Revolutionary New Strategies for Maximum Pain Relief
by Neal Barnard, M.D., 1998, Harmony Books, ISBN 0-609-60098-2.

As mentioned above, Foods That Fight Pain provides sometimes surprising connections between pain and particular foods. The book is “based on the premise that foods have medicinal value” [p.xi]. It suggests, for example, that back pain can be alleviated by a low-fat vegetarian diet with minimum salt, Vitamin B6, exercise, and simple painkillers; oat products, because of their soluble fibers, lower cholesterol; and that vitamins B6 and B12, along with folic acid can help prevent heart attacks (beans, vegetables, and fruits are rich in folic acid and vitamin B6).

Foods that Fight Pain has short chapters, each easy to read in a single sitting, that cover back and chest pains, migraines and other headaches, joint pain, digestive problems, fibromyalgia, menstrual and breast pains, cancer pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, diabetes, herpes and shingles, sickle-cell anemia, and kidney stones. Short final chapters discuss exercise, rest, and a set of foods that most often trigger problems. This set surprised me — meat, eggs, dairy products, caffeine; but also wheat, citrus, corn, nuts, and tomatoes. None of these potentially troublesome foods was part of the diet when humans first appeared millions of years ago, it is posited, and “there is little evolutionary pressure to adapt to anything unless our ability to reproduce hangs in the balance” [p.212]. However (thankfully!), if any of these foods don’t cause problems for a person, then there is no reason for that person to avoid them.

The book concludes with menus and recipes by Jennifer Raymond, all of which are low-fat, no-cholesterol, and vegan. And that is the unifying thread behind to book — eat a low-fat diet based entirely on non-animal products.

I carefully read a bit more than the first 100 pages before I got to a chapter on fibromyalgia, which had no relevance to me. I then picked the remaining chapters that might have some pertinence. That is probably the best way to read this book — read the very short introductory material then read the chapters of specific interest to potential or real health problems you may have.

I would have enjoyed a longer introductory section focusing on the benefits of a good vegan diet, and possibly discussing topics such as eating what’s in season (and the macrobiotic approach), cooking foods (in line with the anthropological discussion, fire was discovered relatively recently in human existence; should we be cooking foods?), organic produce, and cross cultural food discussion. It would have been good to have strongly made the point for low-fat vegan diets, and then suggested that another advantage is their consistent appearance in all of the chapters as the base for pain fighting. The book would also profit from longer discussions of exercise (its chapter is 2 pages long) and rest (5 pages).

Why is it that “people are fed by the food industry which pays no attention to health, and are healed by the health industry which pays no attention to food”? Maybe this book will help bridge the communities. Foods that Fight Pain is worth referencing as preventive medicine, and is definitely a good resource for people suffering from one of the many kinds of pain covered

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.

Teacher: Ok class. I have some really exciting news for you today.

Class: Yeah!

Teacher: Next week, we will begin our study of the physiology of organ systems. That means that we get to dissect animals and learn about how their bodies work.

Julie: Yuck! That’s gross!

Teacher: No. That’s life! You will see what the brain really looks like. You will even see a heart as it is still beating inside a rat. This is the most interesting part of 9th grade Biology.

Kevin: Does that mean that we get to see blood squishing all over?

Teacher: Yes, there will be blood involved.

Tina: Do we really have to touch the animals?

Teacher: You will touch the animals, but you will have gloves on at all times.

(The bell rings and the class runs out of the room, except Ketan, who goes to speak to the teacher).

Ketan: Mrs. Anderson, it’s against my religion to kill animals, so I don’t think I will be able to do the dissections.

Teacher: But don’t you make exceptions for the sake of learning? This will be a very good learning experience.

Ketan: I’m sure it will be, but there are many ways to learn without sacrificing life.

Teacher: Yes, but no matter how you do it, there is no replacing this experience. I can describe to you what a vibrating heart feels like. It’s soft, and moist, and there’s a vibrating feeling under it, but that description could also be used to describe a fish. It’s sort of like this. I can tell you what sugar tastes like, but you will never know until you taste it yourself.

Ketan: Yes, you are probably right. I will never know what a rat’s heart feels like as it is beating, but I don’t think it will make a big difference in my life if I do learn what it feels like. But for the rat… he is being deprived of his life, just so that I can feel what his heart feels like. That is so unfair. How would you feel if some elephants wanted to know what it felt like to step on a human and just stepped on you even if it didn’t make a life-and-death difference in his life?

I understand that it is important to learn physiology and anatomy, and know where things are located, but I feel that it is wrong to do so at the expense of animals’ lives. Especially at this stage of the game, where it does not really matter if we know what an animal looks like inside. And if we really need to learn, sometimes we see dead squirrels and rats lying on the side of the road. We can always get some gloves, pick them up, and cut them open to learn about their anatomy. We don’t need to kill live rats.

Teacher: I guess you have a point here. I will excuse you from this assignment, if you can come up with a reasonable alternative within the next two days.

Narrator: That day, Ketan goes home and talks to his cousin, who is in medical school.

Ketan: You won’t believe what happened in school today.

Chetan: What happened?

Ketan: Our class is going to be dissecting worms and roaches and rats and stuff for the next few months, so I talked to my teacher about it. I told her it was against my religion to kill and that I didn’t think it was very necessary in this case to kill so many animals.

Chetan: No way! You told her that?

Ketan: Yeah, but wait, it gets better! She told me that if I could come up with a reasonable alternative within the next two days, then I could be excused from the assignment.

