Vegan's just another word for "nothing left to eat"

Well, I do want to thank whatever thoughtful person sent me Vegan Freak, because I read it this weekend. And frankly, I may never eat again. Describing milk as "full of cow pus" is a willful and extravagent distortion of the truth, but after you've read it 87 times, even if you know it's not true, that extra large skim cappuccino begins to look distinctly unappetizing.

I read somewhere that evolutionary biologists now believe that digust co-evolved with the decision to eat meat. After reading that book, I may be devolving.

Comments

I guess I'll have to feed my infants only formula so they can avoid the "mommy pus" they'd be getting otherwise.

I'm also cutting orange juice out of my diet to avoid the tree pus.

"Freak" is starting to look like a pretty good way of putting it.

Posted by Rob Lyman | January 21, 2008 5:12 PM

A childish response to a silly assertion in the article. It's natural for infants to drink mother's milk; that's what it's produced for. Orange juice and all fruits and vegetables are what our bodies are designed to eat. It is totally unnatural for an adult to drink any form of milk, since milk is designed by nature for infants only. And it's just as unnatural for anyone to drink the milk of another species. If you were supposed to drink milk all your life, your mother would be lactating forever. Don't buy all the hype from the dairy companies. They are only interested in selling a product. Instead of drinking so-called "good wholesome milk" from a bottle, picture somebody lying down under a cow and sucking away. Bizarre, unnatural, creepy image, right? So what's the difference if a machine does it and it's bottled? Same substance, just as disgusting and unnatural.
There's a reason 50% of meat-eating Americans will have a heart attack or stroke during their lifetimes (according to govt statistics), but only 5% of vegans having one. Vegetarians and vegans eat what nature intended us to eat. If you were really a meat eater, you'd eat a cow or chicken raw, like all other meat eating species on the planet. I don't see that happening often in any restaurants around here. For more actual information go to www.pcrm.org

Posted by Vegan | January 21, 2008 6:05 PM

If you were really a meat eater, you'd eat a cow or chicken raw, like all other meat eating species on the planet.

If you were really a vegan, you'd do the same with your vegetables, which would be harvested from wild plants instead of unnaturally cultivated by raping Mother Earth with a plow, and you wouldn't use any unnatural seasonings. Just picture someone licking a rock. Icky image, right? Well, how is it any different when Big Salt grinds it up and sells in in little bottles with holes on top?

Eat whatever you want, I don't care. But as for "natural," I have no desire to live like a chimpanzee.

Posted by Rob Lyman | January 21, 2008 6:19 PM

"I read somewhere that evolutionary biologists now believe that disgust co-evolved with the decision to eat meat."

A little more complex. Disgust relates to many evolutionary factors designed to protect us from harm. The meat thing is most notably a mechanism that developed in order to help our ancestors avoid spoiled meat (with maggots), which is why the sight of a worm and/or worms is so frequently unnerving to us. It is not based on an aversion to meat per se.

In fact our ancestors, before eating the meat of large mammals, ate the meat of small insects. I'm not sure what "decision" there really was, so much as a bacterium ever "decided" to start synthesizing Nitrogen rather than Carbon.

Posted by Peter | January 21, 2008 6:31 PM

Rob,

Actually, chimps hunt game at times, including Colobus monkeys. And sometimes each other. Possibly the correct idea here is to start eating vegans.....

Posted by Bernard Guerrero | January 21, 2008 7:10 PM

HAHAHA dumb vegans trying to do things that are good ROFLMAO!!!!1 they are not men they are wimps LOLLERcoaster.... duh they should be eaten by real men who like meat wtf

Posted by rickm | January 21, 2008 7:14 PM

picture somebody lying down under a cow and sucking away

I'd do it! Mmmm... milk!

Posted by Nelson | January 21, 2008 7:31 PM

Vegan-

Posting comments on the internet isn't exactly 'natural' either, but apparently that didn't stop you. What gives?

Posted by mtc | January 21, 2008 7:39 PM

The kind of mental leap necessary to view veganism as "natural" is just astounding. I mean... it boggles the mind.

Posted by Freddie | January 21, 2008 7:49 PM

Vegan (If that really is your name) says,

"Don't buy all the hype from the dairy companies. They are only interested in selling a product....
There's a reason 50% of meat-eating Americans will have a heart attack or stroke during their lifetimes (according to govt statistics)."

First, statistics in general are often ambiguous and misleading, and when the government provides them, purposefully misleading, because they have no utility, such as market research, save for "the public good", though most often it serves an agenda.

In this case I'd advise you that the 50 percent is very ambiguous. Meat-eating Americans includes a good 98.1 percent of us. And excluding meat does not categorically mean living a healthy life. Since this, by definition refers to those who abstain from meat, the 98.1 percent includes those like my health-freak sister who still eats no meat EXCEPT fish, which is still a meat, and the occasional poultry. She as other of these people do, observes an exercise routine and eats no junk food or high cholesterol food. She is, however, a chain-smoker. And I'm not a do-gooder, smoking nazi, but I might suggest that when 50 percent of the population is getting heart attacks, and many engage in risky behavior that falls well beyond the relatively benign activity of eating a slice of roast beef, you might want to reexamine your conclusions.

The inclination to engage in a vegetarian lifestyle often coincides with other healthy life choices (though, not always) so not surprisingly, that data might suggest a confluence of less heart disease among such a demographic. But it is ridiculous to conflate heart attacks with "meat eating" in general when your data set is basically the entire US population, and you have no real data to back up the causative link between heart disease and these statistical cases. 50 percent can account for smoking, drugs, genetics, old age, down-syndrome, and any other kind of junk food that is certainly permitted within the rule-book of vegetarian living.

Posted by Peter | January 21, 2008 7:52 PM

notmilk.com is an interesting site..

too much meat, like anything else, is always a bad idea..

anecdotally, it always amazed me, while attending events like 'renewable energy' symposia, the obvious difference in appearence between the 'Granola' crowd and the salesmen that look like they just got back from lunch at CrackyD's..

Posted by MEH | January 21, 2008 8:11 PM

Cows' milk does contain pus that comes from infection in the cows' udders. Cows are kept lactating to produce more milk than is normal, thus causing mastitis a painful infection. Hopefully, as a nursing mother, any infection you get will be treated by a doctor and your milk will not contain pus.

