Substantial evidence shows that even legal pesticide residues in foods may be of concern in children’s diets. During the 1990s, study after study confirmed that children may be at higher risk from exposure to chemicals, including pesticides, than adults. In addition, children’s diets lend themselves to higher proportions of fruits, vegetables and water per pound of body weight foods likely to have the highest levels of residues.

On The Horizon

While national organic standards are an important step in the evolution of a thriving organic marketplace, they don’t guarantee all of the philosophical under-pinnings of the organic label. Some aspects of food production that many consider essential to a sustainable agriculture movement are outside the scope of the USDA’s rule. Conscientious consumers may want to support additional values that go beyond the organic label as defined by the USDA:

Supporting small farms and local agriculture. “In France the word is terroir, food with a sense of place or terrain,” says Bob Scowcroft, executive director of the Organic Farming Research Foundation in Santa Cruz, Calif. “Food must be diversified and relevant to its place and its market. Some things do travel well, but in other cases, when possible, for any number of reasons, you want to keep the local craft vibrant and economically viable.”

DiMatteo agrees: “If that value is important to you, try going to the farmer’s market, getting involved with community-supported agriculture and asking your retailer to buy direct from local growers.”

Supporting organic farming research and education. A recent Gallup survey of more than 1,200 large-scale farmers and ranchers found that while 60 percent of those surveyed were aware of sustainable farming practices, only 23 percent are using them. A full 36 percent said that they just didn’t know how.

“The knowledge base of organic farming largely exists under trial and error rather than academic understanding and the free exchange of ideas,” says Scowcroft. Why does it matter to you, the consumer? “Research helps us be better farmers, which might not only result in better prices for consumers but might also result in cleaner watersheds, more diverse wildlife and increased rural vitality,” he explains.

Labeling and accountability for genetically modified foods. Foods that are considered genetically modified organisms (GMOs) are widespread in the United States up to two-thirds of conventional foods may contain them. Environmentalists and health specialists are concerned that these products have not been adequately tested or studied for long-term effects, including allergic responses and uncontrolled environmental problems.

While the national organic standards prohibit GMOs, the rule cannot address the impact genetically modified crops may have on organic growers. Experts are concerned that, due to natural cross- pollination by wind and insects, GMOs are threatening the integrity of all botanicals as designed by nature. “The fact is that these genes will flow into organic crops unless they are far enough away from each other,” says Jane Rissler, Ph.D., a senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) in Washington, and co-author with Margaret Mellon of The Ecological Risks of Engineered Crops (MIT Press, 1996).

In addition, some GMO crops are engineered with thenatural insecticide bacteria Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt). Rissler and other experts are concerned that overuse of Bt in this way may speed insect resistance and weaken Bt as a sustainable farming tool. “With widespread use of Bt crops, insects will develop resistance. Organic growers could lose a very valuable [natural] pesticide,” Rissler says.

Keeping children’s health a priority. As we’ve seen, children are especially at risk from pesticide residues in food and in the environment. The Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 mandates that all pesticides registered by the EPA be re-evaluated in terms of their risk to children. But the wheels have turned slowly, and activist groups such as the Washington-based Environmental Working Group have expressed concern about the government’s commitment to following through with FQPA.

An Exciting Future

Despite these concerns, horizons are bright for the organic industry. Even the most conventional food producers have had to sit up and take note of organics’ success. Our world, and our children, may have a chance at a better future because of the choices we make in the marketplace today.

“Buying organic is buying environmental protection,” DiMatteo says. “It’s supporting a reduction in environmental pollution and degradation, and supporting an agricultural system that’s trying to change the way things have been done in the past fifty years.” And that’s just the beginning.

Top

Fields of Dreams
by Laurel Kallenbach (A health and travel writer from Boulder, CO)
Will the USDA’s new organic rules prove a blessing … or open a Pandora’s box?

The next few months could herald a new era for people who care about the purity of their food and the environment. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has finalized and approved strong national organic standards that will help grocery shoppers all across the country determine the extent to which their food is pesticide free. Yet, while supporters of the organic movement are celebrating, a few are already wondering what problems will come of the standards. By passing these strict rules, has the USDA opened a Pandora’s box? In addition to releasing wonderful possibilities and ushering in what will surely be a Golden Age of organics, some unpleasant problems may also be unleashed.

Americans from Miami to Anchorage can depend on standardized definitions of organic food once the USDA’s national organic standards are in effect — by the end of next year. The organic labels will clearly state what percentage organic ingredients a product contains (see “Labeling Guidelines,” page 18). In addition, the USDA will prevent foods from being labeled as organic if they contain ingredients that have been genetically engineered, irradiated or produced using sewage sludge. “These standards provide a clear set of labeling that gives consumers the ability to make choices about the products they buy,” says Katherine DiMatteo, executive director of the Organic Trade Association.

Thanks to thousands of concerned consumers, we have this latest version of national organic standards, which have been in the formative stages for a decade. The 1997 version of the USDA-proposed standards would have allowed genetically modified organisms (GMOs), irradiated and sewage sludge-treated foods to be labeled organic, but public outcry stopped the agency in its tracks. More than 275,000 people wrote in, complaining about the proposal. “We turned the USDA around on its head,” says Bob Scowcroft, executive director of the Organic Farming Research Foundation.

“Consumers get a good, protective labeling and production standard from this rule,” says DiMatteo. “Passage of the regulations created a more secure marketplace for organics in general.” She anticipates that over a period of years, as demand for and production of organic food escalates, grocery prices will go down. “As more products become available and we establish better distribution systems and transportation, retailers won’t have to ask higher prices for organics because they have limited supply,” she says.

Opening Pandora’s Box

While those in the organic community generally agree these new organic guidelines are good news for the consumer, some sticking points remain, primarily surrounding issues of contamination of organic crops caused by drifting pesticides, herbicides and GMOs.

One of the biggest gaps in the mostly positive national organic rules is the lack of direction in cases of contaminated organic crops. “We need better guidelines about what happens if organic producers lose income or crops due to circumstances beyond their control, such as unwanted drift from pesticides, herbicides or genetically engineered crops,” says DiMatteo. When pollen from a genetically engineered plant is deposited on an organic crop via wind or insects, she explains, that gene may be incorporated into the product, possibly rendering it unfit to be labeled organic.

“How do you test the wind for pollen? How do you test insects carrying pollen?” asks Scowcroft. “If there’s drift that ruins an organic crop, organic farmers or consumers shouldn’t be penalized. They may have to destroy their crop, but the government should compensate them. In cases of genetic drift, the owners of the patented gene should be liable for keeping their product out of our marketplace. We don’t want that burden to be on the backs of family farmers or organic consumers. It’s not their responsibility to deal with technology run amok on environmentally clean farms,” he says.

A dearth of organic research and resources is another issue raised. “We know so little about the organic market, crop rotation, nonchemical weed control or how to develop an organic farm business plan,” Scowcroft says. “We need appropriations to get organic farmers their fair share of research and marketing dollars.”

Cummins agrees, pointing to monetary discrimination against organic farmers. “Last year the USDA gave $25 billion to conventional agribusiness, but it’s proposing putting only $5 million or $6 million into organic businesses. That’s absurd.” He feels government has pigeonholed the organic industry as a small niche market that won’t threaten business as usual. “My dream is that organic will become the dominant form of agriculture,” he says. He hopes for the day when organic food is served in schools and hospitals. “When you send your kids off to school to eat lunch, they’re getting the lowest grade, most contaminated food there is,” he says. “The Berkeley, Calif., school district is the only one in the nation to include organic food in its school-lunch program.”

The Plight of the Organic Farmer

Though national standards will likely increase public awareness of organics and demand for organically grown produce, meat and dairy products, organic farmers still have a tough row to hoe. It’s a positive sign that giant agriculture businesses are buying organic companies and starting their own organic divisions, resulting in increased organic acreage nationwide. Yet, small farmers need help to transition from conventional to organic agriculture. “If the government was serious about helping farmers go organic, certification fees would be free,” says Cummins. “Most organic farmers gross less than $30,000 a year, so a bunch of fees is a hardship. We think that organic certification — since it benefits all of society — should be free, and organic farmers should be subsidized.”

Now is the time to stand by small organic farmers. “Every day, your dollars support the type and size of agricultural production you believe in,” DiMatteo says. We must do our part by buying locally grown organic food, shopping at farmer’s markets and farm stands, asking retailers to carry more local organic products year-round, buying seasonally and getting to know local farmers. “If a product is organic, it helps the environment and contributes to better health for people and animals, too,” she says.

Public confidence in the new organic standards must not lead to complacency. “Consumers shouldn’t relax, because the problem isn’t completely solved,” says Scowcroft. He suggests continuing to support organic foods and farmers in this country, even after the USDA organic label appears on your can of pinto beans or package of pasta. “Push yourself to buy more organically grown foods,” he says. “Even with national certification, the organic production system is still fragile. And, if issues like genetic or chemical drift concern you, put pen to paper and write your legislators and the Secretary of Agriculture, demanding more resources for organic agriculture.”

Despite some of the problems still facing organics in this country, Scowcroft applauds national organic standards and remains optimistic about the future. “Agriculture is at an incredible crossroads right now,” he says. “We have every opportunity to make America a fully organic nation 20 years from now.”

Top A Shopper’s Guide To Leather Alternatives By Michael Keevican and Updated by Sina Arnold and Davida Gypsy Breier

COPYRIGHT 2000, Vegetarian Resource Group — List Updated August 27, 2001

.

INTRODUCTION

On many occasions, after turning down a hamburger or hotdog at a summer barbecue and explaining that I’m vegetarian, the next question I’m asked (if I’m wearing my leather-like Birkenstocks) is, “Then why are you wearing leather?” I answer that the sandals are made from synthetic materials that look like leather, and this usually pacifies the inquisitors. They do ask a valid question though, if you are choosing a vegetarian diet for ethical reasons, “How can you stop eating animals, but continue to wear them?” There are many different answers to this question, but if your answer is, “I can’t,” then what do you do? Like a vegetarian diet, people often choose to “quit leather” at different stages.

Since cowhide is the most common animal hide used, links to the meat industry are undeniable. According to the Leather Industries of America, the leather industry’s trade association, very few animals are raised specifically for their hides. But cows are just one of the animals whose skins are used for shoes, wallets, coats, belts, clothing, and accessories. Other animals can be pigs, deer, horse, and sheep. Some articles are even made from “exotic” animal skins ranging from alligator and lizard to sealskin and snakeskin.

You may ask, “Well what should I do with all the leather I have?” Again, just as some people go vegetarian overnight and others do it slowly, taking weeks or months, the same goes for leather. Some people choose to gradually replace worn out leather items with non-leather alternatives. Others donate their leather goods to charities or give them to friends who still do wear leather. Many throw the stuff away, and although you might prefer that no one wear animal hides (besides the animals), most leather is not biodegradable due to the tanning process, so a charity might be the best bet. The damage that has been done can’t be reversed.

That brings up the question of which causes less damage to the environment – petroleum-based synthetic leathers or leather treated with multiple chemicals? While petroleum-based products often cause pollution from manufacturing and its waste, leather manufacturers are still dealing with problems caused by the use of chemicals for tanning. Either alternative leads to some environmental damage, but while you’re supporting the exploitation of animals by purchasing leather, choosing leather alternatives will at least help alleviate some cruelty to animals.

Maybe we should also ask ourselves if leather- and fur-like materials are always the best choice. Do these materials give the impression that leather and fur are socially and ethically acceptable? As people opposed to animal exploitation do we wish to give this impression to others? Why not go with some other materials such as hemp, cotton, synthetic fibers, or recycled rubber when possible? On the other hand it can be argued that by using leather and fur alternatives we can show others a way of wearing clothes with the look they like that don’t require the exploitation animals for it.

In this list we have provided information for such as websites, e-mail addresses, and new product lines. We have also discovered other products that might be of interest, such as non-leather bowling shoes, skate shoes, and ballet shoes.

When choosing a non-leather company, one should also consider the company’s reasons for carrying non- leather goods. Although we are pleased that more and more companies offer non-leather items, most large manufacturers and retailers who carry both leather and non-leather offer the non-leather goods primarily for economic reasons. It is cheaper to manufacture non-leather goods, and as a result they usually cost less. Note that many of these companies sell mainly leather items. Some companies may also offer other products that are not cruelty-free, such as cosmetics. Still, by supporting the vegan articles these companies distribute, a clear statement can be made in favor of alternative products. Maybe this will encourage companies to produce more synthetic products, even if their reasons for this decision are not necessarily ethical.

The smaller vegan mail order companies, on the other hand, take a particular interest in avoiding animal and Earth exploitation through the products they offer. Many of these companies employ Earth-friendly manufacturing and working conditions. For instance, Used Rubber USA offers bags, wallets, and other accessories made from recycled rubber products. We believe that it is important to support these companies rather than those that also sell animal-derived or animal-exploitative products. For this reason we eliminated a company that sells rubber boots from our listing after we discovered that they sell hunting gear and animal traps. There are vegan companies, such as Heartland Products, that sell rubber boots.

During the research for this guide we found that many employees at large companies had little knowledge about their products. This is unfortunate for the customer who has questions. But remember, if more and more people ask questions, eventually the companies will meet the demand for non-leather information.

It should be mentioned that of the large athletic shoe companies, Nike was the only one we found to have a fax list of synthetic shoes. You can order this list by calling (800) 344-NIKE. While you are still interacting with their voice-mail computer the list will be coming out of your fax machine.

To make your selection of non-leather goods as effortless as possible, the companies listed are separated into several categories. The Vegan Mail Order section indexes companies that sell only completely animal-free products. The Catalogs, Companies, and Stores section lists companies that sell or manufacture both leather-free and leather goods, so check these carefully to make sure what you’re buying is non-leather. A lot of companies suggested that when looking for their products in stores, always examine for the least expensive articles first, because they are most likely to be the non-leather ones. The remaining sections of this guide list specific styles of shoes (athletic, dress, etc.) and the companies who make them or the stores/catalogs that carry them. Note that when looking at the list some company names may be misleading. For instance, Fabulous Furs not only carries fake furs, but also non-leather bags, jackets, and fake wool vests.

We’ve aimed to be complete and accurate in doing this listing, but if you know of any changes or additions we should make, please send them to:

The Vegetarian Resource Group PO Box 1463 Baltimore, MD 21203

E-mail: [email protected]

VEGAN MAIL ORDER

The following companies have committed to sell only animal-free and cruelty-free products in their catalogs.

Aesop Inc.
PO Box 315, N. Cambridge, MA 02140 (617) 747-4466

E-mail: [email protected]

Web site: www.aesopinc.com

Aesop aims to “help promote a more peaceful world,” by offering products that are “good to the earth and kind to animals.” Their catalog includes footwear, belts, wallets, and other non-leather items.

Ex-tredz
388 Carlaw Ave. Unit 100-D, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, M4M 2T4

(800) 665-9182

Although this company doesn’t sell directly to the public, call this number to find a store in your area that sells their products. They make vests, coats, belts, bags, etc. from recycled rubber.

Fabulous Furs
601 Madison Ave., Covington, Kentucky 41011 (800) 848-4650

E-mail: [email protected]

Web site: www.fabulousfurs.com

This mail-order company offers a wide variety of fake fur, leather and wool products, such as coats, jackets, vests, hats, handbags, pillows, and even ear muffs. They also have “Sew It Yourself” kits for most products.

Heartland Products, Ltd.
PO Box 218, Dakota City, IA 50529 (800) 441-4692; Fax: 515-332-4831

Web site: chiana.trvnet.net/~hrtlndp/

Everything in the Heartland catalog is non-leather, from western-style boots and baseball gloves to clogs, watch bands and biker jackets. Rubber boots, named the “Big Ugly,” are made by Negev Sabra and may be special ordered.

Pangea

2381 Lewis Ave., Rockville, MD 20851 1-800-340-1200 Fax: 301-816-8955

E-mail: [email protected]

Web site: www.veganstore.com

This mail-order company and store carries all cruelty-free, vegan products, including leather alternative shoes, clothing, belts, and bags.

Planet Hemp

423 Broome St., New York, NY 10013 (800) 681-HEMP

E-mail: [email protected]

Planet Hemp’s mail-order catalog offers hemp products such as women’s and men’s clothing, back packs, sandals, wallets, bags, some cruelty-free cosmetic and shoes by Deja and Adidas. Check out their retail store in Manhattan, NY.

Tomorrow’s World

9665 First View St., Norfolk, VA 23506 (800) 229-7571

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: www.tomorrowsworld.com

Distributes the entire Deja line through mail-order. They have non-leather clothing, shoes, belts, bags etc.. They also carry organic hemp products.

Used Rubber USA
597 Haight St., San Francisco, CA 94117 (415) 626-7855

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: www.usedrubberusa.com

Recycled rubber inner tubes and tires are used to make wallets, organizers, and bags in a variety of sizes.

CATALOGS, COMPANIES, AND STORES WITH LEATHER ALTERNATIVES

The following catalogs, mail order companies, and stores carry some non-leather products, but also many that are not animal-free. Just like reading food labels, carefully check the merchandise to make sure it is leather-free. If you’re not sure, ask customer service or a sales clerk, but beware they can’t always answer your questions. This is only a partial listing of the thousands of catalogs and stores with synthetic options.

Active Soles
318 Court St., Plymouth, MA 02360 (800) 881-4322

Website: www.activesoles.com

They distribute several styles of New Balance shoes, made from synthetic materials, for men and women.

American Hemp Mercantile, Inc.
2401 Utah Ave. So. #400, Seattle WA 98134
(800) 469-4367; Fax: 206-264-1492

Through wholesale order you can purchase Kender Gear Bags and wallets made from hemp which are vegan.

Anywhere Shoe Company., Inc.
55 S. Atlantic St., Seattle, WA 98134
(888) 425-0077

Brightly colored man-made, biodegradable, padded clogs that can be thrown in the washer.

The Bata Shoe Company, Inc
4501 Pulaski Hwy., Belcamp, MD 21017 (800) 365-2282

Website: www.bata.com

Bata manufactures industrial footware and protective clothing. They offer non-leather high- and low-top boots suitable for factory or farm work. Note: A few of the boots in the catalog are designed for factory farming and meat processing.

Birkenstock Footwear
486 First St., Solvang, CA 93463; (800) 824-1228

Website: www.birkenstock.com

The Birki Too, Birki’s, and Birki Kids lines of Birkenstocks are made of Birko-Flor synthetic uppers. For a totally animal-free shoe ask for Birkolon synthetic footbed liners. Birki-Clogs are made with all polyurethane and a removable washable footbed. Three styles of Birkinstocks, and 2-3 styles of Betula come totally leather-free. Other styles will require an upcharge to change the suede liner to a Birkolon liner.

Ecolution
PO Box 2279, Merrifield, VA 22116 (703) 207-9001

Website: www.ecolution.com

The briefcase, mini backpack, campus style backpack, and two-pocket fanny pack are made from 100% hemp. New “cork-and-hemp” line with purses, bags, and briefcases.

Heavenly Soles
615 W. Lake St., Minneapolis, MN 55408 (612) 822-2169

E-mail: [email protected]

Website: www.heavenlysoles.com

Heavenly Soles offers shoes from Vegetarian Shoes.

J. Crew
One Ivy Crescent, Lynchburg, VA 24513
(800) 562-0258

Canvas deck shoes and basketball sneakers, nylon sneakers, flannel deck sneakers, rubber thongs, and rubber boots.

L.L. Bean
Freeport, ME 04033 (800) 221-4221; Fax: (207) 552-6821

Web: www.llbean.com

Merrel and Teva sports sandals, Birkis by Birkenstock with synthetic uppers and polyurethane footbed, canvas athletic shoes, NB Walking Shoes with synthetic suede uppers, and north col pri-maloft booties. L.L. Bean also has non-leather handbags, watch bands, and coats.

Masseys
128 W. River St., Chippewa Falls, WI 54729
(800) 462-7739

Masseys carries several canvas and synthetic slip-ons, plus a wide variety of leather-like flats, pumps, and other styles. They carry name brands such as Auditions, Easy Spirit, Selby, Rockford, Keds, New Balance, and Tretorn.

Nike, Inc.
One Bowerman Dr., Beaverton, OR 97005 (800) 344-6453

Website: www.nikebiz.com

Call the 800 number to receive a men’s or women’s sourcebook that lists all Nike shoes and which are made with synthetic uppers. They also have synthetic children’s and baby’s shoes.

The Ohio Hempery Catalog
7002 State Route 329, Guysville, OH 45735
(800) BUY-HEMP

Hemp sandals, bags, purses, belts, wallets, and bike-bags.

Payless Shoe Source
(800) 444-7463
 

This store has one of the widest selections of synthetic leather shoes available in men’s, women’s, and children’s styles. The average store carries about 600 styles, 80% of which are synthetic. Leather shoes are marked on the box. Call for a store in your area.

Premier Sports
938 S. Andreasen, Ste. G, Escondido, CA 92029 (800) 822-7788

Women’s running shoes from Saucony, Adidas, Brooks, New Balance, and Avia.

REI
1700 45th St. E., Sumner, WA 98390 (800) 426-4840

Web site: www.rei.com

Adidas Adventure Sandals, Teva sports sandals, Merrell sports sandals, and Nike sports sandals. They also offer non-leather belts and watch bands.

Rider Wearhouse
8 South 18th Ave. West, Duluth, MN 55806
(800) 222-1994

You’ll find rubber boots, non-leather jackets, backpacks, bags, and more.

Road Runner Sports
PO Box 910129, San Diego, CA 92191
(800) 551-5558

Carry several non-leather running shoes from Brooks, Asics, New Balance, Saucony, Reebok, Mizuno, Adidas, Etonic, and Aviva. Watches with non-leather bands also available.

Roaman’s
P.O. Box 8360, Indianapolis, IN 46283
(800) 274-7130

Several leather-like and canvas casual and dress shoes.

Santana Canada Footwear
3770 Industrial Blvd. Sherbrooke, Quebec, Canada J1L 1N6

(888) SANTANA

Waterproof non-leather boots and shoes in a variety of styles. Call for a store in your area that carries their products.

Sunsports
P.O. Box 180, Stamford, CT 06904
(800) 308-HEMP

This company has hemp clothing, hats and packs. They also carry about 6 styles of light shoes with hemp uppers. The hemp is imported from China.

Unlisted by Kenneth Cole
3342 Melrose Ave., Roanoke, VA 24017 (800) UNLISTED

Website: www.kencole.com

This company offers a line of leather-like shoes, belts, and handbags for women. Carried in department stores like Macy’s and Nordstrom. Call for locations near you.

ATHLETIC SHOES

There are now leather alternatives in almost every style of athletic shoe. While some companies offer “classic” styles that remain leather-free, like Tretorn and Converse All-Stars; other styles, especially running shoes, change their look (and materials) frequently. For each company below there may be more non-leather styles than included (or the style listed may be made in the future with leather) so always check to make sure that the shoe you are looking for is still animal-free. Besides some of the mail-order catalogs and stores listed above, national chain stores that carry athletic shoes include The Athletes Foot and Foot Locker.

Women’s Athletic Shoes

Adidas: (800) 677-6638 Synthetic sports shoes in a variety of styles. At retail stores the side of the box lists what each part of the shoe is made from — look for the word synthetic. If you’re interested in a specific style, but don’t know what it’s made of, call for information.

Asics: (800) 678-9435 Several synthetic shoes; call to find out about a certain shoe.

Avia: (800) 345-2842 “535 Aerobis” and “254” running shoes are made from recycled synthetic materials.

Converse: (978) 664-1100 Chuck Taylor All-Stars, high-top and low-top, come in many styles, colors, and fabrics. They also have canvas One Stars.

Etnies: (949) 460-2020 They have two synthetic lines of skate shoes, Vallely and Cyprus.

Keds: (800) 680-0966 Canvas oxfords and slip-ons in a variety of colors and patterns.

New Balance: (800) 934-1022 All styles of running shoes and the 590 walking shoe are made with leather and/or suede alternatives. Call for a catalog.

Nike: (800) 344-6453 Leather-free running, basketball, volleyball, golf, cross-training, and cheerleading styles available. Call to receive a sourcebook that lists all animal-free Nike shoes.

Payless Shoe Source: (800) 444-7463 Several athletic shoes made with synthetic materials.

Reebok: (800) 843-4444 Several athletic shoes made with synthetic materials. Call to find out what a specific shoe is made of (the materials are not listed on the box).

Saucony: (800) 365-7282 G.R.I.D. Sensation II.

Tretorn: (800) 525-2852 Canvas tennis-style shoes.

Vans: (800) 750-VANS Styles include canvas, linen, and flannel oxfords; mules; and Mary Janes. Call for stores in your area that carry Vans.

Men’s Athletic Shoes

Adidas: (800) 677-6638 Synthetic sports shoes in a variety of styles. At retail stores the side of the box lists what each part of the shoe is made from — look for the word synthetic. If you’re interested in a specific style, but don’t know what it’s made of, call for information.

Asics: (800) 678-9435 Several synthetic shoes, call to find out about a certain shoe.

Avia: (800) 345-2842 “254” running shoe.

Brooks: (800) 2-BROOKS Vanguard.

Converse: (978) 664-1100 Chuck Taylor All-Stars, high-top and low-top, come in many styles, colors, and fabrics. They also have canvas One Stars.

Etnies: (949) 460-2020 They have two synthetic lines of skate shoes, Vallely and Cyprus.

New Balance: (800) 934-1022 Most of the running shoes have all-synthetic uppers. Some of the walking shoes are synthetic. Call for a current catalog that lists which shoes are non-leather.

Nike: (800) 344-6453 Non-leather/suede shoes include running, basketball, tennis, cross-training, cycling, and golf styles. Call to receive a sourcebook that lists all animal-free Nike shoes.

Payless Shoe Source: (800) 444-7463 Several athletic shoes made with synthetic materials.

Reebok: (800) 843-4444 Several athletic shoes made with synthetic materials. Call to find out what a specific shoe is made of (the materials are not listed on the box).

Saucony: (800) 365-7282 G.R.I.D. Sensation II.

Tretorn: (800) 525-2852 Canvas tennis-style shoes.

Vans: (800) 750-VANS Styles include canvas, linen, and flannel oxfords. Call for stores in your area that carry Vans.

Children’s Athletic Shoes

Kids Footlocker: (800) 991-6685 This store sells all major brands of athletic shoes for children.

Nike: (800) 352-6453 Athletic shoes in several styles for children and babies. Call to receive a sourcebook that lists all animal-free Nike shoes.

Payless Shoe Source: (800) 444-7463 Always a great place to find leather-free shoes for children. Athletic styles often feature popular cartoon characters.

DRESS SHOES

Women are probably going to have an easier time than men in finding decent alternatives to leather dress shoes, although men are now getting more options than before. Make sure that the entire shoe is made from synthetic material — that the lining or sole, in addition to the upper, are leather-free. Value shoe stores like Payless Shoe Source, as well as discount stores like K-Mart and Walmart, often offer a wealth of styles for men, women, and children.

Women’s Dress Shoes

Auditions: This brand of shoe comes in leather-like flats and pumps in a variety of colors.

Beacon Shoe Company: Several different styles available.

Daniel Green: Dressy leather-like slipper sandals and flats.

Lane Bryant: Man-made pumps and sandals in a variety of styles.

Life Stride: Pumps.

Masseys: This mail-order catalog carries leather-like flats, pumps, and other styles. They carry name brands such as Auditions.

Naturalizer: Wedge pumps.

Payless Shoe Source: One of the best places to find non-leather dress shoes.

Roaman’s: Several leather-like dress shoes.

Unlisted by Kenneth Cole, 1-800-UNLISTED This company offers a line of synthetic leather shoes, belts, and handbags for women. Carried in department stores like Macy’s and Nordstrom. Call for locations near you.

Men’s Dress Shoes

The best places for men to find leather alternative dress shoes are Aesop, Inc. and Heartland Products, which are all listed in the Vegan Mail Order section of this article. If you’re not interested in mail order, the next best place would be discount shoe stores like Payless Shoe Source.

Beacon Shoe Company: This company has several different styles available.

Lyle Richards International: Dress shoes found at large retailers.

Payless Shoe Source: You should have no trouble finding a stylish dress shoes here.

Children’s Dress Shoes

Payless Shoe Source: Wow, this store just keeps popping up, but you should have no trouble finding a few styles here — and at reasonable prices!

HIKING BOOTS

For light hiking there are several boots available that will probably meet your needs, even some of the athletic shoe companies are making rugged shoes for day hikes. Canvas shoes with lug soles will perform well under ordinary hiking conditions. The serious hiker, e.g., mountain climbers and trekkers, have fewer choices, but there are some boots that look like they could take on McKinley or The Himalayas. The Vegan Hiking Boot, Veggie Trekker, and Ranger appear to offer the most ankle support and are made with leather alternatives that appear similar in durability.

Aesop, Inc.: The Vegan Hiking Boot is similar in appearance to the typical hiking boot with all-leather uppers. The Ranger is of a higher quality whereas The Canvas Trekker is more of a light-duty hiking boot.

REI: The Hi-Tec Sierra Sneaker, an all-canvas hiking boot, can be found through their mail-order.

Tomorrow’s World: They have a hiking boot by Deja called The Hiker.

WORK BOOTS

Work boots don’t have to be leather to keep your foot protected. The following boots should all do the job — some even have steel-toe protection.

The Bata Shoe Company, Inc.: Low and high boots suitable for working in a factory or farm.

Heartland Products: Carries a leather-like steel-toe safety shoe and a logger boot. See vegan mail order section.

LaCrosse Boots: Several styles of rubber boots: insulated, non-insulated, and steel toe. Available from large retailers. Call (800) 671-BOOT for info.

Lyle Richards International: Found at large retailers.

COATS AND JACKETS

Fabulous Furs: Fake fur, leather and wool coats, jackets and vests.

Heartland Products, Ltd.: Bomber jackets, parkas, riding vests, and touring jackets.

L.L. Bean: Several styles of winter coats made from synthetic fibers, some with synthetic fur ruffs.

Pangea: Several options, including “biker style.”