Chetan: There are lots of alternatives to this. Our medical school has lots of them because we are now moving toward more humane methods of medical education — no one is required to kill anything for the whole 4 years that we go thru medical school.

Ketan: So how do you learn?

Chetan: Well, we have computer programs for anatomy and physiology which are very interactive and fun to use. We click on the mouse to remove the skin or a particular muscle and you can see what is under it. Or, you can click on a screen to see the heart pumping and click on a medication to see the effects of that medicine on heart rate, blood pressure, etc.. It is just like the real lab. Of course, you don’t get to feel what it really feels like.

Ketan: That’s exactly what Mrs. Anderson told me. She said I would never be able to feel the real thing.

Chetan: Yeah, but we have cadavers. These were people who have donated their bodies to the medical school after death, so we can feel a real liver and a real spleen and a real brain. But we don’t have to kill in order to get the experience.

Ketan: Wow! That’s so cool! I wish I could do that.

Chetan: Do you want me to speak to my anatomy professor to see if you can come in and look at my cadaver? I will show you all the important organs. It will be fun for you too. Plus, it will be a real human.

Ketan: Yeah, that would be nice.

Chetan: And you can use our computer programs while you are there to learn about the anatomy and physiology.

Ketan: Cool! I’ll ask my teacher tomorrow.

Narrator: The next day, in school, Ketan brings up his idea to Mrs. Anderson.

Ketan: (raises his hand)

Teacher: Yes, Ketan.

Ketan: Mrs. Anderson, remember when I talked to you yesterday about it being against my religion to kill animals? And you told me that I could come up with an alternative assignment? Well I talked to my cousin who is in medical school; he told me that they have some computer programs that I can use to learn anatomy and physiology and then he could take me to see his cadaver so that I can feel a real human liver and heart. Does that sound like a reasonable alternative?

Teacher: Yes. That sounds fine with me.

Julie: I want to do that too; I think it sounds cool to go to the medical school and use their computer program, and then see a real human body. Can I be excused from the assignment too?

Teacher: Yes, that would be fine Julie.

Kevin: (Whispers to Ketan) Does that mean you get a day off from school?

Ketan: (Whispers back) Probably more than one because I can’t do the whole computer program in one day.

Kevin: (Yells to the front of the class) Me too. I want to do the alternative assignment.

Teacher: We’ll have to see about that. I don’t know how many of you can be accommodated.

Ketan: I’ll ask my cousin — may be they can just have a special class for us or something.

Teacher: That would be fine with me, if it’s okay with the medical school. Perhaps in future we may look into purchasing a computer program for our school too.

This skit was prepared by a medical student, Yashica Ghelani, Absecon, NJ.

By Sandy Mickelson — Doris Day Animal League — “Animal Guardian,” April-June, 1997

When the circus comes to your town and it features wild animal acts as part of the entertainment, be a voice.

Many people who otherwise are revolted at instances of animal abuse do not recognize the abusiveness of circuses. Circuses provide an excellent opportunity to start an education process (especially for children) that teaches the responsibility and respect we need to show these beautiful animals and voice the position that we do not find anything the least bit entertaining in this brutal exploitation.

What exactly is wrong?

Cramped cages, extreme boredom, deprivation of food, pain and punishment in the form of electronic shocks, loud noises (guns), whipping, muzzling, and even drugs all combine to hone the animal’s performance skill, thereby creating a thrill for the audience.

After the big top folds, what then? Circus animals suffer most before and after the show. The end result of living in cramped cages and being chained at the foot for 18-20 hours a day may lead to physical problems — foot rot, chain sores, organ failure and in some cases, insanity or death. To circus entrepreneurs, these animals are merely disposable inventory — when they are used-up, they are replaced. There are precious few sanctuaries for these “used-up animals.”

George Adamson, husband of Joy Adamson of Born Free fame, said in his autobiography: “A lion is not a lion if it is only free to eat… it deserves to be free to hunt and to choose its own prey; to look for and find its own mate; to fight for and hold its own territory; and to die where it was born — in the wild. It should have the same rights as we have.”

What does it say about human nature when we degrade these magnificent creatures by making them perform tricks for human amusement? More importantly, what are we saying to our children about acceptable behavior from humans? Is it possible that we are, in fact, sanctioning cruelty to living creatures — even humans?

Consider the case of the caged tiger. There can never be a cage large enough for a tiger. This captive animal has been denied the freedom to roam in an environment that is suitable to its species. It is condemned to a life of hardship, a life without hope. Most of the day is spent isolated in a steel cage — broken and controlled by his or her captor. The fact that a human is able to train these animals to perform tricks such as jumping through flaming hoops and forcing the animal to open its mouth so that the trainer can put his head between its jaws (exhibiting total control), is beyond reprehensible. To witness this loss of dignity and somehow condone it is a profoundly sad observation of human behavior.

Circus animals do not have a choice. But we do. We can make a statement by not attending, by using the local media to express our views and by letting the sponsors of these circuses know how we feel.

Letting our children know exactly why we say “no” enables them to exhibit responsible stewardship and control regarding the respect and the quality of life these animals deserve and their inherent right to be born, to live and to die according to their own nature.

Many well-meaning people go to circuses. To them, circus animals appear to be happy, contented, well-cared-for and not subjected to cruelty. The eyes only “see” what they want to see, so the suffering goes on.

