10 Best Things we can do for the Animals (Jane Goodall + YES mag.) [Archive]

PDA

View Full Version : 10 Best Things we can do for the Animals (Jane Goodall + YES mag.)

kit-kit

02-28-2011, 04:32 PM

https://www.yesmagazine.org/pdf/57/57poster.pdf

someguy

02-28-2011, 05:33 PM

https://www.yesmagazine.org/pdf/57/57poster.pdf
Pretty good list. I do have a problem with #2 however. If we are to respect all animal life, us included, we should respect our own lives enough to eat the proper diet that we require to be healthy animals. Meat is a requirement as we are by nature omnivores. We would be disrespecting ourselves if we were to become vegetarian. I would suggest that we praise our food and even give it our blessing as we slaughter and eat what we are intended to.

When you kill a beast say to him in your heart,
"By the same power that slays you, I to am slain; and I too shall be consumed.
For the law that delivered you into my hand shall deliver me into a mightier hand.
Your blood and my blood is naught but the sap that feeds the tree of heaven." -Kahlil Gibran, The Prophet

kit-kit

03-01-2011, 02:10 PM

i came across this magazine in the public library (Yes Mag.); I'd never heard of it...

one article spoke of ..."everything in the world is either eating or being eaten. If you have any doubts lie naked in your flower bed for [3 hours / 3 days - can't remember] and see" what happens.

i don't think any of us have to go to those drastic means to understand the point. 'tis true.

DynamicBalance

03-01-2011, 03:15 PM

Our species is omniverous, and vegetarians and vegans are living proof of this. A vegan diet is healthy AND sane. Hunger worldwide gives way when grain is eaten by humans rather than by animals who will then be slaughtered for meat. Factory farming is an ecological disaster as well as gravely unethical in its treatment of animals. Too many Americans suffer from obesity, heart attacks and diabetes due to a meat-based diet. A United Nations report cites livestock production as a major cause of global warming. To argue otherwise is similar to arguing that global climate change is not occuring and even it were, what we pump into the air, earth and waters could not be a causative factor. As for quotes by wise men, Isaac Bashevis Singer, a survivor of the Holocaust, wrote that to the animals, all humans are Gestapo.

I respect your choice to be a vegan, and hope you can respect my decision to eat meat.

I am not sure what is meant by your first sentence. A vegan diet is not omnivorous.

One thing I would like you to consider is this: to grow grain naturally (organically) requires manure from animals as fertilizer. If everyone were to eat grain instead of animal products, where would we get the manure to fertilize all that grain? It would literally be impossible without the raising of animals. The only alternative would be chemical fertilizers, which are derived from petrochemicals. The runnoff from such fertilizers is currently a major source of pollution in rivers, streams, and the ocean. For these reasons, I don't think veganism is a viable option for most people.

The main cause of world hunger is the fact that people do not have the money to buy food. There is currently more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet. I'm not sure I understand how us not eating meat will affect someone else's ability to afford to buy food.

Factory farming is indeed terrible and unethical. Fortunately, it's not the only way of raising animals. There are plenty of farmers who treat their animals with the respect they deserve, including feeding them a natural diet that results in better health for the animals and for the people who eat them. Those are the farmers I buy my meat from. I can visit the farms to ensure that animals are happy and treated humanely. Raising animals along with grains and vegetables on the same small farm is the most ecologically sound way of farming. These methods of farming actually improve the soil, and are better for the environment because of drastically reduced need for fossil fuels. In contrast, growing grain in huge monocultures uses an unbelievable amount of diesel fuel, so much so that it would not be cost-effective to do so if it were not for subsidies.

Obesity, heart attacks, and diabetes are not caused by eating meat. Type 2 diabetes and obesity are mainly caused by excessive consumption of refined carbohydrates, and a case could definitely be made for heart attacks having a similar cause. It is certainly true that factory-farmed meat is not healthy, but grass-fed and pastured meat is a different story as the meat has a different nutritional composition. As far as vegan diets being healthy, I don't personally see how a diet that inherently requires supplementation can be considered a natural, complete, or healthy diet. There was a time that I ate a nearly vegan diet, and I developed many nutritional deficiencies as a result. If that is the way you choose to eat, I respect that. You have to do what feels right for you. And I'll keep doing what feels right for me.

