All Animals Deserve Better Treatment

[jkuo13]

Originally Posted by CheapKunt

The social issues are a challenge to most poeple!

I find it funny that people become vegans and still recreate mock meat/cheese/diary food?

Are you a vegan? Have you tried freegan?

The mock meat/cheese products do seem to be a bit of a hypocrisy. But it's not all bad. They provide a path for people weaning themselves over to an animal-free diet. I also like the Buddhist vegetarian interpretation of the mock meat products. You still want to have compassion for the meat eaters. Mock meat products allow meat eaters to be more comfortable around the vegetarians (or maybe even vice-versa). And remember, everything tastes like chicken. Even some vegetarian fare is bound to fall under that axiom.

I'm not vegan. I can't give up dairy or leather for practical purposes. There are no vegan athletic shoes that meet my needs, and I'll starve while traveling if I don't accept some dairy. And I see absolutely no reason to give up honey.

Have you tried freegan? Though I applaud those who give it a try, I don't think it'd work for me.

[gt0163c]

Originally Posted by jkuo13

Well, speaking from a vegetarian point of view here, sometimes eating dairy is purely practical.

And that I understand and have no problem with. The United States, as well as many other nations, do not have cultures that allow it to be easy for those who wish to refrain from animal products (or many other things for that matter). My issue is with those who are vegetarians for political/animals rights issue reasons and yet still eat dairy products or eggs and/or wear leather on a regular basis.

Originally Posted by jkuo13

Getting USDA organic certification requires meeting certain guidelines. That's not to say that there's no lobbying to weaken the "organic" standards and that marketing words are used as substitutes (i.e. authentic, natural, etc.). Truly organic produce usually tastes noticeably better and is usually more nutritious.

Perhaps it's the foods that I've been eating or my unrefined palate, but I haven't been able to tell the difference in taste in any of the organic foods that I've tried. I've tried a variety of fruit including apples, bananas and grapes and some other foods including milk and I have not been able to discern a noticably different taste in anything other than the apples. And, with apples, I prefer the inorganic as they were crunchier and juicier. Maybe it's where I shop (mostly Kroger). But I have a hard time agreeing when people make a blanket statement about organic foods tasting better. As for being more nutrious, I have no knowledge on that. Have there been studies that show that the nutrion level of organic foods is higher? Or is it more that organics are less bad for you due to the lack of pesticides and such used in the growing/raising process?

Originally Posted by jkuo13

Conventional farming practices do have serious downsides. Pesticides aren't exactly chemicals that are good for you.

True. But how much of those pesticides remain in the food by the time that it is actually consumed?

Originally Posted by jkuo13

Using large amounts of pesticides just sends lots of toxic chemicals into the air, water supply, and into the meat supply (via conventional feedstock). Pesticides are non-discriminant killers too. They kill the bad as well as beneficial insects, and also have ill consequences on a wide variety of animal life. Pesticides have several potential health consequences including neurotoxicity, reproductive health repercussions, respiratory problems, and cancer.

I agree that there are issues with pesticides and those do need to be addressed. But, again, I've seen no significant studies which have shown that the pesticides, hormones and such are present in the "final product" foods in such levels that they are a real hazard to people. I think the environmental impact is a bigger issue.

Originally Posted by jkuo13

And let's not forget that conventional fertilizer and pesticides are largely synthesized from petroleum.

I was unaware that this was the case. Can you point me to some scientific/unbiased information that explains more about this?

Originally Posted by jkuo13

With how much the American public loves meat, there will probably end up being more farming subsidies pumped into sustaining this country's cheap meat supply.

I do agree that there are issues with how the farm subsidies, both for crops as well as for animals, are handled. But, I believe that they are needed at least currently. Farms are businesses. And businesses operate with the intent of making a profit. With, as you mentioned, US consumers' belief that food should be relatively inexpensive, it has become more difficult for farmers to make a reasonable living (and continue to operate their farms) without the subsidies. US consumers just won't pay enough for the food. Now, there are some things that can and should be done to streamline the supply chain. And that difference should probably be passed on to the farmers, in terms of higher payments for their products, rather than to consumers in terms of lower prices at the grocery store. But the other issue is that the United States needs to continue to produce food. A couple of years of bad weather or animal diseases could easily wipe out a large number of farmers without subsidies. If they don't make enough money one year to cover their costs for the raw materials for the next year, they can not continue farming. Additionally, farmers need encouragment to grow foods that, without the subsidies, would be less profitable. There's not a huge difference between growing a field of corn, wheat or soybeans (my uncle's a farmer in Wisconsin and would attest to this). All are needed for the US food supply, but without subsidies, he would choose to grow whatever he believed would make him the most profit (have the highest sale price per acre). If all famers did that, and, to some extent I believe they do, our nation's food supply would lack a large amount of diversity. Which would be detrimental to everyone.