As a self-imposed voice for the plight of these circus animals, we have an opportunity to succeed in a small part in the preservation of these endangered species on our endangered planet. The next time the circus comes to your town, be a translator. Be a voice for the

ones who can not speak the language of humans,

tiger doomed to die in a small cramped cage,

elephant chained by his bleeding foot,

caged lion pacing side to side in a cage longing for something he may not remember — freedom. be a voice…

Animal Rights Festival Sets Example for Jains

From October 6-8, the Tenth Annual International Compassionate Living Festival held in the Holiday Inn in Raleigh, NC brought together distinguished speakers from different backgrounds, such as Australia and Hawaii, old and young activists, and a compassionate audience. The diversity of topics presented, the literature displayed for public knowledge with the delicious vegan food served during dinner and lunch, not only added to the festive mood, but added a new dimension to the animal rights movement.

Speakers, such as Roberta Kalechofsky, who spoke about the illusions of animal testing and the understanding of the “animal model”, and Michael Klaper, who gave a physician’s view on the necessity for a vegan diet, delivered speeches that broke the boundaries of ignorance on such issues. Amazingly, each speaker was able to keep my attention with their vast amounts of knowledge, different speaking styles, and their ability to present themselves objectively on such emotional issues. Though speaking on a specific issue, every speaker realized the holistic effects that veganism had on humans, animals, and the environment. On a whole, the compassion that streamed from their souls seemed limitless. It was very refreshing to be surrounded by people who sought knowledge not only from the mind, but from the heart.

Likewise, when people found out I was Jain, I saw an excitement in their eyes and soon enough the questions poured in. Almost every person that I came in contact with had a considerable amount of admiration for the faith. The word Ahimsa came up quite often. Though I was flattered by their interest, I could help but think how we always compromise the philosophy of Ahimsa, which in its totality encompasses other philosophies such as Aparigraha, or simplicity. Living in America, many of us try to live the materialistic life style, while adding in a bit of Jain values here and there. Thus, the profound nature of this festival was due to the amount of people who lived simple and compassionate lives (many have made room in their own homes for an animal shelter), and living up to the central Jain philosophies without even knowing it.

My wish is to station these people in front of my friends, family and community to serve as role models as compassionate humans. In reality, I know this can not happen, but I do know that people, both Jain and Non-Jain, have the potential to do the same.

– Lynna Dhanani, Raleigh, NC

Vegetarian Food Fair – San Diego’s Fall Fest ’99

This eventis a cornucopia of live music, entertainment and information about healthy living, healthy eating, and healthy alternatives for people, animals, and our planet… a harvest of sights, sounds, and flavors of the season… a cruelty-free feast promoting an Earth-friendly, people-friendly, and animal-friendly lifestyle.

Among the many great things happening that day, John Robbins will be there!

John Robbins, the author of the best-selling Pulitzer prize nominated book Diet for a New America takes us on a journey into the great American food machine. In his early twenties, in an effort to regain his own health, John turned away from the family owned Baskin-Robbins ice-cream business and began extensive research into nutrition and food production. After ten years of investigation and a thorough inside look at the American food production system, John has a whole new story to tell.

In simple and startling words, Robbins connects the dots and reveals his theories on the environmental and personal health consequences of a diet based on animal products. According to him, our current American diet is a recipe for disaster. He strongly recommends plant based (strictly vegetarian) diet as the only solution.

If you like to contribute to this and other future events, please send your checks to address next page.

– Organized by Compassionate Living

BY SUZANNE MCCAFFREY

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) — “Good Medicine” — Autumn, 1995

New products that replace live animal labs in medical training are rapidly entering the marketplace. The most impressive new systems incorporate computerized mannequins, complex graphics, and sophisticated operator controls in state-of-the-art patient simulators. Students learn both medical concepts and manual procedures on life-size, interactive equipment that provides the benefits of anatomical correctness, unlimited repetition, scheduling convenience, and variable “health” conditions that prepare students for actual practice.

The Human Patient Simulator was developed by the University of Florida College of Medicine to train anesthesiologists in routine and crisis situations. Its interactive technology provides a realistic learning experience that is adaptable for a wide range of health care practitioners, including medical students, residents, nurses, and medical engineers.

The simulator mannequin has palpable pulses, heart and lung sounds, twitch response to nerve stimulation, and, yes, even a body temperature. Trainees can monitor its heart rate, cardiac rhythms, cardiac output, and blood pressure. Equipped with interface software and an instructor’s remote control, the simulator also gives accurate patient responses to over 60 different drugs, mechanical ventilation, and other medical therapies, and allows the instructor to introduce new conditions.

The simulator’s drug recognition and response system is particularly useful for replacing animal laboratories in medical school. Some medical schools still use dogs or other animals as laboratory subjects as basic science courses, where students inject the animals with various drugs to observe the change in their blood pressure, respiration, heart rate, etc. The animals are generally killed with a fatal injection at the end of the lab. The simulator allows medical students to observe accurate responses to drugs predicated on human patients without wasting the lives of animals.

The simulator’s interactive design allows it to be used with all anesthesia gas delivery systems and mechanical ventilators. It connects to standard monitoring system, including EKG, invasive and non-invasive blood pressure and pulse monitors, and even responds to equipment malfunctions.

Procedures that can be taught on the simulator include inserting artificial airways, taking non-invasive blood pressure measurements, monitoring arterial blood gases, and administering anesthesia. A special curriculum uses a series of clinical scenarios in which students manage the anesthesia and medications for a patient in a diabetic coma, surgical repair of an aortic aneurysm, treatment of end-stage renal disease, and other conditions.