Laurel Blair, Nutritional Therapist Practitioner

www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

DynamicBalance

03-01-2011, 03:17 PM

When you kill a beast say to him in your heart,
"By the same power that slays you, I to am slain; and I too shall be consumed.
For the law that delivered you into my hand shall deliver me into a mightier hand.
Your blood and my blood is naught but the sap that feeds the tree of heaven." -Kahlil Gibran, The Prophet

Love the Kahlil Gibran quote! Thanks for posting.

someguy

03-01-2011, 04:15 PM

I respect your choice to be a vegan, and hope you can respect my decision to eat meat.

I am not sure what is meant by your first sentence. A vegan diet is not omnivorous.

One thing I would like you to consider is this: to grow grain naturally (organically) requires manure from animals as fertilizer. If everyone were to eat grain instead of animal products, where would we get the manure to fertilize all that grain? It would literally be impossible without the raising of animals. The only alternative would be chemical fertilizers, which are derived from petrochemicals. The runnoff from such fertilizers is currently a major source of pollution in rivers, streams, and the ocean. For these reasons, I don't think veganism is a viable option for most people.

The main cause of world hunger is the fact that people do not have the money to buy food. There is currently more than enough food to feed everyone on the planet. I'm not sure I understand how us not eating meat will affect someone else's ability to afford to buy food.

Factory farming is indeed terrible and unethical. Fortunately, it's not the only way of raising animals. There are plenty of farmers who treat their animals with the respect they deserve, including feeding them a natural diet that results in better health for the animals and for the people who eat them. Those are the farmers I buy my meat from. I can visit the farms to ensure that animals are happy and treated humanely. Raising animals along with grains and vegetables on the same small farm is the most ecologically sound way of farming. These methods of farming actually improve the soil, and are better for the environment because of drastically reduced need for fossil fuels. In contrast, growing grain in huge monocultures uses an unbelievable amount of diesel fuel, so much so that it would not be cost-effective to do so if it were not for subsidies.

Obesity, heart attacks, and diabetes are not caused by eating meat. Type 2 diabetes and obesity are mainly caused by excessive consumption of refined carbohydrates, and a case could definitely be made for heart attacks having a similar cause. It is certainly true that factory-farmed meat is not healthy, but grass-fed and pastured meat is a different story as the meat has a different nutritional composition. As far as vegan diets being healthy, I don't personally see how a diet that inherently requires supplementation can be considered a natural, complete, or healthy diet. There was a time that I ate a nearly vegan diet, and I developed many nutritional deficiencies as a result. If that is the way you choose to eat, I respect that. You have to do what feels right for you. And I'll keep doing what feels right for me.

Laurel Blair, Nutritional Therapist Practitioner
And thank you for this great post! Very important information you laid out.:wink:

Gene

03-01-2011, 07:48 PM

DynamicBalance

03-01-2011, 09:12 PM

Hello, Laurel! Thanks for engaging - I think we can have an interesting conversation/debate. First, that first sentence was too nuanced: I meant humans thrive on all kinds of diets and veganism is one - the best one in my opinion, for many reasons.

Secondly, I want to put this comment and the accompanying video into play and ask your comments.

 You're most welcome! I always enjoy a good friendly debate. I certainly have some comments to offer about the video you posted. The first thing I noticed was that this doctor had a lot of good advice - he had his patients remove all processed and refined foods from their diets. For this reason, it's essentially impossible to conclude that the resulting improvements were due to removing animal products from the diet. Was it the lack of animal products that produced the changes, or the fact that people were now eating whole foods as found in nature (while simultaneously avoiding preservatives, artificial colorings and flavorings, neurotoxins like MSG, and other toxic additives)? Their previous diet was obviously very poor - they did not mention specifics, but I'm sure it's safe to assume that people with type 2 diabetes and heart disease are eating plenty of fast food, candy bars, sodas, chips, etc, and probably not many whole foods. So how can we be sure that it was the lack of meat that was beneficial, rather than the lack of trans fats, refined sugar and flour, and food additives?