[NaturallyCheap]

Originally Posted by jkuo13

I'm not vegan. I can't give up dairy or leather for practical purposes. There are no vegan athletic shoes that meet my needs, and I'll starve while traveling if I don't accept some dairy. And I see absolutely no reason to give up honey.

What kind of practical purpose? I still have a leather wallet which I bought years ago.
I thought shoes these all made from synthetic materials?
Honey is bee vomit. Having visited many farmed. I find it quit hard to get honey without some form of protect.

Originally Posted by jkuo13

Have you tried freegan? Though I applaud those who give it a try, I don't think it'd work for me.

Yeah I'd tried dumping diving looking for fruits and veggie. However the ones I do find belong to the bin!

Originally Posted by gt0163c

I've tried a variety of fruit including apples, bananas and grapes and some other foods including milk and I have not been able to discern a noticably different taste in anything other than the apples. And, with apples, I prefer the inorganic as they were crunchier and juicier.

If one consumes salt, irritants, flavour excitants(e.g garlic, ginger) one taste buds will be numbed. If really want to do an experiment try going without those for couple of days then taste your fruit.

Originally Posted by gt0163c

Have there been studies that show that the nutrion level of organic foods is higher? Or is it more that organics are less bad for you due to the lack of pesticides and such used in the growing/raising process?

How about for the 99.9999999999999999+ % that foods been growing on earth is organic? Only since WW2 have war waste products been converted to fertilizers. Show me a study that says pesticides are GOOD for you?

Originally Posted by gt0163c

I agree that there are issues with pesticides and those do need to be addressed. But, again, I've seen no significant studies which have shown that the pesticides, hormones and such are present in the "final product" foods in such levels that they are a real hazard to people. I think the environmental impact is a bigger issue.

"The health revolution" by John Robbins is a credible source of information. Heir to the Basket Robbins empire walks away in pursue of a more meaningful life.

[jkuo13]

Originally Posted by gt0163c

And, with apples, I prefer the inorganic as they were crunchier and juicier. Maybe it's where I shop (mostly Kroger). But I have a hard time agreeing when people make a blanket statement about organic foods tasting better. As for being more nutrious, I have no knowledge on that. Have there been studies that show that the nutrion level of organic foods is higher?

There are studies showing that organic is more nutritious. Organic milk has been shown to have higher levels of vitamin E, antioxidants, and Omega-3 fatty acids. A UC Davis study showed that organically grown kiwi had higher vitamin C, polyphenol, and antioxidant levels than conventionally grown. A British study showed that some organic foods are more nutritious, particularly with antioxidants (couldn't find the details of exactly which fruits and veggies though). Another study showed that organic ketchup has higher lycopene levels. To be fair, other studies have shown insignificant differences (wikipedia refs in this article), but since we're dealing with biological experiments, which tend to have high standard deviations in their results, I'm prone to believe there's something to the positive result studies.

Personally, I think organic yogurt tastes noticeably better than regular yogurt, and have friends who swear organic milk tastes different. There's probably too much variability to make general statements. Ideally I like organic produce, but I usually opt for local produce over organic since I figure the higher nutrition, flavor, and lower transportation needs offset the organic factor. Your organic apples might just be sourced from somewhere closer or are just fresher. No reason to get organic if the conventional just plain taste better.

Originally Posted by gt0163c

I agree that there are issues with pesticides and those do need to be addressed. But, again, I've seen no significant studies which have shown that the pesticides, hormones and such are present in the "final product" foods in such levels that they are a real hazard to people. I think the environmental impact is a bigger issue.

A study on schoolchildren showed that a diet of conventional produce results in detectable levels of pesticides in their saliva and urine, and that switching to organics in their diet rapidly dropped the pesticides to undetectable levels. The pesticide levels are relatively low, but there's no data as to what the long term effects of low level pesticides are and just how much pesticides can be safely tolerated by the human body. We already know that a lot of pesticides are nasty chemicals. Children may be especially susceptible to even low levels of these chemicals. My opinion is better safe than sorry.

Originally Posted by gt0163c

I was unaware that this was the case. Can you point me to some scientific/unbiased information that explains more about this?

I'm not a chemist, so I wasn't sure where to start looking for this info. I managed to come up with two links that mention petroleum/petrochemicals as a major component of pesticides: an AIG Enviromental document and a market research report. Apparently, I was slightly mistaken on fertilizers being petrochemical based; conventional nitrogen fertilizers are actually dependent on natural gas (which is often tied to petroleum) and coal.

[Dani]

Originally Posted by NaturallyCheap

The social issues are a challenge to most poeple!

I find it funny that people become vegans and still recreate mock meat/cheese/diary food?

Are you a vegan? Have you tried freegan?

I became vegetarian. Most vegetarians and vegans did eat meat at some point in their lives, and by recreating mock food items, we're just acknowledging that they DO taste good but we want a cruelty-free option. In my opinion, it makes perfect sense! I just ate some Morningstar Buffalo Wings, yum! (faux but tasty)

[breadandbutter]

Yes, they do deserve better treatment. I never buy furcoats. When the buying stop the killing will stop also.