Dr. Frank Oski, former director of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University said, "There is no reason to drink cow's milk at any time in your life. It was designed for calves, it was not designed for humans, and we should all stop drinking it today, this afternoon."

Dr. Spock agreed, saying, "[T]here was a time when cow's milk was considered very desirable. But research, along with clinical experience, has forced doctors and nutritionists to rethink this recommendation.

And the World Health Organization (WHO) says that western nations that consume a lot of meat/dairy have the highest levels of osteoporosis...caused by eating a lot of animal protein, "...hip fracture rates are higher in developed countries where calcium intake is high than in developing countries where calcium intake is low...fracture risk has recently been shown to be a function of protein intake in North American women." Here's the report:

http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2004/9241546123_chap4.pdf

Posted by Philos | January 21, 2008 8:12 PM

Rick M said: Vegans "are not men they are wimps..."

Anyone who thinks vegans are wimps is just plain ignorant of the facts. There are hundreds of famous top level athletes -even Olympians- who are vegetarian or vegan.

"Olympian of the Century" track star Carl Lewis, tennis champions Martina Navratilova and Billie Jean King, cricket star Anil Kumble, Mr. International bodybuilder Andreas Cahling, Heisman trophy winner Desmond Howard, Debbie lawrence Olympic race-walker, four time Mr. Universe Bill Pearl, 4-time Olympic gold medalist Al Oerter, WBC World Middleweight Champion Keith Holmes...and Dave Scott, six-time Ironman triathlon winner, to name but a few.

And finally, two-time winner of the most grueling ultramarathon on earth is vegan Scott Jurek. (From a running magazine, I forget the author)

"Starting in Badwater in Death Valley and stretching 135 miles, the Badwater Ultramarathon is known as "the most demanding and extreme running race offered anywhere on the planet."

"The race covers 135 miles, nonstop, from Badwater in Death Valley to Mount Whitney, the highest mountain in the Lower 48 crossing three mountain ranges. "Ultra" because this race is five marathons back-to-back with another three miles tacked on to the end.

"The winner? Vegan competior Scott Jurek, who also won the Badwater last year."

"On his own journey towards optimal health, Scott began transitioning to a vegetarian whole foods diet in 1997, while competing in several ultra trail races per year. In 1999, he adopted a vegan diet out of further health and environmental concerns. Scott continues to fuel his body on completely vegan diet while competing in 10-12 ultramarathons per year in addition to his rigorous training schedule. All seven of his consecutive wins at the Western States 100 Mile Endurance Run were performed on vegan fuel."

Anyone who claims that vegans are wimps is simply clueless.

Posted by Philos | January 21, 2008 8:24 PM

The American Dietetic Association (and other heartily endorses a vegan/vegetarian diet. At their website they say:

"Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation,
infancy, childhood and adolescence. Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits...vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians...lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease...lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure...lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and
prostate and colon cancer."

http://tinyurl.com/djodu

The scientific information about the benefits of a vegan diet and the hazards of a meat and dairy diet are well known in the medical and
scientific community. It's unfortuante that so many people remained uninformed.

Posted by Phil Os | January 21, 2008 8:28 PM

I thought cow pus was what made milk good. No?

Posted by Tyler Cowen | January 21, 2008 8:38 PM

I love how the vegans become creationists when trying to argue their point.

But I will suggest that rather few herbivores have evolved sharp teeth. Further, most herbivores are fully capable of processing cellulose. Humans have rather aggressive front teeth, and are notoriously incapable of processing much vegetable matter. But facts aren't all that useful when discussing anything with vegans.

I do have a nice recipe for roast vegan with fava beans and chianti. Strong scent of patchouli, but a far more productive use than they have ever previously seen.

Posted by Hey | January 21, 2008 9:02 PM

Actually, the vegans try to provide facts and documentation. It's the meat-eaters who rely on assertions.

Dan Piraro, the Bizarro cartoonist sorts the herbivore vs. carnivore issue out:

http://tinyurl.com/37x5y3

Posted by Phil Os | January 21, 2008 9:19 PM

As someone who is approaching thirty, which means less of an active lifestyle and more of a sedentary way of life, I too have started giving some thought about giving up meat and cheese for the vegetarian diet. In that vein, the milk argument definitely makes a lot of sense and so does eating less or no meat.

There is an interesting consideration, though, that I don't think anyone mentioned yet. That is of survival. In other words, before the present, humans ate what they could to survive. There were no discussions of what's good or bad for you, the only question was - aside from a few exceptions, of course - what do I need to eat to survive. If survival meant eating fruits and vegetables for lack of anything else, that's what people did. If survival meant milking a cow and making cheese, or killing and eating the cow, that's what people did. In fact, people even became cannibalistic in the name of survival.

That issue has certainly evolved, but not for everyone, far from it actually. Most vegans and vegetarians I know have some bucks. Perhaps, they're not wealthy, but they are not struggling financially. For others, specifically those in the lower class all the way to the poverty level, the question still revolves around survival, in other words, cost. Therefore, it seems to me that if you want to have a discussion about or make a drastic change by taking away certain foods, the only way to do so is to equalize the price of all food. Until then, these discussions will not and cannot apply to the entire population.

Posted by axel molotov | January 21, 2008 9:38 PM

No one is talking about "taking away certain foods," but rather giving information about making better choices. Actually, price would tend to make a person go vegetarian, rather than stay with meat-eating. In times when most of our ancestors were very poor, it was very difficult to buy meat. Small pieces were added in stews and soups. Only the rich around the world were able (and still are able) to constantly eat meat. That's the most expensive part of the meal. It's extremely inexpensive to make a delicious, nutritious soup that's packed with vitamins, minerals and proteins simply by cooking with vegetables and a mixture of beans or lentils. You can make a whole vat of soup (if price is indeed the issue) for under 5 dollars. You cannot feed a family of meat eaters for that price these days. No way. So if price is really the issue, vegetarian foods would be the way to go. I suspect most of the comments in the posts above are from people who really haven't done much research into nutrition or comparable health aspects between meat eating and veganism, but rather are grasping for reasons, rational or not, to defend their unhealthy lifestyles.