I think the take-away message from this video is that the best thing one can do to improve their health is to avoid all industrially-processed foods like the plague!

On the other hand, I personally am sure that avoiding meat had very little to do with the reversal of diabetes that the woman in the video experienced. Meat has zero carbohydrates. Insulin is produced in response to the ingestion of carbohydrates. When a person eats excessive carbohydrates for their activity level (especially refined carbs), they end up with a ton of insulin in their blood. When there is too much of a hormone in the bloodstream, the cells respond by becoming resistant to it. In the case of insulin, they have to do this or they would be flooded with more glucose than they can handle. So the best way to deal with type 2 diabetes from a dietary perspective is to reduce carbohydrates in general, and absolutely avoid all refined carbohydrates entirely. Eventually, as less insulin is produced, the cells can re-learn to respond to insulin, if the diabetes is not too advanced. I fail to see how whether a person eats meat or not could have any affect on this process whatsoever, and I think it's pretty safe to attribute the changes seen to the elimination of industrially processed foods in favor of whole foods.

The other thing that is noteworthy about this video is that the doctor himself said that the reason for eliminating meat was that people tend to have trouble digesting it. This is definitely a true statement, as 90%+ of Americans have abnormally low levels of stomach acid. Stomach acid is necessary for digesting proteins, especially heavy proteins like meat. It's true that if you are eating something that you can't digest, it puts a tremendous strain on the body in many ways. Personally, as a nutritional therapist my approach would be to work to improve digestion so that people can digest the foods they eat, rather than removing those foods from the diet. A person with good digestion has no trouble digesting meats at all. It's not that meat is inherently unhealthy (of course, I [I]do think that factory-farmed meat is inherently unhealthy); it's that the people with chronic illness cannot digest meat. But I realize that doctors don't have much training in nutrition. From the doctor's perspective, his recommendation makes sense and probably does result in improvement in the short term by reducing the burden on digestion.

On to your comments. As far as the UN's statement about livestock production causing climate change, they are essentially talking about factory farming, which is wasteful and illogical, as well as inhumane. Whether one subscribes to the theory of man-made climate change or not, we can certainly all agree that fossil fuels are terrible for the environment. A farming system based on fossil fuels is definitely a bad thing, and that is what our farming system is, whether it is plant-based or not. Factory-farmed meat simply uses more fossil fuels per pound of food produced than grain production, but they both use obscene amounts of fossil fuels. That's why I advocate buying food from local farmers who are doing things right - using natural fertilizer for their crops instead of petrochemicals, feeding their animals a natural diet (in the case of cows this is grass, which takes zero fossil fuels to produce) and giving them a good life, and selling their products locally, eliminating the need to ship across the country. I don't see how anyone could argue that this kind of farming is bad for the environment (or the climate). I'm frankly appalled (although not surprised) that the UN fails to even mention grass-based farming as an alternative to our absurd ways of producing food.

Furthermore, like I said before, I don't understand where we would get the fertilizer for our crops if everyone were to become vegan. Most organic farms fertilize with manure, bone meal, and blood meal.

Laurel Blair, NTP

www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

DynamicBalance

03-01-2011, 09:25 PM

How did we forget about giving the animals 10 and getting into vegan and omnivore wars. For me the " Ten Trusts" are a thing of beauty. Words to live your life by. The "What We Can Do" are nice but could be a separate list. We all kill to live but it's not murder. Have you ever heard a tomato scream ? It's still alive when you slip it into your mouth for nourishment. And that grain, do you think it is happy about getting eaten and not becoming a plant ? I don't think so. Eating life shows it no disrespect. We eat to live. I like to say thanks to the plants and animals that died so that I may live when I'm tuned in and grateful for my meal.

I don't think anyone forgot about it. The original list is certainly quite beautiful. On Wacco threads tend to go off-topic pretty quickly! At least this time our discussion is somewhat related to the subject at hand (especially since the original article mentioned vegetarianism), and so far it is a respecful discussion and not a war, which is awesome! I like what you've said about plants having consciousness, and about how eating life shows it no disrespect. After all, is it disrespectful for the cat to eat the mouse? Or for bugs and worms to eat our bodies after we die? Life and death are in fact dependent on each other, and in such a beautiful way! Out of death and decay comes birth and new life, in an amazing cycle.