The Human Patient Simulator has been used by the University of Florida system for over eight years. It sells for approximately $180,000, and has been purchased by, among other sites, Mount Sinai Anesthesia Simulation Center, the University of Rochester Strong Memorial Hospital, Vanderbilt University in Nashville, and Santa Fe Community College in Gainesville, where the Florida Department of Education has developed a simulator-based curriculum for health care professionals. More information is available from Loral Data Systems, Medical Products, P.O. Box 3041, Sarasota, FL 34230, 813-378-6702.

Another hands-on, interactive simulator is the Virtual Anesthesiology Training Simulation System, developed from research done by David Gaba and John Williams of Stanford University, and Howard Schwid of the University of Washington. Like the Human Patient Simulator, this product combines a life-size mannequin, computer systems, an operator’s console, and monitoring equipment interface. It is appropriate for basic medical instruction in a variety of disciplines, as well as advanced training in anesthesia crisis management, emergency room care, critical care, and advanced cardiac life support.

This simulator is close to the Human Patient Simulator in design and application, and provides similar benefits. Some interesting features include mechanical lungs which ventilate spontaneously and can even simulate blockage of one lung, palpable carotid and radial pulses, points in the arm where intravenous fluids and drugs can be administered, a tongue swelling device, a color graphics workstation which serves as the operator’s console, and an interface cart that connects the mannequin to the computers, monitors and anesthesia machine. More information is available from CAE Electronics, Ltd, P.O. Box 957, Binghamton, NY 13902, 607-721-4552.

High-Tech, Not High-Priced

Want a high- quality simulator and don’t have $180,000 in loose change? The Critical Care and Anesthesia Simulator programs offered by Anesoft Corporation offer real-time, graphic computer simulations that reproduce patient care in an Intensive Care Unit or an anesthesia environment for a fraction of the cost of a simulator with a mannequin. With the Critical Care Simulator, developed at the University of Washington, students manage twenty different critically ill patients by controlling their airway, ventilation, fluids and medications. The program reproduces the patient’s monitors and simulates its responses, including those for boluses and infusions of about seventy drugs, which means it too can be used in place of the traditional dog lab. The simulated cases can be temporarily suspended to provide diagnostic and therapeutic information for optimum management of the clinical situation.

The Anesthesia Simulator Consultant reproduces dozens of anesthesia environments in real-time, including anaphylaxis, difficult airway, myocardial ischemia and pneumothorax. The simulated patient responds to management while an automated record-keeping system summarizes the case and an expert system provides immediate consultation. The Critical Care and Anesthesia Simulator software cost about $295 each. More information is available from Howard Schwid, M.D., at Anesoft, Anesthesia and Critical Care Software, 18606 NW Cervinia Court, Issaquah, WA 98027, 206-643-9388, fax 206-643-0092.

Non-Animal Teaching Methods Show Their Superiority

Many medical schools have dropped old-fashioned animal labs. The non-animal methods are cheaper, they don’t need to be anesthetized, and students don’t object to them. But do they work?

The answer is a resounding yes. Emerging students show that non-animal methods teach as well or better than animal labs and save money in the bargain, not to mention the enormous savings in animal lives.

Researchers at the College of Veterinary Medicine in Auburn, Alabama, tested an interactive video system, assigning students to participate in either an animal laboratory or an interactive videodisc simulation. The two groups scored about the same on a multiple choice/short answer test, but the interactive video program was more time-efficient.

Instructors at the University of Chicago compared student responses to an animal laboratory versus a computer simulation, and found, “the students rated both highly, but the computer-based session received a higher rating.” Patient-Oriented Problem Solving (POPS) is a small group teaching tool in which students solve clinical problems as a means of learning medical concepts. A study published by the Association of American Medical Colleges showed it to be effective in conveying principles of pharmacology, doing so at minimal cost.

Assisting in the operating room is the usual way that new surgeons learn their skills. However, some companies have pushed animal surgery laboratories in connection with sales of surgical products. Stephen M. Tsang, M.D., and his colleagues at Tulane University examined surgical complication and mortality rates for gallbladder surgery and found that those who had trained in animal laboratories performed no better than those who had not. In Dr. Tsang’s words, “there is no need to attend an expensive and time-consuming classroom and animal laboratory course.”

Pioneering heart surgeon Michael DeBakey said, “I gave up surgical training of our students and residents on animals years ago. We used to have a course. I stopped it completely. I said, “I’m not going to do this anymore on animals because we’re going to put students in the operating room with humans.” Dr. DeBakey went on to point out the ease of using non-animal methods. “You don’t have to have a living animal to try to do microsurgery, say, to repair a vessel. You can use fresh cadavers. It’s very easy. You just take a piece of tissue out of a fresh cadaver, whether it’s an animal that died from some other reason or a human.”

Okay, non-human teaching methods work. But will instructors or students find computer simulations, videos, or other methods to be as graphic and engrossing as a live animal laboratory? A method now being explored at Harvard Medical School may be just the answer to that question. Harvard recently allowed medical students to observe heart surgery in the hospital operating room rather than participate in an animal laboratory. In the operating room, a broad range of drugs are used in human patients — essentially the same drugs used in dog labs — and their effects on the cardiovascular system can be observed in great detail.

In support of this method, Robert Forstot, M.D., of the division of Cardiothoracic Anesthesia of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri, wrote, “The demonstration of human pharmacology and physiology that is relevant to the needs of future physicians can be more appropriately achieved by taking medical students into the operating theater under the tutelage of staff anestheologists, rather than using dogs to demonstrate these drug effects. This is especially true if the students can be taken into the cardiac surgery suites, where I practice anesthesia.”

In Dr. Forstot’s words, the operating room is “an ideal venue from which to teach medical students both pharmacology and physiology that is relevant to their future practice.”