Posted by Vegan | January 21, 2008 9:57 PM

Philos,

"Anyone who thinks vegans are wimps is just plain ignorant of the facts. There are hundreds of famous top level athletes -even Olympians- who are vegetarian or vegan."

I, for one, am not claiming they're wimps. I'm claiming they're probably edible. (And preservative, rBGH and genetic-modification free!) Though I'll bet the athletic ones don't marble well enough for easy cooking and probably require a good bit of tenderizing or marinading to prevent a "gamey" taste.

Posted by Bernard Guerrero | January 21, 2008 9:57 PM

axel,

you should take a look at we subsidize, alot of the distortions that you, correctly, give rise to, are of own making..

to cross-stitch from the other, nearby, thread(Econ stimulus), less gov't spending would give us a sounder economy, simply, by not encouraging poor food choices, to begin with..

Posted by MEH | January 21, 2008 10:01 PM

Vegan:
There's a reason 50% of meat-eating Americans will have a heart attack or stroke during their lifetimes (according to govt statistics), but only 5% of vegans having one.

I'd like to see a primary source for that. I'm about 98% certain that this is either flat-out false or not controlled for age (i.e., vegans rarely have heart attacks because most vegans are young and give it up before they reach prime heart attack age).

Posted by Brandon Berg | January 21, 2008 10:03 PM

Any chance of introducting the vegans to the RonPaulians? Would be interesting to see what corss-breeding would produce.

Posted by Gene | January 21, 2008 10:12 PM

You asked for it, you got it. Here's a link regarding nutritional info about being vegetarian. And before you blow it off saying, "oh that's from Peta," all the facts and statistics listed have footnotes showing they came from the USDA, the AMA, the Lancet, Reuters Medical News, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, etc. Facts and truth, not from the meat industry or the dairy association, but from legitimate scientific journals. We'll leave the sarcasm and nonsense to the defensive meat eaters!

http://www.peta.org/mc/factsheet_display.asp?ID=137

Posted by Vegan | January 21, 2008 10:16 PM

Vegan - I have no problem with veganism or vegetarianism, which you hopefully gleaned from my consideration of becoming one (well, a vegetarian with some fish, lamb, and an occasional steak). What I was saying earlier is simply that the discussion about choice of food has only surfaced recently because people didn't discriminate between foods at times when survival was at steak.
The issue, though, as correctly presented by MEH, is the government subsidization of certain foods. Perhaps, you're right that it's cheaper to be a vegan or a vegetarian, but I doubt that assertion applies to junk food that is tangentially subsidized, such as frozen foods and tv dinners, most of which contain meat or meat byproducts, or fast food. Furthermore, you have to analyze not only the actual cost of the food but also other costs, such as the time it takes to buy and cook the food. So my point was that some people simply think they cannot afford to become vegan/vegetarian. Therefore, providing health data alone is insufficient.

Posted by axel molotov | January 21, 2008 10:33 PM

Wow. Do I detect a lot of hostility towards vegans. There is no good reason for people to eat less of one thing and more of another to the tremendous anger of others. Killing and eating animals would hardly make me a better person. But it would apparently convince a lot of people to like me more and hate me less.

But, just go ahead and eat your buffalo horns and don't expect me to make any snide comments about things like "get twelve free armpits with every twelve chicken wings".

Posted by Vida the Vegan | January 21, 2008 10:51 PM

But, just go ahead and eat your buffalo horns and don't expect me to make any snide comments about things like "get twelve free armpits with every twelve chicken wings".

Wow, Vida. For a vegetarian, you're awfully derogatory toward animals...

Posted by Richard | January 21, 2008 11:18 PM

Thanks for the video link, Phil Os. My reading of the matter is that humans, like our close cousins, chimpanzees, are probably best considered biologically as omnivores whose natural diet is primarily plants. In fact, chimpanzees are classed as "frugivores" (they predominantly and preferentially eat fruit). The fact that humans can and frequently do eat meat, just as they can and frequently do cheat, lie, rape, and watch television, says nothing about the morality of eating meat. Morality is largely about what we can do but decide we ought not to do. Those who believe that we ought not to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on others will, if they are intellectually consistent, become vegetarian or, better yet, vegan.

Posted by mijnheer | January 21, 2008 11:28 PM

Hold on, Vegan. You said above that "50% of meat-eating Americans will have a heart attack or stroke during their lifetimes (according to govt statistics), but only 5% of vegans having one."

When asked to back up that claim, you linked to a page of material from PETA that doesn't contain the word "stroke", but does claim that "The British Medical Journal published findings from a study concluding that lifelong vegans have a 57 percent reduced risk of death from heart disease."

Assuming for the moment that PETA is quoting the BMJ accurately and in-context, their numbers don't jibe with yours. If meat-eaters have a 50% of heart attack, and a life of eating vegan reduces that number by 57%, then 21.5% of vegans ought to suffer heart attacks, not 5%. It also mentions another study that claims that "heart disease mortality rates for lacto-ovo vegetarian males was only one-third that of meat-eating men" -- that would reduce 50% to 17%. And there's nothing else on that page about heart attacks, and nothing at all about strokes.

So you still haven't backed up your claim. In my experience, proselytizing vegetarians almost always wildly exaggerate their claims, and sometimes even outright lie. You've done nothing to show me any different.

Posted by Avram | January 21, 2008 11:59 PM

Wow. Do I detect a lot of hostility towards vegans. There is no good reason for people to eat less of one thing and more of another to the tremendous anger of others. Killing and eating animals would hardly make me a better person. But it would apparently convince a lot of people to like me more and hate me less.

Or, perhaps, people don't enjoy being hectored by those who have made extreme lifestyle choices and insist that those who haven't are deficient. If you're a vegan, and just want to live your own life, vaya con dios. But vegans never just want to do that. The percentage of vegans I've met who act like evangelical missionaries for their cause is easily 90%. No one I know is a fan of being proselytized to.

Posted by Freddie | January 22, 2008 12:20 AM

There's a reason 50% of meat-eating Americans will have a heart attack or stroke during their lifetimes (according to govt statistics), but only 5% of vegans having one.

