- By Dr George Jacobs -
To me, the big news story of this week came from Health Minister Khaw Boon Wan’s blog, where he stated, “I have adopted a fully plant-based diet plan, avoiding all meat, not even fish or dairy products.”
Mr Khaw is not alone. More people, especially those who understand where our food comes from and what impact our food has, are also upping the plant-based components of their diet. Why? Here are three key reasons.
Reason #1 centres on health. Most of us already know that we should eat lots of fruits and vegetables. In fact, we don’t need to eat any meat, eggs or dairy at all. In 2009, the American Dietetic Association, the world’s largest organisation of health and nutrition professionals, issued an evidence based position paper stating that vegetarian and vegan (vegan = plant-based) diets are nutritionally adequate and can even have health benefits.
These health benefits are thought to include reduced risk of heart disease, stroke, diabetes, obesity and certain cancers. For example, plant foods – and not just fruits and vegetables, but also nuts, seeds and grains – are rich in antioxidants, which seem to protect cells from the damage caused by free radicals. This free radical damage could increase cancer risk.
The environment constitutes Reason #2 for moving towards a plant-based diet. The key fact – probably obvious once you think about it – is that meat production is inefficient. We need to feed many kgs of plant foods to the chickens, cows and pigs whom we later eat. Growing all these extra plants means chopping down more forests, using more water and burning more fossil fuels. Plus, what do you think happens to the waste produced by the approximately 60+ billion land animals whom we eat annually? This waste fouls the air, the water and the soil.
The other big environmental plus of going plant-based relates to Global Warming. One UN estimate lays the blame for 18% of human produced greenhouse gas emission on the plate of the livestock industry. (See here.)
Last but not least, Reason #3 for going towards plant-based connects to our fellow animals. They aren’t objects. They are feeling, thinking beings. Maybe they don’t feel emotions just like us, maybe they don’t think just like us, but a growing body of research demonstrates that they most definitely do feel and do think.
Yet, modern factory farming methods ask only one question: How can we produce the most meat (or dairy or eggs) in the least time at the lowest cost? For instance, chickens – every day in Singapore, we eat more than 100,000 chickens – live only about six weeks – as compared to potentially 2-3 years in nature – before they are slaughtered. And, ‘live’ really should be put in inverted commas, because the lives of these poor creatures are completely unnatural. For example, chickens are separated from their families, kept indoors in unnatural conditions and fed growth hormones.
Conditions are scarcely better for the animals who produce milk and eggs. Again, the only question asked is: How can we produce the most product in the least time at the lowest cost? For instance, cows are kept pregnant so that they will deliver more milk, yet their calves are taken away as soon as economically efficient. Special methods, such as food deprivation, are used to increase egg production. And, what do you think happens to the cows and chickens once their production declines? Are they sent to a retirement farm to quietly live out the rest of their lives? Please close your children’s books and return to the real world.
In case you’re wondering, fishes and other marine animals don’t have it much better. An increasing percentage of them are raised on the marine equivalent of factory farms, in the same kind of unnatural conditions suffered by pigs and other land animals. Similarly, the pollution generated by this farming method causes grave environment problems. And, that is not to mention the havoc wreaked on marine ecosystems by modern fishing practices. Lastly, fishes too are sentient beings. Why make them suffer and die when actually our health is better without eating them? For instance, plant foods contain abundant Omega 3. (Vegetarian Society)
Source: Health Minister Says...
To conclude, three important reasons to adopt a plant-based diet are our own health, the environment of our planet and the well-being of the animals with whom we share the planet. But, isn’t it terribly difficult to eat a plant-based diet? Not really, especially not in Singapore, with more than 500 vegetarian eateries and lots of plant-based options at non-veg establishments. Plus, our supermarkets and wet markets are bursting with colourful, tasty plant-based foods.
Let’s have a look at what Mr Khaw eats. Returning to his blog, for lunch at the SGH food court, he enjoyed “salad with no dressing, vegetable sandwich (on wholegrain bread) and fruits”. And his breakfast consisted of “oats, wholegrain bread and fruits”.
No need to jump to 100% right away. Start slowly. Try one plant-based meal a day, and gradually increase. Find a family member, friend or colleague to make the change with you. You, the environment and our fellow animals will be glad you did.