[rainysparadigm]

I dont have a stack of research to back up my claims and I am not intending to diss anyone on either side of the fence, just posting my thoughts on this. I was never a huge fan of meat products, but I did eat it quite a bit because it just happens to be. It's part of the typical American diet and so...I ate it. I do believe that we are omnivorous and some meat consumption isnt bad for us, maybe even good. However, I do strongly disagree with how animals are treated but also grudgingly admit that the demand of meat is so high, farmers simply could not produce enough to satisfy. That is one of the main points of ethical veganism/vegetarianism. It's the basis of being one less person demanding those products, under the thought that if enough people did that, factories could produce meat at slower paces and provide more humane treatment for livestock. Interestingly enough, many religions have strict rules on how their animals are slaughtered, such as kosher or halal. This is more than just prayer. Halal meat for example, shouldnt see another of their kind be slaughtered. Also if you eat only such "blessed" meat, then you tend to eat less of it because its more expensive and generally less widely available. I am not advocating any religion at all here (being a relatively unreligious person myself), but I find it strange how it comes full circle.

On to organic. It is safe to assume that eating produce for example that has not been exposed to chemicals is just generally less likely to harm you then produce that has been sprayed with it. Thats just common sense. Even IF there were no evidence to support that it does cause illness, that is not basis to assume it does not. That just means it hasnt been discovered or publicized yet. Thats been the case for many things in history. The real worry is if the labels are correct. How organic, is organic? One way to know, especially for jarred or canned things, is read the label. Like I once heard, "if it has more than four syllables, I dont eat it." Others have mentioned in this thread about looking for actual fda approved organic, etc. You cant hit the nail 100% of the time, but a good 60-70% is that much less *stuff* going into your body. You are exposed to countless negative enviromental factors, why not try to lessen something?

I can tell you based on personal experience that dh and i both went organic. we didnt eat out for several weeks, ate only organic foods (fresh and jarred), and cut back significantly on meat intake. When we did eat meat, it was minimal and organic. We then switched back to regular food, the stuff we consumed on a regular basis prior to that. That included produce but not organic and the same meat, just not organic. Not only did we both become sick not just after the fact but felt uneasy for several days, but it actually did not taste good. Not bad or spoiled, but there was a distinct difference. It even had a subtly different smell when cooked. We actually did not do this as a test, it was an attempt at being healthy and then becoming lazy so we were not looking for proof. We also had this happen several times before we made the connection. I find it mostly bizarre because dh is typical male and has an iron stomach. The point of this being, it wasnt noticable at first, but a long term effect.

So now we eat as much organic as we can possibly afford (some weeks we have to sacrifice in some ways and we do occasionally eat out but its now usually something basic). We are not vegetarian or vegan by any means, we enjoy our dairy products but we have cut back considerably on meat. Whereas before we at meat 2-3 times a day, we now eat it probably twice a week. We substitute alot of times with lentils which i once thought i would never say. We seem to be generally healthier and cutting back on meat makes up for the extra spent on organic. And we find that organic doesnt seem to be usually that much more either, only some items. We dont rule out the things we love - long life is nothing if you arent enjoying it - we just pace ourselves and find alternatives that we like just as much. And by cutting back so much on our meat intake, we are doing at least a part in reducng the demand for animals.

All things in moderation

[purplefdu]

All I would like to add to this is even if I went vegan (which I will not) it is unhealthy for many pets to do so. Cats are true carnivores and dogs are true omnivores and both need meat as either part or most of their diets. I would not be able to feed my animals meat if I were to become vegan, as many vegans will tell you the very scent of meat makes them ill. And I'd rather contribute on a small scale to animal cruelty as part of the slaughter chain than give up my puppies...

[NaturallyCheap]

Your vegan does not mean you animals have to be vegan! I know plenty of vegan who feed their animals meat!

When the the animal cruelty became "small"?

[rainysparadigm]

purple actually said that he/she would contibute on a small scale (meaning 1 person I presume), not that animal cruelty was small. i actually think ppl that force their pets to become vegan are cruel in their own right, because the pet didnt make that conscious decision. i have a vegan friend who at first read about all these *nifty* little ways to turn your pet vegan too, but we discussed it and she realized that wasn't exactly a great option for her pets. She feeds her cats regular cat food now and doesnt have a problem with it. if the smell is bothersome, try dry food. its better for ur pet anyway.

i have a snake and have been criticized more than once about being "cruel" for feeding it live mice. My response: The snake is in a cage. It looks to me to bring it the things it needs. Wouldnt it be cruel to NOT feed it what it needs?

<-- is not even vegetarian and doesnt intend to become one, let alone vegan. just dont want to see a war break out here.

<-- likes wisebread.