Laurel Blair, NTP

DynamicBalance

03-03-2011, 08:42 PM

Here's some info from a friend at Farm Sanctuary, who I turned to for advice, in pertinent part:

"According to the book Eating Animals 1% of animals are raised on small family farms. Only a few privileged people are able to afford meat from a small local farmer. Most people can, however, afford to buy beans. Beans have lots of fiber and protein, no cholesterol, and they taste great!

I don't doubt that statistic. However, I definitely question the assumption that meat from small family farms is inherently unaffordable to all but the privileged few. I definitely do not qualify as one of the privileged few, and yet I buy all my meat from local farms! Up until last week, I was a housecleaner, so I am not exactly wealthy. Have you actually looked into this question? I was at Safeway and other conventional grocery stores today (places I normally would never go) doing research on food prices because I'm going to start cooking for my Grandmother once a week. I was absolutely shocked to find that the prices of conventional grain-fed factory-farmed beef were, in many cases, more expensive than the grass-fed beef I buy from local farmers! For example, oxtail for $5/lb, vs. $4/lb from John Ford at the farmer's market. Steaks for $12-15/lb, vs. $6/lb from John Ford if you buy a 50 lb box of mixed cuts. Even someone who doesn't have the freezer space could surely find a friend or two to split a box with. Grass-fed beef shanks can be found at Oliver's Market in Santa Rosa for $3.79/lb. And even lamb can be found at the farmer's market for $5/lb for bone-in stew meat.

Pastured chicken may be more expensive than conventional in general, but buying a whole pastured chicken is a way better deal than buying chicken breasts from the store. It all depends on how you approach the situation. It is a total myth that pastured meats have to be more expensive than conventional. Why would it cost more to raise cows on grass (which is free) than on grain (which costs money)? The reason there is such a small percentage of the meat in our country raised correctly is that people are only just starting to become aware of why they should want naturally-raised meat. And many of those people are unaware that the "free-range" meat and eggs from the store are from chickens raised in a warehouse and fed corn and soy. There is so much misinformation about health in this country that it's no wonder people don't realize how much healthier pastured and grass-fed meat is than industrial organic. Or they mistakenly believe they can't afford it.

As far as beans, I like beans. But the protein in beans is far inferior to the protein in meat. Lots of fiber can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the individual. People with intestinal problems often cannot tolerate much fiber. No cholesterol? Not a good thing in my book. The idea that cholesterol causes heart disease is another myth. Cholesterol is an important nutrient for many physiological functions. It is the precursor to vitamin D production in our skin; it helps maintain the selective permeability of the membrane of every cell in our bodies; it is a precursor to all steroid hormones, including sex hormones; and it is a healing and repair substance. That is why it is found in damaged arteries. The body sends it there to repair damage that has been done. These are basic facts of physiology. Cholesterol's importance for hormonal function is why I stopped ovulating and had extremely irregular periods when I was a vegetarian and avoided cholesterol. I simply didn't have enough cholesterol to make the hormones my body needed. I'm happy to say that now that I've added cholesterol back into my diet, those problems have resolved.

On the other hand, beans have a lot of phytic acid which blocks mineral absorption and inhibits trypsin, an enzyme for digesting protein. Unless they are prepared in ways that neutralize phytic acid, beans are not a good source of minerals and can actually impair digestion. The same is true of grains, nuts, and seeds. Meat has no phytic acid and is an excellent source of minerals, including zinc.

Some veganic farmers are figuring out how to grow food without the use of animal waste or chemicals. There is a veganic farm directly across the street from Farm Sanctuary in NY. Animal Place also has a small veganic garden. So, it is being done, small scale. Since it will be a gradual shift away from factory farming, I'm confident that we will figure out a way to grow food for all through veganic farming.I suppose it is possible, but I am skeptical as to how this could be done on a bigger scale. What are these people using for fertilizer? I fail to see what the problem is with using manure for fertilizer. It is nature's perfect fertilizer. The Great Plains once had 12 feet of rich topsoil, because huge herds of buffalo once lived there. Why would humans somehow be morally unable to use what nature intended?