____________________________
Dr George Jacobs is the president of the Vegetarian Society (Singapore) – a non-profit, non-religious charity
______________________________________________________
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
What about the emotions of animals that has been registered during the killing to be served as food?
I guess the intent of discussion and sharing is meant as an open learning rather than being taken as a hard debate(which has been going on for many years)
I do agree that overpopulation which leds to overconsumption which the resources of earth can support is also another issue in view of environmental concern.
As Dr George mentioned, it is meant to be a spectrum rather than a black/white thinking.
In a nos of longevity studies like Okinawan, Blue Zone…etc, one of the traits of the diet is less or no meat. So again, it is a matter of more of /less of rather than either or
Thanks for sharing this article and the discussion and interactions that has been going around.
It is not about being 100% perfect, we are just trying our best to re-examine our choices, the impact around us and within ourselves and learn how we can adjust our life with choices, that would serve towards a healthier, quality life and moving towards more ecological and humanitarian ways, based on the abundance of research, studies and testimonials of individuals and groups.
It is important that we maintain an open mind to question at what we have and we are open to welcome any new discoveries or valid findings made, that are useful for humanity.
I have just selected one of the papers on the studies made on how animal based vs plant based has on our environment. It is clear from it that the average american meat based requires more land, water and energy resources than lacto-vege, even though both are not sustainable in longer terms.
So that means by just cutting down(not talking about total elimination), just cutting down on meat consumption on a global basis, that will save a lot of resources in the longer run.
~Sustainabilty of animal based and plant based diet on environment:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/78/3/660S?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=sustainability&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT#SEC6
Again, when we look at the scope of healthy living, it encompasses various factors of mind, body and soul, diet is one major aspect of it. We are looking at the whole system than just an isolated part of it.
As a gift to all, presenting a talk by John Robbins Healthy at 100:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ylHh87nflwg
Peace & Enjoy
More studies support healthy veg diet reduces cancer risks
http://blog.friendseat.com/study-vegetarians-cut-cancer-risk-by-half/
The key words are HEALTHY, UNPROCESSED WHOLE FOODS, FREE OF ANIMAL OILS & PROTEINS (non-processed and non-refined foods where nutrients are stripped).
<>
==> Seriously…..
Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm
==> Seriously…..
Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly
Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
===============================
“The whole digestive system is around 9 meters long.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digestion#Human_digestion_process
“a. Please read some science fiction. Lots of ideas are proposed.”
Science fiction? Right… That’s the solution to all our problems! Read more science fiction books!
“b. Test tube food is already being developed.”
And where do you think the nutrients to feed the meat cells come from?
“the issue that we already have a easy non-fiction answer for: whether we humans can eat fewer non-human animals.”
And there you reveal you true intentions.
Your true purpose is not about making people healthier – vegetable oils and processed plant carbohydrates are unhealthy foods too.
It is not about the environment either; plant farming can be bad for the environment too, while animal farming can be responsible and sustainable – it is all about management.
Rather, your primary motivation is the irrational belief that animals should not be killed for food. I’ve got no problem with that, even though you cannot satifactorily explain why one type of lifeform (animals) deserves protection over other types (plants, fungi, bacetria – you do take antibiotics, don’t you?).
What I take issue with is the way you attempt to use health and environmental issues to support your cause – like homophobes who want to label homosexuality as a disease, when their motivation is really ‘God hates fags’.
As much as the vss site prominently and deliberately denies, vegetarianism is not a lifestyle choice – it is akin to religion. You make up your mind that it is wrong to eat animals, then go around gather data to support your position.
> Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.
Body length here really refers to the torso (not including neck and legs).
But I do concede that it is not clear whether we are physiologically herbivores or omnivores.
If we are omnivores, the question still remains: how much meat should we be consuming?
Many studies show that the closer we move to a plant-based diet, the lower the risk of many degenerative diseases.
In Singapore, cancer, heart disease and stroke make up 61% of the causes of death. http://www.moh.gov.sg/mohcorp/statistics.aspx?id=5526
If we are omnivores, clearly we are eating closer to the wrong end of the plant-meat continuum.
> you cannot satifactorily explain why one type of lifeform (animals) deserves protection over other types (plants, fungi, bacetria – you do take antibiotics, don’t you?).
Do we really need to explain why killing bacteria is not the same as killing plants, which is not the same as killing animals, which is not the same as killing humans?