Animal laboratories are obviously not essential to medical education, given that many medical schools have dropped them entirely. Happily, scientific studies show that non-animal methods are much less expensive than animal labs, students enjoy them — and they work.

Editorial from “ANIMAL PEOPLE” Jan/Feb 1998

We had a rare chance for three representatives of ANIMAL PEOPLE to visit India for the price of one. Almost directly opposite to us on the earth, scarcely anywhere could have proved more relevant or enlightening relative to the state of humane work and wildlife conservation in North America.

We knew already that India has the oldest recorded humane tradition, is the only nation which constitutionally recognizes a human obligation to treat animals kindly, has more than half the world’s vegetarians, has more native mammals and birds than any other, and is deeply involved in the struggle to protect endangered species.

Next to Japan and China, we recognized as well that India may be pivotal in determining the cultural, social, and moral direction of all Asia. India has accomplished a perhaps unparalleled synthesis of western-style democratic government and technological transition, still underway, with social stability, lifting a growing percentage of her people out of dire poverty and illiteracy despite rapid population growth that has only just begun to slow.

A big part of the Indian success may be the strength of the indigenous humane tradition, encapsulated in the Jain notion of Ahimsa, meaning “doing no harm.”

We wanted to see how philosophical and political lip service to Ahimsa translates into real-life animal control work, in a nation of ubiquitous need. We wanted to see how the Indian tiger poaching problem compares to the killing of North American predators by poachers, sport hunters, and USDA Wildlife Services, formerly Animal Damage Control.

We accordingly spent two hectic weeks inspecting nature reserves, humane societies, and gaushalas (cow shelters) from Bombay to Delhi and back, speaking at schools, meeting with Jain religious groups, meeting privately with Indian humane movement leaders, and attending and addressing the Animal Welfare Board of India’s National Seminar as the sole representatives from outside India.

Our primary host among many, pediatrician and Jain vegetarian activist Dr. Pramod Mehta, saw to it that we had little or no “down time.” If there was an open moment during the days he traveled with us, no matter how early or late, he arranged discussions and briefings. Even time waiting for trains was never idle, as we studied the dogs, monkeys, birds, bats, and even cattle and goats who inhabit Indian train station environs.

…and through the looking glass

We expected to see starving dogs and cats, communities struggling with rabies control, overloaded beasts of burden scarred by flogging and ill-fitting harnesses, and butcher shops killing animals in the street. Indeed we did see all of that in various places.

But we also saw that none of this was the unchallenged rule. We saw plentiful stray dogs even in cities with active and successful Animal Birth Control programs, yet few in those cities were puppies, pregnant, or nursing, and they looked as well-fed and happy as most North American pet dogs — far more so than the millions of North American dogs who spend their lives tethered and neglected.

We saw that many roving cattle and work animals who at first glance appear to be “starving,” because their ribs show, are actually far older than cows and horses usually get before being slaughtered in North America, and that one must look twice, closely, to distinguish actual suffering from the normal ravages of age.

We saw much abuse of the water buffalo used to draw carts, whose status is markedly less than that of cows and oxen, yet we also saw water buffalo dairy herds led through city streets to spend their afternoon recreationally bathing in a river — a consideration with little or no parallel in modern U.S. or Canadian agriculture.

For every person we saw who acted harshly toward animals, we met someone who had dedicated significant personal resources to preventing animal suffering — like Ratanlal Bafna, our host in Jalgaon, who funds a gaushala from his own pocket and hires teachers to discourage animal sacrifice in remote villages.

The North American animal care-and-control community typically blames shelter killing on a lack of resources and an ignorant public. We know as much about public ignorance and lack of resources as anyone in the humane field. But when we saw first-hand what institutions such as the Bombay SPCA are doing on budgets of less than the personal salaries of many U.S. humane group executives, it was clear that the real problem here is not the public nor tight resources, but rather a lack of heartfelt moral commitment at the leadership level, infecting the whole animal care-and–control infrastructure with attitudes of learned helplessness and abject confusion.

Gandhi was willing to go half-naked, if necessary, to inspire a more kindly India. No one here needs go half-naked. The North American humane community already has adequate access to resources to catch up — yes, catch up — with the progress already made in India, where half the people can’t read or write. What we need here is Gandhian courage.

Oprah Winfrey: “Mad Cow Trial”

April 16, 1996: During the national broadcast of her show featuring Howard Lyman, Lyman warned about the possibility of a British-style mad cow epidemic in the United States. Oprah told her audience, “It has just stopped me cold from eating another burger!”

Several ranchers in Texas, led by a multimillionaire Paul Engler, filed suit against both Winfrey and Lyman, for twelve million dollars, in Amarillo, Texas.

January, 1998: Oprah Winfrey won her case against the Texas ranchers. She beat the ranchers on their home turf, and got to keep her $ 12,000,000.

However, it would have been still better, if the trial also had tested the veggie libel laws, that in some states seem threatening First Amendment (free speech) right.

by Pramodaben Chitrabhanu in a children’s book named “The Bird in a Cage”
published by Mahavir Seva Trust (India), Federation of JAINA (Education Committee, USA) and others

Since our childhood we are made to believe that milk gives nourishment and is good for the bones. Yes, mother’s milk is good. But who says we need milk of other animals for the rest of our life? Even the animals do not drink other animal’s milk after weaning away from their mother’s milk. Then why do we continue drinking milk? Is it necessary or are we doing it out of habit? It is time we evaluate our actions and change them if needed.