BELTS, BAGS AND WALLETS Belts

Aesop, Inc.: Several styles of leather-like and military-style belts for men and women.

Heartland Products, Ltd.: Black, tan, and navy web belts, black and brown unisex non-leather belts.

The Ohio Hempery Catalog: Vegan belts made from hemp.

Used Rubber USA: Recycled rubber inner tubes and tires are used to make belts in a variety of styles.

Also check Pangea and Unlisted by Kenneth Cole.

Bags

Aesop, Inc.: Wallets, purses, portfolios, and briefcases for men and women.

American Hemp Mercantile, Inc.: Vegan bags and wallets made from hemp.

Ecolution: The briefcase, mini backpack, campus style backpack, and two-pocket fanny pack are made from 100% hemp. New “cork-and-hemp” line with purses, bags and briefcases.

Fabulous Furs: Women’s handbags and backpacks made from fake leather and nylon.

Heartland Products, Ltd.: Vinyl attaches and non-leather “overnighter briefcase”, hemp wallets, bags and backpacks.

The Ohio Hempery Catalog: Vegan bags and wallets made from hemp.

Payless Shoe Source: Bags made from synthetic materials in a variety of styles. Call (800) 444-7463 for a store in your area.

Planet Hemp: Back packs, portfolios, wallets and several styles of bags all made from hemp.

Used Rubber USA: Recycled rubber inner tubes and tires are used to make wallets, organizers, and bags in a variety of sizes.

Wallets

Aesop: Synthetic leather, nylon, and even oak bark wallets.

Pangea: Several hemp wallets and checkbooks.

Used Rubber USA: Six styles of wallets.

Balls

Spalding Sports: Offers a syntehtic leather volleyball, basketball, softball, soccerball and football. Call (800) 225-6601 for a store in your area that carries their products.

Baseball Gloves

Heartland Products, Ltd.: Adults and children’s sizes.

Biking Gloves

REI: Carries Novara Gloves made from a leather-like material called Nash, to be found in their stores. Call (800) 426-4840 for your nearest location.

Bowling Shoes

Best Bowling Pro Shop: Michelle, Robin, and Maxine are all leather-free.

Dexter Shoes: Liza is entirely man-made.

Ice Skates

L.L. Bean: Bauer hockey skates made with nylon and synthetic leather uppers.

Rock Climbing Shoes

5.10: Makes three non-leather models called VX, Anasazi Velcro , and Anasazi Lace-up. Check out their web site: spelean.com.au/FT/FiveTen.html

Skate Shoes

Etnies: (949) 460-2020 They have two synthetic lines of skate shoes, Vallely and Cyprus.

Snow Boots

Masseys: Waterproof boots by Naturalizer.

Tap shoes

Capezio: Call (800) 234-4858 for information on their non-leather 626 Tapette for women and 626c Tapette for girls, as well as 625 Jr. Tyette for women and 625c Jr. Tyette for girls.

Tool Belts

Nailers, Inc.: Call (619) 562-2215 for information on their non-leather tool belts, nail bags, and knee pads all made from Dupont’s Cordura fabric.

Western-Style Boots

Heartland Products, Ltd.: Styles for women, men, and boys.

Additional resources: If you have internet access and are looking for shoe companies and retailers outside of the US try www.musonix.demon.co.uk/faq.

Animals Entitled to Humane Treatment: Kerala High Court
The Times of India —- Thursday 8 June 2000
(From: “Merritt Clifton, editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE.”

Vegan Nutrition in Pregnancy and Childhood
by Reed Mangels, Ph.D., R.D. and Katie Kavanagh-Prochaska, Dietetic Intern

Basic Needs in Pregnancy

During pregnancy, the body requires extra calories, protein, vitamins, and minerals in order to support the baby’s growth and to allow for changes in the mother’s body. Important considerations in pregnancy include calories, protein, vitamin B12, iron, calcium, vitamin D, zinc, and folate.

Calories

Pregnant women, in general, need an additional 300 calories per day, beginning in the second trimester. The extra calories allow for the mother’s body to change and the baby to grow. Your calorie needs may vary according to your pre-pregnancy weight and the amount of weight which you need to gain. Adding nutritious snacks to your daily routine is one way to get extra calories. A sample meal plan for vegan pregnancy, which includes three snack ideas, can be found inside this article.

Protein

Protein recommendations in pregnancy call for an additional 10 grams (for 25-50 year olds) or 14 grams (for 19-24 year olds) of protein. Some examples of protein-rich foods are plain, enriched soyamilk; tofu; tempeh; cooked beans; and nuts and nut butters. Eating a wide variety of nutritious foods will help pregnant women get the additional protein they need.

Vitamin B12

Vitamin B12 is used for tissue synthesis and requirements are increased during pregnancy. Some good sources of vitamin B12 are vitamin B12 fortified soyamilk and fortified tofu, some fortified ready-to-eat cereals, and Vegetarian Support Formula nutritional yeast. A little more than a tablespoon of Vegetarian Support Formula will provide the recommended amount of vitamin B12. This is a critical nutrient, so if your diet does not include these foods daily, use a vegetarian prenatal vitamin with vitamin B12.

Iron

Iron is needed for increased maternal blood volume and to form the baby’s blood. Anemia can be a problem during any pregnancy, regardless of your diet. All pregnant women need to eat foods rich in iron, such as green leafy vegetables, dried beans and legumes, and dried fruits. Eating iron-rich foods with citrus fruits can increase iron absorption. An iron supplement may be necessary if you cannot get enough iron from your diet.

Calcium/Vitamin D

Calcium and vitamin D work together for bone and teeth health and development. Calcium absorption increases in pregnancy and may compensate for increased needs. Pregnant women should eat 4 or more servings of calcium-rich foods daily, including some green leafy vegetables, and calcium-fortified tofu, soyamilk, and orange juice. Calcium supplements, on days your appetite is poor, are also an option. Vitamin D is found in fortified soyamilk and fortified breakfast cereals.

Zinc

Zinc is necessary for growth and development. The recommended intake for zinc increases during pregnancy. Good sources of zinc include peas, beans, brown rice, spinach, nuts, tofu, and tempeh.

Folate

Folate is important even before you know you are pregnant, so all women of childbearing age should be getting at least 400µg (micrograms) per day. The need for folate increases in pregnancy, to 600µg per day. Dark leafy greens, whole grains, and orange juice are rich sources of folate. Vegan diets are often high in folate.

Basic Needs During Breast-feeding

The best diet for breast-feeding is very similar to the diet recommended for pregnancy. Calorie, protein, and vitamin B12 needs are slightly higher, while the need for iron is reduced. It is a good idea to use a standard prenatal vitamin shortly before, during, and after pregnancy, along with eating a well-balanced diet.

Basic Needs for Infants (0-1 years)

The ideal food for a vegan baby’s first year of life is breast milk. Benefits to the breast-fed baby include enhancement of the immune system, protection against infection, and reduced risk of allergies. Benefits to the mom include reduced risk of premenopausal breast cancer, release of stress-relieving hormones, and convenience. Breast-feeding may also help you lose weight, though you should not restrict calories when trying to establish milk supply. There may be other benefits we are not aware of yet.

Vitamin D

The most reliable way to get vitamin D is from fortified foods or supplements. Vitamin D is synthesized in our skin with sunlight exposure. This synthesis is greatly reduced by sun screen use. Since sun screen should be used with any sunlight exposure, dietary or supplemental vitamin D is needed. Babies under 6 months of age should not be exposed to the sun for long periods of time. After 6 months of age, use a sun screen formulated specifically for baby’s skin. Breast-fed infants should be supplemented with 5µg (200IU) of vitamin D daily. Infant formula supplies adequate amounts of vitamin D. Vitamin D deficiency leads to rickets (soft, improperly mineralized bones).

Iron

The breast-fed infant should be started on iron supplements or iron-fortified foods (like baby cereal) between 4 and 6 months. Formula fed babies may not need the supplement since infant formula contains iron. Iron-fortified cereals provide additional iron. If you give iron supplements to your baby, ask your pediatrician for the correct dose.

DHA

DHA is a fatty acid which appears to be important for eye and brain development. It is found primarily in animal derived foods. However, babies can make DHA from another fatty acid called linolenic acid which is found in breast milk if the mother’s diet includes good sources of linolenic acid (flaxseed oil, ground flaxseed, canola oil, soy oil).

Soy Formula

There are several soy-based formulas available. Vegan families should choose these if breast-feeding is not an option. Some soy-based formulas may contain animal-derived fats, so check the ingredient label. Unfortunately, at the time of this writing, in the US the food industry does not offer ANY soy-based formulas that do not include vitamin D derived from lanolin, which comes from sheep’s wool. There are no other acceptable options for formula-fed vegan infants. Only consumer outcry is likely to change this situation.

It is important to note that soyamilk, rice milk, and homemade formulas should not be used to replace breast milk or commercial infant formula during the first year. These foods do not contain the right amounts of nutrients for babies.

Introducing Solid Foods

Solid foods should be introduced between 4 and 6 months of age. Try to introduce one food at a time, waiting 2 to 3 days before trying another food, to see if the baby has a reaction to the food. If an allergic reaction occurs, the offending food is more easily identified.

Iron-fortified infant rice cereal is a good first food. It is an excellent source of iron, and rice cereal is least likely to cause an allergic response. Once the baby eats this cereal well, begin introducing other cereals such as oats, barley, and corn. Vegetables may be introduced next, again, one at a time to check for allergies. Vegetables must be well-mashed or puréed. Well-mashed potatoes, carrots, peas, sweet potatoes, and green beans are good first vegetables.

Fruits are usually introduced after vegetables, theoretically in order to allow acceptance of vegetables before the sweet taste of fruits is experienced. Good first fruits are well-mashed bananas, pears, or peaches.

Protein foods are generally introduced around 7 to 8 months. Some good sources of protein include mashed, cooked dried beans; mashed tofu; and soy yogurt. Smooth nut and seed butters spread on bread or crackers can be introduced after the first birthday.

Some parents choose to use commercial baby foods. There are products made for vegetarian babies, but careful label reading is recommended. Many parents wish to make their own baby foods. These should be prepared without added sugar, salt, or spices. Foods should be well cooked, mashed or puréed, and handled under clean conditions.

Babies under age 2 need more calories and fat than at any other time in their lives. Fat is important in brain development. Some foods used to increase fat in the diet are mashed avocado, vegetable oil, and nut and seed butters spread on crackers (in children older than 1 year).

If a breast-feeding mother is not using a reliable source of vitamin B12, the baby needs a vitamin B12 supplement.

For a more detailed discussion of vegan pregnancy, you can purchase Simply Vegan, by Debra Wasserman and Reed Mangels, Ph.D., R.D. This book is available from The Vegetarian Resource Group. Healthcare practitioners may wish to consult the “Nutrition Management of the Vegetarian Child” chapter from the Pediatric Manual of Clinical Dietetics, from The American Dietetic Association.

Feeding Vegan Children — Toddlers through School-Age

Children, especially toddlers and preschoolers, often tend to eat less than most parents think they should. This is generally due to a developing sense of independence and a slow down in growth. All parents should schedule regular check-ups with their child’s pediatrician, in order to monitor growth, development, and health. All parents need to make sure that what their child does eat, gives the child the nutrients he or she needs. The preschool years are an important time for developing healthy eating patterns, which can set the stage for a healthful adult diet.

Calories and Fat

Young children have small stomachs and eating a lot of high fiber foods may not give them enough calories. A diet rich in fresh fruits, vegetables, and whole grains is also usually high in fiber. The fiber content of a vegan child’s diet can be reduced by offering him or her some refined grain products, fruit juices, and peeled fruits and vegetables. Foods like avocado, nut and seed butters, dried fruits, and soy products can pack a lot of calories into small quantities, which is great for the growing child. To promote synthesis of DHA, an important fat, include source of linolenic acid like canola oil, flaxseed oil, and soy products in your child’s diet.

Protein

A child will meet protein needs if a variety of plant foods are eaten and calorie intake is adequate. It is unnecessary to precisely plan and complement amino acids within each meal as was once thought, as long as children eat several meals and snacks a day. Variety is the key to a healthy diet. Sources of protein include legumes, grains, soy products, meat analogs, and nut butters.

Calcium

Calcium is very important for growing bones and teeth. Good sources of calcium include fortified soyamilk, fortified rice milks, and calcium-fortified orange juice, tofu made with calcium, blackstrap molasses, vegetarian baked beans, and textured vegetable protein (TVP). Because of the small size of a child’s stomach and the amount needed, leafy greens are not a major source of calcium. However, the older child may be able to consume enough kale, collard greens, turnip, and mustard greens, along with other good sources of calcium, to meet needs.

Zinc

There is little available information on the zinc content of diets of vegan children. Zinc sources include legumes, whole grain pasta, wheat germ, fortified cereals, tofu, nut butters, and miso.

Vitamin D

Dietary sources of vitamin D include some brands of fortified soyamilk, fortified rice milk, and some dry cereals. Vitamin D supplements are needed for children who have no dietary source of vitamin D. Sun exposure has traditionally been recommended for vitamin D production. Current recommendations call for the use of sun screen, which greatly reduces vitamin D production by the skin, so sun exposure should not be relied on for vitamin D adequacy. Remember that children always need to wear sun screen outdoors.

Vitamin B12

Vegan children should use foods fortified with vitamin B12 or vitamin B12 supplements. A variety of foods fortified with vitamin B12 are available, including some brands of soyamilk, meat analogs, fortified nutritional yeast, and some breakfast cereals.

Iron

Iron deficiency anemia is a common childhood nutritional problem, no matter what the diet. Good iron sources include whole or enriched grains and grain products, iron-fortified cereals, legumes, green leafy vegetables, and dried fruits. Vitamin C helps the body absorb iron, so offer citrus fruits with iron-rich foods.

A diet plan for vegan toddlers and children is included later.

Special Tips for Feeding Preschoolers

• Offer choices of foods. Letting the child make some decisions can increase acceptance of foods.

• Offer a variety of foods, repeatedly. Children’s food preferences often change. The food they refuse today may become tomorrow’s favorite.

• Keep mealtime a pleasant time. Do not force a child to eat or use food as a reward. Try to remain low-key about food refusals. Studies show that a new food can be offered up to 15 times before the child will try it.

• Make food fun. Try pancakes in different shapes, offer vegetables and dips, and hide small pieces of soft fruit in soy yogurt.

• Set a good example. Let the child see you eating healthy foods.

• Foods that are not a particular favorite may be added to foods the child likes, for example, chopped or puréed vegetables can be added to pasta sauce or soup. Tofu can be blended into a fruit shake. Fruit purées can be added to baked goods.

• Involve the child in food preparation. Even young toddlers can tear lettuce and help put cut-up vegetables into a pot.

• Some children may prefer eating single foods in separate bowls rather than a mixture of foods such as a casserole.

Choking risks

Toddlers and preschoolers are at increased risk of choking because they are still learning to chew and swallow, they may not have a full set of teeth yet, and they may not want to take the time to chew food carefully. To minimize choking risk, the following foods should be avoided or eaten only with supervision:

• Nuts, except when finely ground.

• Nut butters by the spoonful.

• Vegetarian hot dogs, unless sliced into tiny pieces the size of a pea.

• Cherry tomatoes, unless halved or quartered.

• Grapes, unless cut in half. Peeling may be needed for young toddlers.

• Raw cherries, unless pitted and sliced.

• Raw celery and whole raw carrots.

• Popcorn.

Meal Planning Ideas

Popular foods with vegan children include:

• Pizza, without cheese, and topped with vegetables, tofu, or meat analogs.

• Pasta with marinara sauce.

• Oven-baked French fries.

• Soy yogurt.

• Macaroni and soy cheese.

• Milkshakes made with calcium-fortified soyamilk and fruit.

• Peanut butter and jelly sandwiches.

• Fresh or dried fruit.

• Pancakes and waffles.

• Noodles with peanut butter sauce.

• Raw vegetables with dip.

• Muffins.

• Mashed potatoes.

• Veggie burgers.

• Tofu dogs.

• Bagels with nut butter or humus.

Interested in teen nutrition? Check out our Vegetarian Nutrition Guide for Teenagers for more information on the website, or call (410) 366-8343 for a paper copy.

General Tips

Use an iron skillet when preparing acidic foods, such as tomato sauce. This helps “unlock” the iron.

• Be sure your non-dairy milk alternative is fortified with vitamins D and B12, as well as calcium.

• Good sources of zinc are peas, beans, brown rice, nuts, spinach, tofu, wheat germ, fortified breakfast cereals, and tempeh.

• Introduce one new food at a time to your baby in order to identify possible allergens.

• Do not restrict fat in your baby’s diet before 2 years of age. Babies need fat for brain development. Some sources of fat are avocados, olive oil, and nut butters.

Nuts and nut butters are possible allergens, so watch your child carefully for signs of an allergic reaction. Nut butters should only be given to babies over one year of age, and only with supervision. Whole nuts should never be given to a child under 3 years of age because they are a choking hazard.

A Sample Meal Plan for Vegan Pregnancy, Infancy, and Childhood

This sample meal plan provides approximately 2500 calories, 94 gm protein, 70 gm fat (24% of calories), and 396 gm carbohydrate. This sample meal plan meets the RDA for iron, calcium, zinc, vitamin B12, folate, vitamin D, thiamin, riboflavin, and niacin.

Breakfast

½ cup oatmeal with maple syrup 1 slice whole wheat toast with fruit spread 1 cup fortified soyamilk ½ cup calcium-fortified orange juice Morning Snack ½ whole wheat bagel with margarine 1 banana

Lunch

Veggie burger on whole wheat bun with mustard and ketchup

1 cup steamed collard greens Medium apple 1 cup fortified soyamilk Afternoon Snack 3/4¾ cup ready-to-eat cereal with ½ cup blueberries

1 cup fortified soyamilk

Dinner

3/4¾ cup tofu stir-fried with 1 cup vegetables 1 cup brown rice

Medium orange

Evening Snack

Whole grain crackers with 2 Tbsp. peanut butter
4 ounces apple juice

Feeding Schedule For Vegan Babies Ages 4-12 Months
	4-7 mos	6-8 mos*	7-10 mos	10-12 mos
MILK	Breast milk or soy formula.	Breast milk or soy formula.	Breast milk or soy formula.	Breast milk or soy formula (24-32 ounces).
CEREAL & BREAD	Begin iron-fortified baby cereal mixed with breast milk or soy formula.	Continue baby cereal. Begin other breads and cereals.	Baby cereal. Other breads and cereals.	Baby cereal until 18 mos. Total of 4 svgs (1 svg=1/4 slice bread or 2-4 TB cereal).
FRUITS & VEGETABLES	None	Begin juice from cup: 2-4 oz vit C source. Begin mashed vegetables & fruits.	4 oz juice. Pieces of soft/cooked fruits & vegetables.	Table-food diet. Allow 4 svgs per day (1 svg=2-4 TB fruit & vegetable, 4 oz juice).
LEGUMES & NUT BUTTERS	None	None	Gradually introduce tofu. Begin casseroles, pureed legumes, soy cheese, & soy yogurt.	2 svgs daily each about ½ oz. Nut butters should not be started before 1 year.

*Overlap of ages occurs because of varying rate of development.

Diet Plans for Vegan Toddlers and Preschoolers (Age 1-4)
FOOD GROUP	NUMBER OF SERVINGS
Grains	6 or more servings. A serving is ½ to 1 slice of bread; 1/4 to ½ cup cooked cereal, grain, or pasta; ½ to 1 cup ready-to-eat cereal.
Legumes, Nuts, Seeds	2 or more servings. A serving is 1/4 to ½ cup cooked beans, tofu, tempeh, or TVP; 1-1/2 to 3 ounces of meat analog; 1 to 2 Tbsp. nuts, seeds, or nut or seed butter.
Fortified soyamilk, etc	3 servings. A serving is 1 cup fortified soyamilk, infant formula, or breast milk.
Vegetables	2 or more servings. A serving is 1/4 to ½ cup cooked, or ½ to 1 cup raw vegetables.
Fruits	3 or more servings. A serving is 1/4 to ½ cup canned fruit, ½ cup juice, or ½ medium fruit.
Fats	3-4 servings. A serving is 1 tsp. margarine or oil.
School-aged Children
FOOD GROUP	NUMBER OF SERVINGS
Grains	6 or more servings for five to six-year-olds; 7 or more for seven to twelve-year-olds. A serving is 1 slice of bread; ½ cup cooked cereal, grain, or pasta; or 3/4 to 1 cup ready-to-eat cereal.
Legumes, Nuts, Seeds	1-1/2 to 3 servings for five to six-year-olds; 3 or more for seven to twelve-year-olds. A serving is ½ cup cooked beans, tofu, tempeh, or TVP; 3 ounces of meat analog; or 2 Tbsp. nuts, seeds, nut or seed butter.
Fortified Soyamilk, etc.	3 servings. A serving is 1 cup fortified soyamilk.
Vegetables	2 or more servings for five to six-year-olds; 3 or more for seven to twelve-year-olds. A serving is ½ cup cooked or 1 cup raw vegetables.
Fruits	2 to 4 servings for five to six-year-olds; 3 or more for seven to twelve-year-olds. A serving is ½ cup canned fruit, 3/4 cup juice, or 1 medium fruit.
Fats	4 servings for five to six-year-olds; 5 for seven to twelve-year-olds. A serving is 1 tsp. margarine or oil.

Available from The Vegetarian Resource Group

Vegan Handbook, edited by Debra Wasserman and Reed Mangels, Ph.D., R.D. Includes homemade baby food recipes and healthy fast food ideas for preschoolers. ($20)

CalciYum!, By David and Rachelle Bronfman. ($22)

Send check to VRG, Box 1463, Baltimore, MD 21203 or call (410) 366-8343, 9am to 5pm EST, to order with a Visa or MasterCard or order online.

Also available from VRG for kids.

Leprechaun Cake and Other Tales: A Vegetarian Story-Cookbook, by Vonnie Winslow Crist and Debra Wasserman. ($10)

For each free item below, send a SASE to the address below.

I Love Animals and Broccoli Coloring Book (3-8 year olds) I Love Animals and Broccoli Shopping Basket (7-10 year olds) I Love Animals and Broccoli Lesson Plan

Food Experience Projects for Young Children

Join The Vegetarian Resource Group

Receive the bi-monthly Vegetarian Journal, containing vegan recipes, nutrition information, updates from the scientific community, interviews with activists, and much more. Send $20 to The Vegetarian Resource Group, Box 1463, Baltimore, MD 21203 or subscribe online.

About VRG

The Vegetarian Resource Group is a non-profit educational organization which educates the public about vegetarianism, and the interrelated issues of health, nutrition, ecology, ethics, and world hunger. The contents of this article is not intended to provide personal medical advice. This should be obtained from a qualified health professional.

Be sure to explore our website www.vrg.org. You’ll find more information on vegan pregnancy, raising vegan children, traveling with vegan children, and recipes for vegan families. We have sample articles from previous issues of Vegetarian Journal, The American Dietetic Association Position Paper: Vegetarian Diets, books of interest to vegans, and links to related sites. Also consider joining our online vegetarian parent list.

Order Simply Vegan

The information contained in this article has been adapted from Simply Vegan. This excellent resource book contains 160 quick and easy vegan recipes and an extensive vegan nutrition section by Reed Mangels, Ph.D., R.D., covering topics such as protein, fat, calcium, iron, vitamin B12, Pregnancy and the Vegan Diet, Feeding Vegan Kids, and a nutrition glossary. Also featured are sample menus and meal plans. ($13) Send your check to Vegetarian Resource Group, Box 1463, Baltimore, MD 21203; call (410) 366-8343, 9am to 5pm EST, to order with a Visa or MasterCard; or you can order online.

Top

SOYA “COW” TO BENEFIT HOSPITAL AND HEART PATIENTS
A gift to India from Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

New Delhi — It doesn’t moo, but the “cow” that is now housed at Adhyatma Sadhana Kendra, a leading yoga institute, does provide milk — soya “milk”, that is. The soya-making machine was a gift to the institute from the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an American-based group of medical doctors and others who promote sound nutrition. Dr. S.C. Manchanda, head of Cardiology Unit of All India Institute Of Medical Science (AIIMS), India’s premiere medical hospital, unveiled the new soya cow, distributed soya milk and explained why soya beats dairy milk for people.

“Soya milk is superior to cow’s milk,” said Dr. Manchanda. “It’s a heart healthy drink without saturated fat and cholesterol of dairy.”

Soya products have actually been shown to benefit people suffering from heart disease, an increasing health concern in India. The World Health Organization predicts that deaths caused by heart disease will double in India by 2015. Research attributes this expected rise to India’s increased consumption of dairy and meat and adoption of a high-fat “cheeseburger” lifestyle.

The soya cow’s products, including soya milk, tofu (soya paneer), soya shakes will be given to heart patients and others who are undergoing training and therapy and the yoga institute, as well as to patients and staff and AIIMS. Both institutions believe that soya milk promotes good health, while dairy products are linked to deadly disease, including heart disease and cancer.

Scientific research shows they are right to be concerned. Since the 1980’s, study after study has linked dairy consumption to a high incidence of breast and other cancers. The American Dietetic Association, for example, reports that breast cancer is most prevalent in countries where women consume high-fat, animal-based diets. In east Asia, where milk consumption is extremely rare, breast cancer is almost unheard of. International renowned nutrition expert Dr. T. Colin Campbell points to China, a basically non-milk-drinking country, where cancer deaths among women aged 35 to 64 averaged less than 9 per 100,000, as opposed to 44 per 100,000 in the U.S.

Medical studies, including the Harvard Nurses Study, which has monitored the health of 75,000 milk and non-milk drinking women over the course of a decade, show that dairy products may actually contribute to osteoporosis and bone breaks. The study found that is because the calcium in milk, which is difficult for the body to absorb, actually leaches calcium from the body. Soya milk on the other hand has a very high absorption.

Men, too, are at risk. Results of the landmark Physicians’ Health Study of 20,885 doctors showed that men who consumed at least 2-1/2 servings of dairy foods daily were about 30 percent more likely to develop prostate cancer than men who averaged less than half a serving per day. The Health Professionals Follow-Up Study found that men who consumed high amounts of dairy products had a 70 percent increased risk of prostate cancer. British researchers have found that men who eat a diet without dairy products and meat have lower levels of a certain protein associated with prostate cancer. The study, published in the British Journal of Cancer, found that levels of IGF-1 – an insulin-like growth factor believed to play a key role in causing prostate cancer – were 9 percent lower in vegans than in nonvegans.

Milk and cheese are also laden with saturated fat, the worst kind you can get. Physicians now warn that dairy products also lead to allergies, “tummy trouble” such as stomach cramps, bloating and discomfort caused by lactose intolerance. A recent study by Dr. Minocha, the Chief of Gastroenterology at the Southern Illinois University School of Medicine, found that 70% of south Indians are lactose intolerant.

Milk and cheese can be particularly bad for pregnant women, nursing mothers and children as dairy products frequently contain cow’s blood and pus and are contaminated with pesticides, hormones and antibiotics. In children, cow’s milk is linked to insulin-dependent Type I (juvenile) diabetes. According to a report published last year in the American Journal of Nutrition, a study of children in 40 countries found that the incidence of juvenile diabetes was directly related to diet: The higher the consumption of cow’s milk and other animal products, the greater the chance of developing diabetes. Conversely, children who consumed a largely vegetarian diet had a much lower incidence of diabetes.

Dairy products can wreak havoc with children’s health in other ways. The American Academy of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology names cow’s milk as the number one-cause of food allergies in kids. Susceptible children suffer from chronic runny noses, sore throats, sinus and ear infections, skin problems, chronic coughs, asthma and other conditions.

For more information on dairy versus soya milk, please visit PCRMIndia.org

Submitted by Anuradha Sawhney [email protected]

Top

Do you want to make milks at home?

In America, I buy ready-made soyamilk. But when in India, I don’t have that choice. So here is the recipe for home use (it is very time consuming and tedious, but we did it anyways during our last trip!):

Take one cup (8 oz.) of raw soy beans, inspect them thoroughly for removing pebbles, etc. foreign objects. Wash them 3-4 times. Let soak in 2-3 cups of water for overnight (or at least 8-10 hours). Then they should be soft, swollen and grindable. Again wash and inspect for removing the unswollen ones.

Now you grind them! Over and over, again and again! At least 5-6 times! Each time with 2-3 cups of new water. When you grind each time, they release milky white fluid. Each time you sieve them with a very thin clothe such as sari or dhoti. In the earlier batches, the fluid is enough thick to make ice cream out of it. But in the later batches it starts getting thinner. You use your judgment when to stop grinding any further.

Now you have a total of about 12-15 cups of milk! But it is not ready yet. It has smell and you need some taste and texture. Add about 15-20 cloves (“laving”) to suppress the smell, and a little (about one teaspoon) of salt for taste. Then you bring it to a boil on stove and then continue for about 15 minutes more for texture. Don’t forget stirring it with a large spatula otherwise it will settle and burn at the bottom (just like the cow’s milk!). Now let it cool, and it is ready for consumption. The milk stays good for a few days in refrigerator. Both myself and my wife drink this milk. I also make ice cream (actually it should be called soy cream) out of this, and we love it. My wife makes tea also from it. We haven’t got much success in making ‘dahin’ (yogurt) out of it yet, but we need more experiments. Again, in America, we can buy soy yogurt easily, so we have no pressing need for it.

Early this year we were there. Mostly we lived in Rajkot. But we went on a tour to Rajasthan for a week. At that time for the sake of convenience, my wife resorted to drinking cow’s milk. But she wasn’t happy!

Because, when we came back to Rajkot, upon getting back on the soyamilk, she thanked for the satisfactory feeling of taste!! It is difficult to believe, that now she actually preferred (not only for health and animal compassion
cause, but also for taste) soyamilk over the cow’s milk. I myself have remained a perfect vegan for all the past 7-8 years.