...while vegans do have, unsurprisingly, a higher risk of developing diseases related to protein and mineral imbalances. I say "unsurprising" because, for example, spinach is high in iron but also high in another compound that binds it, bean and rice proteins commonly do not contain a complete metabolic set of amino acids, etc. In fact, vital nutrients like potassium and iron are generally unavailable in significant quantities outside of meat tissues, and there are no ready vegan substitutes for fish oils. Nuts can substitute for some but a suitable variety of nuts doesn't naturally grow everywhere.

That humans in wealthy socities eat meat in quantities significantly exceeding the healthy minimum needed to maintain, is an obvious fact. People eat lots of meat merely because they like it. In other words, it's a choice.

Howver, Philco's propagandizing notwithstanding, a vegan lifestyle is not natural, either. It is also a choice, and one that benefits enormously from global produce trade, since the variety of fauna necessary to maintain a long-term sustainable vegan nutrient intake does not occur in most of the world's climate zones. Again, note the word "long-term"; obviously anyone can live on a limited diet for a period of time before the effects of a chronic deficiency become fully manifest.

In short, if not for modern refrigeration, shipping, and global trade infrastructure, sooner or later you would have to milk or kill something.

Posted by anony-mouse | January 22, 2008 12:30 AM

"Dan Piraro, the Bizarro cartoonist sorts the herbivore vs. carnivore issue out: "

Just about every claim made in that cartoon isn't true. For one, it says that herbivores have rounded jaws with molars, and next to the cow, shows a picture of a chimp. Chimps are not strictly herbivores.

It also states that carnivores are built to hunt prey, and humans are not. It forgets to differentiate between what type of prey you're talking about. An anteater isn't a catlike stalker, able to take down larger animals, but it is not an herbivore.

Also, humans are capable of eating raw meat. Sushi, steak tartare, etc.

"Those who believe that we ought not to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on others will, if they are intellectually consistent, become vegetarian or, better yet, vegan."

That's assuming you place animals on the same moral level as humans. I don't see the death, however painful, of a cow to have anywhere near the same moral weight of a human.

Posted by mad6798j | January 22, 2008 12:32 AM

"Those who believe that we ought not to inflict unnecessary suffering and death on others will, if they are intellectually consistent, become vegetarian or, better yet, vegan."

You are making a huge leap from how we should treat other humans, and how we should treat other species. You have also demonstrated why I don't personally like most vegans. It's the holier than thou attitude, that I'm somehow a bad person because I eat meat.

"You cannot feed a family of meat eaters for that price these days."

As for the cost issue, it really is inexpensive to add meat to a meal. Add a pound of ground beef to a bag of pasta with some red sauce and you have a fairly cheap meal that can feed a family. By my calculations that comes to around 5$. Surely 4 steaks is expensive, but meat as a part of a meal is not.

Posted by JordanT | January 22, 2008 12:34 AM

Also, humans are capable of eating raw meat. Sushi, steak tartare, etc.

And kitfo, the most delicious of all. I've eaten raw meat several times per week for the past six years. Mostly beef, but occasionally lamb, chicken, tuna, and swordfish.

Posted by Brandon Berg | January 22, 2008 12:47 AM

I can eat almost anything. I've killed and butchered animals. There's nothing unnatural about it. What's strange is people who think that meat comes in little plastic packages at the grocery store. Of course they know where it comes from, but they don't emotionally get it.

So, in an odd way, I respect vegans. They deal with the issue of just where meat comes from. They don't eat it for ethical reasons or for health reasons. Ethics don't bother me none. People can live how they want, and are free to convince other people. I understand these people and their objections. Animal suffering isn't something we should glorify, and I don't enjoy it at all. I don't get off on killing animals. I need to eat, and it seems to me that doing it myself is cheaper and the animal is just as dead as if I bought it.

The health freaks are a bit stranger. I mean, we evolved to eat meat and milk and so forth. We've been keeping domestic animals for ten thousand years or so (which is why a lot of us evolved to tolerate animal milk). We have canines...

In my humble opinion, not eating meat while living in a body designed to do so has unpleasant consequences. Vegans I've met look malnourished. They tend to be thin and have low muscle mass. I knew a woman who was ordered by her doctor to start eating meat because her hip kept going out. She was 18.

I've never seen a study that looked at the long-term effects of a vegan diet, but I have seen studies about long-term malnutrition. That's what a low-protein diet is called in the rest of the world. I'd be suspicious of any and all claims that vegetables can serve all our nutrition needs when a look at our own evolutionary heritage suggests otherwise. There has got to be some negative consequence, or we'd have stopped eating meat long ago. We didn't go through the effort of becoming consumate omnivores for nothing.

Posted by John Lynch | January 22, 2008 12:56 AM

The genetic change that allowed some people to digest milk into adulthood happened fairly recently, probably in northern Europe. It spread so rapidly that it must have been a great advantage. That doesn't say that everyone today should eat dairy, but that the anti-dairy statements above are missing something.

Posted by Bambi | January 22, 2008 12:57 AM

"I don't see the death, however painful, of a cow to have anywhere near the same moral weight of a human."

I didn't claim that the death of a cow has the "same moral weight of a human". I talked about unnecessary suffering and death. I don't have to believe that torturing a veal calf is as bad as torturing your mother to believe that torturing a veal calf is bad.

"You are making a huge leap from how we should treat other humans, and how we should treat other species. You have also demonstrated why I don't personally like most vegans. It's the holier than thou attitude, that I'm somehow a bad person because I eat meat."

You aren't just "somehow" a bad person because you eat meat; you are a bad person insofar as you inflict suffering and death on sentient creatures simply to satisfy your taste buds. Of course, you may be a very good person in other respects -- giving to charity, helping little old ladies across the street, etc. Most people are full of contradictions.

As for making a "huge leap", it is worth noting that YOUR OWN principles commit you to the immorality of eating meat:

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~norcross/Engel_short.htm

http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_4.2/degrazia.htm

Posted by mijnheer | January 22, 2008 1:13 AM

One cannot help but wonder what exactly is the point of a book whose only apparent objective is to disgust people of food (a luxury if there ever was).

Posted by PEG | January 22, 2008 2:34 AM

Hey: "Humans have rather aggressive front teeth"?

Geez, remind me to stay away from you in a fight.