Farm animals are sentient beings just like dogs and cats and I know you would no more eat a chicken than your dog simply because other animals exist for their own reasons, not to satisfy our palette. "Farm animals are certainly sentient beings. No one ever suggested that animals exist only to satisfy our palates. Of course animals exist for their own reasons! Just like humans exist for their own reasons. And yet, when we die, bugs eat us. Since most people have parasites, bugs eat us even before we die. Does that mean the bugs believe that we exist only to satisfy their palates? Of course not. Bugs are simply eating the diet they have evolved to eat. When a chicken eats a bug, does it mean the bug exists only because the chicken likes to eat it? No, it does not. The bug is doing it's bug thing and the chicken is doing it's chicken thing. Chickens, like humans, can survive without eating other animals. Does this mean it is morally wrong for the chicken to eat the bug? I'd like to know what you think about this.

And that, for me, is the bottom line. I also Googled the question of meat eating being a cause of diabetes and heart disease and came up with numerous references indicating that it is. Here is the link: https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=is+...-8&fr=chr-yie8 (https://search.yahoo.com/search?p=is+meat+eating+a+cause+of+diabetes+2%3F&ei=utf-8&fr=chr-yie8)

For those who would like to learn more, there are nearby sources. There's a once a month vegan potluck at the Humane Society and dinners out with likeminded people. Ask me if you're interested and I'll put you in touch with our MeetUp group.I'll respond to that link in my next post. This one is getting too long.

Laurel Blair, NTP

www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com

DynamicBalance

03-03-2011, 10:02 PM

Eating Meat Causes Diabetes and Cancer
High intake of processed meat may increase the risk of developing type-2 diabetes by 40 per cent,
according to a new meta-analysis from Norway and the US.
Data from 12 cohort studies showed that high intakes of all types of meat were associated with a 17 per
cent increase in the risk of type-2 diabetes, while similar risk increases were also noted for high intakes of
red meat.

First of all, I'd like to give my impression of the website of Dr. Young, the author of this article. His website was the first that came up in that Yahoo search you posted. His intro paragraph is all about how all disease is caused by acidity in the body, and how alkalinity is the only way to be healthy. I'm sorry to say, but he is incorrect. Excessive alkalinity is just as big of a problem as excessive acidity. Furthermore, there are numerous examples of healthy primitive cultures that ate primarily "acid" foods, yet did not suffer from cancer, heart disease, or type 2 diabetes. The two most obvious examples would be the Innuit and the Masai. How could Dr. Young not be familiar with this?

Now, notice how the very first sentence specifies "processed meats". Meat and processed meat are two different things. I think we can throw out that meta-analysis for that very reason. I am not arguing that processed meat is healthy. I am not even arguing that organic meat is healthy. It is grass-fed and pastured meat that is healthy. I am not aware of a study that has been done showing ill health effects from grass-fed meat. Do you know of any? I do know of examples of healthy populations who have eaten grass-fed red meat.

Secondly, correlation does not prove causation. Dr. Young, again, surely knows this. He gives away his bias by stating definitively, in the title no less, that meat causes diabetes and cancer. An association is not the same as a cause. If I take a survey of people with a certain illness, and find that a higher percentage of them than the general population ate peanut butter for lunch, does that mean that eating peanut butter for lunch caused the illness? No, because it is only a correlation. It could be that people who eat peanut butter also tend to eat it with bread, and it could really be the bread that is causing the problem. Or it could be that peanuts are often contaminated with a certain microbe, and the microbe is causing the problem. This doctor is not very smart if he thinks he can list a bunch of studies showing correlation and expect me to believe that he has proven that meat causes diabetes.

Also, we don't know who performed these studies or who funded them. That plays a huge role in the findings and how they are portrayed. Were they funded by the soy industry? No way to know. I have read studies that claimed to have found one thing in the abstract, but the data showed a completely different thing. That is the power of bias. How do we know it wasn't someone like Dr. Young performing these studies?