You can make milk from rice also. It is much easier. You don’t even need special preparations. Just take the leftover cooked rice, throw them in grinder, and add some salt and sugar for taste. Grind well and sieve through the loin clothe. It is ready! Tastes different, but you can get used to it. And it is so convenient, because you always have cooked leftover rice with home cooking…

The soyamilk process is lengthy, but it is unbelievably economical! One cup of soy beans cost about 10 rupees. But you produce 3-4 liters of milk, that may be worth at least 100 rupees! The heart patients usually are wealthy people, so they won’t care. But the non-heart patients, the poor ones, should care for this cheaper and healthier product. The rice milk is also similarly very cheap to make. However, both the processes need at least one food grinder, which may not always be affordable initially to the poorer ones. However, in long run, the cost of grinder also is recoverable if the whole family turns to this milk.

Someday somebody should start this as a business. It would be very profitable. And the cows and their babies would thank us for letting them live their lives as the nature intended.

(Narendra Sheth, Editor)

Top

A Dog’s Life Fetches 27 Cents

Dogs are sold for U.S. 27 cents each and slaughtered in Asia. Their throats are slit, and the conscious dogs bleed to death. Their skins are turned into wallets, handbags, and golf gloves, often labeled “cow skin.”

Cats are also being killed for their fur in China and other Asian countries. Cats are hung by ropes, struggling as they slowly suffocate. Dog and cat fur is made into jackets, ear muffs, gloves, and pet toys and has been found for sale in U.S. and European stores.

Designer Devils

PETA made headlines during New York’s Fashion Week by protesting the pelts on parade. At Michael Kors’ show, our tofu cream pie flew as the designer took his bow. Oscar de la Renta grimaced when two PETA activists dashed onto the catwalk and unfurled banners. And a model sporting a sable-hooded cape at Randolph Duke’s show was stopped in her tracks as the runway was doused with red (water-soluble) paint.

Are You In Someone’s Stolen Skin?

Ponyskin — Sometimes it’s “phony pony,” made from cows or calves; often it’s made from dead ponies from Italy, Spain, France, or Russia. It’s always made from anguished animals.

Shearling — This is the sheep’s actual skin: See the hide outside? Both the fleece and skin are stripped off year-old sheep. Tens of thousands of coyotes, groundhogs, and other “bothersome” animals whose homes sheep graze on are also slaughtered.

Snakeskin and lizard — Fully conscious reptiles are often nailed to a tree and their skins stripped off their backs. They can suffer for hours or even days before dying.

Shahtoosh — Tibetan chiru antelopes are trapped, killed, and skinned for their super-short, fine fleece. Shahtoosh shawls are illegal in the United States.

Pashmina

— Tibetan mountain goats are farmed for their fleece. Makers claim that the animals aren’t killed outright, but like sheep, are exploited constantly and eventually killed.

Alligator — As our investigator watched, one worker stood on the alligator’s mouth, another on the tail, and the third used a chisel and hammer to deliver eight blows to the spinal cord. Other farmers bludgeon alligators with baseball bats or axes.

“The skin of a python…is no less precious to the snake than fur is to the fox.”

— Maneka Gandhi,
India’s Minister of Social Justice and Empowerment

Top

Merino wool — Australia’s most popular sheep are bred to have wrinkled skin. Flies lay eggs in the folds of skin, so in order to prevent maggots from hatching there, ranchers carve huge strips of flesh off the unanesthetized lambs’ legs. For several days, the little lambs limp from pain.

Leather — In the United States, leather is made from the skins of cows, calves, horses, sheep, lambs, goats, and pigs raised in abject misery on factory farms. In India, cows and buffaloes are beaten and forced to trudge hundreds of miles in blazing heat. Many collapse from exhaustion, hunger, and thirst. Other cattle are crammed into trucks so horribly overcrowded that they suffer trampling and suffocation.

Cows for Concern

Arun Gandhi has written to the prime minister of India to ask for protection for cows in India. Following his grandfather’s teachings of nonviolence and compassion, Arun expressed “much anguish” over India’s failure to enforce existing laws that would protect cows from severe abuse and slaughter for their skins.

• Write for a free skin action pack today! We have everything you need to protest the fur and leather trades: leaflets, stickers, camera-ready ads, and posters.

• Speak out! Organizing a protest is easy — it only takes one person to make a difference. Need ideas or advice? Contact PETA’s Skin Campaign coordinator, RaeLeann Smith, at 757-622-7382, extension 518.

• Check out websites www.FurIsDead.com and www.CowsAreCool.com.

• Protest the barbaric slaughter of dogs and cats in Asia for their skins by writing to the Thai, Philippine, and Chinese Embassies.

• His Excellency Ernesto M. Maceda, Ambassador, The Embassy of the Philippines, 1600 Massachusetts Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20036

• His Excellency Li Zhaoxing, Ambassador, Chinese Embassy, 2300 Connecticut Ave. N.W., Washington, DC 20008

• His Excellency Tej Bunnag, Ambassador, The Royal Thai Embassy, 1024 Wisconsin Ave. N.W., Ste. 401, Washington, DC 20007

Top

Fur — An Environmental Nightmare

In a public relations campaign designed to deflect criticism of the fur industries treatment of animals, it was declared that fur is an environmentally safe product.  When held up to review, this statement has not held true. In fact, advertising standards committees in England, Denmark, Holland, Italy, and Finland have ruled that any advertising declaring fur as environmentally safe is false and misleading. Fur farms, like all factory farm operations, produce massive amounts of animal waste that is all consolidated in one small area. In Finland, home of 65% of the worlds fox farms, fur animal wastes have come to equal the uncleaned sewage of a million people, according to environmentalist Mauro Leivi.

Water & Air Pollution

Animal wastes are high in phosphorous and nitrogen. When it rains this waste can wash downhill towards streams and other bodies of water. Other times it is left to soak into the soil, and sometimes contaminate the ground water.

The nutrients in the waste lead to excessive algae growth which in turn depletes the oxygen in the water. This can kill more sensitive species of fish and make the water unsuitable for humans. In the Finnish town of Kaustinen, taking of the groundwater had to be stopped, and the direction of the water current changed, because of pollution caused by fur farms.

In the US, fur farm associations have lobbied local governments in the Great Lakes region to keep water quality standards low. The WI DNR has even addressed fur farmers about ground water contamination.

Sweden’s largest fox farm was ordered to close in January 1998 because of the role they had played in contaminating local water supplies. At roughly the same time the magazine Scientifur reported on a Polish study which found that the soil around fur farms was contaminated with growing forms of nematodes. Another study in the same issue advised fur farmers to be careful when determining the location for water wells on their property.

In Finland, fur farms produce 1500 tons of ammonia a year. This is serious air pollution and is very unpleasant to live near. Unfortunately, agricultural zoning laws make it difficult for people near fur farms to do anything about it.

Invasive Species

Various animals have been shipped into foreign habitat for the purpose of fur farming. In the 1830’s the Russian-American Co. began dumping foxes onto various islands around Alaska. These islands had never had a predator like the fox, and the conditions were right for the proliferation of the this animal so as to make trapping easier. This was, in a sense, an early attempt at fur farming, by placing a large number of animals in one small place until the killing season.

This early attempt at fur farming had a devastating impact. The non-native foxes caused the extinction of various seabirds. The Aleutian Canada goose has had its range reduced to one island. A 1987 survey found that more than 100 fox filled, offshore islands were completely devoid of nocturnal shorebirds.

After this the fur trade moved towards keeping animals in cages. This still led to the establishment of mink in Europe, nutria in the US, raccoons in Germany, muskrats in Holland, raccoons and skunks in the Prince Edward Islands, opossums in New Zealand, and red fox in CA. Sometimes this has led to very real environmental problems, and sometimes it hasn’t.

This still hasn’t stopped the fur trade from raising animals in places that they are not native too, thus inviting another ecological disaster. An example would be the farming of red fox in Iceland. The red fox, and its color mutations such as the silver fox, are not native to Iceland. These types of fox are bigger and more aggressive than Iceland’s native arctic fox, and should red fox establish themselves in this Nordic country, they are likely to cause a great decline in the arctic fox population. This theory is based on what has happened in other areas where the two species have been forced to coexist.

Icelandic farmers often complain about the impacts the arctic fox has upon their stock. Let’s see what happens if the bigger red fox establishes itself in Iceland as a result of fur farming.

The damage American mink have caused in Europe has been exaggerated by mink hunting interests. Nonetheless, various European governments have carried out kill campaigns against the American mink. The European mink, a different species, is often confused with the American mink, and is nearly endangered as a result of these lethal control initiatives. The European mink wouldn’t be dying in large numbers if fur farmers hadn’t originally brought American mink over for fur farming.

Impact on Native Species

Trappers are lobbying to maintain a trapping season for lynx in MT, despite the fact that as few as 150 may still exist in that state. On top of that, the National Trappers Association has even suggested having the lynx, otter, and bobcat downlisted from their current status with the Convention In Trade for Endangered Species. The stated reason for this was that tagging the pelts, so as to keep up with the body count, involved too much effort.

Trapping causes the immediate destruction of large numbers of predators.  This can lead to an over abundance of various prey species. This helped the deer mice population in NM boom several years ago. As a result of this the deer mice transmitted the Hanta virus to over 50 people who later died as a result of this.

Come spring though, the predator populations will usually rebound. When an animal’s numbers are reduced, there is less stress as food and habitat become more readily available. Less stress on the surviving animals means that there will be increase in breeding success. This refutes the fur trades claim that trapping curbs alleged instances animal overpopulation.

Traps are non-selective and often catch endangered species. In 1973 a trapper with the federal govt. reported that 2,500 bald and golden eagles had been caught in traps in Nevada. 630 died in the traps, and undoubtedly others died later as a result of trap induced injuries.

In the late 70’s it was discovered that otter populations in PA were at a dangerously low level. There were between 285 and 465 surviving individuals. Yet PA had not allowed otter trapping since the 50’s. Then, 70,000 acre Delaware Water Gap Recreational Area was closed to trapping, while at the same time beaver prices fell. This saved the otter, as beaver trapping was reduced substantially. Apparently otters had been getting caught in beaver traps on a regular basis.

The University of Minnesota Raptor Research and Rehabilitation Program conducted a survey that found 21% of all admissions of bald eagles involved individuals caught in leghold traps. 64% of these eagles died as a result of their injuries.

Trapping has been blamed for hindering the recovery of the marten, the fisher, and the wolverine in the Rocky Mountain states. These predators are very susceptible to baited traps set for other species. An accurate count of how many of these animals have been trapped incidentally is impossible to measure as many trappers follow the “shoot, shovel, and shut up” philosophy.
Basically, this means that if you catch an endangered species you should bury it and never say anything about it again.

Caustic chemicals are used in the processing of fur coats. The fur trade has always claimed fur is biodegradable. This is true for raw pelts, but only dressed pelts are put on the market as no one wants a coat that will rot in their closet. In 1991 the Environmental Protection Agency fined two fur processing companies a combined total of $1.6 million for noncompliance with hazardous waste regulations. In 1993 a NY fur processor was found guilty of the same thing.  Yet the fur industry still claims they are selling a “natural” product!

A study by Ford Motor Co. researcher Gregory Smith found that production of a wild caught fur required 3 times more energy than the production of a synthetic coat. A ranch raised coat required nearly 20 times more energy than the production of a synthetic coat.

The production of fur hurts marine mammals as well. Seal and whale meat is increasingly being used as feed on fur farms in Canada and Russia.

The fur industry is an environmental rapist. The evidence presented here is just a thumbnail sketch of the immense environmental problem created by fur production. This industry is now exposed as being not only abusive in their treatment of animals, but deadly to the planet that we all live on.

Source: http://www.banfur.com Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT)

Email: [email protected]

Top

 In the Industry’s Own Words

Decades-old fur industry directories reveal that in 1972, there were 797 established fur garment makers in the United States, most located in New York. Twenty years later, in 1992, the number of fur makers dwindled to only 211. Today, numbers of garment makers are rapidly decreasing as this older generation of skilled craftsmen retire. Few young people are interested in devoting the years of apprenticeship necessary to master a craft with an obviously diminishing consumer base.

The Trapper & Predator Caller, September 2001

Unfortunately, many of the old-line independent retail furriers have been operating for several years with dramatically reduced inventories. After a decade of lackluster sales, it is certainly understandable why these furriers would continue to reduce inventories and pare back selections.

The Trapper and Predator Caller, March 2001

The Netherlands Council of Ministers has accepted a proposal by Agriculture Minister L.J. Brinkhorst that would phase out fur farming within 10 years without financial compensation to the fur factory-farmers.

Sandy Parker Reports, Weekly Intern’l Fur News, Feb 5 2001

The prices for fur do fluctuate somewhat, but in the last 15 years they haven’t climbed high enough to start up a serious trap line again.

Hunting Net Message Board at www.huntingbbs.com, November 14, 2000

The Agriculture Department’s statistics service says mink production in the U.S. fell 4%, to 2.81 million pelts. ‘The number of farms is going down quite rapidly,’ says Tom Kruchten, an Agriculture statistician. There are about 400 mink farms in the U.S., less than half as many as a decade ago.

Wall Street Journal, August 3, 2000

The slowdown in store traffic has again demonstrated just how weather-sensitive the fur business has become in comparison to earlier years when it was more fashion-driven.

Sandy Parker Reports, Weekly Intern’l Fur News, Jan 17 2000

Top

NIKE TELLS INDIAN GOVERNMENT: “JUST DO IT!”
Big companies join international Indian leather boycott, demand enforcement of animal laws
Submitted by: PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals)

Nike and Reebok, the world’s top two shoe companies have joined the growing list. So have Peru-based Foresta International and top fashion designer Kenneth Cole. Add, too, the famous US Spiegel catalogue and Cole Haan, a company known for its upmarket shoes and accessories all over the US. Every one of these companies has pledged to PETA that it will no longer purchase leather from India. The companies reviewed documentation provided by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals revealing widespread abuse in the handling and slaughter of buffalo, cattle, sheep, goats and other animals whose skin is exported from India or learned from a PETA representative of the cruelty at the Shoe Market of the Americas fair recently held in Miami. These boycotts come at a time when the Indian leather industry is trying to open new markets in Peru and other Latin American countries.

These companies join retail giants The Gap, Eddie Bauer, Timberland, Casual Corner, Florsheim, J. Crew, Liz Claiborne, Nordstrom, Wolverine Worldwide, Clarks, Fiorucci, Travel 2000, Marks and Spencer and others in asking the Indian government to enforce basic animal protection laws.

“It is against the policies of these companies to support unlawful practices,” says PETA president Ingrid Newkirk. “If the Indian leather industry wants to play in the world market, the least it must do is ensure India’s own basic standards are followed in leather production.”

Investigations by PETA have exposed the Rs. 12,000 crore leather industry’s unlawful slaughter and transport of animals. In slaughterhouses across India, workers saw at animals’ throats with dull blades and frequently begin dismembering and skinning animals even while they are still conscious. Animals transported to slaughter are crammed so tightly into lorries that some suffocate or are crushed beneath others. When animals collapse from exhaustion or dehydration, handlers smear hot chili peppers or tobacco into their eyes and break their tails to force them to keep moving.

To date, Indian Prime Minister Atal Vajpayee and Minister of Commerce and Industry Murasoli Muran have neither required the leather industry to comply with animal protection laws nor compelled officials to enforce the laws. Prime Minister Vajpayee’s only action has been to send a letter requesting state officials fine violators of the law, but his lack of follow up has meant that police, some of whom are known to accept bribes, continue to look the other way. The leather industry, through the Council on Leather Exports (CLE) continues to subsidize the illegal transport and slaughter through its skin purchases.

In an effort to educate slaughterhouse and transport workers, PETA has funded trips of international experts in these fields to speak to government officials, presented training seminars to transporters and slaughterhouse managers and distributed educational materials on humane handling to state authorities. So far, officials have failed to act on our suggestions.

PETA is demanding that the Prime Minister and the Minister of Commerce and Industry issue a follow up directive to state governments demanding that animal protection laws be enforced; that state governments submit concrete action plans and progress reports to PETA, as they had promised-and failed-to deliver to the Minister of Commerce and Industry; and that penalties for animal abuse, which are now minuscule, be strengthened so that enforcement will be effective.

Top

VEGAN PREGNANCY
My Own True Story
Hita Bambhania-Modha — San Jose, CA ([email protected])

In the summer of 1996, after six months of meditating over John Robbin’s book `Diet for the New America’, my husband and I became vegan. The true tales of loving and intelligent animals, shocking details of cruel, wasteful, and unhealthy factory farming, and the heart-piercing argument–“we become what we eat” all touched us deeply and influenced our decision. Already vegetarians since birth, we decided to exclude dairy products as well from our diet. A vegan diet essentially consists of plant-based foods and excludes all animal products such as chicken, fish, beef, pork, eggs, honey, and dairy products.

Upon hearing of our seemingly abrupt decision to become vegan, concerned friends and family asked, “What will you do when you become pregnant?” “Wouldn’t you need extra supplements from animal products?” Honestly, I didn’t have any answers–either for them or for myself. Fortunately, I stumbled upon Dr. Michael Klaper’s book `Pregnancy, Children, and a Vegan Diet’ which gives a thorough analysis of nutrition in a vegan diet. After reading this book from cover to cover, I was convinced that I would not give up vegan diet even in pregnancy.

Well, in 1998, I did become pregnant. Although I had great moral support from my husband, parents, and midwife, I felt quite alone in my quest of going through a vegan pregnancy. I felt that I needed to talk to someone who had done this before successfully. All the mainstream books that I read on pregnancy stressed that vegetarians have to be extra cautious. The message I derived was “Vegans Beware”. Everybody that I met was concerned that somehow my vegan diet will not be sufficient for the nutritional needs of my growing baby. Their argument was seemingly sound “lack of good nutrition can cause birth defects in a child”. Furthermore, if something goes wrong in formative days, it will be impossible to correct later on. I felt encircled in fears and apprehensions of people around me, and, perhaps, sadly, adopted their fears as well. My most haunting nightmare became “What if I had an abnormal baby, say, with a missing ear or a missing finger or weak bones?”

However, instead of sinking in the whirlpool of fears, I decided to take charge. Re-reading the `Pregnancy, Children, and a Vegan Diet’ assured me that if I ate a wide variety of foods from the vegetable kingdom, plus some vegan supplements I will have a perfectly healthy and normal pregnancy. While mistakenly a vegan diet is thought of as a diet that lacks nutrients in fact exactly the opposite is true. A good vegan diet has an abundance of all nutrients that our body needs. I ate a variety of colorful, seasonal fruits and vegetables that gave me plenty of vitamins and minerals. I ate different legumes and beans with grains and rice, which fulfilled my needs for protein, carbohydrates, and fibers. I snacked on nuts, seeds, sprouts, and dry fruits. I drank plenty of water, fruit juices, and soymilk (fortified with B12). I also took vegan multivitamins with folic acid. Toward the end of my pregnancy, I took vegan iron–Floradix.

To be more precise, my usual diet included foods from India. My typical meal was dal (split toor soup), rice, vegetable curry, chapatis (a flat tortilla-like wheat bread), and salad. In place of dal, I sometimes ate other variety of legumes and beans. Often, I made khichadi with split mung/toor and rice/cracked wheat. I ate vegetable sandwiches with whole wheat or sprouted grain bread, taco/burrito, falafel, pita bread with hummus and taboli–to name just a few. I made vegan deserts using egg-replacement powder, soymilk, and vegan margarine. My list here could go on and on. Driven first by fear, and then by determination, I left no vegan shore untouched. I truly discovered that delicious and yet nourishing vegan dishes are only limited by one’s imagination.

Two things I had to be careful about were: (a) to avoid foods with empty calories such as fried foods and certain desserts and (b) to plan a good protein dish in every meal–especially toward the latter part of my pregnancy. This is probably true for a non-vegan diet as well.

In addition to a healthful diet, I nourished the baby and myself by reading good books, by listening to good music, by walking, and by doing yoga.

After a healthy full term pregnancy and a normal labor at our home in San Jose, CA, on May 25^th, 1999, I gave birth to a perfectly normal baby girl, Paramita Peace Modha. At birth, Paramita weighed 6 lb. 6 oz. Paramita is now 2 and a half. Paramita began teething at 8 months, and reached a full set of teeth well before she was 2. Skeptics chanting “vegans suffer from Calcium deficiency” were — once and for all — silenced. Paramita is truly a vegan child. Perhaps surprisingly and quite reassuringly, in her entire time on planet Earth, we have never had to visit a doctor even once!

I went through a very similar second pregnancy, only this time I took no additional supplements. My second child, a boy, Sohum Bodhi Modha, was born on May 15^th, 2001. Sohum was also born at our family home. At birth, he weighed 7 lb. 5 oz., and was very healthy as well. Sohum is now 6 months old and is exclusively on my breast milk, which I have an abundant supply of. As of today, even Sohum has not visited a doctor even once…

Top

The fate of animals is in our hands;
God grant we are equal to the task.
The Case for Animal Rights
by Tom Regan

I regard myself as an advocate of animal rights — as part of the animal rights movement. That movement, as I conceive it, is committed to a number of goals, including the total abolition of the use of animals in science; the total dissolution of commercial animal agriculture; and the total elimination of commercial and sport hunting and trapping.

There are, I know, those who profess to believe in animal rights but do not avow these goals. Factory farming, they say, is wrong — it violates animals’ rights — but traditional animal agriculture is all right. Toxicity tests of cosmetics on animals violates their rights, but important medical research — cancer research, for example — does not. The clubbing of seals is abhorrent, but not the harvesting of adult seals. I used to think I understood this reasoning. Not anymore. You don’t change unjust institutions by tidying them up.

What’s wrong — fundamentally wrong — with the way animals are treated isn’t the details that vary from case to case. It’s the whole system. The forlornness of the veal calf is pathetic, heart-wrenching; the pulsing pain of the chimp with electrodes planted deep in her brain is repulsive; the slow, torturous death of the raccoon caught in the leghold trap is agonizing. But what is wrong isn’t the pain, isn’t the suffering, isn’t the deprivation. These compound what’s wrong. Sometimes — often — they make it much, much worse. But they are not the fundamental wrong.

The fundamental wrong is the system that allows us to view animals as our resources, here for us — to be eaten, or surgically manipulated, or exploited for sport or money. Once we accept this view of animals — as our resources — the rest is as predictable as it is regrettable. Why worry about their loneliness, their pain, their death? Since animals exist for us, to benefit us in one way or another, what harms them really doesn’t matter — or matters only if it starts to bother us, makes us feel a trifle uneasy when we eat our veal escallop, for example. So, yes, let us get veal calves out of solitary confinement, give them more space, a little straw, a few companions. But let us keep our veal escallop.

But a little straw, more space and a few companions won’t eliminate — won’t even touch — the basic wrong that attaches to our viewing and treating animals as our resources. A veal calf killed to be eaten after living in close confinement is viewed and treated in this way: but so, too, is another who is raised (as they say) “more humanely.” To right the wrong of our treatment of farm animals requires more than making rearing methods “more humane”; it requires the total dissolution of commercial animal agriculture.

How we do this, whether we do it or, as in the case of animals in science, whether and how we abolish their use — these are to a large extent political questions. People must change their beliefs before they change their habits. Enough people, especially those elected to public office, must believe in change — must want it — before we will have laws that protect the rights of animals. This process of change is very complicated, very demanding, very exhausting, calling for the efforts of many hands in education, publicity, political organization and activity, down to the licking of envelopes and stamps. As a trained and practicing philosopher, the sort of contribution I can make is limited but, I like to think, important. The currency of philosophy is ideas — their meaning and rational foundation — not the nuts and bolts of the legislative process, say, or the mechanics of community organization. That’s what I have been exploring over the past ten years or so in my essays and talks and, most recently, in my books, The Case for Animal Rights and The Struggle for Animal Rights. I believe the major conclusions I reach in the books are true because they are supported by the weight of the best arguments. I believe the idea of animal rights has reason, not just emotion, on its side.

In the space I have at my disposal here I can only sketch, in the barest outline, some of the main features of my books. Their main themes — and we should not be surprised by this — involve asking and answering deep, fundamental moral questions about what morality is, how it should be understood and what is the best moral theory, all considered.

I hope we can convey something of the shape I think this theory takes. The attempt to do this will be (to use a word a friendly critic once used to describe my work) cerebral, perhaps too cerebral. But this is misleading. My feelings about how animals are sometimes treated run just as deep and just as strong as those of my more volatile compatriots. Philosophers do — to use current jargon — have a right side to their brains. If it’s the left side we contribute (or mainly should), that’s because what talents we have reside there.

How to proceed? We begin by asking how the moral status of animals has been understood by thinkers who deny that animals have rights. Then we test the mettle of their ideas by seeing how well they stand up under the heat of fair criticism. If we start our thinking in this way, we soon find that some people believe we have no duties directly to animals, that we owe nothing to them, that we can do nothing that wrongs them. Rather, we can do wrong acts that involve animals, and so we have duties regarding them, though none to them. Such views may be called indirect duty views. By way of illustration: suppose your neighbor kicks your dog. Then your neighbor has done something wrong. But not to your dog. The wrong that has been done is a wrong to you. After all, it is wrong to upset people, and your neighbor’s kicking your dog upsets you. So you are the one who is wronged, not your dog. Or again: by kicking your dog, your neighbor damages your property. And since it is wrong to damage another person’s property, your neighbor has done something wrong — to you, of course, not to your dog. Your neighbor no more wrongs your dog than your car would be wronged if the windshield were smashed. More generally, all of our duties regarding animals are indirect duties to one another — to humanity.

How could someone try to justify such a view? Someone might say that your dog doesn’t feel anything and so isn’t hurt by your neighbor’s kick, doesn’t care about the pain since none is felt, is as unaware of anything as is your car’s windshield. Someone might say this, but no rational person will, since, among other considerations, such a view will commit anyone who holds it to the position that no human being feels pain either — that human beings also don’t care about what happens to them. A second possibility is that though both humans and your dog are hurt when kicked, it is only human pain that matters. But, again, no rational person can believe this. Pain is pain wherever it occurs. If your neighbor’s causing you pain is wrong because of the pain that is caused, we cannot rationally ignore or dismiss the moral relevance of the pain that your dog feels.

Philosophers who hold indirect duty views — and some still do — have come to understand that they must avoid the two defects just noted: that is, both the view that animals don’t feel anything as well as the idea that only human pain can be morally relevant. Among such thinkers the sort of view now favored is one or other form of what is called contractarianism.

Here, very crudely, is the root idea: morality consists of a set of rules that individuals voluntarily agree to abide by, as we do when we sign a contract (hence the name contractarianism). Those who understand and accept the terms of the contract are covered directly; they have rights created and recognized by, and protected in, the contract. And these contractors can also have protection spelled out for others who, though they lack the ability to understand morality and so cannot sign the contract themselves, are loved or cherished by those who can. Thus young children, for example, are unable to sign contracts and lack rights. But they are protected by the contract nonetheless because of the sentimental interests of others, most notably their parents. So we have, then, duties involving these children, duties regarding them, but no duties to them. Our duties in their case are indirect duties to other human beings, usually their parents.

As for animals, since they cannot understand contracts, they obviously cannot sign; and since they cannot sign, they have no rights. Like children, however, some animals are the objects of the sentimental interest of others. You, for example, love your dog or cat. So those animals enough people care about (companion animals, whales, baby seals, the American bald eagle), though they lack rights themselves, will be protected because of the sentimental interests of people. I have, then, according to contractarianism, no duty directly to your dog or any other animal, not even the duty not to cause them pain or suffering; my duty not to hurt them is a duty I have to those people who care about what happens to them. As for other animals, where no or little sentimental interest is present — in the case of farm animals, for example, or laboratory rats — what duties we have grow weaker and weaker, perhaps to the vanishing point. The pain and death they endure, though real, are not wrong if no one cares about them.

When it comes to the moral status of animals’ contractarianism could be a hard view to refute if it were an adequate theoretical approach to the moral status of human beings. It is not adequate in this latter respect, however, which makes the question of its adequacy in the former case, regarding animals, utterly moot. For consider: morality, according to the (crude) contractarian position before us, consists of rules that people agree to abide by. What people? Well, enough to make a difference — enough, that is, collectively to have the power to enforce the rules that are drawn up in the contract. That is very well and good for the signatories but not so good for anyone who is not asked to sign. And there is nothing in contractarianism of the sort we are discussing that guarantees or requires that everyone will have a chance to participate equally in framing the rules of morality. The result is that this approach to ethics could sanction the most blatant forms of social, economic, moral and political injustice, ranging from a repressive caste system to systemic racial or sexual discrimination. Might, according to this theory, does make right. Let those who are the victims of injustice suffer as they will. It matters not so long as no one else — no contractor, or too few of them — cares about it. Such a theory takes one’s moral breath away … as if, for example, there would be nothing wrong with apartheid in South Africa if few white South Africans were upset by it. A theory with so little to recommend it at the level of the ethics of our treatment of humans cannot have anything more to recommend it when it comes to the ethics of how we treat our fellow animals.

The version of contractarianism just examined is, as I have noted, a crude variety, and in fairness to those of a contractarian persuasion it must be noted that much more refined, subtle and ingenious varieties are possible. For example, John Rawls, in his A Theory of Justice, sets forth a version of contractarianism that forces contractors to ignore the accidental features of being a human being — for example, whether one is white or black, male or female, a genius or modest intellect. Only by ignoring such features, Rawls believes, can we ensure that the principles of justice that contracts would agree upon are not based on bias or prejudice. Despite the improvement a view such as Rawls’ represents over the cruder forms of contractarianism, it remains deficient: it systematically denies that we have direct duties to those human beings who do not have a sense of justice — young children, for instance, and many mentally retarded humans.

And yet it seems reasonably certain that, were we to torture a young child or a retarded elder, we would be doing something that wronged him or her, not something that would be wrong if (and only if) other humans with a sense of justice were upset. And since this is true in the case of these humans we cannot rationally deny the same in the case of animals.

Indirect duty views, then, including the best among them, fail to command our rational assent. Whatever ethical theory we should accept rationally, therefore, it must at least recognize that we have duties directly to animals, just as we have some duties directly to each other. The next two theories I’ll sketch attempt to meet this requirement.