If you really want to see aggressive front teeth, you should look at my dog. Better yet, you should see her tear up a stuffed toy in a few minutes flat, or squeeze a hard rubber toy with her aggressive front teeth. Or hang on to a rope toy despite my pulling as hard as I can.

Can you do any of that with your teeth?

Posted by KathyF | January 22, 2008 4:00 AM

As an ascetic practice, veganism is one of the better conceived habits a person could pick up. It actually can reduce the amount of a certain kind of suffering in the world, so in this respect it's better than self-flagellation. But it's still an ascetic practice, and I'm no ascetic. I think I'm going to go have a bowl of cereal now, and not even consider for a whit what the moral or physiological consequences might be. If I can't taste the cow pus, and it doesn't make me sick, for all practical purposes it doesn't exist.

Posted by gerontion | January 22, 2008 4:32 AM

For most of the world's population it is cheapest and easiest to store and use local plants for food. There may be room for minimal use of free roaming animals as food, but we should all be eating more vegetables and far less meat than we are now. I've been a vegan for 7 years now, a simple but diverse diet, supplemented with soy protein, vitamin b12 and calcium, biking all over..life is great and it's sad to see people wasting so much food and water and energy keeping the wasteful cycle of animal killing going.

Posted by bryan | January 22, 2008 4:36 AM

anony-

with this: "there are no ready vegan substitutes for fish oils. Nuts can substitute for some but a suitable variety of nuts doesn't naturally grow everywhere."

see: "Hemp seed oil is a rising star in the world of specialty oils, primarily due to its delicious flavor and perfect balance of essential fatty acids, including omega-3 and omega-6. Now that more research is highlighting the importance of EFAs in the diet, and a growing number of government warnings and reports are raising concerns about toxic levels of toxic contaminants in fish sources of EFAs, vegetable oils that feature EFAs are a hot trend. Sales of hemp foods grew by 66% from 2003 to 2004, and 2005 is shaping up to be the strongest year ever.

According to hemp seed oil processor Manitoba Harvest, a distinct advantage of hemp seed oil vs. flax is its content of the rare direct metabolites of Omega-6 and -3 called Gamma-Linolenic Acid (GLA) and Stearidonic Acid (SDA). These metabolites are the same fats that are found in fish oils and are involved in the production of prostaglandin for hormones and in immune functions. GLA is a “super” omega-6 that some studies have shown may help reduce heart disease; enhance effectiveness of cancer treatments; treat problem skin conditions; prevent inflammation-related conditions such as Alzheimer’s, arthritis and asthma; and modify lipids to reduce triglycerides. GLA is also believed to help bypass enzymatic blocks in sluggish bodies that have metabolisms compromised by stress, environmental toxicity or aging to allow proper utilization of omega-6 EFAs. SDA is a powerful omega-3 that is purported to offer about five times the potency of “regular” ALA omega-3.

In addition, hemp seed oil offers a superior flavor profile and therefore has a wider range of culinary opportunities than flax seed oil, Manitoba Harvest asserts. Hemp oil's nutty flavor makes it a delicious addition to salad dressings, juices, smoothies, protein shakes and other dishes. Dozens of recipes are available at www.manitobaharvest.com/recipes. Hemp seed oil can also be used as a tasty low-temperature cooking oil, but it must only be used at temperatures below 350°F."
http://www.foodprocessing.com/vendors/products/2005/235.html

also, Industrial Hemp, aka 'ditch weed', grows just about anywhere, except Antarctica..

Posted by MEH | January 22, 2008 5:23 AM

I would love to see a comparison between vegetarians/vegans and omnivores who primarily eat fresh food they have cooked themselves. When you compare vegetarians to non-vegetarians, you are most likely comparing people who must cook their own food (using fresher and healthier ingredients, fewer preservatives, etc...) to people who eat lots of processed food.

I'm currently doing the Atkins diet and I suspect one of the reasons it's better for me is that I have to buy and cook my own meat and vegetables. I do try to eat lots of non-starchy vegetables along with my meat, though.

In the US, our food supply is filled with processed food containing loads of corn syrup, yeast, preservatives, fillers, etc... It's hard to say anything about an omnivorous diet vs. a vegetarian diet based on comparing the crap in grocery stores and fast food restaurants to home-cooked fresh vegetables.

Posted by Earnest Iconoclast | January 22, 2008 9:44 AM

A hint to vegans (and vegetarians) when talking about what people (should) eat:

Telling people that it's a good idea to eat more vegetables (for both general health and taste reasons) is not a very controversial position and almost no one can seriously argue against it without looking like an idiot.

Mentioning that many people in affluent western countries eat more meat than they should is also hard to get upset about.

Denying humanity's fundamentally omnivore propensities on the other hand is not such a good idea. And telling people they're bad for not adopting your lifestyle/diet is a sure way to piss them off and make sure they will do nothing of the kind. You're approaching diet as religion and that's a big turn off for all except a few potential converts. Most people, normal people at least, don't have (and will not have) a sense of mission about what they eat.

full disclosure: I've never been a real vegetarian, but given the right shopping possibilities, I'm quite okay with going without meat for relatively long periods. I just don't think I'm being any more virtuous when I'm not eating meat than when I am.

Posted by michael farris | January 22, 2008 9:55 AM

"It's the holier than thou attitude, that I'm somehow a bad person because I eat meat."

In my three years as a vegan, I've yet to meet a proselytizing vegan or vegetarian (though maybe I've just been lucky). I have, however, met all sorts of meat-eaters who fly into a rage at the thought that anyone could dare to not have the same diet as they do. If you hear someone saying "I don't eat meat" and you translate that as "You're a bad person", maybe you need to think about why you're so offended and angered just by someone making a healthy lifestyle choice.

Posted by matthew | January 22, 2008 10:39 AM

Here's another book to put you off your food:
http://www.michaelpollan.com/omnivore.php

Posted by steevil (Dr Weevil's bro Steve) | January 22, 2008 10:43 AM

Matthew, you may have missed mijnheer's posting on this thread, let me quote: "You aren't just "somehow" a bad person because you eat meat; you are a bad person insofar as you inflict suffering and death on sentient creatures simply to satisfy your taste buds."