Do you know that the glass of milk on your table is meant for an innocent calf? How would you feel if your child were denied its mother’s milk? We never try to relate such problems with the animal kingdom. As though they are meant for human exploitation we continue abusing them. The milk that we drink comes from the cows and buffaloes that are tortured, tormented, and abused in every way. How can we talk about Ahimsa when there is no Ahimsa in our living? Isaac Singer, the Nobel peace prize winner, once said, “How can we ask mercy from God if we cannot give mercy to others.” We only get what we give. If we give joy to others we will get joy but if we give pain we will get pain in return.

Let us find out the real story behind milk and under what horrifying conditions the cows are being milked. The following is the excerpt taken from the book “Heads And Tails” by Menaka Gandhi which explains the fate of the cow. This happens not only in India but also in the other parts of the world where cows are exploited and badly abused.

A continual flow of milk is extracted from the dairy cow only by subjecting her to yearly pregnancies — starting from the age of two and each lasting nine months. After giving birth she will produce the milk for the next 10 months. However, she will be impregnated with semen during her third month and for the remaining seven months she will be milked when pregnant. She has only six to eight weeks between pregnancies. She will be milked twice or more times a day and the average Indian cow used in the Indian milk industry gives five times as much as she would have in the Fifties as she is being genetically bred for bigger and softer udders.

In order to give higher yield, the cow is fed concentrated pellets of Soya bean and cereal (which could have fed a great many more people). But even then the demanded production of milk outstrips her appetite and she starts breaking down body tissue to produce the milk. The result is an illness called ketosis.

Another illness that she contracts early is rumen acidosis induced by large helpings of quickly fermented carbohydrate. This disease leads to lameness. Most of the day the cow stands tied in a narrow stall in her own excrement and udder infections like mastitis (a painful inflammation of the udder), step in. With this long suffering, sick cow is kept alive by antibiotics, hormones, and other drugs all of which come to you in the morning milk.

Each year 20 percent of these dairy cows are taken out due to infertility or disease. These are then starved to death or sent by truck to the slaughterhouse to provide beef for those that see nothing wrong in eating it. Milk production is very closely allied to the meat trade. No cow lives out her normal life span. She is milked, made sick, and then killed.

What happens to the child, the calf? All the calves are separated from their mothers after three days. If the calf is a healthy female, it is put on milk substitutes to become a dairy replacement in two years. The male calves are tied up and left to starve to death which usually takes a week of intense suffering. Some are stuffed into trucks one on top of the other and sent to the slaughterhouse illegally to be killed for the veal that people eat in restaurants, which is also illegal. Some are sold to the cheese industry to have their stomachs slit (while alive) for rennet, the acid that is extracted for cheese making. A few are selected as bulls and kept in solitary pens for the rest of their lives for artificial insemination. Sometimes, when they are old, they are left on the streets of a city, to wonder around till a truck hits them (I should know: In one week, I have picked up eight dying bulls).

What is the basic nature of a cow? To devotedly care for her young, quietly forage, and ruminate and patiently live out her 20 odd years in harmony with nature. She is not a four legged milk pump who is to be orphaned, bred, fed, medicated, inseminated and manipulated for single purpose: maximum milk at minimum cost.

Have you seen the aged old Indian dairy custom phookan — which is illegal by law but which is practiced on thousands of cows daily? As soon as the cow’s milk starts getting less, a stick is poked into her uterus and manipulated causing her intense pain in the belief that this stress will lead to a gush of more milk in the udder. This custom causes sores in the uterus — think about it, women — but what does it matter when the cow is at the end of her milk giving life anyway and due to be either tied up and starved or to be thrown into a truck with 40 others and taken to the butcher?

There is this belief that dairy products give a lot of protein and iron. Most people who consume a lot of milk, specially vegetarians in North India, the people who believe that milk and paneer are a protein substitute for meat, have been found to have iron deficiency causing anemia. Milk not only provides no iron — it actually blocks its absorption. Vegetables are the best source of iron. For instance, 50 gallons of milk are the equivalent (in iron content) of one bowl of spinach.

But what is the point of eating green vegetables if your single glass of milk is going to prevent the absorption of iron that you get from them? Listen to your body. Have you noticed that when you fall even slightly sick, the body feels nauseated at the thought of milk, that doctors recommend that you give it up till your are well? That is because after the age of four a large percentage of people lose the ability to digest lactose, the carbohydrate found in milk. The results often are in symptoms of persistent diarrhea, gas and stomach cramps. (As far as protein is concerned, milk gives the same amount as most vegetables and less than some vegetables). A human being’s total protein requirement is 4-5 percent of his daily calorific intake. Nature has arranged her food in such a manner that even if you live on a diet of chapatti and potatoes, you will still get more than that amount!

The alternative to dairy products is Soya milk that contains vitamin and tastes as good (or bad). It makes excellent dahi, paneer, ice cream, butter, cheese and milk chocolate, vegetable margarine and plain calcium tablets which cost much less than milk.

Milk is a theft. Would a calf benefit from your mother’s milk? No, it wouldn’t. So how will you benefit from its mother’s milk? Most of southeast Asia and the Middle East don’t touch the stuff. And rightly so. All studies have shown that Asians have the highest intolerance to lactose. We have been sold the idea by concentrated western advertising. “Nature’s most perfect food” is far from that — it is the equivalent of a placebo, and a dangerous one at that. And, most importantly, every glass of milk that you drink, every ice cream, every pat of butter, ensures that enormous cruelty to a gentle animal and its offspring goes on.