The first I call the cruelty-kindness view. Simply stated, this says that we have a direct duty to be kind to animals and a direct duty not to be cruel to them. Despite the familiar, reassuring ring of these ideas, I do not believe that this view offers an adequate theory. To make this clearer, consider kindness. A kind person acts from a certain kind of motive — compassion or concern, for example. And that is a virtue. But there is no guarantee that a kind act is a right act. If I am a generous racist, for example, I will be inclined to act kindly toward members of my own race, favoring their interests above those of others. My kindness would be real and, so far as it goes, good. But I trust it is too obvious to require argument that my kind acts may not be above moral reproach — may, in fact, be positively wrong because they’re rooted in injustice. So kindness, notwithstanding its status as a virtue to be encouraged, simply will not carry the weight of a theory of right action.

Cruelty fares no better. People or their acts are cruel if they display either a lack of sympathy for — or, worse the presence of enjoyment in another’s suffering. Cruelty in all its guises is a bad thing, a tragic human failing. But just as a person’s being motivated by kindness does not guarantee that he or she does what is right, so the absence of cruelty does not ensure that he or she avoids doing what is wrong. Many people who perform abortions, for example, are not cruel, sadistic people. But that fact alone does not settle the terribly difficult question of the morality of abortion. The case is no different when we examine the ethics of our treatment of animals. So, yes, let us be for kindness and against cruelty. But let us not suppose that being for the one and against the other answers questions about moral right and wrong.

Some people think that the theory we are looking for is utilitarianism. A utilitarian accepts two moral principles. The first is that of equality: everyone’s interests count, and similar interests must be counted as having similar weight or importance. White or black, American or Iranian, human or animal — everyone’s pain or frustration matter, and matter just as much as the equivalent pain or frustration of anyone else. The second principle a utilitarian accepts is that of utility: do the act that will bring about the best balance between satisfaction and frustration for all affected by the outcome.

As a utilitarian, then, here is how I am to approach the task of deciding what I morally ought to do: I must ask who will be affected if I choose to do one thing rather than another, how much each individual will be affected, and where the best results are most likely to lie — which option is most likely to bring about the best results, the best balance between satisfaction and frustration. That option, whatever it may be, is the one I ought to choose. That is where my moral duty lies.

The great appeal of utilitarianism rests with its uncompromising egalitarianism: everyone’s interests count as much as the like interests of everyone else. The kind of odious discrimination that some forms of contractarianism can justify seems disallowed in principle by utilitarianism, as is speciesism, systematic discrimination based on species membership.

The equality we find in utilitarianism, however, is not the sort an advocate of animal or human rights should have in mind. Utilitarianism has no room for the equal moral rights of different individuals because it has no room for their equal inherent value or worth. What has value for the utilitarian is the satisfaction of an individual’s interests, not the individual whose interests they are. A universe in which you satisfy your desire for water, food and warmth is, other things being equal, better than a universe in which these desires are frustrated. But neither your nor the animal have any value in your own right. Only your feelings do.

Here is an analogy to help make the philosophical point clearer: a cup contains different liquids, sometimes sweet, sometimes bitter, sometimes a mix of the two. What has value are the liquids: the sweeter the better, the bitterer the worse. The cup, the container, has no value. It is what goes into it, not what they go into, that has value. For the utilitarian, you and I are like the cup: we have no value as individuals and thus no equal value. What has value is what goes into us, what we serve as receptacles for: our feelings of satisfaction have positive value, our feelings of frustration negative value.

Serious problems arise for utilitarianism when we remind ourselves that it enjoins us to bring about the best consequences. What does this mean? It doesn’t mean the best consequences for me alone, or for my family or friends, or any other person taken individually. No, what we must do is, roughly, as follows: we must add up (somehow!) the separate satisfactions and frustrations of everyone likely to be affected by our choice, the satisfactions in one column, the frustrations in the other. We must total each column for each of the options before us. That is what it means to say the theory is aggregative. And then we must choose that option which is most likely to bring about the best balance of totaled satisfactions over totaled frustrations. Whatever act would lead to this outcome is the one we ought morally to perform — it is where our moral duty lies. And that act clearly might not be the same one that would bring about the best for each individual.

That utilitarianism is an aggregative theory is the key objection to this theory. My Aunt Bea is old, inactive, a cranky, sour person, though not physically ill. She prefers to go on living. She is also rather rich. I could make a fortune if I could get my hands on her money, money she intends to give me in any event, after she dies, but which she refuses to give me now. In order to avoid a huge tax bite, I plan to donate a handsome sum of my profits to a local children’s hospital. Many, many children will benefit from my generosity, and much joy will be brought to their parents, relatives and friends. If I don’t get the money rather soon, all these ambitions will come to naught. The once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to make a real killing will be gone. Why, then, not kill my Aunt Bea?

Oh, of course I might get caught. But I’m no fool and, besides, her doctor can be counted on to cooperate (he has an eye for the same investment and I happen to know a good deal about his shady past). The deed can be done … professionally, shall we say. There is very little chance of getting caught. And as for my conscience being guilt-ridden, I am a resourceful sort of fellow and will take more than sufficient comfort in contemplating the joys and health I have brought to so many others.

Suppose Aunt Bea is killed and the rest of the story comes out as told? Would I have done anything wrong? Anything immoral? One would have thought that I had. Not according to utilitarianism. Since what I have done has brought about the best balance between totaled satisfaction and frustration for all those affected by the outcome, my action is not wrong. Indeed, in killing Aunt Bea, the physician and I did what duty required.

This same kind of argument can be repeated in all sorts of cases, illustrating, time after time, how the utilitarian’s position leads to results that impartial people find morally callous. It is wrong to kill my Aunt Bea in the name of bringing about the best results for others. A good end does not justify an evil means. Any adequate moral theory will have to explain why this is so. Utilitarianism fails in this respect and so cannot be the theory we seek.

What to do? Where to begin anew? The place to begin, I think, is with the utilitarian’s view of the value of the individual — or, rather, lack of value. In its place, suppose we consider that you and I, for example, do have value as individuals — what we’ll call inherent value. To say we have such value is to say that we are something more than, something different from, mere receptacles. Moreover, to ensure that we do not pave the way for such injustices as slavery or sexual discrimination, we must believe that all who have inherent value have it equally, regardless of their gender, race, religion, birthplace and so on. Similarly to be discarded as irrelevant are one’s talents or skills, intelligence and wealth, personality or pathology, whether one is loved and admired or despised and loathed. The genius and the retarded child, the prince and the pauper, the brain surgeon and the fruit vendor, Mother Teresa and the most unscrupulous used-car salesman — all have inherent value, all possess it equally, and all have an equal right to be treated with respect, to be treated in ways that do not reduce them to the status of things, as if they existed as resources for others. My value as an individual is independent of my usefulness to you. Yours is not dependent on your usefulness to me. For either of us to treat the other in ways that fail to show respect for the other’s independent value is to act immorally, to violate the individual’s rights.

Some of the rational virtues of this view — what I call the rights view — should be evident. Unlike (crude) contractarianism, for example, the rights view in principle denies the moral tolerance of any and all forms of racial, sexual or social discrimination; and unlike utilitarianism, this view in principle denies that we can justify good results by using evil means that violate an individual’s rights — denies, for example, that it could be moral to kill my Aunt Bea to harvest beneficial consequences for others. That would be to sanction the disrespectful treatment of the individual in the name of the social good, something the rights view will not — categorically will not — ever allow.

The rights view, I believe, is rationally the most satisfactory moral theory. It surpasses all other theories in the degree to which it illuminates and explains the foundations of our duties to one another — the domain of human morality. On this score it has the best reasons, the best arguments, on its side. Of course, if it were possible to show that only human beings are included within its scope, then a person like myself, who believes in animal rights, would be obliged to look elsewhere.

But attempts to limit its scope to humans only can be shown to be rationally defective. Animals, it is true, lack many of the abilities humans possess. They can’t read, do higher mathematics, build a bookcase or make baba ghanoush. Neither can many human beings, however, and yet we don’t (and shouldn’t) say that they (these humans) therefore have less inherent value, less of a right to be treated with respect, than do others. It is the similarities between those human beings who most clearly, most non-controversially have such value (the people reading this, for example), not our differences, that matter most. And the really crucial, the basic similarity is simply this: we are each of us the experiencing subject of a life, a conscious creature having an individual welfare that has importance to us whatever our usefulness to others.

We want and prefer things, believe and feel things, recall and expect things. And all these dimensions of our life, including our pleasure and pain, our enjoyment and suffering, our satisfaction and frustration, our continued existence or our untimely death — all make a difference to the quality of our life as lived, as experienced, by us as individuals. As the same is true of those animals that concern us (the ones who are eaten and trapped, for example), they too must be viewed as the experiencing subjects of a life, with inherent value of their own.

Some there are who resist the idea that animals have inherent value. “Only humans have such value,” they profess. How might this narrow view be defended? Shall we say that only humans have the requisite intelligence, or autonomy, or reason? But there are many, many humans who fail to meet these standards and yet are reasonably viewed as having value above and beyond their usefulness to others. Shall we claim that only humans belong to the right species, the species Homo sapiens? But this is blatant speciesism. Will it be said, then, that all — and only — humans have immortal souls? Then our opponents have their work cut out for them. I am myself not ill-disposed to the proposition that there are immortal souls. Personally, I profoundly hope I have one. But I would not want to rest my position on a controversial ethical issue on the even more controversial question about who or what has an immortal soul. That is to dig one’s hole deeper, not to climb out. Rationally, it is better to resolve moral issues without making more controversial assumptions than are needed. The question of who has inherent value is such a question, one that is resolved more rationally without the introduction of the idea of immortal souls than by its use.

Well, perhaps some will say that animals have some inherent value, only less than we have. Once again, however, attempts to defend this view can be shown to lack rational justification. What could be the basis of our having more inherent value than animals? Their lack of reason, or autonomy, or intellect? Only if we are willing to make the same judgement in the case of humans who are similarly deficient. But it is not true that such humans — the retarded child, for example, or the mentally deranged — have less inherent value than you or I. Neither, then, can we rationally sustain the view that animals like them in being the experiencing subjects of a life have less inherent value. All who have inherent value have it equally, whether they be human animals or not.

Inherent value, then, belongs equally to those who are the experiencing subjects of a life. Whether it belongs to others — to rocks and rivers, trees and glaciers, for example — we do not know. But we do not need to know, for example, how many people are eligible to vote in the next presidential election before we can know whether I am. Similarly, we do not need to know how many individuals have inherent value before we can know that some do. When it comes to the case for animal rights, then, what we need to know is whether the animals that, in our culture, are routinely eaten, hunted and used in our laboratories, for example, are like us in being subjects of a life. And we do know this. We do know that many — literally, billions — of these animals are the subjects of a life in the sense explained and so have inherent value if we do. And since, in order to arrive at the best theory of our duties to one another, we must recognize our equal inherent value as individuals, reason — not sentiment, not emotion — reason compels us to recognize the equal inherent value of these animals and, with this, their equal right to be treated with respect.

That, very roughly, is the shape and feel of the case for animal rights. Most of the details of the supporting argument are missing. They are to be found in the book to which I alluded earlier. I must, in closing, limit myself to four final points.

The first is how the theory that underlies the case for animal rights shows that the animal rights movement is a part of, not antagonistic to, the human rights movement. The theory that rationally grounds the rights of animals also grounds the rights of humans.

Secondly, having set out the broad outlines of the rights view, I can now say why its implications for farming and science, among other fields, are both clear and uncompromising. In the case of the use of animals in science, the rights view is categorically abolitionist. Lab animals are not our tasters; we are not their kings. Because these animals are treated routinely, systematically as if their value were reducible to their usefulness to others, they are routinely, systematically treated with a lack of respect, and thus are their rights routinely, systematically violated. This is just as true when they are used in trivial, duplicative, unnecessary or unwise research as it is when they are used in studies that hold out real promise for human beings.

We can’t justify harming or killing a human being (my Aunt Bea, for example) just for these sorts of reasons. Neither can we do so even in the case of so “lowly” a creature as a laboratory rat. It is not just refinement or reduction that is called for, not just larger, cleaner cages, not just more generous use of anesthetic or the elimination of multiple surgery, not just tidying up the system. It is complete replacement. The best we can do when it comes to using animals in science is — not to use them. That is where our duty lies, according to the rights view.

As for commercial animal agriculture, the rights view takes a similar abolitionist position. The fundamental moral wrong here is not that animals are kept in stressful close confinement or in isolation, or that their pain and suffering, their needs and preferences are ignored or discounted. All these are wrong, of course, but they are not the fundamental wrong. They are symptoms and effects of the deeper, systematic wrong that allows these animals to be viewed and treated as lacking independent value, as resources for us — as, indeed, a renewable resource. Giving farm animals more space, more natural environments, more companions does not right the fundamental wrong in their case. Nothing less than the total dissolution of commercial animal agriculture will do this, just as, for similar reasons I won’t develop at length here, morality requires nothing less than the total elimination of hunting and trapping for commercial and sporting ends. The rights view’s implications, then, as I have said, are clear and uncompromising.

My last two points are about philosophy, my profession. It is, most obviously, no substitute for political action. The words I have written here and in other places by themselves don’t change a thing. It is what we do with the thoughts that the words express — our acts, our deeds — that changes things. All that philosophy can do, and all I have attempted, is to offer a vision of what our needs should aim at. And the why. But not the how.

Finally, I am reminded of my thoughtful critic, the one who chastised me for being too cerebral. I am also reminded, however, of the image another friend once set before me — the image of the ballerina as expressive of disciplined passion. Long hours of sweat and toil, of loneliness and practice, of doubt and fatigue: those are the disciplines of her craft. But the passion is there, too, the fierce drive to excel, to speak through her body, to do it right, to pierce our minds. That is the image of philosophy I would leave with you, not “too cerebral” but disciplined passion. Of the discipline enough has been seen. As for the passion: there are times, and these not infrequent, when tears come to my eyes when I see, or read, or hear of the wretched plight of animals in the hands of humans. Their pain, their suffering, their loneliness, their innocence, their death. Anger. Rage. Pity. Sorrow. Disgust. The whole creation groans under the weight of the evil we humans visit upon these mute, powerless creatures. It is our hearts, not just our heads, that call for an end to it all, that demand of us that we overcome, for them, the habits and forces behind their systematic oppression. All great movements, it is written, go through three stages: ridicule, discussion, adoption. It is the realization of this third stage, adoption, that requires both our passion and our discipline, our hearts and our heads. The fate of animals is in our hands. God grant we are equal to the task.

Tom Regan is professor of philosophy at North Carolina State University. Among his more than twenty books are The Case for Animal Rights, The Struggle for Animal Rights, In Defense of Animal Rights, and Defending Animal Rights. He is co-founder, with his wife, Nancy, of the

Top

Culture and Animals Foundation.

== 100% SILK SAREES ==

Banarasi Kanjivaram Dharmavaram Bangalore

Tanchhoi Paper Panetar Dhakai

Temple Endi Kosha Tussar

Jaipuri Mysore Vallkalam Jamevar

Matka Baluchari Kashmiri Paithani

Patola Bhagalpur Murshidabad Shagun

Where have all the silk moths gone?

Gone to steam-baths every one.

When will we ever learn?

Will we ever learn?

LETHER TURNS ANIMALS INSIDE OUT

What our stone-age ancestors wore:

ANIMAL HIDE!

What we wear:

GENIUNE LEATHER

Is there any difference?

Our stone-age ancestors had no other alternative

For them, wearing animal skins was a matter of survival.

What is our excuse?

Do have to kill to clothe ourselves today?

725 Reasons Why You Don’t Want To Be an Animal In a Military Lab Pentagon Experiments under InvestigationBy Steven Ragland — PCRM

The $435 hammers and $640 toilet seats bought by the U.S. military in the 1980s were nothing. The Department of Defense now spends $200 million a year on experiments using hundreds of thousands of animals, often with no more than the vaguest scientific rationale. By all appearances, some Department of Defense programs have become little more than checking accounts for ivory tower research.

In 1992 and again in 1994, PCRM doctors testified before Congress on military animal use and worked with the General Accounting Office (GAO) in its investigation of Michael Carey’s experiments at Louisiana State University. Carey had shot 700 restrained cats in the head to “model” human injuries. As a result of the investigation, Carey’s cat-shooting experiments were halted. Other labs in which animals were shot for training purposes discontinued these practices, two laboratories were forced to improve their animal care standards, and a computer tracking system was set up to monitor animal use.

The military’s new tracking system now lists 725 military experiments using animals, exposed to light for the first time. Some are patently unnecessary: military experimenters use pigs to experiment with laser tattoo removal and use rats, pigeons, and squirrel monkeys to study drug abuse. Other experiments, particularly biological and chemical weapons tests, are among the most gruesome experiments imaginable. The GAO is again investigating military animal use, and PCRM has prepared a series of reports on the experiments and rallied experts to critique them. We have found scores of military tests that kill animals and serve no realistic military purpose.

Biological and Chemical Weapons

The U.S. is a signatory to the international Biological Weapons Convention, which prohibits the use of any biological agent and requires that all stockpiles be destroyed or diverted to peaceful purposes. But biological weapons tests on animals continue. Military experimenters are infecting monkeys with the smallpox virus in order to work toward “a safer, more immunogenic cell culture-derived vaccine” despite the fact that such vaccines can be developed and tested without animals. Brucellosis, anthrax, dengue fever, Venezuelan equine encephalitis, equine infectious anemia, and the filoviruses ebola and marburg are being tested in other military experiments.

These experiments are not only controversial because of the animal abuse involved. While they may appear to serve a defensive purpose, vaccine research may be intended to find ways to allow the use of chemical agents in combat or to circumvent defenses, according to some critics.

Chemical weapons are widely tested on rats, primates, pigs, rabbits, and other animals. Poison gases can damage the lungs, nerves, skin, and eyes, and cause a slow and painful death.

Such tests are as misleading as they are cruel. Animals often respond to chemical agents and antidotes differently than humans. A rat’s respiratory system differs greatly from that of a human, and rats are more susceptible to toxins because they are unable to vomit. Mice have a genetic tendency to develop lung tumors, rendering much of the research on physiological effects of exposure invalid. Regarding skin tests, a U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report said, “Since laboratory animals have fur and do not have sweat glands on most of their body, they do not provide optimal models for dermal exposure.”

Mustard gas, first used in World War I, continues to be a favorite agent for Department of Defense animal experimenters. Yet good treatments are already available and are easy to use. Military personnel receive a “Mark I Kit” with two self-injectable antidotes to the gas: atropine, which counteracts the effects, and pralidoxime chloride, which binds the nerve agent so it can be cleared from the body. Preventive drugs, such as benactyzine, oximes, aprophen, and physostigmine, are also commonly used. Little about these treatments has changed in the last 35 years, yet military experimenters continue to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars for animal tests with the agent.

Training Programs Need Reform

Medical training is one of the largest areas of animal use in the military. Animals are used for practicing basic trauma skills and surgery, and even in basic medical school physiology and pharmacology demonstrations.

Replacing these labs is not difficult. For every animal use in training, an alternative is readily available that is both cheaper and more effective. High-quality training manikins and simulators, computer software, interactive videodiscs, and human cadavers are used throughout civilian training programs and offer significant educational advantages.

For example, to teach infant intubation — inserting a tube down the throat with the aid of a metal stylus — one military lab uses ferrets, another uses cats, and yet another uses sheep, none of whom is, in fact, a close model for humans. In adult intubation training, instructors have used primates, ferrets, and pigs. This basic trauma care procedure is performed daily in emergency rooms. It is learned using simulator manikins and cadavers. Animals are not typically used in civilian intubation training, yet military programs continue to use animals despite obvious anatomical differences. Manikins are anatomically exact, inexpensive, and can be used again and again to maintain skills over weeks and months.

The Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, the military medical school in Bethesda, Maryland, is the only U.S. medical school that still forces students to participate in live animal laboratories, despite complaints from the House Armed Services Committee and the American Medical Student Association.

PCRM is providing research, reports, and expert opinions to the General Accounting Office, and is pushing for alternatives as aggressively as possible.

Top

McDonald’s Tells Farmers To Treat Chickens Better
Marc Kaufman — Washington Post (submitted by [email protected])

The McDonald’s restaurant chain has launched a major effort to improve the way egg farmers care for their hens — a move that reflects rising scientific and public concern over how farm animals are treated.

McDonald’s Corp. sent letters to the farmers who supply the company with 1.5 billion eggs yearly outlining strict new regulations for raising hens.

The guidelines require 50 percent more space for each caged hen, ban the controversial practice of withholding food and water to increase egg production, and require a gradual phasing out of the “debeaking” that is common in the poultry industry.

The move — the first of its kind by any major U.S. food supplier — was prompted by a combination of factors, including pressure from animal rights activists and growing concern among government and academic scientists that current methods of caring for chickens may increase the risk for diseases that can be spread to humans. Analysts also called it a potentially profitable business move — to win credit for taking a step that might otherwise be required by the government.

The action is the most far-reaching step in a trend that began in Europe and has recently begun to spread to the United States toward improving living conditions for all farm animals, for both ethical and public health reasons.

While the European Union has already banned practices such as the “forced molting” of hens and has required a phasing out of all chicken caging by 2012, U.S. authorities have moved more slowly and have relied more on industry recommendations.

Recently, however, the United Egg Producers (UEP), which represents many of the nation’s suppliers, was handed recommendations on chicken living conditions by its scientific advisory committee very similar to those adopted by McDonald’s. In addition, the Department of Agriculture is evaluating the raising of chickens that supply eggs purchased for federal lunch and other food programs.

“There has been a definite spillover of concern about farm animals from Europe to here in recent years,” said Joy Mench, a professor at the University of California at Davis, who is an animal well-being specialist on both the UEP advisory group and the McDonald’s scientific committee that recommended the new guidelines.

“There is a concern about the crowding of animals and their inability to perform typical behaviors in their housing, and industry here is being forced to respond,” she said. “McDonald’s and the UEP are responding here, and I think others will be forced to address their animal welfare issues in the future.”

Many supermarket shoppers already have the option of buying organic and “free-range” eggs that are produced without cages, forced molting or debeaking. Those premium eggs make up a small portion of the egg market — industry sources estimate it at 2 percent to 3 percent of the 239 billion eggs produced yearly — but this segment is growing and commands considerably higher prices.

The new McDonald’s guidelines will not be as strict as those governing the premium eggs, advocates for farm animal protections say, but they will significantly expand the number of eggs produced with humane issues in mind. As a result, some of the company’s harshest critics in the past welcomed the new guidelines yesterday.

“We are very appreciative of what the company has done, and think they are doing the right thing,” said Steven Gross, who has served as a negotiator for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) in its two-year discussions with McDonald’s. “Other companies in this field have been dragging their feet and, frankly, we think this decision will have the salutary effect of waking them up.”

“These issues about how food animals are raised are here to stay,” said Gross, whose group is supporting legislation in Illinois to ban hen cages entirely.

While the new guidelines do call for a significant increase in the size of chicken cages, the cages will remain very tight for the birds — providing 72 square inches per bird. That will allow the birds to all lie down at the same time, said Robert Langert, McDonald’s community affairs director, and will give all of them access to food. But activists say they will still be unable to fully stretch their wings or perform many basic bird behaviors.

The practice of forced molting — which involves the withholding of food for five to 14 days — has been used by producers for decades to increase the egg-laying capacity of hens. But some scientists have concluded that the stress of forced molting can increase the levels of disease-causing salmonella, and animal rights activists have called it inhumane.

The beaks of many hens are removed because they will otherwise peck one another to death, industry officials say. The fact that they are packed so tightly into cages and that the hens have been bred to increase their aggressive qualities lead to the potentially lethal pecking. While the McDonald’s guidelines call for a phasing out of “debeaking,” they acknowledge that it may take some time.

All of the new guidelines will be enforced through an inspection process that the company also uses with its meat producers, according to Langert. McDonald’s does not own any of its suppliers, he said.

Producers have voiced concern that changes like those sought by McDonald’s will raise prices significantly. McDonald’s officials would not comment on the possible cost of the new guidelines, but one egg supplier said they will probably add about 2 cents per egg. According to Robert Krouse of Midwest Poultry Services, the decrease in the number of birds per cage will be the most costly change.

While both McDonald’s and animal rights advocates spoke yesterday of the health and ethical issues involved in the new guidelines, financial analyst Bruce J. Raabe, who covers McDonald’s for Collins & Co. in San Francisco, saw other motivations.

“Big companies are increasingly being held responsible for the practices of their subcontractors — like Nike and other sneaker makers with plants they don’t even run in Third World countries,” Raabe said. “This should be seen as part of the same phenomenon — of companies trying to get out ahead of a potential legal battle.”

Top

Osama bin Laden on Meat
from Editorial by Merritt Clifton, Animal People, October 2001

It was no radical animal rights activist or militant vegan whose recently disclosed words linked the events of September 11 to the phrase “Meat is Murder!”

Rather, the fate of the thousand of people who were murdered aboard four hijacked airliners, at the World Trade Center, and at the Pentagon appears to have been inseparably linked to meat by Osama vin Laden himself, the mastermind and financier of the attacks, in his handwritten final orders to the 19 hijackers.

Copies of the four-page letter were found in the misdirected luggage, the wreckage of United Airlines flight 93, and a car parked at Dulles International Airport in Washington D.C.

“You must make your knife sharp, and you must not discomfort your animal during the slaughter,” bin Laden commanded, depicting slashing the throats of flight attendants, passengers, and pilots like killing sheep and goats at Ramadan. “If you slaughter,” bin Laden emphasized later in the letter, reinforcing “do not cause discomfort of those you are killing.”

That terrorists might slash the throats of some jet riders to intimidate others, without causing them discomfort, en route to murder thousands, is self-evidently preposterous. Yet bin Laden obviously did manage to convince the hijackers that their deeds would have no more negative moral consequence than killing animals for meat.

Many and perhaps most of the nine billion animals sent to slaughter in the U.S. each year, as well as the billions killed abroad, have at least as long to sense doom as did the September 11 victims. Neither are the animals’ cries as unlike the cell phone calls made by some September 11 victims as the typical meat-eater would like to believe.

Equally disturbing to meat-eaters might be awareness that doomed animals, too, often put up frantic resistance, like the passengers who tried to retake United Airlines flight 93, saving countless lives by causing the hijackers to crash the plane far from any target.

It is much easier to see the link between violence against animals and the violence against people in the behavior of psychopaths than in the much denied and disguised behavior of ordinary people doing ordinary things in daily life.

The violence countenanced by normal people for normal reasons too often differs from the mayhem of psychopaths chiefly in the degrees of disassociation and denial that are involved.

Our deepest denial involves human consumption of animals. The horror of September 11 was a reflection of human attitudes toward meat.

You don’t have to take our word for it.

Take the words of Osama bin Laden.

January – December

Top

July-December, 2000 Vol. 4, No. 2

January – June

Inside This Issue

• Guide to Grains — Reed Mangles, Vegetarian Resource Group
• Oops! The Dairy Industry’s Done it Again — Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
• Losing Meat, But Keeping a Child’s Diet Balanced — Excerpts from New York Times on the Web
• Is It Thanksgiving or a Grand Finale of Carnage? — Uttam K. Jain — India Tribune
• Are Brown Sugar and Powdered Sugar Vegan? — Joanne Stepaniak
• Jane Black: Champion Weightlifter and Vegan Activist — Davida Gypsy Breier, VRG
• Getting Fired up About Unfired Fare — Dr. Klaper & Others, North American Vegetarian Society
• The Links Between the Science and Food Industries — Dr. Neal Barnard, PCRM
• A Wake-up Call to the World — Alliance for Bio-Integrity
• The WTO: Have We Traded Away Our Right to Protect Animals? — Humane Society of U.S.

• Consumer Fears Shape the Debate — MSNBC Report from London

• Alcohol is Good for You — That’s What You Think! — The Ministry of Social Welfare, India
• It Ain’t Just for Meat; It’s for Lotion: The Dairy Cows — Life, Usage & Sufferings — New York Times
• Fur-Free Friday — The Fur Facts: Trapping, Farming, and U.S. Trade Economy
• Times Magazine’s “Man of the Century” — Albert Einstein, A Vegetarian Advocate

Guide to Grains
by Reed Mangels, PhD, RD – Vegetarian Journal Sept/Oct 1999

Most of us know that we’re supposed to eat more grains. We’ve seen the Food Guide Pyramid with grains as the foundation; we’ve noted that products boast of their “whole grain goodness”.  Why this push? What’s so special about grains and about whole grains in particular?

Grain products, including breads, cereals, rice, and pasta, are at the base of the Food Guide Pyramid because we need more servings (6 to 11 or more) from this group of foods than from any other group. Grains provide complex carbohydrates, also called starches, which supply energy. These are low-fat, high-fiber foods which also provide a number of vitamins and minerals. Whole grains are more nutritious than refined grains because nutrients have not been lost in processing. Some nutrients have been added back to refined grains, but often not all the nutrients which were lost are added back.

Just what is a grain? Grains are the seed-bearing fruits of grasses. An inedible husk, also called chaff, is the outermost layer of the grain. When this is removed, the resulting product is sometimes labeled “groats” or “berries”. The next layer of a grain is the bran, a protective coating. This layer is rich in fiber. When this layer is removed, the product may be described as pearled or polished. Inside the bran is the endosperm (the starchy part of a grain) and the germ, the part of the grain which is highest in nutrients. When grains are refined, the husk, bran, and germ are removed leaving only the endosperm. Technically speaking, buckwheat, quinoa, and amaranth are fruits and not grains but they are generally included with the grain group.

When you go to buy grains, it will be helpful to know a few commonly used terms. Steel-cut or cracked grains have been cut into smaller bits so they cook faster. Grain flakes or rolled grains are sliced and then flattened between rollers. A grain meal has been ground to a gritty consistency. Bolted meal has been sifted to remove the bran but not the germ. Degerminated meal has had both bran and germ removed. Grits have been steamed and soaked, have had both hulls and germs removed, and have been cut using rollers.

In a hurry? You may think it’s just too much work to cook grains. This is not necessarily true. While some grains do require long cooking, this can be reduced by soaking overnight or pressure cooking. Additionally, grains can be cooked in a crockpot and do not require any attention while they are cooking. Quick-cooking grains, which require less than 30 minutes to prepare, include quick brown rice, couscous, quinoa, buckwheat groats (kasha), teff, and bulgur.