I will say that most vegetarians and vegans I've known have not been confrontational about it unless overtly challenged (and confrontational, aggressively defensive meat eaters are no bed of roses either).

Posted by michael farris | January 22, 2008 10:47 AM

"you are a bad person insofar as you inflict suffering and death on sentient creatures simply to satisfy your taste buds.

I don't agree that a cow or chicken is a sentient being. This comes from some experience working on farms growing up. By that measure we should stop animal testing for research, but you probably won't give up modern medicine to force the issue. I agree that we should try to avoid unnecessary suffering, which is why I support measures in my state to ban the worst types of animal farming practices. I avoid veal for this reason as well.

It's not your extreme lifestyle that pisses people off, it's you calling them bad people because of a choice.

"There may be room for minimal use of free roaming animals as food, but we should all be eating more vegetables and far less meat than we are now."

I agree that we should be consuming less meat. I certainly try to make meat a part of a meal, rather than a focus. I also eat a few vegetarian meals a week as well. I do this mainly for health reasons, as while I'm sure that meat is a staple part of the human diet we probably aren't evolved to eat a pound of high fat content meat a meal.

Posted by JordanT | January 22, 2008 10:52 AM

So if it is morally unacceptable to eat sentient animals, why is it morally acceptable to eat the reproductive organs of plants? How do Vegans KNOW that plants are not sentient? Have they talked to them, and received their informed consent to eat their reproductive organs? And those fruitarians are just plant abortionists who eat the pre-born plants, which are weeping in pain as they are prevented from fulfilling their destiny.

I really don't care that vegans or vegetarians don't want to eat meat or dairy, but the hectoring and moral posturing has gone stale. We won't harrass you if you don't harrass us.

How do you like your ground-up reproductive organs? Raw or lightly toasted?

Posted by rxc | January 22, 2008 11:03 AM

It's not an all or nothing proposition. The general mesaagae should be "Eat natural foods". Period. If you have personal reasons for eliminating foods from your diet, that's completely defensible. However, until I see the statistic that 100% of Vegans are immortal" due to their pristine consumption, I am not convinced that it is the path of enlightenment. Meat eaters do eat raw flesh. It's called sashimi or tartare and it is delicious.

Posted by Janie Crackcorn | January 22, 2008 11:31 AM

Actually, rxc, vegans do talk to plants. And they actually did get permission to eat their reproductive organs. Vegans talk to animals as well, that's how they know of the latter's suffering. Unfortunately, vegan's communication problems lie with humans, which is where this whole thing originated.

I am surprised you don't see more vegans proseletyzing carnivorous predators in the wild: hey, mr. tiger, stop eating that innocent deer and try this nice carrot for a change... or hey, mr. eagle, stop inhumanely killing that poor little pigeon and try this nice, juicy piece of tofu.

Posted by dr. strangeplant | January 22, 2008 11:40 AM

Nobody has mentioned how the dairy industry is based on the heartless act of separating a calf from its mother after a day or two. That's not natural and it should make you at least consider giving the thumbs down to milk. By the way, the heading for the article (Vegan's just another word for "nothing left to eat") is totally inaccurate - there are countless, everyday supermarket products suitable for vegans. It's not a diet of denial and it won't turn your world upside down to give it a go. You may look up animal-free products at http://www.animalfreeshopper.com or http://www.peta.org/accidentallyVegan

Posted by Vegan Future | January 22, 2008 11:43 AM

Try vegetarianism for a week - visit http://veg.ca/content/view/26/56/ where you can sign up to receive a daily email which provides you with meal suggestions, recipe links and nutrition advice. Instead of cow's milk, for example, why not try soya milk instead.

Posted by Vegan Future | January 22, 2008 12:04 PM

The anger displayed by the omnivores' responses to this is overwhelming but not unexpected. Herbivores would be more than willing to harvest their own veg diet if it became necessary. Are the meat eaters ready & willing to slaughter, clean, & disect animals? The vast majority of them are more than happy to leave that to others & pretend that the "sterilized" looking product they purchase is not part of the factory farming horrors.

Go Vegan!

Posted by shakti | January 22, 2008 12:33 PM

Are the meat eaters ready & willing to slaughter, clean, & disect animals?

Yes. It's called "hunting" and I don't get to do it nearly enough.

Posted by Rob Lyman | January 22, 2008 12:37 PM

Strange as it may sound. I don't recall ever having heard of anyone hunting chickens, pigs, cattle, lambs, or calves.

Posted by shakti | January 22, 2008 12:49 PM

shakti: people certainly do hunt turkeys, wild boar, buffalo, and various kinds of mountain sheep. And it turns out they have entrails and muscular structures very similar to the domestic versions.

What's your point, exactly?

Posted by Rob Lyman | January 22, 2008 12:52 PM

We should only eat "natural foods"? Does this include foods that are cooked, or are you a fruitarian who only collects fruits and nuts that have dropped from the tree, and eats them in the state they are on the ground? Do you wash your fruit/veg? That is processing, because it removes some of the _natural_ flora on the surface of the fruit. Winemakers used to use naturally-occuring/wild yeast for fermentation, but then they realized that this was a hit-and-miss thing, and the "gods" were not always consistent with their gifts. (Which is why they had to make occasional "sacrifices", because they didn't understand what was going on.)

As soon as you cook it, it is not natural. Personally, I love sushi, steak tartare, and fresh raw veggies right off the plant in my garden. I also love bread, butter, a med-rare steak, sausage, veggie gratins piping hot from the oven, and well-aged wines. None of these are natural, because I grew the veggies, the sushi was caught, frozen, thawed, and sliced, and the steak tartare has LOTS of other stuff besides meat in it.

And, BTW, I also like to catch fish, clean them, and cook them. Although I don't hunt, I also enjoy helping other friends butcher their kills, and then eat them. Our cats react to the smell of venison like they have just killed a wildebeaste out on the Senengetti. We help our neighbors in France who raise ducks and chickens kill them and process them. It is highly educational.

It is not anger, just exasperation about people who insist that they have the right to tell me what to eat. Go away into your caves and let the rest of us alone to enjoy life. Better yet, try to get over the guilt that you have about being alive.