Later they do mention a report by the World Cancer Research Fund. But if they really want to research cancer, why do they not study populations that have been free from cancer, like the Masai? Why do they insist that red meat causes cancer when there is well-known data that contradicts their theory?

Why does red meat and processed meat cause diabetes and cancer?
According to Dr. Robert O. Young, Director of Research at the pH Miracle Living Center in San Diego, California, "meat never completely breaks down and thus ferments and rots in your gut releasing acids, such as uric and nitric acid that destroys the root system (intestinal villi) in the small intestine that causes diabetes and then cancer. Eating meat also causes a double loss of alkaline minerals that leads to an over- acidification of the blood and tissues and eventually sickness and/or dis-ease." I find it a little odd that Dr. Young is quoting himself in his own article. At any rate, what he is saying here makes no sense at all. Meat definitely breaks down completely, provided the person eating it has enough stomach acid to digest it. I have not seen any evidence to back up his statement. If meat were not breaking down, would we not sometimes see pieces of undigested meat in our stools, just as we might see a corn kernel that was not chewed properly?

Now, when you eat something that you cannot digest for whatever reason, it is true that it will ferment and putrefy. It is also true that the undigested food becomes food for pathogenic bacteria and yeasts which multiply and produce toxins, which over time can wear away the villi in your small intestine. It is not meat that is producing these toxins; it is bacteria, and the bacteria will do the same whether you ate meat or beans or bread. The only reason this happens is that your body did not digest the food in the first place. So the problem is with digestion, not with meat. I don't like the fact that Dr. Young implies that these toxins come from the meat.

So what happens when the villi in your small intestine wear down? Not diabetes, that is for sure. The villi have nothing to do with diabetes whatsoever. That's not to say that they aren't important. When the villi wear down, nutrient absorption is greatly decreased because the surface area of the intestines is decreased. That is a big problem. Next, if all this continues, eventually holes will start to appear in the lining of the intestines, and large undigested proteins will leak through into the bloodstream. Your immune system will not recognize these foreign proteins and will attack them. This is how food allergies are created. But diabetes? What do the intestinal villi wearing down have to do with that?

His last statement, that eating meat somehow causes a "double" loss of alkaline mineral, also makes no sense. He did not explain what he meant by that or what the mechanism was by which meat causes loss of minerals. While meat does not contain much in the way of alkaline minerals, bone does. Healthy traditional diets always made use of the whole animal rather than letting it go to waste. I wouldn't be surprised if it is not really healthy to eat just meat without the bone and the organs that come with it, as that is what we have evolved to eat. Bone broth is a true health food, and when eaten with meat, improves its digestion. By eating meat along with broth, you are getting zinc, iron, selenium, and phosphorus (along with a little magnesium and potassium, which are alkaline minerals) from the meat (beef in this case), and calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, sodium, potassium, and sulfur (along with glucosamine and chondroitin) from the bone broth. No lack of alkaline minerals there!

Furthermore, like I said before, there are lots of examples of people who ate meat and did not suffer from the degenerative diseases that we are discussing. Heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and even cancer were rare 100 years ago. Meanwhile, humans have been eating meat for thousands of years....although, of course, it was not factory-farmed meat. How could meat suddenly start causing heart disease, diabetes, and cancer in the last century? When looking for a cause for these health problems, it would make more sense to look at what we are doing differently than we were before. Let's see.....we are using chemicals to grow our food, and putting chemicals in our food; we are eating refined carbohydrates in amounts that have never been eaten before in history; we are eating industrial vegetable oils, which have never been eaten until relatively recently because they require machinery for extraction; we are feeding our animals diets that make them sick and lower the quality of their meat, eggs and milk; we are pasteurizing our milk, destroying many of the nutrients and all of the enzymes and probiotics it contains; and we are eating fats that have been manufactured in factories. Why are none of the cancer researchers looking into these potential causes of degenerative health problems and instead trying to blame meat, something that has been eaten for thousands of years?

Laurel Blair, NTP

www.dynamicbalancenutrition.com