All grains are low in fat and contain no cholesterol. They are low in sodium unless salt is added in cooking. They typically have between 5 and 10 grams of protein per cup. We rated grains in terms of their fiber, riboflavin, vitamin B-6, zinc, copper, and iron content. Vegetarians get significant amounts of these nutrients from grains. Our top choices are amaranth, quinoa, barley, triticale, and bulgur.

Tired of rice and pasta? Try cooking some quinoa or millet. Add herbs and spices, vegetables, tofu, seitan, tempeh, and a variety of sauces to make an unending selection of grain dishes.

Table: Grains are listed from highest to lowest score. Score was obtained by adding up the percentage of Daily Values for fiber (Fib), riboflavin (Ribo), vitamin B-6 (vit B-6), zinc (Zn), copper (Cu) and iron (Ir). Foods were ranked for the amount of each nutrient with good sources identified with a +, better sources identified with ++, and the best grain sources identified with +++, na=not available. Grains at the end of the table were missing information for more than 2 nutrients so no score was calculated. Serving size for each grain is 1 cup cooked.

 

Grain	Score	Calories	Fib	Ribo	Vit B-6	Zn	Cu	Ir
Amaranth	184	364	+++	+++	+++	+++	+++	+++
Quinoa	119	254	++	+++	++	+++	+++	+++
Barley, pearled	69	193	+++	++	+++	++	+	++
Triticale	69	322	na	+++	++	+++	++	++
Bulgur	64	151	+++	+	++	++	+	++
Wild rice	62	166	++	+++	+++	+++	+	+
Millet	59	207	++	+++	+++	++	++	+
Oat bran	56	88	+++	++	+	++	+	++
Brown rice	53	218	++	+	+++	++	+	+
Buckwheat groats	52	155	++	++	++	++	+	+
Rolled wheat	45	142	++	++	+	+++	na	++
Rolled oats	43	145	++	+	+	++	+	++
White rice, enriched	35	242	+	+	+	+	+	++
Wheat berries	31	84	++	+	++	++	na	+
Couscous	26	176	++	+	+	+	+	+
Corn grits, enriched	24	145	+	+++	+	+	+	++
Corn grits, unenriched	12	145	+	+	+	+	+	+
Oat groats	na	232	+++	na	na	na	na	++
Rye flakes	na	165	+++	na	na	na	na	++
Steel-cut oats	na	340	+++	na	na	na	na	++
Teff	na	208	+++	na	na	na	na	+++

Some information for this article was obtained from All-American Waves of Grain by Barbara Grunes and Virginia Van Vynckt, Henry Holt and Company, 1997.

********************************************************

No Vegetarian Food at Panda Express

From: [email protected]

Date: Wednesday, May 17, 2000

In reference to your question, Panda Express does not offer vegetarian entrees. We use both chicken paste and oyster sauce in the preparation of most entrees. We have reported your request for vegetarian entrees to our Marketing Department.

Chris Cappiello, Guest Relations Supervisor

Top

OOPS! The Dairy Industry’s Done It Again

FTC Urged to Investigate Milk Mustache Advertisements for Making False and Misleading Health and Nutritional Claims

— Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine —

PCRM has filed a new, major complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requesting an immediate investigation of Milk Mustache ads featuring singers Britney Spears and Marc Anthony, Actor Jackie Chan, and other celebrity spokespersons. PCRM has given information to the FTC explaining why the National Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Board, the dairy industry, and the advertising agency which developed the ad campaign (the “Advertisers”) should all be held accountable for what PCRM holds to be false and misleading and, in some cases, fraudulent health and nutritional claims made in the Milk Mustache ads.

Since PCRM filed its previous petition on the milk ads in April 1999, several new ads have appeared. The Dixie Chicks, Mark McGwire, and Venus and Serena Williams, have also appeared in controversial ads. Not only do these ads continue to target ethnic populations with baseless scare tactics, they persist in touting dangerous myths about the benefits of milk consumption.

While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates health claims on food package labels, the FTC regulates claims in advertising and it relies on the FDA’s standards in judging fairness and accuracy in ads. For example, the FDA authorizes the health claim that calcium-rich foods cut the risk of osteoporosis, but only in certain populations — Caucasian and Asian women in their bone-forming years (approximately 11 to 35 years of age), menopausal women, and elderly men and women. Therefore, the FDA mandates that when making this calcium-osteoporosis health claim, it cannot state or imply that the risk of osteoporosis applies equally to the general U.S. population. Also, the claim must identify other risk factors for developing osteoporosis besides adequate calcium intake, including sex, race, age, physical activity, and an overall healthy diet.

In sync with the FDA’s regulations regarding a calcium-osteoporosis health claim, the FTC may also require that an ad disclose the same additional information when the advertiser is making this health claim. The FTC’s goal is to prevent the advertiser from oversimplifying the diet-disease relationship and portraying a false impression to consumers.

Contrary to the new Marc Anthony ad, which states — “Shake it, don’t break it. Want strong bones? Drinking enough low-fat milk now can help prevent osteoporosis later. You need to know” — the truth is that cow’s milk consumption does not prevent osteoporosis. In fact, the U.S. has one of the highest rates of osteoporosis in the world, as well as one of the highest dairy intakes. Neither does calcium intake affect the development of osteoporosis in young men, a target group of Anthony’s ad. The Anthony ad also fails to warn Latino-American consumers, another target of his ad and the majority of whom are lactose intolerant, that cow’s milk consumption may cause gastrointestinal distress.

Same goes for the brand-new Jackie Chan ad, which targets Asian Americans and men to consume milk. The Chan ad fails to tell the 90 percent of Asian Americans who are lactose intolerant that they too may suffer the extremely unpleasant consequences from drinking cow’s milk while also failing to warn all men that milk consumption has been linked to prostate cancer.

Other milk mustache ads have been even more brazen. An ad featuring Larry King suggested that milk could lower the risk of high blood pressure, a claim specifically rejected by the FDA and not supported by scientific evidence, even the scientific evidence relied on by the Advertisers.

Another very important omission made by many of the Milk Mustache ads — including the Britney Spears, Tyra Banks, Jennifer Love Hewitt, and Sarah Michelle Gellar ads — is that the cause of osteoporosis is not usually inadequate calcium intake but calcium loss. People who consume an animal-protein-based diet tend to lose calcium from their bones surprisingly fast, due to the tendency of animal protein to leech calcium from the bones. Sodium has a similar effect, as do smoking and a lack of exercise.

The solution to this problem is obscured by the dairy industry’s propaganda. Not only do these ads fail to point out accurate information — such as the fact that osteoporosis is very common among people who drink cow’s milk — but they fail to provide any useful information to correct the problem. Trying to cope with bone loss with dairy products is like trying to make up for money that falls through a hole in your pocket by taking a second job. It is better to sew up the hole.

The Harvard Nurses’ Health Study reported in 1997 that, among 78,000 women followed for 12 years, those who got the most calcium from dairy products had approximately double the hip fracture rate, compared to women who got little or no calcium from dairy products. The July 2000 issue of Pediatrics similarly reports that, among girls 12 to 18, calcium intake had no effect on bone density, although exercise did help build strong bones.

Book Introduction

An enchanting collection of stories for children

Full of subtle messages for healthy vegetarian eating; value of love; and environmental impact of modernization and technology

Prince Boulababa was the fattest prince in the world. All he did was eat and sleep — till the beautiful princess Shakira decided to take him in hand and make him her Pricne Charming. And then there was Nimbus, the wild little boy whose best friends were the clouds in the sky. When the wicked king of the land threw Nimbus into dungeon deep under the castle, they rushed to his rescue with the help of their sky-protector Boss, the mighty Cumilonimbus. In ‘The Rainbow’ we meet the six brave princes who brought the sun and the rain together to form the first spectacular bridge across the sky. Also in the collection are a benevolent king who has lost his head to a scheming witch; a lonely kiss whose search for a home ends in the unlikeliest of places; and a magnificent machine that converts bird song into precious jewels with disastrous results.

Funny and sad, prophetic and wise, these are stories that will capture the imagination of young and old alike.

Top

Losing Meat, But Keeping a Child’s Diet Balanced
The New York Times on the Web —- By Mindy Sink

After seeing the movie “Babe” at age 9 and realizing the source of what was on her plate, Lauren Pierpoint of Boulder, CO, decided to stop eating meat. At age 6, Nathan Kessel of Boston, MA, was given a choice by his parents between a vegetarian diet and eating meat regularly; he has been a vegetarian for three years now. With a finicky toddler who would spit out any type of meat, Heidi Feldman of Norcross, GA, decided “almost overnight” to put her entire family on a vegetarian diet. School lessons about endangered species combined with a visit to the zoo persuaded 7-year-old Laura Grzenda of Boulder to stop eating meat.

“Every time I put a piece of meat in my mouth, I felt like the animal was talking to me,” Laura, now 12, said. “It was saying ‘Moo, don’t eat me.'”

For Mrs. Feldman, the choice was a compromise. “Eating became a battleground and it was difficult for me to cook two different meals — one for the three of us who ate meat and a vegetarian meal for Nicole,” she said.

Vegetarian diets for children have become more accepted in recent years by some parents, pediatricians, nutritionists and even the renowned child care authority Dr. Benjamin Spock. In the seventh edition of “Baby and Child Care,” published shortly after his death, in 1998, Dr. Spock recommended that a vegetarian diet begin at age 2, with fortified foods, drinks and daily vitamin and mineral supplements. Dr. Spock believed his own health improved after he switched to a vegetarian diet late in life.

Although Dr. Spock’s push for a nearly lifelong vegetarian diet generated some controversy among his peers, it did not settle the matter of whether a meatless diet was ideal at any age, particularly in children and adolescents.

Yet pediatricians in Colorado and elsewhere said in recent interviews that they were seeing more children and adolescents choosing vegetarian diets.

‘I would say there is definitely a trend toward meatless diets,’ said Johanna Dwyer, a professor at Tufts University School of Nutrition and the director of the Frances Stern Nutrition Center at the New England Medical Center.

The term vegetarian generally means a person who does not eat meat, and instead favors a diet of foods from plant sources. A lacto-vegetarian is someone who eats dairy products but no eggs, meat, fish, poultry or seafood; an ovo-vegetarian eats eggs but no meat, fish, poultry or seafood; a pesco-vegetarian will eat fish but no other meat; a pollo-vegetarian eats chicken but no other meat. One of the more strict diets is the vegan (pronounced VEE-gun), in which someone eats food only from plant sources and may also avoid eating honey or taking animal-based supplements and immunizations or wearing leather clothing.

Ms. Pierson’s daughter, Phoebe, became a vegetarian

at 13 after seeing an animal rights movie, where she learned the origin of veal. “I called it ‘veal to zeal’ and immediately I expected it to last maybe a week,” Ms. Pierson said.

At Ms. Pierson’s house in South Salem, NY, meal times can be chaotic with a pot roast for her husband and stir-fried rice with tofu for her daughter. “Everybody in the family eats different stuff, but I try to have some sit-down meals together,” she said.

Ms. Pierson said her daughter ate a lot of hummus and pita bread, as well as rice and beans, veggie burgers and noncheese pizza for meals and bagels, guacamole and fresh fruit for snacks. Some experts believe these types of healthier eating choices with low-fat, high-fiber foods should be introduced early. “Raising children as vegetarians has the advantage that we as adults tend to continue the diet we’re raised on,” said Dr. David Levitsky, a professor of nutrition and psychology at Cornell. “I find it almost impossible to make a nutritional argument against it.”

The American Dietetic Association has taken the position that “appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, are nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.”

The younger the children are, the more careful the parents need to be with their diets, said Dr. Nancy Krebs, co-director of Coordinated Nutrition Services at Children’s Hospital in Denver. “Growth can easily be impacted, along with energy and nutritional requirements.” Concern lies with those who do not get enough protein, vitamins B₁₂ and D, iron, calcium and zinc in their diets. All of these nutrients are found in animal sources, in which they are more easily absorbed by the body. Children need all of those elements for energy, cognitive thought and achieving maximum growth potential with proper tissue and bone density. When children are lacking essential nutrients, they can develop malnutrition, rickets, anemia and lack of menstruation in girls.

Adequate caloric intake is an issue in any diet for children. “The big risk for growing children is getting enough calories in,” said Dr. Nanci Grayson, a nutritionist in Boulder, who is raising her two children as vegetarians. “Because children have smaller stomachs, and they need to eat a great deal more bulk of legumes, nuts, grains, soy, beans and other foods. ” To reduce fat in school lunches, the United States Department of Agriculture recently lifted restrictions on how much soy could be used in federally subsidized lunches. Soy, a popular protein source in vegetarian diets, can be found in tofu; soy cheese and milk and other soy foods are also available. Sloppy joes might be replaced by veggie burgers or tofu-filled ravioli in school lunches. Whether it is the choice of the parent or the child not to eat meat, there seems to be increasing support, in children’s books with vegetarian characters, in restaurant and school cafeteria menu choices and in Internet chat rooms. The Vegetarian Resource Group has recently started a parents’ network on its Web site where people can exchange recipes and advice.

“Data show that young adults who consume a vegetarian diet are just as healthy or more so than those who are not, and the key is sufficient variability,” Dr. Levitsky said. Source: http://www10.nytimes.com/library/national/science/health/072500hth-children-vegetarians.html

Top

Is it Thanksgiving or a Grand Finale of Carnage?

By Uttam K. Jain — Chicago, IL (India Tribune, Nov-27-1999)

Millions of sentient beings cramped into huge metal sheds, purposely kept out of the public eye, imprisoned and in pain, too sick and weak, get their first breath of fresh air when they are removed and packed into the metal crates to be loaded on the truck and then hauled, to the slaughter plant. While at the farm, these beings, created — by application of artificial methods of feeding and breeding — with unnaturally enormous weight to profit from such extra flesh, cannot support themselves or hobble to mechanical food or water dispensing facilities. Over 500 million turkeys are bred every year for slaughter in the US.

The horrific living conditions at the farm include: most turkeys being confined in less than three square feet of space and suffering from diseases in filthy and inhumane conditions. Because of their abnormal weight, many die of heart attacks, and many others develop crippling leg and joint disorders. They do not get any medical treatment.

At the slaughterhouse, they are murdered at the rate of 1.4 million birds a day, 58,000 an hour, nearly 1,000 a minute, 16 a second.

The ironic part — I call it the cruelest part — is that, after all this horror and carnage, agony and pain, stress and diseaseful living for turkeys, Americans have symbolized the carcass of this domestically mutilated and mutated bird with a national day of gratitude. Who are we thanking on the day of Thanksgiving? Are we thanking the deceased ones for suffering from the inhumane treatment? Or are we thanking some crazy “God” for providing us with innocent and sentient beings to be mercilessly butchered and then buried in the graveyards of human bellies?

And it isn’t that only Americans celebrate “Thanksgiving” by consuming turkeys; many of our own brethren migrated from the religious and compassionate nation of the exponents of nonviolence, to name a few Mahavir, Krishna, Buddha, Mahatma Gandhi, Krishnamurthy, Swami Vivekanand, etc., also do so. Not only that, some even take pride in feeding turkeys to homeless people. I would rather feed an excellent satisfying vegetarian meal, instead.

Cattle, lambs, fish, snakes, frogs, lobsters, shrimps, goats, pigs, etc., go through the same horror before winding up in one’s dinner plate. Around the Christmas time, people sit around their dinner table with big hulk of flesh of what used to be a sentient being, praying such as: “Thank you Lord for all the guests, and thank you for the food… And so on…” All beings are protected by God, and so, we are His protectees. While praying and thanking God for the flesh, are we thanking Him for the flesh, are we thanking him for letting us terrorize, torment and finally murder his protectees and then expect that God would bless us?

Another arrogant, ignorant and stupid incidence I remember is a TV advertisement by some carpet store, around Thanksgiving time, wherein the advertiser — with a live turkey standing next to him — announces a gift of free turkey sale, the turkey quacks and the advertiser assures the turkey: “Don’t worry about it, the sale lasts only three days.”

We complain about the prevalent violent atmosphere of crimes in our society and wonder why? Do we ever wonder if our own actions against the innocent members of animal world have any linkage to it? For our horrendous behavior against the innocent lives, should we feel qualified to attain salvation? And we even malign some God by dragging him into this carnage by thanking him! When human insanity gets to go this far — this far, that, it is considered not only a part of normal life but also something to celebrate — you can be assured of even greater violence in our lives as we move on. Violence begets violence. With flesh of murdered beings lying in one’s belly, neither can he be peaceful nor can he emanate peaceful vibrations towards others. Mahatma Gandhi once said: “The character of a nation can be judged by the way she treats her animals.”

Top

Are brown sugar and powdered sugar vegan?

— Joanne Stepaniak —

Brown sugar is white sugar combined with molasses, which gives it a soft texture. Powdered sugar, also called confectioners’ sugar, is granulated sugar that has been crushed into a fine powder. Brown sugar and powdered sugar can be made from either sugarcane or sugar beets. Bone char filtration is used for roughly half the cane sugar produced in the United States. This means that it was purified through charcoal made from animal bones. (Bone residue does not become part of the finished product.)

There is a split among vegans about whether cane sugar refined with bone char is vegan, and, if not, whether this warrants avoiding all products containing white sugar since it is virtually impossible for consumers to determine the type of sugar (beet or cane) and/or the processing methods used. If we assume that animal-free purity is the criteria for ascertaining whether or not something is vegan, are there any truly vegan foods? In the commercial arena, probably not.

Regardless of how they are grown or processed, most foods eventually come in contact with animal products, directly or indirectly. Insects and worms land on or burrow through fruits, vegetables, and grains as they are grown, occasionally ending up inside them, ground up with them, or packaged with them. Most fruits, vegetables, grains, and beans are flown or trucked in from different parts of the country or world in carriers that may have recently ferried meat and various other animal products. Trucks, trains, and airplanes use tires, lubricants, and plastic parts that most likely contain animal by-products, and they all utilize roads, rails, or runways that displaced animals and destroyed habitat when they were constructed. These vehicles also emit environmentally damaging fumes and pollutants and often inadvertently kill innocent wildlife. Most plant foods are distributed to stores where they will be sold side-by-side with meat, eggs, and dairy products, handled by nonvegan produce workers, placed on a checkout counter that may have deposits from previous customers’ animal-based purchases, and packed by a nonvegan checker into plastic bags that probably contain animal by-products or paper bags that, even if made from recycled paper, are sealed with animal-based glue.

So where do vegans draw the line? The most clear-cut and practical approach is the following: If a plant-based food (unadulterated or processed) contains no overt animal products or by-products, it is deemed vegan.

From an ethical standpoint, this is the most realistic and constructive way to view not only food but other commodities as well. Modern methods of processing and transporting are so pervasively tainted with animal components that it is counterproductive and futile for vegans to be concerned about technicalities. In addition, preoccupation with minutia detracts from the more significant and purposeful aspects of being vegan and makes veganism appear outlandish and onerous to outsiders. Because half the sugar produced in the U.S. is beet sugar and around fifty percent of all cane sugar is refined with bone char, even if vegans were worried about bone char filtration, there is only about a twenty-five percent chance that a product would contain sugar processed in this manner. Searching for prepared foods that do not contain sugar places an undue burden on the average consumer who might be willing to become vegan but is discouraged by what could easily be considered trifling. Your question is an important one, and it is vital that vegans continue to discuss matters of ethical practice. However, it is equally significant to channel energies into those areas of vegan living that are consequential. If vegans avoid products because they disapprove of certain processing methods, no vegans could ride in a car, drink tap water, live in a house, or wear manufactured clothing.

So, are brown sugar and powdered sugar acceptable to vegan? From a reasonable perspective, yes.

Top

Jane Black: Champion Weightlifter and Vegan Activist
By Davida Gypsy Breier — Vegetarian Journal, Jan/Feb 2000

Jane Black has set numerous Master’s National and World records in weightlifting, and in the process has shattered the stereotype of the “frail vegan.” In 1983, she met John Coffee, a gym owner interested in establishing a women’s Olympic weightlifting team to participate in national competitions. The first women’s weightlifting nationals had been held the previous year. Jane passed Joe’s screening test and three months later competed in her first national meet. At the age of 31, she placed 5th, and her team won the women’s title.

Jane became a vegan in 1990. She had been open to the idea, and was further influenced by her girlfriend, Stephanie Miller, an animal artist who has been vegan for more than 25 years. Jane says that, “… for me, reading literature on the dairy industry produced more disgust than killing an animal outright. To me, the dairy industry, coupled with the veal industry, is one of the most embarrassing things human beings participate in.” She expresses a great love for animals and shares her home with her best friend Colleene, a 10-year-old tri-colored collie. Jane believes, “If I am anything of worth for this earth, it is to be nice to other animals.”

Of her many Master’s National and World records Jane explains, “Since the official weight categories have been changed a couple of times, the world records I hold can never be broken … The last time I competed in the Master’s World Weightlifting Championships, in Canada in 1996, I won my class and received the Best Lifter trophy for my age group, 40-44.” Her personal record competitive lifts are a 65 kilo (143 lb.) snatch and an 82.5 kilo (181½ lb.) clean and jerk. At 47, Jane hopes to go to Glasgow, Scotland to compete in the Master’s Weight-lifting World Championships. Jane continues, “I am currently ranked as number one on the US Women’s National Team. I plan to do well, and I hope, set records and win a best lifter award. As my heritage is Scottish, I have always dreamed of going there, and this seems like a perfect reason.” (Unfortunately, she suffered a back injury in mid-June and it was unclear at press time if she would be able to compete.)

Working through The Vegetarian Resource Group, Jane has been helping other athletes interested in becoming vegan or vegetarian. For the past two years, inquiries regarding weightlifting and related sports have been referred to her. She enthusiastically answers questions and discusses her experiences as a vegan competitive athlete, offering another voice to counter dietary myths and similar misconceptions facing athletes.

Many athletes are concerned about adequate protein intake. Explaining her experiences, Jane says, “According to various elite weightlifting coaches, the protein requirement for a highly competitive weightlifter is 2 to 2½ grams per kilo of body weight. If I adhered to that, I would be eating about 150 or so grams of protein, which I feel is ridiculous. I eat probably about 60-75. I have never had a problem building strength. The variables for strength building vary greatly for individuals — genetics, general state of health, and training program. All of these factors and more must be monitored ongoingly if a person wants to take on a sport, or build strength or explosive power, which Olympic lifting is all about. I fully believe that a person can be incredibly strong as a vegan. If you are going for a bodybuilder ‘look,’ i.e., extreme hypertrophy, low body fat, a vegan diet will have its drawbacks, but then I would challenge you to ask yourself why that is important to you. Most of the pictures of contest-ready bodybuilders on popular magazines [used] a ton of unnatural and pathological dietary practices to achieve that look.”

As for her diet Jane says, “I do not organize my diet around protein content. Tofu is on the scene with great regularity. I am not a big salad person. For grains, organic brown rice leads the way. I try to vary vegetables. I guess if there is one thing I try to do more than anything it is to include a dark green leafy vegetable once a day or so. I love Boca Burgers, which are great if you want protein, low in fat, and carbohydrates. Apples are the main fruit I eat. I do drink a lot of water.”

Non-leather shoes and accessories are another concern for vegan and vegetarian athletes in many sports. The Vegetarian Resource Group publishes “A Shopper’s Guide To Leather Alternatives” to help consumers find other options. The guide includes information on non-leather running shoes and baseball gloves, and the next update will include information on vegan bowling shoes. Jane has not been able to find non-leather weightlifting shoes, commenting, “… when I started lifting I used leather weightlifting shoes. Shoes designed specifically for weightlifting are surprisingly important to balance and stability. Three years ago, I ritualistically buried my Italian weightlifting shoes and belt and began to train in non-leather shoes, non-weightlifting shoes also. Six months ago, after a persistent foot problem, I made the decision to train in lifting shoes that contain leather. There is no synthetic shoe available. Adidas, which supplies more weightlifting shoes than any other manufacturer, has not produced a vegan-friendly model. Although I am not happy about my choices, this sport has been a big part of my life for many years, and I feel that I do good in the world representing a vegan lifestyle as a strength athlete. I mean, somebody’s got to do it, and it might as well be me! I encourage everyone who reads this article to write Adidas and express your interest in the production of a non-leather lifting shoe.”

Currently Jane is in the process of publishing her first novel. This multi talented woman also enjoys playing the drums. We wish her a full and speedy recovery and hope she makes it to the Master’s Weightlifting World Championships in Scotland!

If you would like to contact Adidas to persuade them to consider producing a non-leather weightlifting shoe, their toll-free number is 1-(800)-448-1796. You can also email them at [email protected]. For more information on A Shopper’s Guide to Leather Alternatives visit our guide on the VRG website or see the catalog.

The City of Redmond, WA, Bans Exotic Animal Circuses and Acts

The Redmond City Council banned exotic animal acts and did it unanimously with a vote of 7-0 despite a letter writing push from anti-animal groups nationally. There was even discussion among the city council of possibly including rodeos in future legislation. A local group called Citizens for Cruelty Free Entertainment has been working on the issue in various cities throughout the Seattle area. Redmond, perhaps best known as the home of Microsoft is the first city to pass a ban locally.

Source: Northwest Animal Rights Network , http://www.narn.org October 19, 1999.

Bush or Gore ? ? ?

Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush is an avid hunter. In childhood, he would go to a lake to shoot at frogs or put firecrackers on them to blow them up! Safari Club International named him for “Governor of the Year” award in 1999, for his support of trophy hunting.

Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Albert Gore aided and abetted the 1993 resumption of Norwegian commercial whaling, and the October 1999 resumption of international elephant ivory sales after a 10-year suspension, and is reputed chief architect of the Invasive Species Council, to pursue the extermination of non-native wildlife.

Source: Animal People

Top

GETTING FIRED UP ABOUT UNFIRED FARE
WHY SOME VEGETARIANS ARE EATING MORE RAW FOODS
Vegetarian Voice, 1998, No. 1 — North American Vegetarian Society

Your being healthy is important for Jiv Daya, because most modern medicines and treatments are developed and/or produced using animals. Nutritious food helps you keep a doctor away.

INTRODUCTION

Michael Klaper, MD
Nutrition Task Force of the American Medical Students Association American Academy of Nutrition Founding Director, Institute of Nutrition Education and Research

Sing the glories of food-as-grown! It is exciting to see the increasing awareness by the public, the medical and nutrition professions, and the vegetarian communities that whole fruits and vegetables — as fresh out of the garden as possible — are absolutely essential for good health.

Nutrients such as Vitamin C, many of the B complex vitamins, minerals, fiber, water and other essential molecules are needed for vital reactions all over the body, from blood formation and muscle contraction to nerve conduction and wound repair. Calorie for calorie, raw plant foods contain more of these substances than any other food.

All forms of cooking degrade vital nutrients in varying degrees. It is true that light steaming destroys only minimal amounts of nutrients, but for most people, “cooked,” means a whole lot more than light steaming. Just flip through the pages of practically every cook-book on the market (including the vegetarian ones) or peek into the kitchen of any restaurant, and you will usually see veggies being fried, stewed, baked, simmered, grilled, roasted, or boiled.

Fiber, too, is degraded by heat — even light steaming. This may actually be beneficial for some people (more on that later), but first let’s consider the vast majority of our population. Once it’s fiber is broken down, food becomes easier to eat. To illustrate this, imagine two equal heads of broccoli, one cooked and one raw. Consider the amount of time that each of them would take to eat. The cooked bunch could be reduced to a bowlful and eaten in a few fork-fulls (i.e. you are particularly hungry!), and if you eat it too fast, then you might even opt for more, before your stomach has a chance to say, “I’m full!” On the flip side, if you envision your self spending at least half an hour crunching away on the raw bunch, then you have likely discovered one of the advantages of raw food: It’s possible to eat large quantities of highly nutritious food without consuming excess calories, and this is great news for anyone familiar with the consequences of overeating.

More people than you may realize actually do eat whole plant foods in their simple form without spicing, dicing or cooking. Many of these people consistently report that once fresh, raw plant foods are regularly consumed au natural, their original unadulterated flavor becomes absolutely unsurpassable.

However, for those who covet creative dishes made with a variety of flavors, there is a cornucopia of ways to prepare whole foods — without using heat. Starchy vegetables can be made palatable when finely shredded, and then enjoyed in salads and lettuce wraps, served with tasty dressings or sauces. When soaked in water for several days, barley, wheat and other grains become soft enough to chew, and then they can be added to salads, pureed into pates, seasoned and pressed into “cheeses,” and used in many other creative and tasty ways. Also, if you rinse and drain grains regularly for several days, they will sprout — which greatly increases their digestibility. Sprouted grains can be made into “raw” sun-dried breads, pie crusts, and a myriad of other delectable dishes.

When discovering the number of cookbooks that contain predominantly raw food recipes, one might ask, “Are there people out there who only eat raw foods?” Yes, there are a few, but most people tend not to go the “100 percent raw” route. This is because it is difficult to get sufficient calories on an all-raw diet without heavily relying on nuts (high in fat) or fruit (high in sugar).

So, how do these “mostly raw” people get sufficient calories? They eat some grains, yams, and other fibrous, high calorie foods — cooked. Remember the broccoli story? Once food is cooked, it’s easier to eat a lot more of it. In other words, it’s a great way to increase calorie consumption. This is very significant for people who are underweight, for children on vegan diets who need more calories, and for senior citizens with poor appetites. Conservatively cooked starches are a highly nutritious, low-fat, low-sugar calorie alternative to nuts and sweet fruits.

We do, of course, need fat in our diet to create cell membranes, hormones, skin oils and other vital substances, and raw nuts and seeds are an excellent source of essential fats for any diet. Flax seeds, hemp seeds, pumpkin seeds and walnuts are especially nutritious with their bounty of omega-3 fatty acids (the human body can not make this substance which is required for hormone balance and cell membrane formation). Raw nuts and seeds are beneficial in other ways too; for example, a handful of raw, green, organic pumpkin seeds contains plentiful zinc, and almonds are an especially rich source of calcium. Fortunately, however, with the addition of some steamed rice, sweet potatoes, or other calorie-dense foods, people who need additional energy sources calories don’t have to depend solely on nuts and seeds.