Posted by rxc | January 22, 2008 12:59 PM

It's not your extreme lifestyle that pisses people off, it's you calling them bad people because of a choice.

That's a pretty stupid argument. Calling it a "choice" doesn't mean it's an ethical one and doesn't mean people shouldn't be criticized for making that choice.

I don't think it's helpful to call someone a "bad person" for buying meat produced through factory farming, but I do think it's helpful to promote the view that factory farming is wrong and that if you buy factory-farmed meat you're doing a bad thing.

Posted by Mixner | January 22, 2008 1:09 PM

Calling it a "choice" doesn't mean it's an ethical one and doesn't mean people shouldn't be criticized for making that choice.

True, but the question was, "Why do people hate vegans?" The answer is, because they criticize others. There criticisms may be correct, but they shouldn't expect to be loved for making them.

Posted by Rob Lyman | January 22, 2008 1:12 PM

My point is that the overwhelming percentage of the omnivore diet consists of animals that are factory farmed not hunted. You may be one of those rare (no pun intended) people who is able to hunt & deal with the death of an animal without feeling uneasy. (This is not a judgement & may on some level be a compliment). Most people would starve if they had to face the realities & conditions of killing anything, weather it be hunting or working at a factory farm.

Posted by shakti | January 22, 2008 1:18 PM

It is perfectly true, as many here point out, that people who feel they are being hectored and lectured to are likely to dig in their heels. The problem is that for many, ANY suggestion that meat-eating is anything other than a personal choice is taken to be smug hectoring and serves as an excuse not to confront the issue. Even saying "No, thanks, I don't eat meat" at a dinner party can trigger the meat-eater's sense of being hectored. The defensive response is then typically brilliant lines such as "I think I'll go out and murder a carrot", or (my favourite) "Yum, meat!"

Meat-eaters frequently resort to moral relativism. "I don't tell you what to eat; you have no right to tell me what to eat!" becomes a substitute for rational argument. The fact that their own moral beliefs actually give them strong reasons to consider vegetarianism (as I indicated above via links) is conveniently ignored.

Is is possible to mount a reasoned argument for some (I stress some) meat-eating, based on utilitarian or contractarian principles. That's not to say I would agree with the argument, but it can be made. Most people, though, never go beyond "Yum, meat!" -- likely because of a nagging feeling that they are entering onto dangerous, slippery territory, where scary beasts lurk in the darkness.

Posted by mijnheer | January 22, 2008 1:26 PM

RXC said:
"It is not anger, just exasperation about people who insist that they have the right to tell me what to eat. Go away into your caves and let the rest of us alone to enjoy life."

This is the same thing slave owners said when they were threatened with the abolition of slavery. They said things like, "If you don't want to keep slaves 'then more power to you, but don't try to force your beliefs on me' leave me to enjoy the "good life" that owning slaves provides. But keeping slaves or breeding animals for a painful life followed by slaughter is a moral issue, and thus is not simply a matter left to individual choice.

Society dictates what people can and cannot do, every day when we enforce laws that prohibit murder, stealing, fraud, polluting the environment, etc. And we do it in our personal relationships as well, when we ostracize liars and cheaters from our circle of friends, for example. Some things are morally wrong, and it is proper to judge others and impose legal or social penalties for moral lapses.

Moral issues are usually issues that affect or harm others. If you think morality is just a matter of personal choice, then what right would anyone have to incarcerate thieves or ostracize liars? Society would have to allow it and ofcourse, that's nonsense!

Meat-eating IS a moral issue in the same way that cheating, stealing, lying, and polluting the environment are all moral issues. It is not simply a personal food preference, where you prefer salt and I prefer no-salt. No one has a right to harm others.

Posted by Philos | January 22, 2008 1:33 PM

Mixner- Can "doing a bad thing" happen to good people?

Posted by dr. strangeplant | January 22, 2008 1:36 PM

RXC said:
"How do Vegans KNOW that plants are not sentient? Have they talked to them, and received their informed consent to eat their reproductive organs?"

Vegans don't have an argument that rocks _don't feel pain_ either, but scientists seem to agree that a central nervous system is necessary for feeling pain, which plants, trees and rocks definitely don't have. Insects have a rudimentary
central nervous system, although the science is not in about whether or not insects feel pain.

One thing we know for sure though is that cows, pigs, sheep, goats, apes, dogs, cats, horses, and possums feel pain.

Just because there are some fuzzy cases like
insects doesn't mean there aren't clear cases all around us.

Posted by Phil Os | January 22, 2008 1:41 PM

"How do Vegans KNOW that plants are not sentient? "

seriouly??

Posted by kristin | January 22, 2008 1:41 PM

Please forgive my typo above.

seriously??

Posted by kristin | January 22, 2008 1:43 PM

"Strange as it may sound. I don't recall ever having heard of anyone hunting chickens, pigs, cattle, lambs, or calves."

On the train, heading west through Nevada, I was talking to a 30ish woman from Denver. I mentioned my bowhunting, and lack of success. Pointing to some cattle, she said, "Why don't you shoot one of those?" Something in her manner indicated that it was a genuine question. I replied that the people who owned them might get mad at me. She was shocked that they weren't wild, as there was no house visible from there.

Stories of the greenhorn hunter bagging a "really big elk" that turns out to be a horse are campfire staples. Perhaps some are even true, but all those I've heard sounded like rural legends.

Posted by Bambi | January 22, 2008 1:46 PM

Stories of the greenhorn hunter bagging a "really big elk" that turns out to be a horse are campfire staples.

So are stories of ranchers painting the word "COW" in 3-foot letters on their herds.

Posted by Rob Lyman | January 22, 2008 1:52 PM

All your arguing and debating is worthless. Veganism isn't about personal health, it's about saving billions of animals who are bred and slaughtered daily. People think they're doing good by eating 'humane' meat but is there such thing as 'humanely' killing a healthy animal? What if I wanted to eat your cat or dog? Would you be OK with that? No, of course not. Any why? Because you love this animal and you understand is has feelings and the capacity for pain.

If you want to know what's going on throughout out planet daily watch Earthlings (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1282796533661048967). But please be aware it's a hard watch. And also be aware that the clips are not one-off events. This is standard operating procedure.