A Feminist Exploration

We have to begin by asking: what exactly is this idea of “science” that undergirds the methodology of scientific experimentation?

by Carol J. Adams — The AV Magazine, Winter 1998

Lives begin in community. We learn through community. We exist interdependently. Our culture is structured so that learning and even living can occur almost “invisibly.” We can come to see ourselves as born into relationships rather than as atomistic, self-made individuals. This allows for an important shift in beliefs — no longer do we see humans as radically other than nonhuman life forms, no longer erecting a boundary between the presumably “self-made human” and the presumably “nature-made animals.”

Feelings matter. This rather obvious statement has one context in which it is greatly contested: the debate over experimentation on animals. In this context, feelings are thought to get in the way of science. Protesters who object to experimenting on animals for scientific knowledge are often accused of being sentimental — of letting feelings, rather than intellect — determine our positions. The underlying presumption in this charge is that doing science and being sentimental are exclusive of each other.

Feminist philosophy offers a way for us to think about why feelings matter and why doing science and being sentimental are not exclusive of each other. The insights of feminist philosophy into the construction of science as supposedly “objective” and “rational” equips us to critique the use of animals’ bodies for scientific knowledge in a new and exciting way. We have to begin by asking: What exactly is this idea of “science” that undergirds the methodology of scientific experimentation? Science, like the culture of which it is a part, is not a given, something delivered from a mountaintop; science is constructed. Who constructed “Science” as we know it? Whose science is it? Science is not value-free; we just believe it is.

Although it is valorized as the only appropriate way of “doing science,” the methodology of science arises from and has been limited by male experience of previous centuries. Animal experimentation is part of a patriarchal culture in which science, like masculinity, is “tough, rigorous, rational, impersonal, competitive and unemotional” as Sandra Harding describes it in The Science Question in Feminism.

Science “happens” through a subject-object relationship. Domination allows for the construction of “knowledge” based on the observations of the object by the subject. Gender notions infuse the ideas we hold about the way a scientist “discovers” knowledge, by which a “knower” studies an object — the “known.” The relationship that is dictated for this gaining of knowledge is one of distance and separation between the knower and the known. The subject who experiments is radically separate from the object upon whom she or he experiments.

Animal advocates not only face the overwhelming problem of power in this culture in which the tendency is to identify with the knower, the subject who is creating knowledge, rather than the “known,” the material being studied (who are often animals). We also face the problem that what science claims for itself — objectivity — yet a value-free science is not possible. Before we debate the efficacy of “animal models” we need to step back and ask “Whose science are we talking about?” Science arose from a Western patriarchal colonial culture. Attitudes about gender, race, class and nonhuman animals, have everything to do with the way “science” is conceptualized. It has been by and large Euro-American middle-class and upper-class men who have created scientific theorems, ethics and the ground rules for animal experimentation. They have created these out of the perspective by which they approach the world: as subjects surveying an object.

The notion of the objective scientist — one who is and should be a disinterested human observer — is central to modern science. Science has been created in the image of the “man of reason” — nonemotional, rational, separate from and over others. We might come to believe that one can transcend the body, personal and cultural history and thereby acquire “pure knowledge.” As a result, the scientific concept of objectivity remains unexamined and science is thought to be value-free. But knowledge can never be pure and the scientific concept of objectivity is itself a value — a value derived from the dominant perspective on reason, the body, feelings, gender and animals.

We have inherited a Western philosophic tradition that values differences rather than connections: men are different from (and above) women; humans are different from (and above) animals; whites are different from (and above) people of color; the mind is different from (and above) the body. Presumptions of human difference and superiority become intertwined with attitudes toward our own very animal-like bodies, which we must somehow disown to successfully use our minds. Discussions about morality, decision-making, feelings and science occur within this culture of differentiation.

The emphasis on differences between humans and animals established fierce definitions about what constitutes “humanness,” even though we humans are animals too and are not the only animals with social needs or group memories. Yet we are conceptualized as “not animals.” The qualities attributed to humans become the most cherished ones. So, for instance, reasoning is seen as a capacity possessed only by humans and it is valued over other activities. According to this tradition that values separation, the body is an untrustworthy source of knowledge. That which traditionally differentiated humans from animals — qualities such as reason and rationality — have been used to differentiate men from women, whites from people of color and the ruling class from the working class.

In earlier centuries, it was believed that men could transcend their bodies with their minds, but women, like animals, could not. While we have progressed from this theoretical equation of women with animals, we have not eliminated the mind/body dualism that undergirded it. We have simply removed the human species from this debate. Equated with man, reasoning is still seen as a process that occurs when one transcends the body. Suspicious attitudes toward the body are carried over to suspicious attitudes toward feelings: they are untrustworthy, not reliable, not what good science is. We end up with a science constructed after the Western philosophical idea of the “Man of the Reason.” As a result, gender notions are insinuated within the methodology of how a scientist “knows.” This has impoverished our understanding of reasoning, emotion and science. Within the philosophical framework of our culture, hostility exists toward the body and the feelings we experience through our body. This hostility deprives us of knowledge by viewing the body as something that stands in the way of knowledge rather than as an avenue for knowledge. And it excludes ways of learning, restricting how and what we can know. In fact, we can think through the body, not despite it.

The science that would arise from an acknowledgment that we are all situated bodies existing in relationship would begin at a radically different place. No one would object that we have feelings about what happens in scientific experiments; this would be a given. Of course, we all have feelings and, of course, appropriate emotions can contribute to knowledge! Once that became a given, perhaps there would be no debate about animal experimentation at all, because once we honor emotions and the bodies from which they arise, all bodies might be cherished. We would not see some bodies as objects for experimentation because we would know — know fully — that there are no objects and no objectivity.