I know people who are sustaining themselves on predominantly raw foods — and they seem healthy and extremely energetic. They report clearer thought patterns and greater productivity in their daily lives. I respect and honor them for their commitment to their health, as well as their ability to manifest a nearly all-raw cuisine in their diet. In my own experience, there is no question that the more raw food I eat, the lighter and more energetic I fell.

But in the world of “real eating,” what’s best? Fortunately, you don’t have to completely change your dietary habits or “go raw” to reap the advantages of raw foods. It’s easy to include large portions of fresh, raw foods at every meal; you don’t even need a special cookbook. Sliced fruit can be added to hot or cold cereal in the morning, and a large mixed salad or raw vegetable cup, can accompany lunch or dinner. Dried fruit and nut mix, just-juiced vegetables, or a crunchy apple with almond butter make great snacks — and smoothies or fresh fruit topped with sorbet can satisfy sweet cravings at desert time. So, there really are plenty of opportunities to eat more fresh, raw foods during the day — it’s just a matter of cultivating our appreciation for the taste of whole, unadulterated, unfired foods — just as nature made them. Of course everyone has different schedules and preferences and we all have to listen to our body and our common sense when deciding how much raw food to eat.

Perhaps the best advice about raw foods (and cooked foods, for that matter) is to Chew! Chew! Thorough chewing is absolutely essential to breaking down the fibers of raw foods to allow complete mixing with digestive enzymes. If raw foods are going to constitute a large proportion of your daily diet, then be prepared to become a masterful masticator.

“Chewing your food to a cream” has benefits beyond increasing the absorption of nutrients. It also drives out the air that permeates all whole foods. This is important because the most common cause of bothersome flatulence and intestinal gas is swallowed air — the gaseous molecules that are inevitably trapped between the grains of rice, within the folds of lettuce, amid the broccoli florets, etc. The more we chew, the quieter our tummies. When eating fresh, uncooked foods, don’t be in a hurry. On the contrary — linger, chew, and enjoy.

Recent scientific studies have verified the beneficial effects from the nutrients in raw foods, and I predict that soon there will be research confirming that eating raw foods causes increased energy and better concentration. (Forget about that post-lunch urge to nap!) In the meantime, let the good times and raw fruits and veggies roll. Crunch ’em, munch ’em, get ’em in any way you can — every cell in your being will benefit. And do all in your power to assure that the fruits and vegetables you eat are grown as organically — actually, “veganically” — as possible. The fewer chemicals, slaughterhouse products, sewage sludge, and other toxic “fertilizers” used for the production of our produce, the better for all of us, for the animals, and for Mother Earth.

THE HYGIENIST PERSPECTIVE
James Michael Lennon
Director, American Natural Hygiene Society

For the past 160 years, the American Natural Hygiene Society (ANHS) has been the leading advocate of diets that include large amounts of raw foods. However, the ANHS does not recommend a totally raw food diet because people typically fare poorly over long periods of time on such diets, totally raw food diets are hard to implement from a practical standpoint, and there is no credible evidence showing that a whole-food, plant-based diet that is entirely uncooked is more healthful than one that includes conservatively-cooked vegetables and starches.

This may come as a surprise to many people who thought that the Natural Hygiene diet has always been an all-raw diet. But the various doctors who championed Natural Hygiene in the 19th century actually advocated a wide range of diets, and one or two of them were not even vegetarian.

A common argument in favor of an all-raw diet is that “no other species on the planet cooks its food.” Without question, raw fruits and vegetables are nutritional powerhouses. But an attempt to live exclusively on raw foods can present some challenges, such as having to “graze” (constantly eat all day long) in order to get sufficient calories. This may be fine for cows in pasture, but humans are usually busy with other activities, like working and going to the theater. Hence an underlying problem with all-raw diets — in the attempt to “stock up on” concentrated calories, people may consume large quantities of fruit and/or nuts, thereby creating a high sugar and/or high fat diet.

Noting that all people are different and that diets should be designed to meet individual needs, current general ANHS dietary recommendations are to eat a whole-food plant-based diet that consists primarily (by volume) of fresh fruits and vegetables; plus steamed vegetables, hard squashes; and the variable addition of (raw, unsalted ) nuts, whole grains, and legumes.

THERE’S MORE TO LIFE THAN SALADS!
Cherie Soria
Internationally known cook, foods instructor, lecturer, food columnist

When I first became a vegetarian, everyone asked, “Where do you get your protein?” Later on, when I went vegan, people wanted to know, “How do you get you calacium?” Now, if I say I eat raw foods, everyone says, “Don’t you get tired of salads?”

I love salads; salads with tender young greens and salads with no greens at all; salads with raw sweet corn and salads with crisp shredded Jerusalem artichokes; sprouted legume salads and sprouted grain salads. I love fruit salads and salads of tomatoes, olives, and fresh herbs. But if salads were all there was to a raw food diet, it might indeed become boring.

Fortunately, nature’s diet — one consisting primarily of uncooked foods — is varied, innovative and delicious, as well as healthful and rejuvenating. A natural, raw food diet offers easy-to-make nut and seed cheeses, which can be used for everything from sweetened cream cheese frosting and creamed soups to savory dips, spreads and sauces. Even pasta and lasagna can be enjoyed raw using finely julienned zucchini or thinly sliced eggplant in place of processed noodles. Sprouted grain pilafs, date-walnut scones and sprouted grain crackers are a few examples of the unlimited variety of grain dishes which can be made simply, without cooking. Even ethnic foods, like humus, falafels and burritos can be prepared “in the raw.”

Of course, preparing these gourmet delights requires a change in thinking and a large dose of creativity. On the other hand, most of these delectable creations are as easy or easier to make than their cooked counterparts — and there won’t be any dirty pots and pans to clean! In fact, if you don’t like cooking, expanding your raw foods repertoire may be the way to go. If you love to spend time in the kitchen and create new, delicious treats for friends and family, then you will definitely enjoy this new cuisine. And, if you want to experience better health and increased vitality, you’ll appreciate the rejuvenating benefits of raw living foods.

PROFILE OF A DIETARY CHANGE
Elysa Markowitz
Lecturer and health educator, and author of several books

Seven years ago, if you asked me what I though raw foods were, I would have said salad. In fact, for most people, raw does only mean salad, or perhaps sushi. Since then I have learned so much about how to prepare uncooked food. One gem of wisdom I discovered early on is don’t eliminate, substitute. So, rather than feeling deprived by taking out the foods that I loved, I began a journey translating my Beverly Hills gourmet Jewish culinary background into that of a gourmet Jewish culinary background into that of a gourmet living foods cuisine.

It’s been a rewarding journey. Texture has translated into grating, blending and juicing, and many other nuances of changing the presentation of food. For example, making a nut fluffy by blending pecans with dates and putting it in the dehydrator creates pecan mousse. I enjoy this dish as a warmed breakfast pudding on chilly mornings, and as a desert in the summer months. Also, I can take that same nut — a pecan — and make a creamy pate by blending more vegetables into the “batter,” or a crunchy patty, by adding finely minced vegetables.

In the morning, using my blender, juicer and sprouting jars, a whole new world of breakfast foods has replaced my former diet. Now, my choices include a wide array of fresh fruits blended to perfection with sprouted nuts and flax, sesame, sunflower, or pumpkin seeds. And my desire for grains is satisfied with sprouted, blended (smooth or crunchy) kamut, wheat, oats, barley, millet, or quinoa.

Even though my diet sometimes reaches over 95 percent raw, I still lead a life that allows me to eat out with non-raw friends without putting them on the defensive about their eating habits. When I was starting to eat raw, one of my friends who also ate raw was adamant that eating cooked foods meant going straight to hell — what a delightful thought. He would lecture others about what they were eating, and it really put people off. In contrast, I believe that enjoying the differences among people is an important challenge in life, and that loving ourselves, learning to listen, and transitioning ourselves from a possibly unhealthy diet to one that better agrees with us, is more important than the foods that enter our bodies. Eating a meal with someone who makes food choices completely unlike mine is fine with me. As the saying goes, “it’s not what goes into your mouth that defiles you, but what comes out of it.”

When I eat at restaurants, I enjoy a wide variety of both cooked and raw foods. I prefer vegan cuisine, and most restaurants will at least make a salad and pasta primavera with pesto and very lightly steamed vegetables. At Mexican restaurants, I usually order a tostada with mainly raw ingredients — salsa, guacamole and romaine lettuce — and then a bit of cooked beans or rice on the bottom.

Joy is simplicity, and eating can simply be fun when it’s uncomplicated. So whether or not all raw is the issue, more raw can be included with ease and delight — and the fuss and bother of cooking can be eliminated when you want to enjoy it as nature’s gift to us all.

Top

The Links Between the Science and Food Industries

On NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO’s program “Morning Edition,” Wednesday, May 17, 2000, journalist Rebecca Perl examined the links between the science and food industries. She interviewed various representatives of these industries but gave center stage to Dr. Neal Barnard of the Physician’s Committee for Responsible Medicine.

Here are Dr. Barnard’s remarks:

“The egg industry, the dairy industry, the meat industry, the olive oil industry — they are all there. They’ve got money. And their biggest allies and best allies are scientists.”

“We’ve seen studies with the egg industry where they have found results showing that if you have the occasional egg it doesn’t really raise your cholesterol to any substantial degree. And that’s true if you’re following a typical fatty American diet — an egg here, an egg there. What’s the real difference? But on the other hand, if you take a person who isn’t consuming a huge load of fat and cholesterol, those eggs really do affect your cholesterol.”

“I think it’s reasonable for industry to fund studies. They have the money. Why not plug it into some research to test whether or not their foods help or hurt. The problem is that there is tremendous pressure on a researcher to come up with industry friendly findings. If you don’t, you’re never going to get re-funded.”

“The press release will usually say who paid for it (the study). But once it’s reported on radio, on television, that may get lost. And what’s remembered in the mind of the viewer, of the listener, of the reader, sometimes, is just what bottom line industry wanted you to have, and that it plugged in its PR machine to get into your mind.”

Besides actually paying for studies, Barnard said industry “can also put you on a paid advisory board. It can pay for you to give a special lecture. It can send you on a nice trip. It can give you a consulting fee. And the bigger the industry, the more of these they do. And they go right to the top.”

Ms. Perl ended the segment with coverage of Robert Cohen of the Dairy Education Board. She said that he confronted members of the advisory committee “armed with what he considered some damning connections between industry and members of the committee, that some were associated with the dairy industry in one way or another as lecturers, on advisory boards and through grants.”

We heard from Dr. Cohen, “All connections to the dairy industry. What’s going on here? First part I want to tell you that we’re not pleased about these conflicts of interests. I sat with the vice president of the United States and with Senator Barbara Boxer, and we’re all not pleased. Can’t you come up with a committee that doesn’t have these conflicts?”

Perl’s signoff remark was, “And this routine leaves one wondering: When the new dietary guidelines are announced later this month, will they reflect the best food science possible or has the science been tainted by business as usual?”

Please thank Rebecca Perl and Morning Edition (on behalf of millions of vegetarians in this country) for covering this important issue and for letting us hear from Dr. Neal Barnard. Comments can be sent to [email protected].

Top

 A WAKE-UP CALL TO THE WORLD
Do you know that a handful of giant agri-chemical companies have launched a massive venture to genetically restructure the world’s food supply?

Do you know . . .

• that your fruits, grains, and vegetables are being implanted with conglomerations of genes from viruses, bacteria, insects, and animals?

• that this genetic tampering threatens the health of consumers and also the health of the environment?

• that the governments of the United States and many other nations permit these experimental foods to be mass marketed without safety testing and labeling?

• that the assumptions on which this lax policy is based affront both science and religion?

To learn more about the hazards of genetically engineered foods and how our organization is working to curb them, explore our web site, www.bio-integrity.org.

Purpose and Goals

The Alliance for Bio-Integrity is a nonprofit, nonpolitical organization dedicated to the advancement of human and environmental health through sustainable and safe technologies. To this end, it aims (a) to inform the public about technologies and practices that negatively impact on health and the environment and (b) to inspire broad-based, responsible action that helps correct the problems and uphold the integrity of the natural order. In approaching these issues, it integrates the perspectives of both science and religion and coordinates the participation of both communities.

The Alliance’s initial project is to gain a more rational and prudent policy on genetically engineered foods. This entails (a) educating the public about the unprecedented dangers to the environment and human health posed by the massive enterprise to genetically reprogram the world’s food supply; (b) securing a scientifically sound system for safety-testing genetically altered foods; and (c) securing a meaningful system of labeling in order to protect the right of consumers to avoid such foods.

Achieving the latter two objectives requires an action at law, since current U.S. Food and Drug Administration policy exempts genetically altered foods from the testing required of new food additives and also permits these foods to be marketed without identifying labels. Although respected groups such as Consumers Union, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and the Environmental Defense Fund have strongly criticized this policy as scientifically flawed and unsound in several other respects as well, the FDA staunchly refuses to revise it. Accordingly, the Alliance has organized an unprecedented plaintiff group to bring a lawsuit against the FDA to effect the necessary changes. The plaintiffs include eminent scientists, public interest organizations, and people from diverse faiths who reject genetically altered foods on the basis of religious principle. The suit was filed May 27, 1998 in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. and is being managed by the legal department of the International Center for Technology Assessment in Washington, which shares the Alliance’s concerns about genetic engineering and has an impressive record in public interest litigation.

The Alliance welcomes (and depends on) donations. It is recognized by the IRS as a 501(c)(3) organization to which contributions are tax deductible. Your gift will help uphold bio-integrity. Please mail your donation to:

Alliance for Bio-Integrity P.O. Box 110 Iowa City, IA 52244

Send us e-mail: [email protected]

Top

The World Trade Organization:
Have We Traded Away Our Right to Protect Animals?
– HSUS (The Humane Society of the United States) – (source: www.hsus.org)
Activists Geared Up For World Trade Meeting in Seattle

Last year after Thanksgiving, some 5,000 delegates from 134 countries gathered in Seattle to convene a meeting of the World Trade Organization (WTO). That meeting would have profound implications for food safety and environmental laws in the US, and the future of genetically engineered foods worldwide.

The WTO was set up in 1995 at the formal end of the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). It is now the most powerful trade body in the world, providing legally binding rules for international commerce and trade policy. The WTO also settles trade disputes in closed panels, with members of the press, general public and citizen groups prohibited from observing, much less participating.

The WTO trade dispute panel has consistently ruled against strong health and environmental laws. For example, it recently ruled against the European Union, which has banned the import of US hormone-treated beef because of health concerns. The WTO’s power has also pressured the US to water down dolphin protections and clean air regulations; Guatemala to weaken its implementation of the UNICEF baby formula marketing code that protects babies from disease caused when mothers mix infant formula with contaminated water; and South Korea to lower food safety standards on produce inspection and the shelf life of meat.

US Department of Agriculture and US Trade Representatives have repeatedly told the media that they hope to use the WTO to force open European markets to accept US grown genetically engineered crops. The European Union has placed a moratorium on approving new genetically engineered crops, and the EU, Australia and Japan have developed or are in the process of developing labeling laws.

Therefore, the Seattle meeting was protested hugely by some 300 organizations. The diverse group of environmental, labor and consumer organizations were calling for a reduction in the WTO’s powers and wanted to ensure that countries retain the ability to enact and maintain their own public health and safety laws. However unfortunately, poor handling by police and the reactions by the protesters got out of the control. The result was a big chaos, for the whole world to witness.

Activists have passed some impressive animal protection laws in the last two decades. The United States banned dolphin-deadly tuna and enacted sea turtle protection laws. The United Nations set a global moratorium on high-seas driftnet fishing, and the United States followed up with the High Seas Driftnet Fisheries Enforcement Act. Meanwhile, the European Union (EU) banned the use of the steel-jaw leghold trap and the testing of cosmetics on animals where alternatives are available. Too bad none of these laws could withstand the World Trade Organization (WTO).

In the WTO, a group of nations made a deal: they will obey WTO laws in exchange for trade without barriers. In the world of the WTO, free trade is king.

The WTO may have been great for free trade, but as far as animals are concerned, the WTO is the single most destructive international organization ever formed. WTO rulings can reach any animal, anywhere, and at any time. Nothing is sacred in the eyes of the WTO, so regulations on handling, slaughtering, and care of animals as well as those governing trapping, pollution, and habitat destruction are all fair game. And whenever a nation has challenged an animal protection regulation, the WTO has ruled that regulation to be an illegal trade barrier. The nation that has enacted the offending rules must either change its law or pay a heavy financial penalty. The nation usually prefers to change the law.

The U.S. dolphin protection legislation is a typical example of what happens when an animal protection law runs up against the WTO: Animal protection advocates, consumer groups, and concerned citizens worked for nearly twenty-five years to pass certain dolphin protection provisions of the U.S. Marine Mammal Protection Act. These provisions were a way for the American people to stop the tuna industry’s slaughter of millions of dolphins. The impetus behind this law clearly was animal protection rather than the erection of trade barriers. Tuna fishing fleets, primarily those from Mexico, that didn’t use dolphin-safe fishing methods were unwilling to change the way they fished and resented losing access to the U.S. tuna market. The WTO made it easy for them — traditionally WTO dispute panels interpret an animal protection law as nothing more than an unfair trade barrier. Believing that dolphin-protection provisions couldn’t survive a WTO dispute panel, the U.S. government chose to rewrite those provisions so that it could open the U.S. market to dolphin-deadly tuna. The new definition of dolphin-safe now includes chasing, harassing, and injuring dolphins. By rendering dolphin protection basically meaningless, the U.S. government avoided an ugly, unwinnable trade dispute.

In the name of free trade, governments are abandoning protective legislation. Are these governments serving their citizens well? What they are doing is betraying their citizens to keep the faith with the WTO. To mask this betrayal, legislators will alter legislation to make it appear that they are not going against the public will, just rephrasing the regulations a bit or responding to new scientific data that supports a weakening of animal protection — a weakening that, before the threat of a WTO challenge, was unacceptable to that very same legislative body.

There may be a way out of this pattern of compromise and betrayal. The HSUS has issued recommendations that would make a place for animal protection in the framework of the WTO rules. In the form of Article XX, GATT already provides the groundwork for animal protection. However, Article XX has yet to be an effective means of exempting animal protection laws from the ban on trade barriers. The HSUS is calling for a new WTO rule stating that all animal protection laws are presumed to meet the requirements of Article XX. If adopted, it will mean that animal protection laws would be exempted from the WTO rules, thereby eliminating them as unfair trade barriers.

The HSUS is not opposed to free trade. Where the WTO goes astray is in giving commercial interests the power to change national and international animal protection laws and, in the process, destroy necessary protections for animals and the environment. Where the dispute resolution panels go wrong is in the assumption that it is necessary to destroy animals and the environment in order to have free trade. WTO member nations must let go of their short-sighted obsession with completely unfettered trade if we are ever to have a living, thriving planet in which fair treatment of all creatures still has a place.***********************************

Top

One species’ gain is another species’ loss.
Human progress at animals’ expense?

Consumer Fears Shape the Debate
In Europe, Green campaign shakes trans-Atlantic trade

LINCOLN, England — In the conflict over the future of food, this rural corner of Britain is where you can see the battle close up. On the one side: agri-business, genetic engineers and bio-science corporations, inspired with a vision to revolutionize farming with a new green revolution of cunningly engineered crops. On the other: consumers, supermarkets and an equally visionary group of organic farmers who are discovering that there is money to be made catering to a public clamor for “real” food.

THE BATTLE BETWEEN the two sides has already seen a huge shift in consumer behavior and it is threatening to escalate with implications for world trade. Here’s the surprise: so far, the greens are winning.

They are fighting in the supermarkets, they are fighting in Parliament, they are fighting in the courts and they are fighting here in Lincolnshire’s potato fields. This arable coastal plain in an eastern corner of Britain, England’s answer to Idaho, is where the future of food was supposed to unfold. Here, a new generation of high yielding, disease- and pest-resistant genetically modified (GM) crops was to point the way to a millennial agriculture.

HIGH HOPES, HIGH ANXIETY

For Prime Minister Tony Blair, “GM food” was going to be the next big thing after computers. Amazing developments were foretold — crops with built-in resistance to herbicides, crops with genetic protection against disease, crops that yield better and that grow better in conditions that are more demanding. This was how the world would feed itself, it was claimed. After winning the 1997 election, Blair appointed a minister for biotech, denounced nascent anti-GM “hysteria,” and promised to issue the necessary experimental licenses.

Two years later, nothing has gone to plan. England’s arable belt from Northumberland to Norfolk — with Lincolnshire in the middle — has become a fiercely contested battleground in a collision of science, agribusiness, consumerism and pressure group politics. The combatants on the side of the greens include Prince Charles, who has promised that no GM food will pass his lips, and Sir Paul McCartney, whose late wife Linda was an outspoken vegetarian. With the support of large sections of the media, including the powerful Daily Mail newspaper, which has launched its own bare-knuckled campaign against “Frankenstein” foods, they appear to have the public with them.

THE BATTLE OF LINCOLNSHIRE

To observe this battle, I drive over flat fields recently emptied of potatoes, hay and rape seed oil and drop by the farm of David Carmichael, who wants to plant genetically modified crops. Carmichael says the clamor against GM is anti-scientific nonsense and points out that humans have been breeding plants for thousands of years. He says he intends to press ahead with GM crops because “I’m bloody minded” — and also he says because he is determined that scientific results should speak louder than “unfounded and hysterical objections that have no basis whatsoever.”

On the other side of the fence it is a different story. Farmer Dave Leech, in the office of his own potato farm, makes a case of his own. “Once released into the fields, genetically-modified organisms can cross-pollinate with natural species, changing them forever,” he says. Widespread growing of genetic crops would make it impossible for him to retain the organic certification of his own farm, which has been painstakingly converted to this form of agriculture.

Organic farming is profitable because of strong consumer demand, but it takes several difficult years for a farm to become officially organic — free of herbicide and pesticide use and limited to growing crops that do not contain genetically modified organisms. Whatever the rights and wrongs of GM organisms, says Leech, widespread GM farming would deprive him of his chosen way of farming, a way of farming that is both environmentally sound and commercially successful.

GENTLEMEN FARMERS

Carmichael and Leech are level-headed men who continue to speak with civility of one another, but the battle between the points of view represented by the two farmers has a potential for violence. A new round of experimental GM plantings provisionally authorized by government ministers has the potential to lead to civil disturbances at a time that the countryside is already unsettled over a general farming crisis and moves (driven by animal rights activists) to outlaw foxhunting. In Lincolnshire, police fear the county could tip into serious disorder as saboteurs attack experimental GM fields and police are called upon to stop them. Says Richard Childs, the chief constable of Lincolnshire: “I can’t guarantee that these fields are going to be safe.”

For the introduction of GM foods, the timing could not have been worse. British consumers are hypersensitive about their food following the BSE scare, in which many of Britain’s cattle herds were revealed to be suffering from an incurable brain disease that appeared to be transmissible to humans. The pleas of most scientists that the dangers to humans are statistically insignificant have fallen on unresponsive ears. Even the GM industry concedes that they are losing the argument.

In the shopping centers around Britain, all of the major supermarkets have declared themselves GM free, or working to get there. In Brussels, Belgium, Greenpeace is demanding a total Europe-wide ban on genetic modifications in both human food and animal feed.

Meanwhile, British fears over GM are transmitting themselves to consumers in continental Europe and even to the United States and Australia. The U.S. disputes with the European Union over bananas and beef pale into sideshows compared to the problem of biotech. “Biotech will make bananas look like peanuts,” observes an official of the World Trade Organization, requesting anonymity. And indeed the issue was expected to arise at the WTO summit in Seattle, where agriculture in general would be the hottest debate.

The strength of public opinion caught politicians and the GM companies by surprise. At first, they attempted to dismiss the protestors as crackpots. This quickly proved a serious underestimation, as the “crackpots” have proved resilient and well organized. Next, Monsanto Co., the St Louis-based biotech giant, tried a robust advertising campaign to confront its critics. It backfired badly.

“Monsanto has just made things a lot worse,” said one competitor, who blamed the Americans for riling European consumers. Monsanto, meanwhile, seemed bemused: Genetic modifications had been introduced without any real murmur in the United States, so why were the British being so difficult?

In part, at least, because this is a country that has lost much of its faith in experts. After the disasters of salmonella in eggs, BSE in beef and even E. coli in apple juice, consumers are readily willing to believe that food really was better before the scientists became involved. The subsequent PR battle has been one-sided. The BBC recently turned over much of its most popular and longest-running radio soap opera, “The Archers,” to the story of an idealistic young organic farmer arrested for destroying a GM crop which he feared would cross-pollinate his own natural crops, destroying forever a delicate ecosystem. The jury returned a verdict of innocent — accepting the defendant’s pleas that he was acting to protect his own farm from danger.

“It’s scientific rubbish but it’s not been any help,” says a spokesman for AgrEvo, a major European seed producer anxious to push ahead with field trials.

Meanwhile, Greenpeace have flooded the streets with canvassers, distributing hundreds of thousands of tightly designed and edited pamphlets, backed up with a Web page.

Lord Melchett, the media-friendly head of Greenpeace UK, claims 81 percent public approval for its campaign against GM food. Melchett is one of two dozen anti-GM protestors currently on bail charged with leading a criminal damage attack on a GM crop.

The publicity from this case has been worth millions to Greenpeace and the fear of the GM industry is that — as on “The Archers” — no jury will convict him, after which it becomes an open season on GM crops. They have asked if future crop trials can be held in secret, although that seems a far-fetched idea.

BUSINESS EQUALS RISK

The question now becomes whether the industry dares to go ahead with its series of new and highly controversial field trials, each of which is likely to bring down an organized attack from militant GM protesters and the certainty of many arrests and more politically exploited court trials.

For the moment, a legal technicality has halted the latest planned plantings in Lincolnshire but the prospect that any of them will proceed without a major incident is fading. Monsanto recently appeared to be calling for a cessation of hostilities, when it called on the organic industry to discuss possible joint projects in the natural breeding of plants. The idea received a cautious welcome from Britain’s powerful Soil Association, which accredits organic produce, but both sides remain highly wary of one another.

“The reaction against GM food is bad news, even for those who would no sooner eat a Big Mac than a manure burger,” complained The Times of London, one of the few papers that has openly pressed the case for GM. Douglas Hurd, a former Tory cabinet minister, called the crop wreckers on trial “Luddites” after the rebels who smashed machines during Britain’s industrial revolution. Genetic scientists plead in vain that their discoveries will bring great environmental benefits, but they are hardly believed.

“What would you rather eat: Food that’s been engineered by mad scientists or food that is natural? In PR terms, the contest is not equal,” admitted one despondent GM industry spokesman.

In the marketplace, the consumers are not in doubt. At the GM-free Asda supermarket in Grantham (part of the British chain recently acquired by Wal-Mart), a mother paying 79p (roughly $1.20) for a cucumber that in non-organic form cost 49p (75 cents) explained: “I like to buy the organic cucumbers because I just think they are more natural.” Organic sections in Asda and all other British supermarkets are expanding rapidly, limited only by the supply of organic foods.

In desperation, the GM industry has privately tried to tell people that organic food may not be the panacea some believe. “Wait until someone gets hit with E. coli after eating some animal dung-fertilized organic lettuce,” one GM man sneered. But until that happens, the revolt against GM and rush to adopt organic methods looks unstoppable.

Normally, the advice of the British on what to eat may not seem immediately compelling. This is the country whose most famous contribution to world cuisine is the chip. On current trends, the British chip of the 21st century will still be greasy, but it will likely be GM free.

Jonathan Miller reported for MSNBC.com from London.

Top

Besides, alcohol is not even vegetarian!
It Ain’t Just for Meat; It’s for Lotion
The Dairy Cows — Life, Usage, and Sufferings
Submitted by Pravin K. Shah — Raleigh, NC
Based on an article in New York Times – By J. Peder Zane – May 12, 1996

An average cow at slaughter weighs 1,150 pounds. It weighs 714 pounds once the head, hooves, hide, and intestines are removed. The remaining carcass yields about 568 pounds of beef and 49 pounds of organs and gland, some of which – like the liver – make their way to the dinner table. The rest is mostly fat and bone, and turns up in everything from floor wax to pet food.

According to the Agriculture Department, ranchers were getting about $632 per head (cattle) last week, while meat packers, who butcher the animals, were getting about $644 for the meat and $101 for the byproduct

Chopping sheep brains… That’s what made the British cows mad, and could have killed the Englishmen who ate them, scientists believe.

While American farmers and ranchers assure the public that no sheep passes their Elsles’ lips, some folks might be surprised at what American livestock, swine and poultry are fatted upon. Besides corn, soy or other grains, their diets often include heaping helpings of dried blood, pulverized feathers, crushed bone, leftover french fry grease from fast-food joints and meat meal — which may include mashed pancreas, kidney and heart, and those parts that even packers, wouldn’t dare shove into luncheon meats or head cheese.

Cannibalism down on the farm? You betcha… Baby chick is growing strong and healthy on what’s left from mom after she’s been shipped off as atomic wings, drumsticks and boned breasts.

“We use everything but the squeal, the cluck and the moo,” says Dr. Raymond L. Burns, coordinator of the alternative uses program for the Kansas Department of Agriculture in Topeka.

Welcome to the world of offal, rendering and carcasses, an industry that gives a new meaning to the phrase “You are what you eat.”

It asks:

Once you have carved away the T-bone steaks and London broils, the pork chops and sides of Canadian bacon, the leg and the rack of lamb, what to do with the rest? With the hearts, kidneys and pituitary glands? The horns, hoofs, toenails, skulls and intestines? How about the “paunch material” — undigested stomach contents?

Answer:

More than you can imagine. The abattoir’s detritus is used in a dizzying array of products, including life-saving medicines, life-enhancing beauty aids, soaps, candy, clothing, upholstery, shoes and sporting goods. Not to mention crayons, floor waxes, antifreeze, matches, cellophane, linoleum, cement, photographic paper and weed killers.