After that, contemplate if it's worthwhile for you to give these companies your money. This is what Veganism is about for many people. Not your frivolous arguing about what's better or worse.

Health-wise - veganism is better for you IF you eat a balanced diet. If you're not convinced read The China Study, Food Revolution and educate yourself on Jainism.

Ok, debate away.

Posted by Please_Shut_UP | January 22, 2008 1:57 PM

veganism is better for you IF you eat a balanced diet.

I love this constant refrain. Any balanced diet is perfectly fine for you; unbalanced diets are bad for a variety of reasons depending on the type of imbalance. Heavy meat consumption means too much saturated fat; badly-planned veganism means protein deficiency and rickets. The key word is "balanced," not "vegan."

What if I wanted to eat your cat or dog? Would you be OK with that? No, of course not. Any why?

Because that would be theft. If you want to eat your cat or dog, I'm not going to stop you.

Posted by Rob Lyman | January 22, 2008 2:09 PM

Read some of the pro-vegan comments above and then tell us meat-eaters that vegans aren't into moral hectoring. Comparing eating meat to owning a slave? Yeah, right. Like that argument is going to win us over.

Look--stop with the moralistic arguments and be content with getting us to eat more fruits and veggies and cut down on the amount of meat we eat. (The reason I'm not a vegetarian--I tried it for 6 months and my body was constantly craving meat.) The "complementary protein" schtick seems to have problems--so much of the proteins in beans seem to be tied to the fiber so you don't absorb as much as you think you are. One report I saw insisted it only worked if you had a grain/bean/dairy pyramid. And my body certainly doesn't feel as full after a bowl of lentils and rice as it does after eating half a chicken breast.

So until vegans can come up with a diet that doesn't require me to continually worry about bound-up nutrients and what-is-it-that-I'm-missing-in-my-diet, I'll pass.

Posted by grumpy realist | January 22, 2008 2:22 PM

"Herbivores would be more than willing to harvest their own veg diet if it became necessary. Are the meat eaters ready & willing to slaughter, clean, & disect animals?"

I've done both thank you, and it's hard work. Growing and harvesting food is very time consuming and hard work, which is why we contract it out to large farms with equipment. A diet for herbivores also couldn't be done in every local climate without the support of major farms in areas that have a better growing climate.

Posted by JordanT | January 22, 2008 2:22 PM

If omnivores really thought vegans were so crazy, then they wouldn't come across as so threatened when faced with vegan ideas.

Think about why the idea of vegans and veganism upsets you so much, you might learn something about yourself.

Posted by Courtney | January 22, 2008 3:42 PM

Courtney--we're not threatened by vegans, we're pissed off by your inability to realize that a lot of us have looked at the issues, weighted them carefully, and have come down on the side of eating meat.

The only thing I've learned about myself is that after being the recipient of yet another vegan rant, I have a great craving for a steak.

(I wonder how many vegans posting here are still in their 20s? There's more than a whiff of virtuous morality/good vs. evil here that I've found indicative of young adults. It's usually only later, after you've been knocked around by the world a bit, that you realize things may not be that simple.....)

The craziest vegans I've ever run into are the ones who insist on feeding their CATS vegetarian food. Good god--someone hand them a dictionary and have them look up the definition of carnivore.

Posted by grumpy realist | January 22, 2008 6:19 PM

Protein and Veganism:
http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2007nl/apr/dairy.htm

Posted by Brent | January 22, 2008 6:31 PM

So Dr. McDougall gets huffy that rat studies show the superiority of animal protein on the grounds that rats are not people, and then goes on to say that if plants are good enough for elephant's protein needs, they'll be good enough for you!

That makes perfect sense. I think I'll adopt the elephant diet; it's what nature intended.

Posted by Rob Lyman | January 22, 2008 6:46 PM

Hey: "Humans have rather aggressive front teeth"? Geez, remind me to stay away from you in a fight. If you really want to see aggressive front teeth, you should look at my dog. Better yet, you should see her tear up a stuffed toy in a few minutes flat, or squeeze a hard rubber toy with her aggressive front teeth. Or hang on to a rope toy despite my pulling as hard as I can. Can you do any of that with your teeth?

Well, I think I would describe your dog's paws as having a rather aggressive structure, but it doesn't change the fact that when it comes time to light a barbeque grill and then slow-roast a rack of ribs with continuous turning and basting, he will be begging from me.

Posted by anony-mouse | January 22, 2008 7:29 PM

Grumpy realist - "Comparing eating meat to owning a slave? Yeah, right. Like that argument is going to win us over."

You are SO right. Vegans try to get me with this one all the time. Sure, in both cases sentient beings (who exist for their own purposes and are capable of pain in many forms) are treated as the property of others for no reason but percieved inferiority. Sure, both practises are defended by realists on social, cultural, traditionalist, scientific and economic grounds.
But there's at least one OBVIOUS difference. Who the hell mass-murders and fries up their slaves? That's just dumb, not to mention counter-productive.

Posted by Bee | January 22, 2008 7:34 PM

The vegans and vegetarians do have a point with the way they are treated.

I have watched other people and wait staff get a little huffy / patronizing with people who order vegetarian / vegan meals.

And the whole comparison of plants to animals with central nervous systems does get to be profoundly boring after while.

Essentially I don't care what you eat but if you are going to claim to eat ethically you need to put some thought into how you construct you diet.

Because time and again I see vegetarians who claim to be eating ethically actually increase the amount of food in their diet that is unfriendly to animals.

Vegans at least walk the talk.

Posted by TJIT | January 22, 2008 7:55 PM

I was not always vegan, I have a past where I would eat anything. I would also kill and butcher it, but it just was too much. As a very young person I seriously questioned the system of animal flesh use. Everyone else was doing it so it seems ok. But, it is death and requires killing of life. If you need to kill to live then you must. Preaching is not my hobby. A lot of people need ideas to find a way to live in a carnivorous society and avoid meat from animal flesh. I don't think this is evil to love animals. One of my favorite books was and is "Unmentionable Cuisine" by Calvin Schwabe, University Press of Virginia. Calvin makes a good case for eaters of all flesh from all animals to avoid malnutrition. I agree. I ate organ meats and offal. I never ate snake.

I'm not ashamed that I ate these foods anymore than I am to be ve