Carol J. Adams is the author of The Sexual Politics of Meat. She explores the ideas of feminist philosophy and ecofeminism in her more recent Neither Man nor Beast: Feminism and the Defense of Animals.

Who’d Fight for a Fish?

Animal Times, Spring 1997 — People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals
People reeled in disbelief when we declared that fish have feelings. Fish?!
Read the arguments for and against the campaign.

They say… “It’s a game.”

Pathologist John Grizzle claims that fish “enjoy the excitement and travel [of being hooked]. It may be the fish think it is a real thrill.” Another fisher wrote: “Hooked fish feel about as much pain as potatoes do when you cut off their ‘eyes.'”

Ann Lewis, spokesperson for the Bass Anglers Sportsman Society, says, “No one can prove to me that the fish doesn’t actually consider it a game. Look at pro football players who have just been injured, begging to go back onto the field.”

We Say… If fishing’s a game, get a root canal for a real hoot. Dr. Donald Broom, animal welfare advisor to the British government, agrees: “The scientific literature is quite clear. The pain system in fish is virtually the same as in birds and mammals. In animal welfare terms, you have to put fishing into the same category as hunting.” Adds Dr. Austin Williams, a U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service zoologist, fish “are sentient organisms, so of course they feel pain.”

Fish also experience fear. An Australian study found that when fish are confined or otherwise threatened, they react as humans do to stress: with increased heart rate and breathing rate and a burst of adrenalin.

They say… “What’s next? Worm rights?”

We say… Well, perhaps. We don’t know about you, but we doubt the average night crawler is eager for an encounter with the “Worm Blower,” a plastic squeeze bottle with a syringe-type needle on the end that anglers use to “puff up” worms for bait.

Other animals you might find cowering inside a tackle box of terrors include frogs (now sold live in U.S. vending machines just like sodas), mice (according to fishing lore, one of the “best” bassers in the States used live mice to lure the big ones), rabbits and roosters (artificial flies are often made from rabbit fur or the colorful neck feathers of specially bred roosters who are killed when only months old) and, of course, other fish.

They say… “Anglers are angels compared to commercial fishers.”

We say… Didn’t your mama ever teach you that two wrongs don’t make a right? Factory trawlers are vacuuming the oceans clean of sea life, but the ordinary angler is hardly animal-friendly!

Countless animals and water birds like ospreys and blue herons become entangled in lost or discarded fishing line — some lose limbs, some their lives. Other animals fall victim to “impregnated baits” (plastic worms with scents inside them), which can look and smell like a swimming smorgasbord. One veterinarian in Florida discovered that some sick otters’ intestines were full of undigested plastic worms.

And anglers raised a ruckus over the call for a ban on lead sinkers, which poison birds, saying that it would inflict “unnecessary hardship.”

They say… “without anglers, rivers and lakes would be nothing but open sewers.”

We say… Right now, they’re just anglers’ trash cans. A study of one lake in Wales revealed that 64 percent of the litter left by visitors was found along the 18 percent of the shoreline predominantly used by anglers. Discarded bait containers accounted for 48 percent of the total trash!

They Say… “Anglers are great conservationists.”

We say… Well, with friends like that… Did you know that government agencies often “reclaim” lakes for anglers by poisoning the waters with pesticides (fish pesticides) — to kill off unwanted “trash fish” like carp — and then restock them with “game fish” like bass and trout? Eco-friendly or what?

Artificially introducing “Game Fish” into local ecosystems goes against Mother Nature! The number of frogs in Yosemite National Park has declined dramatically since the early 1900s. One culprit: Trout, introduced into the lakes for sport fishers, gobble up frog eggs, tadpoles and even adult frogs like guppy food.

Until 30 years ago, Glacier National Park stocked its lakes with trout for anglers; the fish have all but wiped out some microscopic animals, changing the entire food chain.

And in Colorado, things have totally spun out of control. In the late 1980s, hatchery trout infected with whirling disease, a fatal cartilage disorder, were introduced into the Colorado River for the benefit of anglers. Since then, 90 percent of the wild rainbow trout in some parts of the river have died of the disease.

They Say… “Nothing could be more P.C. than catch-and-release fishing.”

We say… If by P.C. you mean “painful and cruel,” we agree. Although some “experts” like John Grizzle claim that hooked-and-released fish are unaffected by their ordeal, others aren’t so sure. The German government has even banned this practice, citing the prolonged suffering it causes fish.

Common injuries to hooked fish include ruptured swim bladders (resulting in internal bleeding) and toxic buildups of lactic acid in their muscles (thanks to anglers who “play” fish to exhaustion). Fish can also suffer from the loss of their protective outer coating if anglers handle them, which often leads to dangerous bacterial infections.

They say… “fishing keeps kids off drugs.”

We say… Actually, fishing just hooks `em on cruelty, whether or not they’re taking drugs.

At the night “tournaments” sponsored by The Bowfishing Association of Michigan (BAM), hunters armed with bows and arrows and bright lights kill as many “trash fish” as possible. Hundreds of fish can be killed in one night; then their bodies are dumped into the local landfill. BAM spokesperson Rick Sanders sounds as if he’s been sniffing the bait when he claims these shoots are “a family activity. We encourage anglers to bring their kids.” Adds Sanders, BAM promotes “ethical shooting.” Sounds like another fish story to us!

“There are three prerequisites for angling — a hook, a line, and a stinker” — John Bryant, “Fettered Kingdoms”