For while the renewed outbreak of mad cow disease in Britain led to no small panic as humanity imagined a world without Big Macs or Quarter Pounders, the fact is, the doomsday scenario is much worse. “Take away cows or pigs and you change life as we know it,” half-kids Dr. Jerry Breiter, vice president of allied products for the American Meat Institute, a trade association.

Although mad cow disease is not a threat to the United States cattle industry, there are other concerns. Persistent problems are E. coli bacteria — which killed three children in 1993 who ate undercooked hamburgers at Jack In The Box restaurants — and salmonella contamination afflict many thousands of Americans a year.

And, there are ever-present ethical questions, even for those who do not think meat is murder. The industry’s cold-eyed view of animals as products to be optimally exploited is no doubt disquieting to many people. It’s worth keeping in mind, however, that no animals are slaughtered just to make floor wax or lipstick — 80 to 90 percent of a cow or pig’s value is in the meat people eat. And, as cattle prices have slid to their lowest levels in a decade, prompting President Clinton to try to shore up beef prices last week, meat packers are all the more concerned with squeezing out every penny.

“Selling the byproducts means the difference between profit and loss for the industry, and affordable and unaffordable meat for the consumer,” says Dr. Breiter.

Dr. Bums adds: “If we didn’t develop markets for these products, we would have to dispose of them, which would create a different set of problems.”

Still, visiting a modern meat-packing operation can inspire awe as well as a new appreciation for vegetarianism — just as more people would probably cook at home if they could peer into the kitchen of their favorite bistro.

On an average day in America following animals/birds are killed:

130,000 cattle, 7,000 calves, 360,000 hogs, and

24,000,000 chickens

Modern slaughterhouses are part assembly line, part chop shop. An efficient plant processes 250 cows an hour, 16 hours a day, breaking them into dozens of parts as the carcass flow down the line on steel hooks.

First, the cows are led up a ramp. Their heads are placed in a holder and they are zapped unconscious. A worker, called the “sticker,” plunges a sharp blade into the animal’s jugular vein. As the cow dies, the spurting blood is collected in a trough; later it is baked to a dark red powder that is protein-rich animal feed.

Next the hooves are removed and the hide is stripped for sale as leather and suede (if the cow is pregnant, the unborn calf’s hide is stripped to make the top grade of leather, called slunk). Then the head is sliced off, the chest split open and the internal organs removed.

The organs — called offal — are sent to the offal room and placed on something akin to a conveyor belt, where workers in splattered smocks segregate the parts: one group collects stomach linings, another lungs. Other workers remove hearts, pancreases or thyroids. Most of the bones and hooves are rendered — that is, baked to make bone meal, a fertilizer and high-protein animal feed; the rest are sold, primarily to manufacturers of collagen, gelatin and pet toys.

A parallel process operates in the “fabrication area” where workers carve away the edible meats — the round, the top round, the loin, strip steaks, rib, chuck. Like car parts, each piece of the animal has its own price and market. Cow lips, which sell for 58 cents a pound, for the most part are shipped to Mexico, where they are shredded, spiced, grilled and used for taco filling.

Many cow hearts, 27 cents a pound, are exported to Russia to make sausage. Much of the meat from the cow’s cheek, 55 cents a pound, is sold to American meat processors for sausage and baloney. Of course, many of these “varietal meats” are sold to pet-food companies, which prefer to buy the separated parts.

Fetal blood from cows (roughly $40 to $50 a quart) remains an important tool for the development of drugs and medical research.

Other medications — and markets — are made by extracting hormones and other compounds from the cow’s glands. The pituitary glands ($19.50 a pound) are collected to make medicines that control blood pressure and heart rate. Twenty different steroids are made from fluids pulled from the adrenal glands ($2.85 a pound). The lungs (6 cents a pound) go into Heparin, an anti-coagulant. And the pancreas (63 cents a pound) is still a source of insulin for diabetics allergic to the synthetic kind; it takes about 26 cows to maintain one diabetic for a year.

The highest price is fetched by the most dubious product: cattle gallstones, which are sold for $800 an ounce to merchants in the Far East who peddle them as an aphrodisiac.

It is no small paradox that much of the excess gristle and fat is sold to companies that promise to make people beautiful. Lipstick, makeup bases, eyeliners, eyebrow pencils, hair rinses and bubble baths wouldn’t be the same without fat-derived tongue twisters like butyl stearate, glycol stearate and PEG-150 distearate.

Collagen, a protein extracted from the hides, hooves and bones, is the key ingredient in age-defying moisturizers and lotions; dermatologists inject it into people’s faces to fill out crow’s feet and laugh lines. It is also used to make breast implants and as a medium in which cells can be grown.

Soaps are made mostly from animal fats. Indeed, the word soap is said to derive from Mount Sapo, a prime spot for animal sacrifice in ancient Rome. The locals who washed their tunics in the nearby valley streams noticed that the runoff of animal fat and ashes made their whites whiter and their colors brighter…

During the last 30 years, fewer Americans have had the hankering to dine on cow brains, pig’s feet and bull testicles. But our appetite for hooves — which are used to make gelatin, is insatiable. An odorless, tasteless protein, gelatin is used in hundreds of products including Gummy Bears, ice cream, hard candies and, of course, Jell-O. It is also the secret behind many “fat free” products. “Gelatin gives the creamy mouth feel people want without the calories,” says John Barrows, manager of marketing communications for Nabisco Inc.

A back-to-nature movement among pet lovers has treated another expanding market for animal by products. Squeaky plastic toys are giving way to knuckle joints and beef tendons, ox tails and toenails, chew hooves and 10-pound mammoth bones taken from cows’ thighs.

Which leaves one question. What do they do with the undigested paunch material? Until now, not much. But Dr. Bums of the Kansas Department of Agriculture says, there’s an exciting development just around the corner. “I can’t spill the beans just yet,” he says. “But pretty soon we’ll announce for a new process for converting it back into animal feed.”

Cows’ Body Parts, Common Usage, and Sale Prices

Body Part Price $/Lb. Common Usage Bones 0.42 Gelatin, Collagen, Bone meals Tallow (fat) 0.19 Cosmetics, Candles, Soap, Floor wax Ovaries 7.50 Medication to regulate menstruation Hide 0.75 Footwear, Upholstery, and Cloths Hooves & Horn 0.42 Gelatin and Collagen Kidney 0.17 Human consumption and Pet food Thyroid 2.00 Medicines Trachea 0.20 Pet food Lungs 0.06 Heparin, an anti-coagulant Pancreas 0.63 Insulin and Pet food Adrenal gland 2.85 Source of 20 steroids Spleen 0.12 Human consumption Femur 0.42 Bones for fogs Intestines 0.21 Human consumption Stomach lining 0.41 Human consumption Heart 0.27 Sausage Lips 0.58 Taco filling Cheek 0.55 Sausage and Baloney Dried blood 4.40 High protein animal feed, Drug research Liver 0.43 Human consumption, Vitamin B12, Heparin Tail 1.39 Human consumption Pituitary gland 19.50 Medicines-blood pressure, heart rate

Gallstones 600.00/oz Jewelry and Aphrodisiac

Top

The Fur-Free Friday
A historical perspective by Cres Vellucci, one of the founders of this event.

“Fur-Free Friday” was created in 1986 by Trans Species Unlimited (TSU), based in Pennsylvania with West Coast offices in California, as a way to focus on department stores’ decision to sell fur.

Prior to Fur-Free Friday, there were sporadic fur protests in the early and mid-1980s.  However, activists with TSU felt there needed to be some kind of coordinated action to increase the intensity of protest against the cruelties of the fur industry.  TSU also wanted activity that was more dramatic than passing out flyers.

In creating Fur-Free Friday, the intent was to provide grassroots activists all over the U.S. the opportunity to participate in a coordinated direct action against department stores.  The focus was also placed on acts of nonviolent civil disobedience at these stores, similar to the lunch counter sit-ins and other civil rights actions.

In 1985, in a prelude to this organized event, two groups of activists — one in the New York Macy’s and another in the Sacramento Macy’s – did the first-ever coordinated, non-violent civil disobedience activity protesting fur in the U.S.  The arrests totaled several dozen. The following year, the dedicated anti-fur activists hit stores on what is widely known as the busiest shopping day of the year, the day after Thanksgiving. 

Since then the day after Thanksgiving has become known in the movement as Fur-Free Friday.

At its height of popularity among activists, Fur-Free Friday involves dozens of grassroots groups in more than 30 states, all engaged in non-violent protests that result in hundreds of arrests.  Meanwhile, as Fur-Free Friday grew, fur sales slumped.  In the 1980s, fur sales topped more than $2 billion a year and, likely due to protests such as Fur-Free Friday, have dwindled to about half that currently.

By the early and mid-1990s, Fur-Free Friday had been recognized in the animal movement as being one of the most widely attended U.S. protests against animal suffering.  Nationally recognized organizations such as In Defense of Animals (IDA) have been significant promoters of the movement-wide event by providing anti-fur posters and informational literature.

In 1997, Fur-Free Friday saw a range of activities, including non-violent civil disobedience.  More than 100 dedicated activists were arrested while making their statements of protest against fur.  Fur-Free Friday is one of the few nationally recognized days in the animal movement with “ownership” belonging to grassroots activists determined to halt the cruel fur industry and retailers of its products.

Cres Vellucci can be contacted via email at: [email protected], or website www.FurFreeFriday.com.

The Fur Facts: Trapping

• 10 million animals are trapped for their fur each year. The United States, Canada, and Russia account for most of the world’s wild fur production.

• Approximately two non-target animals are caught for every one furbearing animal.  These non-target animals include squirrels, opossums, dogs, cats, and even endangered species and birds of prey that are attracted to baited sets.

• The steel jaw leghold trap is the most common trap used by the fur industry, followed by the wire snare, and the Conibear body gripping trap which crushes the animal.

• 88 countries and 5 states have banned the leghold trap because of its inherent cruelty and because it is non-selective and traps whatever animal steps into it.

• Congress has failed to pass anti leghold trap legislation, despite public opinion surveys showing that 74% of Americans oppose this device. These polls are verified by the fact that when given a chance, voters in CO, MA, and AZ voted to ban trapping.

• Animals are left in these traps from anywhere from 1 to 3 days, and sometimes longer. Many times these animals will die from starvation, hypothermia, dehydration, or predation by another animal. Otherwise the trapper will shoot them, stomp them, or club them.

• Many animals will chew off their own limbs in a desperate attempt at escape.  This is especially common in raccoons. A 1980 study found that as many as 1 out of every 4 raccoons caught in a leghold trap would chew his foot off to escape.

• Some companies manufacture padded leghold traps for cosmetic purposes.  These padded traps still have to slam shut with enough force to restrain a fighting mad wild animal. Animals caught in padded traps are still exposed to the elements and predators until the trapper returns to kill them. Studies show that padded traps cause injury to 97% of the coyotes that they ensnare.

• Many animals knock out their teeth as they bite at the jaws of the traps. In Sweden a study was conducted where 645 foxes were caught in leghold traps.  514 of the foxes were considered seriously injured, and 200 of them had knocked out teeth as they bit at the trap.

• There are 150,000 trappers in the United States.

• Wisconsin, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan are the leading trapping states.

The Fur Facts: Farming

• 31 million animals are raised and killed on fur farms each year. Mink account for 26 million, fox 4.1 million. Chinchillas, raccoon dogs (not to be confused with the North American raccoon), fitch and sable make up for most of the other ranch raised furbearers.

• Mink are usually killed by gassing, neck breaking or poison injection.  Most foxes are killed by anal electrocution, while chinchilla breeders recommend either neck breaking or genital electrocution.

• Mink and fox are genetically wild animals that are not adapted to a life in captivity. Whereas a wild mink would range a territory that is approximately 3 square kilometers in size, a ranch raised mink is confined to a cage that is 12 inches wide by 18 inches long.

• The intensive confinement leads to self mutilation, cannibalism, and a high level stress which breaks down the animals’ immune systems.

• Approximately 17% of ranch raised mink, and 20% of ranch foxes die prematurely as a result of these factors.

• There are 415 mink farms in the US, which account for 10% of world production.

• Scandinavian countries account for 80% of world fox production and 54% of world mink production.

• Wisconsin, Utah and Minnesota are the leading mink producing states in the U.S.

• Fur farmers have used inbreeding to develop mutant color phases in fur animals. This has led to genetic defects including white mink that are deaf and pastel mink with nervous disorders.

• Many fur farms will feed the corpses of the skinned animals back to the live animals to save on feed costs. This sort of forced cannibalism was banned in the cattle industry because it was believed to cause Mad Cow disease.

• Ferrets are raised on fur farms in Europe. Their skins are marketed as fitch fur. Studies show that as many as 2/3 of the ferrets on fur farms come down with disease as a result of the poor living conditions.

The Fur Facts: U.S. Trade Economy

• Fur imports into the US declined 8.9% in 1997. Imports account for 60% of US retail sales.

• The fur industry claims that their annual sales are at $1.27 billion. This figure includes revenue from fur storage, cleaning, and repair, as well as from the sale of fur trim, leather, and shearling. Actual fur sales are much lower, probably at about $700 million.

• 51% of all US fur sales take place in the Northeast, followed by 25% in the Midwest.

• Fur trade journals described the winter of 1997-98 as the “most disappointing retail fur season in recent memory.” Fur World magazine chastised industry PR groups for giving them false hopes for a good season. This came after the Fur Information Council of America pitched numerous stories which falsely proclaimed that “fur was back.”

Source: Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT) Website http://www.banfur.com Email: [email protected]

“FUR FARMS FACE SHUTDOWN OVER NEXT THREE YEARS IN U.K.”
By John Deane, Chief Political Correspondent, PA News
Source: Radio 4’s Today programme; [email protected]; on behalf of; [email protected]

The British Government was today publishing a Bill which will ban fur farming by the end of 2002. The UK’s remaining 13 fur farms, all in England, currently slaughter around 100,000 mink for fur each year.  Farmers will receive compensation, although the amount has yet to be decided.  Today Agriculture Minister Elliot Morley explained why the Government was so determined to press ahead with the Bill, unveiled in last week’s Queen’s Speech. “We did give an undertaking that we would phase out fur farming, and indeed although there’s only mink farming at the present time, it’s still legal to farm other animals like Arctic fox … so I think it is important that we do take a decision to end fur farming in this country,” said Mr. Morley. “If we don’t legislate, even if they all declined and eventually closed, in the future there would be nothing to stop another one opening.” Compensation would be determined on a farm by farm basis, dependent on their size and assets, he said. Fur farming was particularly intensive. “It’s an intensive method of farming with battery cages … so it is a kind of farming that many people find unacceptable.  Many people find it morally unacceptable because it’s just for fur, and you don’t really have to farm animals for this reason,” he told BBC.

Top

Time Magazine’s
“MAN OF THE CENTURY”
Vegetarian advocate and theoretical physicist
ALBERT EINSTEIN

“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

“There will come a day when men such as myself will view the SLAUGHTER of innocent creatures as horrible a crime as the MURDER of his fellow man.” — Albert Einstein

“Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds.” — Albert Einstein

“Our task must be to free ourselves…by widening our circle of COMPASSION to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature and its beauty” — Albert Einstein

“Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.” — Albert Einstein

“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” — Albert Einstein

“Try not to become a person of success, but try instead to become a person of value.” — Albert Einstein

“In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.” — Albert Einstein

Imprisoned Without Trial
by Manish Vipani

Most of us know that we do to animals what we would never do to people. We understand that people have certain rights that keep them from being eaten, worn, or experimented on by other people.

In 1904, the Bronx Zoo displayed a Congolese Pygmy in a cage with a Orangutan. He spoke no English and no one spoke his language. He eventually committed suicide. Do we have the right to imprison other beings simply because we would not see them otherwise?

Zoos are a major cause of extinction by being the major purchasers of endangered species. Up to 10 animals die from capture and transportation for each one purchased. These animals loose their survival techniques over a period of time and any attempts made to reintroduce them into the wild are dismal failures.

Zoos are unnatural, depriving, often filthy, overcrowded, dismal, monotonous, cramped, and hopelessly depressing to the imprisoned animals. They destroy the animal’s natural zest for life. Boredom causes inmates to become psychotic and neurotic. Zoo animals are so depressed that they rarely breed or care for young born in captivity.

The popular view is that zoos are educational. But what they really teach us is how cruel and inhumane humans can be to animals.

Many people suffer from illusions about effects of alcohol. And they think they know!
Medical science has conclusive evidence to show that these beliefs are baseless.

Here are some illusions — and their reality :

Illusion — Alcohol warms you up on a cold night.

Reality — Alcohol by dilating blood vessels produces false sense of warmth but in reality impairs regulatory mechanisms and makes you more prone to catching cold.

Illusion — Alcohol sharpens appetite.

Reality — Alcohol in fact reduces appetite and desire for essential food-stuffs and thus leads to malnutrition.

Illusion — Moderate intake of Alcohol is not harmful.

Reality — The development of Liver disease is not proportional to amount of alcohol ingested; even small intake of alcohol can lead to cirrhosis.

Illusion — Alcohol increases sexual pleasures and performance.

Reality — Alcohol decreases inhibitions and increases the desire. It leads to decreased levels of male hormone thereby leading to decreased sexual pleasure and performance.

Issued by: Information and Mass Education Division
Ministry of Social Welfare

Top

January – June

What’s Wrong With Dairy & Eggs?

We consume far more ice cream, cheese and other dairy products than our brothers in India. Should we consider cutting some of that down?

Even though most people have never visited a slaughterhouse, the panic, dread, and terror that await innocent creatures, and the gruesome sights and sounds which emanate from these hidden “houses of death” are not at all difficult to imagine. What many people do not realize is that these same horrors are the fate of every factory-raised dairy cow and every hen at commercial egg farms.

A dairy cow’s life is a continuous cycle of impragna-tion, birth, and milking to provide one thing only — a constant supply of milk for human consumption and profit. She will be milked for 10 months out of the year, including seven months of each of her consecutive nine-month pregnancies. Two to three times a day, seven days a week, she will be attached to an electric milking machine, like just another cog in a factory. Then she will be returned to her cramped, narrow, concrete stall to do nothing but await the next milking.

Within hours after giving birth, the cow’s calf will be forcibly taken from her. Male calves will be sold for pet food, killed at just a few days old to make “bob veal”, or raised for beef. Others will be auctioned to producers of “formula-fed veal”. On veal farms, male calves are confined in tiny crates to restrict their movement in order to keep their muscles tender. They are fed an iron-deficient diet which causes severe anima but which keeps their flesh white, making it more valuable when they are sold for meat. Subjected to total sensory deprivation and stripped of any measure of joy, 20% of veal calves will die before even reaching the typical slaughtering age of 16 weeks.

The female calves will be sequestered in tiny stalls in preparation for their enslavement to the dairy industry. When they are old enough to be artificially inseminated, they will begin the drudgery of a dairy cow. Their mother will be promptly put back into intensive milk production, where she will remain at risk for numerous stress related illnesses, infections, and diseases, many of which can be fatal.

A dairy cow will survive a mere four years of this cruel, hollow life, whereas under natural conditions, she might live up to 25 years. At the end of her days, when she can no longer keep up the demanded level of milk production, drained and exhausted, she will be packed onto a crowded truck for transport to her final destination — the slaughterhouse. After a life of slavery and servitude, her retirement gift will be to end up like her fellow “food animals” — on somebody’s plate. All vegetarians, especially those who continue to drink milk while unwittingly clinging to the myth that it is benignly begotten, should be outraged to know that 40% of America’s hamburger is made from “spent” dairy cows.

The Incredible, Inedible Egg

On factory egg farms, laying hens are housed in intensive confinement buildings where up to 100,000 birds are crammed into a single warehouse in stacked rows of bare wire cells called “battery cages”. Four to six laying hens are crowded into each cage about the size of a folded newspaper, unable to stretch their wings, walk, or even roost. Because of this inability, hens’ feet frequently grow directly around the bare wire of their cages.

To reduce stress-induced pecking and fighting resulting from over-crowding, the hens’ beaks are painfully severed at the tip. This delicate tissue is amputated without the use of anesthesia, using a hot knife or a crude guillotine-like device. Debeaking causes excruciating pain and severe shock and frequently results in death.

Hens are also forced to undergo a production process known as “forced molting”. This common egg industry practice involves denying the birds food and water for days on end in order to shock their systems into another egg laying cycle. Ultimately, this destroys a hen’s immune system and greatly increases the risk of salmonella contamination of her eggs.

Although a hen in a natural environment might live to be 15 to 20 years old, at the age of just 18 months, when she is no longer capable of producing eggs at the rate required to be lucrative for the business, she, like her sister the dairy cow, will meet her demise in the abyss of the slaughterhouse. Here she will be ground into pet food or boiled for chicken soup.

Many people naively view dairy and egg production as less abusive than meat production because milk and eggs do not necessitate the immediate deaths of the cows and chickens that produce them. Clearly, dairy and egg farms not innocuous industries as so many of us have been led to believe. Their alliance with animal abuse and slaughter is inextricable and undeniable.

But What About “Humane” Farms?

“Free-Range” Eggs

Although “free-range” hens are generally given more space to live in than hens kept in battery cages, there is no uniform, industry standard defining how “free-range” hens must be housed. The hens may simply be put into larger cages than their sisters who live on factory farms. In addition, it is common for “free-range” layers to be debeaked just like battery cage layers. But even if “free-range” hens were given all the space they could use and an environment in which they could fulfill normal social and behavioral needs, they will still be killed for meat when their egg production rates drop off, usually after just one or two years. And, like other “free-range” animals, they are subjected to the horrors of abusive handling, transportation, and slaughter.

Another problem inherent with ALL egg production involves the disposal of unwanted male chicks at the hatchery. Because males don’t lay eggs and because egg-type strains of chickens don’t grow fast enough to be raised profitably for meat, the baby male chicks are discarded shortly after hatching. There is no incentive for producers to spend time and money to euthanize these chicks which they consider to be a liability. Hence, male chicks are killed by the cheapest and easiest means available. Typically these include suffocation or being ground up alive. All egg hatcheries commit these atrocities whether they provide hens for factory farms or “free-range” farms.

“Organic” Milk

Cows’ milk is intended for calves, not humans, so whenever cows’ milk is taken by humans, calves are denied what is rightfully theirs. Milk production, whether on a small dairy farm or on a large, intensive confinement facility causes animal suffering and death.

For a cow to produce milk she must bear a calf. Most cows on modern dairy farms are forced to have a calf every year. The female calves are used to replace worn out, less productive cows in the milking herd. While dairy cows living on less abusive dairies may live longer and suffer somewhat less than cows in intensive production, ultimately ALL dairy cows end up at the slaughterhouse.

Unlike female calves born to dairy cows, male calves cannot produce milk. Therefore, they are used solely for meat. The veal industry was created as a direct result of the dairy industry. It was developed in order to capitalize on the millions of male calves born to dairy cows each year. This ongoing alliance among the dairy, veal, and beef industries occurs whether the farms are “organic” or intensive, factory-style operations.

The above article was written by Joanne Stepaniak for “Sanctuary News”, by Farm Sanctuary. She is a renowned cookbook author, who teamed up with Farm Sanctuary to produce a unique vegan cookbook, “Vegan Vittles” featuring a plethora of dishes to enjoy. It also includes sections on nutrition and vegan diets, “food animal” production, substitutes for meat, eggs, and dairy products, vegan mail order sources, and heartwarming photographs and rescue stories of the Farm Sanctuary critters. The Farm Sanctuary is very much like a “Panjarapol” in India. The book costs $ 11.95 plus shipping $ 4.00. Send your order to Farm Sanctuary, P.O. Box 150, Watkins Glen, NY 14891-0150. The Farm Sanctuary also accepts donation support for adopting animals. Call 607-583-2225 or 916-865-4617 for more information and details of their activities.

Commonly, most of the strict vegetarians who do not consume even dairy products (or eggs) are warned about the dangers of missing this essential nutrient. North American Vegetarian Society (NAVS) has some good news: According to their research, organic foods contain much more vitamin B₁₂ than their counterpart, chemically fertilized commercial foods. This is one more reason to include as much organic food in our diets as possible. However, they note that further B₁₂ research is needed, and vegans may want to have their blood levels tested and / or consume foods or tablets fortified with B₁₂ until more information is available.

NAVS can be reached at 518-568-7970, or P.O. Box 72, Dolgeville, NY 13329.

Plants — especially organically grown plants — have been shown to contain vitamin B_12, even though previous research had indicated that plants were not reliable sources of this essential vitamin. B₁₂ is needed in microscopic amounts for new cell growth and maintaining a healthy nervous system.

A summary of the results of the study, by Dr. A. Mozafar in Switzerland, was reported in the November issue of New Century Nutrition by T. Collin Campbell, Ph.D., and Jeff Gates, D.H.Sc.

The Swiss research focussed specifically on three plants (soy beans, barley and spinach). Soils enriched with organic fertilizer (cow manure) resulted in a several-fold increase in the soil’s B₁₂ content, as compared to soils worked with conventional inorganic or chemical fertilizers, according to Gates. More importantly, Gates said, the soil’s B₁₂ was actually absorbed by the plants tested. Spinach, the most absorptive of the three tested plants, was found to have 17.8 mcg/kg, as compared to 6.9 mcg/kg for the spinach grown in conventional fertilizers. Barley grown in soil fertilized with manure was found to have 9.1 mcg/kg of vitamin B₁₂, as compared to 2.6 mcg/kg for barley grown with inorganic fertilizers. Soybeans grown with manure had 2.9 mcg of B₁₂ as compared to 1.6 mcg with chemical fertilizers.

“When one recalls that the RDA for B₁₂ is only 2 mcg/day, then a quick calculation finds that just a 4-ounce daily portion of spinach is all that is usually necessary for B₁₂ nutrition,” Gates wrote in New Century Nutrition. Two micrograms is a minuscule amount, approximately the size of a period at the end of a sentence.

Health professionals have warned vegans for years that they may need to take B₁₂ supplements because there is no reliable plant-based source of the vitamin. B₁₂ is not a true vitamin, but rather a by-product of bacteriological action. Animal flesh, milk, cheese and eggs have been shown to contain B₁₂ — but previous studies have not consistently found B₁₂ in plant-foods.

“Are vegans really at greater risk of B₁₂ deficiency?” Campbell ponders in New Century Nutrition. “Some evidence says yes; some invites skepticism. Clearly, vegans do generally have lower blood concentrations of B₁₂. A number of studies have shown this. But these low concentrations mean little unless there is a higher incidence of the accompanying blood (megaloblastic anemia) and nerve (parathesia) disorders, for which there seems to be little or no evidence. What should be acknowledged is that the concentrations of other blood factors, such as cholesterol, also are very different among vegans, and for very good health reasons at that. Why should we expect the lower B₁₂ levels to be an exception?”

B

Vigilance While Eating Out at Restaurants

Many times we eat at restaurants. How do we select our items of order there? We know about the sauce problems at Pizza Hut. But let us be fair and objective. We live in a society where meat eating is the norm, and very strict vegetarianism like ours is exceptional. Therefore, Pizza Hut is not the only place where we have to watch out. As listed below, many restaurants have a variety of challenges in store for us! The two most common problems and several others are indicated below in column “BEWARE!”

However, let us find our ways. Here is a guide to what to order, and/or how to order, when in doubt. Please understand that all the businesses continuously keep changing their recipe formulations, and therefore it can never hurt to ask before placing your order. In fact, we encourage that!

This list of popular restaurants was prepared with reference to book “Meatless Meals for Working People”, published by Vegetarian Resource Group. For more information, please call Debra Wasserman or Charles Stahler at (410) 366-8343. For regular updates of this information, subscribe to their bimonthly magazine, Vegetarian Journal.

More and more people are now abstaining from using dairy products on ethical, health, and/or ecological grounds. We urge you too to reduce, or preferably to completely eliminate them from your diets, for the same reasons. Use the guide below for making your choices.

