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.”