NAME	BEWARE!	VEGETARIAN	NOT EVEN DAIRY	COMMENTS
Arby’s	Beware # 2. Milk shakes include animal rennet. Buns include eggs.	Green salads, Pita Pockets.	Small side salad.	They use vegetable oil for frying foods.
Baskin Robbin’s	Egg Nog, French Vanilla, Vanilla, Custard, and Marshmallow flavors as well as cookies and cakes contain eggs.		Ices and Sorbets.
Burger King	Beware # 1. Buns may contain animal shortening. Bagels contain eggs. Snickers Ice Cream Bar contains gelatin.	Garden salad; Croissants; Blueberry muffins; Lemon, Cherry, and Apple pies.	Side salad. French, Reduced calorie Italian, and Oil and Vinegar dressings.
Carl’s Jr.	They use vegetable shortening for most of the fried foods, but ask.	Zucchini. Baked goods contain no animal shortening. Macaroni. Pasta salads.	Bread sticks, hot dog buns, plain bun, flour tortilla, English muffin, Kaiser bun, all-you-can-eat salad bar.
Denny’s	Beware # 1. Beware # 2. Veggie burger contains eggs.	Buttermilk biscuits, French toast, waffles, mozzarella sticks, cream of broccoli soup, grilled cheese sandwich and veggie cheese melt sandwich.	Garden salad no eggs. Buns are purchased locally, and may contain dairy.
Domino’s	Beware # 2. The local recipe may contain eggs.	Domino’s crust recipes contain whey, and some other dairy derivatives.	Sauce.
Hardee’s	Beware # 2. Egg and cheese biscuits. Gravy is sausage based.	Garden salad, pancake, cinnamon raisin biscuit, coleslaw, yogurt, crispy curls.	Side salad.
Jack in the Box	Beware # 1. Secret sauce, Worcestershire sauce. Onion rings contain egg yolk. Cheesecake contains gelatin.	Italian dressing. Cinnamon Churritos. Reduced calorie French dressing. Croissant. Grilled sourdough bread.	English muffins, hamburger buns, sesame bread sticks, tortilla bowl (wheat), pita bread, gyro bread, guacamole, side salad, low calorie Italian dressing. Apple turnover.	The types of shortening used differ. They contain natural flavor from butter.
Little Caesars	Beware # 2.	Veggie sub sandwich.	Dough, tomato sauce, Crazy sauce, Crazy bread no cheese, Tossed salad, Greek salad no cheese.
McDonald’s	Garden salad has eggs. All three Danishes have gelatin. Red French Reduced Calorie Dressing includes Worcestershire sauce, that includes anchovies. Big Mac sauce contains eggs.	Side salad, apple bran muffin, cereal. Chocolate chip cookies contain dairy.	Side salad, Lite vinaigrette dressing, McDonaldland cookies, apple pie.	They may cook in separate vats than those for meat, but ask. Call 1-800-524-5900 for more information.
Pizza Hut	Sauce for pasta and bread sticks contains beef base. Sauce for Crusted Stuff Pizza has chicken fat. All sauces contain cheese and animal derived enzymes.	Pan Pizza and bread sticks contain whey. Ask specifically for vegetarian sauce, when ordering.	Salad, Thin ‘N Crispy and Hand Tossed Crust, without any sauce.	Until recently, they made vegetarian sauce with beef base!
Shakey’s	Beware # 2.	Dough and frying oil are vegetarian.	Salad bar. Dough may contain dairy products.
Subway	Wheat roll contains honey.	Veggie and Garden burger subs.	Salad. White Rolls. Soy cheese contains casein!
Taco Bell	Beware # 2. Seven Layer Burrito contains dehydrated chicken meat, found in rice.	Guacamole contains sour cream. Heat Pressed Tortilla contains dry milk.	Corn and wheat tortillas, Light Heat Pressed Tortilla, cinnamon twists, hard and soft taco, Border Ice Products, regular and low-fat refried beans. Low-fat burritos.
T.G.I.F.	Brown Rice Pilaf contain chicken base.	Garden burger has dairy in it.	Vegetable Medley without brown rice pilaf. Garden Cob Salad.
Wendy’s	Beware # 1. Spanish Rice may contain animal flavorings. Fat-free French dressing contains honey. Italian Caesar dressing contains anchovy and eggs. Garden Spot Pasta salad contains eggs.	Wendy’s Superbar, refried beans. Flour tortillas, buns and croutons contain whey. Alfredo sauce. Deluxe garden salad and Side salad contain cheese.	Spaghetti sauce, Rotini, Taco chips, Taco sauce, Taco shells, Garden spot salad. Chow mein noodles. Dressings: French, Sweet Red French, Golden Italian, Reduced Calorie Italian.	“Super Bar” is one of the best among the fast food salad bars.

Beware # 1: Many restaurants do not have (or enforce) a policy of using separate oil vats for frying vegetarian and non-vegetarian foods. Ask before ordering.

Beware # 2:

Many restaurants lack a policy of using cheese made with microbial rennet only. Therefore the chances are, according to the market conditions, that you may end up eating cheese made with animal rennet. To be on safer side, order without cheese, if the employees do not have answers for sure.

Towards Ethical Science

“The Science We Deserve” — Dr. Robert Sharpe

(Text of speech given at International Conference at Helsingborg, Sweden, on 10th August, 1996)

Throughout the world, laboratory animals are the unwilling victims of science. They are used to develop drugs and investigate disease, to test agricultural and consumer products, for military and space research, and for a multitude of other purposes. In Sweden alone, 629,586 animals were subjected to laboratory tests during 1994.

Despite the widespread use of animals, there are powerful arguments against the practice. To begin with, animal research is virtually inseparable from suffering or death. This is partly to do with the experimenter’s desire for a disposable species that can be manipulated as required and killed when convenient. It also arises from the way many tests are performed. In the field of toxicology, which accounts for approximately one fifth of all animal experiments, test chemicals are administered so that at least some dose levels induce harmful effects. For instance, in the LD50 test, animals are deliberately poisoned to death to measure the toxicity of the chemical. A more humane version of the LD50, known as the fixed dose procedure, does not require the animal to be killed. Nevertheless it still requires clear signs of poisoning before it is stopped.

The LD50 is an acute toxicity test requiring a single dose. But even in more prolonged toxicity tests, in which substances are administered every day, the highest dose levels are again chosen to induce harmful effects. This is done so that doctors have some idea which parts of the body require special monitoring during human trials.

Another major area where animals are deliberately harmed is the study of illness and injury. Here, symptoms of disease are induced to promote an ‘animal model’ of the condition. In cancer research for instance, radiation, chemicals or viruses are often used to produce tumors in laboratory animals. Researchers acknowledge that these creatures are likely to suffer pain and distress.

Genetically Engineered Animals

Animals increasingly suffer in genetics research. Techniques have been developed to alter an animal’s genetic make-up producing new strains or species to be exploited by the agricultural, pharmaceutical and biomedical industries. One approach is to insert genes from one species into the embryos of another, the resulting creatures being known as ‘transgenics’. Another methods is to disable or knock out one of the animal’s own genes. Scientists refer to these creatures as ‘knock-outs’.

Genetically engineered animals suffer because scientists are unable to predict the results of their genetic manipulations. The infamous ‘Beltsville’ pigs were genetically engineered to carry human growth hormone genes but developed severe arthritis and were unable to stand. During later experiments by the USDA in Beltsville, growth hormone genes from cows were introduced into pigs in an attempt to increase growth rate and produce leaner flesh. However, the resulting transgenic pigs suffered protruding eyes, gastric ulcers, arthritis, dermatitis, heart problems, lameness, pneumonia and kidney disease. At the University of Cincinnati, research with transgenetic mice unexpectedly led to animals with brain damage, malformed faces, and no back legs. They all died within 24 hours.

Even where there are no unexpected complications, genetically engineered animals suffer and die because in biomedical research they are designed to do so. An example is the so-called ‘oncomouse’, intended for use by cancer researchers. It is produced by inserting human cancer genes into the embryos of mice. The animals quickly develop fatal breast cancer. Another case is genetically engineered ‘cystic fibrosis’ mice. These animals become ill and die within 40 days.

Animals may also suffer from the way they are kept or through poor experimental technique. And for many primates, there are the additional hazards of capture and transportation from the country of origin.

Species Difference & False Sense of Security

Apart from the plight of animals, there are also scientific objections to vivisection. This is because species differ in their response to drugs and disease. Consequently animal experiments are not a safe guide to the treatment and prevention of human illness. For instance, it is well known that oral contraceptives increase the risk of blood clots in women. These and other circulatory problems caused by the Pill, were not identified by animal experiments. In fact, in common laboratory species such as dogs and rats, oral contraceptives produced the opposite effect, making it more difficult for the blood to clot. Another example is the drug fialuridine which was intended for the treatment of hepatitis. However, in 1993 clinical trials of the drug were halted following deaths and serious complications among participants. The dangers were unexpected since the drug had seemed both safe and effective in laboratory animals. Fialuridine is not an isolated example since most of the harmful effects of drugs cannot be predicted by animal tests.

Animals tests not only give a false sense of security, there is also the risk that worthwhile therapies may be lost or delayed through toxic effects that do not occur in human beings. Development of propranolol, the first widely used beta-blocking drug for heart disease and high blood pressure, was put in jeopardy when it caused rats to collapse and dogs to vomit severely. On the basis of animal tests, the transplant drug FK506 was feared too toxic for human use, and if it hadn’t been given as a last chance option to patients in desperate plights, its life-saving qualities may never have been appreciated. And the discovery that tamoxifen caused cancer in rats would have halted development of this anti-cancer drug had the company ICI not already been reassured by its safety profile in human patients.

Similar problems arise when animals are employed as “models” of disease. The use of monkeys to investigate malaria led to the suggestion that steroids would be helpful in treating patients who developed coma. However, human trials showed that steroids are actually dangerous, prolonging coma and increasing the risk of complications such as pneumonia, urinary tract infections and convulsions.

In cancer research some of the animal tumors are so different that any coincidence with human findings must be fortuitous. A widely used animal model of breast cancer is the mouse in which disease is introduced by a virus. Yet even researchers who use this animal admit that “the mouse model . . . has important differences from breast cancer in women.” The disease is not caused by a virus in people and whilst early pregnancy can reduce the risk of illness in women, the opposite is true in mice. And mouse breast tumors seldom spread whereas this is a characteristic of the human disease.

Even the genetically engineered animals that scientists hope will more closely mimic human disease are proving unreliable. It has been found for instance, that cancer genes can behave very differently in mice and people.

These examples show that vivisection is an illogical and unreliable system of research. The method is further undermined by the choice of species. All too often this depends on factors such as cost, breeding rate, ease of handling and tradition rather than whether the animals are likely to respond like people. An example is the use of rabbits for eye irritancy tests. It is known that rabbit eyes have important differences to human eyes but the test has traditionally relied on rabbits because they are cheap, readily available, easy to handle and have large eyes for asserting test results.

The widespread use of rats in toxicity tests highlights the unscientific nature of vivisection. They are one of the main species used to predict the harmful effects of drugs and consumer products, and the assumption is that rats will respond like people. However, there is another major industry whose success relies on differences between rats and people. This involves the development of rodenticides. In this case companies hope to develop products which are toxic to rats but comparatively safe to other animals and people.

Despite the ethical and scientific objections to animal experiments, vivisectors often claim there is no alternative. It has to be remembered that animal experimentation is only one method of research: there are others. One important approach to investigating disease is epidemiology. Here, researchers monitor different groups of people to discover the causes of ill health. Unlike animal experiments, epidemiology produces results of direct relevance to people. Careful detective work by epidemiologists showed how HIV is transmitted and how AIDS can be prevented. This information could not have come from animals since they do not develop the disease when inoculated with HIV.

Tragically, there have been numerous occasions when animal experiments have cast doubt on human epidemiological findings. For instance, epidemiology first highlighted the cancer-causing effects of smoking and asbestos, and of x-rays on foetus but in each case animal experiments delayed progress by producing false results. The same was true for polio research. Epidemiological studies of over 1,000 Swedish cases correctly suggested that polio is an intestinal illness. But experiments with monkeys produced different results and delayed a proper understanding of the disease for over 25 years.

Human Tissue

Another important but underused approach is human tissue research. Tissues are obtained from surgical specimens, from biopsies, or after death, and can be used to investigate disease, develop drugs and produce biological products. There is increasing interest in the use of human tissue to assess the safety of medicines and other products. By producing results directly relevant to people, human tissue tests have the advantage that they can identify harmful effects missed by animal experiments. Although not yet widely used there are enough cases in the medical literature to show their value. The drugs chloramphenicol, phenylbutazone, valproic acid, mianserin and thalidomide all produced injuries which were not predicted by the original animal experiments but which were later identified in the test tube using human tissue.

Scientific Attitudes

The development and adoption of non-animal techniques depends very much on attitudes within the scientific community. Those whose daily work involves the infliction of suffering and death must inevitably become hardened and desensitized. As a result animals are regarded as just another laboratory tool. Because experimenters do not feel strongly about the unnecessary loss of life, some tests continue long after non-animal replacements have been developed. An example is the use of guinea pigs for diagnosing tuberculosis. In 1972 Britain’s TB Reference Laboratory reported that a test-tube technique could be used as an alternative but 14 years later the London Hospital was still routinely using guinea pigs for the purpose. Another case is the testing of hormones like insulin and somatatropin which has traditionally employed animals. In Europe and Japan animal tests are no longer required and have been deleted from official guidelines. However, in the United States the use of animals to test these hormones continues even though it can no longer be considered ‘necessary’.

In contrast, progress is rapid when scientists and industry are sufficiently motivated to avoid using animals. For instance, public pressure has persuaded many companies to adopt more ethical test procedures with the result that consumer product testing has fallen substantially. In Britain, the use of animals to test the safely of cosmetics, toiletries and household products fell by 90% between 1977 and 1994.

The Draize Campaign

The Draize Campaign, which focussed on the use of rabbits for eye irritancy testing, again stresses the importance of attitudes. Since 1944 the Draize test has been employed to assess the irritancy of a wide variety of chemicals including pesticides and consumer products. Usually no pain relief is given and the test often proceeds for 7 days during which the eyes are monitored for signs of damage. It had long been recognized that the rabbit eye is a poor model for the human eye and eventually researchers announced that the traditional Draize test “has essentially no power to predict the results of accidental human eye exposure.” Despite the problem, toxicologists could only suggest using different species. Only during the 1980s, when animal protection groups throughout the world focussed attention on the test, did attitudes finally start to change. The campaign highlighted the cruelty and scientific invalidity of the test and persuaded companies to invest in research to find a humane alternative.

Since then dozens of test-tube alternatives have been developed and some are now routinely used. One of the most successful is EYTEX which is available in the form of a kit and can take as little as one hour to perform. EYTEX uses a mixture of plant proteins and can rapidly identify moderate or severe eye irritants. Another alternative, devised by the Californian company Advanced Tissue Sciences, uses a human tissue system which models the outer layer of the cornea. It can distinguish between innocuous, mild and strong eye irritants.

The Draize campaign has not yet been completed because some animals are still used. Nevertheless it has already led to a substantial fall in the number of rabbits subjected to eye irritancy tests. Above all it has demonstrated what can be achieved when science and industry are sufficiently motivated. This suggests that two key factors are necessary to stop animal experiments. One is an informed public that finds the abuse and exploitation of animals unacceptable. After all, it was public opinion that persuaded many cosmetic companies to stop using animals. The second requirement is a new generation of scientists who no longer regard animals as the disposable tools of research.

Animal protection groups have the power to create these changes and many organizations are now putting great emphasis on education. Already the campaigns are paying dividends. In America for instance, animal laboratories are no longer required by any civilian medical school for teaching purposes. In some of the medical schools the use of animals is now optional: in others the procedures have been discarded altogether. In Britain, dissection is no longer required by any school examining board and has actually been banned in Argentina. And a recent survey of computer-based alternatives in undergraduate teaching found that in 15 out of 20 university departments, students had objected to using animals. The survey acknowledged that “Although there has always been some degree of student objection to using animals, it has never been so apparent as in recent years.” These are important trends because the students of today are the scientists of the future.

In conclusion, there are powerful ethical and scientific objections to animal experiments. We need to use these arguments to educate each new generation of scientists. Our aim is very simple. It is to close down the animal laboratories and create a completely ethical system of scientific research and health care. The International Association Against Painful Experiments on Animals (IAAPEA) has member societies in many countries, including India, Canada and America. The IAAPEA has Consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council. The author of article above, Dr. Robert Sharpe (UK) is IAAPEA’s Scientific Director. Please send your support and donations to P.O. Box 215, St. Albans, Herts, AL3 4RD, England. For more information, you may dial 01144 1727 835386.

Sugar and Other Sweeteners: Do They Contain Animal Products?

The answer to this question is very complex. Carolina Pyevich provided following clues in Vegetarian Journal, while doing an internship with the Vegetarian Resource Group (VRG).

Refined sugar is avoided by many vegetarians because its processing may involve a bone char filter. The activated filter decolorizes sugar to make it white through an absorption process. Bone char filter is used by some major sugar companies, but not necessarily by all. The other filters may be granular carbon, pressure lead filter, or an ion exchange system.

carbon has a wood or coal base, and the ion exchange does not require the use of any animal products. Bones from cows are the only bones used to make bone char.

Two major types of refined sugar produced in the United States are beet sugar and cane sugar. They both are nutritionally equivalent, and one cannot usually taste any difference between them. They are

composed of sucrose. The production and sale of each type are approximately equal.

Beet sugar refineries never use bone char filter, because beet sugar does not require an extensive decolorizing procedure. It is refined with a pressure lead filter and an ion exchange system. Beet sugar is often labeled Granulated Sugar. It is becoming more prevalent in the U.S. because the Federal government subsidizes it. But Jainism would not accept beets, because they are roots.

On the other hand, almost all the cane sugar requires the use of a specific filter to decolorize the sugar and absorb inorganic material from it. The filter may be either bone char, granular carbon, or an ion exchange system.

Domino, the largest sugar manufacturer, uses bone char in the filtration process. The cane refineries of Savannah Foods, the second largest sugar manufacturer, also use bone char. California and Hawaiian (C&H) Sugar employs bone char filters as well as granular carbon and ion exchange filters. All these companies use the bone char in the refining process of brown sugar, powered sugar (sugar mixed with corn starch), and white sugar.

Refined Sugar, producers of Jack Frost Sugar, use a granular carbon. Florida Crystal sugar is a cane sugar which has not passed through the bone either.

Some labels of sugar packages seem to indicate that the product is “raw sugar,” but all commercial sugar has undergone some refining. Genuine raw sugar, according to FDA regulations, is unfit for human consumption.

Turbinado sugar is made by separating raw cane sugar crystals in a centrifuge and washing them with steam. It retains brown color. C&H produces Washed Raw Sugar, without passing through bone char.

Brown sugar is basically refined sugar with added molasses. It could have been refined with bone char.

Molasses is derived from sugar canes. Beet sugar molasses is too bitter for human consumption. The molasses syrup does not go through any filter, because there is no need to eliminate the brown color.

Maple Syrup

This sweetener may sometimes be non-vegetarian, because the process of making it requires an agent to reduce its foam by adding a small amount of fat to the liquid. This fat is the complex issue.

Traditionally, lard has been used for that. The pork is hung over a tub of maple syrup, and let drops of fat drip into the syrup. Milk, cream, butter, or vegetable oil also could have been used for that process.

Most maple syrup manufacturers now use vegetable oil or synthetic defoamers instead of lard. But one commercial defoamer, Atmos300K, contains glycerides derived from “edible meat and/or vegetable sources.” Thus, it is difficult to determine whether a particular brand has an animal or vegetable based defoamer.

Kosher certified brands, such as Spring Tree or Maple Groves, are unlikely to contain animal products in their defoamers. Holsum Foods, which produces pancake syrup, uses vegetable oil for defoaming. Their products are labeled by food chains such as Dominick’s, Supervalue, and Superfine.

As the people of the world become health-conscious, they are looking for newer, un-pharmaceutical ways of preserving and treating their health. Vegetarians, people whose diets exclude all meat products, eggs, poultry, and fish, have statistically proven that their diets are healthier than non-vegetarian diets. Vegetarian diets consist of fruits, vegetables, grains, beans, and nuts. In addition, research now shows that meat is not essential for health. Many people are switching to vegetarian diets. This paper examines vegetarian diets and proves that they are healthier than meat-inclusive diets.

We know that protein is necessary in a healthy diet; however, not everyone is aware about the multitude of vegetable protein sources. Protein is needed daily to grow and repair tissues and to maintain the body’s functions. Also, many people fear vegetarian diets make people protein deficient, and then weak, sick, and anemic. Although vegetarians eat less protein than do meat-eaters, they readily get as much as they need from non-flesh sources. Even vegans, who eat only plant foods, get more than the minimum recommended level. In fact, non-vegetarian diets provide too much protein. The National Research Council has established that the average male should consume nine percent of his calories in the form of protein everyday. Inspection of published food tables reveals that most grain products, legumes, nuts, seeds, and vegetables contain more than nine percent of their calories in the form of protein. Even the recommended nine percent is actually more than double the minimum requirement established by the World Health Organization and other experts.

In addition, many people believe that more protein will make them strong and is necessary for doing strenuous work; however, sports records show that vegetarian athletes surpass meat-eating athletes in events that require strength and endurance, such as running, swimming, and tennis. For instance, Pierreo Verot, a vegetarian, holds the world record for downhill endurance skiing. The world’s record for distance butterfly stroke swimming is held by vegetarians James and Jonathan deDonato. Furthermore, vegetarians are more readily able to attain physical balance, mental clarity, and spiritual harmony — factors that are critical in maintaining optimal health.

Formerly, vegetable proteins were classified as second-class, and regarded as inferior to first-class proteins of animal origin, but this distinction has now been generally discarded. It is now seen that the excessive amount of protein found in meat products is actually hazardous to health. Two diseases caused by the over-consumption of protein are osteoporosis and kidney stones.

Researchers at Michigan State University and other universities show that osteoporosis is caused by excessive protein. The more protein (especially from animal origin) a person consumes, the more calcium his or her body loses, resulting in osteoporosis. The high-protein diets cause a gradual decrease in bone density and eventually osteoporosis. The results of the study reported that by the age of 65 in the United States, vegetarian men have an average measurable bone loss of 3%; non-vegetarian men, 7%. Vegetarian women have an average measurable bone loss of 18%; non-vegetarian women, 35%. The study also shows that by the time a non-vegetarian woman reaches the age of 65, she has lost over one-third of her skeletal structure. On the contrary, older vegetarian women tend to remain active, maintain erect postures, and are less likely to fracture or break their bones.

Another problem caused by excessive protein is the production of kidney stones. Kidney stones are caused by the crystallization of the calcium that is lost from the bones in digesting the excess protein. The excessive protein consumption also results in the destruction of kidney tissue and the deterioration of the kidney itself. This is so because the kidney has to work harder to de-aminize and excrete the excess protein out of the body.

Besides proteins, saturated fats and cholesterol play an important role in a person’s health. Although some fats are necessary in a balanced diet for body maintenance, excess saturated fats are hazardous. Animal fats are heavier and stickier, and they agglutinate blood cells, thus increasing the viscosity of blood, restricting blood flow, and raising blood pressure. When the blood stops moving, it causes a clot in the artery. These clots result in many forms of heart diseases. Similarly, cholesterol, which is found only in animal foods, deposits in artery walls and causes the arteries to clog.

Approximately thirty-eight percent of all deaths are caused by heart attacks, in the United States. Recent medical research indicates that a high-fat, low-fiber diet centered on meat is a contributing factor in cardiovascular disease. According to the American Heart Association (AHA), the three major risk factors in heart disease are high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, and smoking. In 1985, the AHA said, “We have good evidence that most people…can reduce a major risk of having a heart attack by following a cholesterol lowering plan….Foods of plant origin, such as fruits, vegetables, grains, nuts and seeds, contain no cholesterol. These foods are highly recommended.”

Although absent in plant foods, cholesterol is present in meat, poultry, seafood, dairy products, and eggs. Cholesterol is the main component of the plaque that builds up in arteries, causing atherosclerosis.” All of these foods, with the exception of seafood, are also high in saturated fat. Diets high in saturated fats and cholesterol produce atherosclerosis, which leads directly to heart diseases and strokes. Diets low in saturated fats and cholesterol decrease atherosclerosis, and lower the probability of heart diseases and strokes. The AHA recommends cutting back in foods high in saturated fats and cholesterol, which are found mainly in animal products. The AHA recommends that people use beans, lentils, tofu, and other plant foods instead of meat in their main course.

In addition, nutritional studies show that vegetarians consume less cholesterol and saturated fats and have lower levels of cholesterol. Studies also show that meat- eaters have higher rates of atherosclerosis and fatal heart diseases. For example, the average non-vegetarian runs a fifty percent risk of having a heart attack; whereas, a vegetarian runs only fifteen percent risk of having a heart attack (Jainism 11).

Vegetarian diets with a lower saturated fat content are also a method for reversing disease. A California physician became renowned worldwide for prescribing vegetarian diets to people with heart disease. A significantly lowered fat content is the key ingredient in restoring health. Dr. Dean Ornish, MD, head of heart disease reversal studies says, “If everyone in the country was eating a low-fat vegetarian diet, heart disease could be as rare as malaria.”

Recently, Harvard University and Michio Kushi completed a study to discern the effects of macrobiotics on blood and cardiovascular strength and overall condition. People who normally lived their lives on vegetarian foods were asked to change to a more standard American diet, containing meats, heavy sauces, sweets, and processed foods. After a few weeks, the results showed that the people’s cardiovascular systems and blood conditions suffered from it.

In addition to heart diseases, colon and breast cancers are also directly related to the amount of fats and cholesterol consumed. The Association for the Advancement of Science states that “populations on high-meat, high-fat diets are more likely to develop colon cancer than individuals on vegetarian…diets.” Evidence from a study conducted in Stockholm, Sweden, reports that the greater the fat intake of a person, the higher the risk he or she has of contracting colon cancer. Similarly, the more fat a woman consumes in her lifetime, the more likely she is to obtain breast cancer. In a study conducted at the National Cancer Research Institute in Tokyo by Dr. Hirayama, the results show that women who consume meat daily face an almost four times greater risk of getting breast cancer than those who eat no meat.

Cutting out fatty meats and substituting lighter plant proteins have amazing effects on general health and well-being. Not only that, but vegetarian diets can, in many cases, actually reverse diseases. Many cases of miraculous cancer remission effected by adopting a vegetarian diet have been reported. An example of this is the story of Dr. Anthony Satlilaro. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 1978. The cancer then spread to his lungs as he underwent traditional medical therapy. When he had only six months left to live, he tried a vegetarian diet. Eighteen months later, a CAT scan performed on him showed that he was completely rid of both cancers.

Most non-vegetarians think that vegetarians are weak, skinny, and anemic; however, it is seen that most vegetarians experience better than average health and typically live physically active and demanding lives. People who have adopted vegetarian diets say that they experience many benefits. They say that they sleep better and for fewer hours and still wake up feeling more refreshed and energetic than they did before. Many feel “they are now able to participate in life more than they thought possible.”

In addition to these physical benefits, a person can enjoy the meals because they can be prepared many different ways, to suit various tastes. People who have adopted vegetarian diets say that they are now able to eat more foods with fewer calories, fats, and cholesterol.

Vegetarian diets should avoid some pitfalls. For example, some foods are prepared with too much salt. They cause the water to be drawn out of blood cells, creating a dehydration of tissues and causing a water retention problem in the body. Excessive sodium overburdens the kidneys and forces the heart to work twice as fast in response. This leads to dehydration, hypertension, and increased blood pressure levels. Another precaution is that you must consume dark green and leafy vegetables, which are a major source of the essential vitamins A and E. Finally, a proper combination of all food groups (grains, vegetables, beans, and fruits) should be maintained in proportion.

The foods that were once believed to be the foundations of good health are actually found to be detrimental to one’s health and the causes of degenerative diseases such as osteoporosis, kidney stones, heart disease, cancer, etc. In addition, those foods that were once looked upon as nutritionally deficient are now proven to be healthy and even helpful in reversing all above illnesses. Therefore, a vegetarian diet is the healthiest choice one can make.

by Sweta Shah — Harvey, LA (11^th Grade Study Paper)

Amato, Paul R., Ph.D., and Sonia Partridge. The New Vegetarians: Promoting Health and Protecting Life. New York: Plenum P, 1989.

Iacobbo, Karen. “Diet Clearly Linked to Leading Killer.” Vegetarian Voice: Perspectives on Healthy, Ecological, and Compassionate Living. Oct. 1993.

Jainism and Animal Issues: Handbook for Compassionate Living.

“Some Winner Arguments.” Oct. 1996.

Null, Gary. The Vegetarian Handbook: Eating Right For Total Health. New York: St. Martin’s P, 1987.

Ornish, Dr. Dean. Dr. Dean Ornish’s Program for Reversing Heart Disease. New York: Random House, 1990.

Robbins, John. Diet for a New America. New Hampshire: Stillpoint Publishing, 1987.

Vegetarianism: Answers to the Most Commonly Asked Questions.

Pamphlet. New York: Natl. American Vegetarian Society, 1993.

This article originally appeared in the October 1995 FDA Consumer.The version below is from a reprint of the original article and contains revisions made in January 1996.

Profile of a Crusader: Howard F. Lyman

As a fourth-generation family farmer in Montana for almost 40 years, he speaks from a background personal experience, when he says that chemically based agri-cultural production methods today are unsustainable, and therefore ecologically disastrous. His experiences range from working in a large organic dairy to raising registered beef cattle to owning a large factory feedlot. He has farmed thousands of acres of grain and reprodu-ced a herd of over one thousand commercial beef cows. In addition to raising cows, he has raised chickens, pigs, and turkeys. He has also grown crops such as wheat, barley, oats, alfalfa, and grass. But after all that, finally he has turned vegetarian, and now a vegan.

He was involved in agriculture at a time when the call dictated getting bigger and better or getting out. He was educated in modern agriculture. He followed all the modern advice and turned a small organic family farm into a large corporate chemical farm. But that is when he saw the organic soil go from a living, productive base to a sterile, chemical-saturated, mono-cultural ground produced by the so-called modern methods.

In 1979, a tumor on his spinal cord caused him to be paralyzed from the waist down. That changed his life forever. He promised himself that, whatever the outcome of the surgery, he would dedicate the rest of his life to doing what he believed to be right — no matter what changes that necessitated.

The period before and after surgery gave him much time to think about the changes resulting from his methods of farming. Convinced that we were going the wrong way, he saw a need to become a voice for the family farmer and the land. In 1983, he sold most of his farm and started working for farmers in financial trouble. This led to his working for the Montana Farmers Union and from there to Washington, D.C. as a lobbyist for the National Farmers Union.

For five years he worked on Capitol Hill. In that time they had some small successes, such as passing the National Organic Standards Act. But even after the act became a law, it took the administration several years to allow funds for its implementation. He became convinced that the changes needed had to come from the producers and the consumers at the grassroot level. Until that alliance is put into play, the big money interest will continue to control public policy in the Congress.

His goal is to see a producer-consumer alliance controlling public policy decisions in North America. To that end he has joined The Humane Society of the United States as Director of the Eating With Conscience Campaign. This campaign has been designed to educate people about organic sustainable agriculture and the dangers of current methods of food production. He believes that informed producers and consumers will help by making humane choices in their personal lives.

His progress in achieving sustainable agriculture has been marked by some very interesting events. He ran for Congress in Montana in 1982 and was able to carry the message through the political campaign. Although he lost, he was able to focus the voters’ attention on who was producing our food and how they were doing it. Later on he took on as the executive director of the international Beyond Beef Campaign (in favor of strictly vegetarian diet), which was able to organize over 2,400 teams consisting of over 10,000 people who handed out over 1,000,000 pieces of information in one day at over 3,000 separate locations around the world. This effort was to educate consumers about their food choices.

He has appeared on over one thousand radio stations and hundreds of television stations. Recently he talked on Oprah Winfrey’s show about the ‘Mad Cow Disease’. He has spoken to thousands of groups. The message is always the same: If there is to be a bright future for our children and grand-children, it will come only from consumer support of producers who work in concert with nature — organically, sustainably, and humanely.