“Do we really need to explain why killing bacteria is not the same as killing plants, which is not the same as killing animals, which is not the same as killing humans?”
Can you?
Jem:
Whether or not we are omnivores, herbivores, or canivores, we can’t really compare our intestinal tract with animals. Because they don’t cook their food. Herbivorous animals eat grass and other stuff which we don’t eat, and they eat them raw. Carnivorous animals eat meat raw always. Omnivorous animals eat their plants and meat raw too.
However in terms of predatory biological structures, I do not see any which we have evolved to keep. Nevertheless, you may wish to say we have evolved the intelligence to make tools for hunting, rendering predatory biological structures unnecessary. But this intelligence too, allow us to make informed choices. We may have evolved eating only plants, or both plants and animals. However, the choice is now ours to decide what is better for the future – what is the better choice for mankind and the environment.
Godwin:
You could say George’s intention was “animals should not be killed for food” hence he puts up all his arguments.
Nevertheless, I see it as being presented with all the points from health to environment to cruelty, he decides to choose a plant-based diet, and as a result animals are not killed for his food. And then from there, knowing the benefits derived, he wishes to share these points with others.
In fact, this is actually how most vegetarians quit meat. Seldom do they, when still omnivores, all of a sudden think “oh! animals should not be killed for food, hence I should quit meat” – most people don’t make such a connection.
If you say what VSS and George is doing is a religion based on “animals should not be killed for food”, then your own concept of remaining a on a non-plant based diet is akin to religion as well, as it harbors the intention of “humans should eat meat”. And basically all views held by anyone in the world can become a religion as long as a group is started.
And for the case of “You cannot satifactorily explain why one type of lifeform (animals) deserves protection over other types (plants, fungi, bacetria – you do take antibiotics, don’t you?”
I suggest you drop it, because if your case that “one type of life form don’t deserve protection over others” stands, it means we can start cannabalism. And I believe anyone who does that would be severely persecuted by the rest of the human race.
“… your own concept of remaining a on a non-plant based diet is akin to religion as well, as it harbors the intention of “humans should eat meat”.”
Wrong. I do not advocate “humans should eat meat”, nor do I use health or environmental issues to aruge that “humands should eat meat”.
“… if your case that “one type of life form don’t deserve protection over others” stands, it means we can start cannabalism.”
Wrong again. I didn’t say that “one type of life form don’t deserve protection over others”, I merely pointed out that Dr Jacobs (and Clarence) did not argue rationally why animals should not be killed for food while plants should.
Do stop setting up strawmen and causing digression from the topic at hand, spaces.
Ok, I am wrong. George and Clarence are wrong. You are right, we should eat meat. I hope you are happy now. Goodbye.
It’s a simple concept – 1 kilo of meat requires many (about 10) kilos of plants to produce. By eating plants instead of animals, far less resources are required.
“In Singapore, cancer, heart disease and stroke make up 61% of the causes of death.
… clearly we are eating closer to the wrong end of the plant-meat continuum.”
So what do vegetarians die of? :)
You mean besides frustration? ;)
Here’s a great talk on longevity:
http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100.html
My point, Clarence, is that most people who do not die from violent causes die from cancer, heart disease, and stroke anyway.
That these illnesses are leading causes fo death is not argument for vegetarianism since the data do not tell you how old these people were when they died, or how many of them were vegetarians.
Like I said I am not against vegetarianism as lifestyle choice – it’s the twisting of data to support vegetarianism that I’m against.
Godwin- I’m pretty amazed at your skills to be able to ‘read’ people’s true intentions(as what you called it) just by what has been discussed online so far, and which is on a linguistic basis.
I would appreciate if you could help me and the public to understand your deeper intentions clearly for us as not many do catch the meaning, as I myself am a layperson, so do i believe are the public audience.
First, i would appreciate if you could list some of the scientific sources where you derive the messages that you have stated on the ‘science fiction’ & ‘test tube food’ which you are refering to? The public out there will be glad to understand deeper on that.
Interestingly enough, by not being able to come up with ‘rational arguements’ of why animals should not be killed for food while plants should, how do you come to know of people’s ‘true intention/motives’ for using health and environment reasons to support the beliefs that animals should not be killed for food?
So what is your proposal then for us in terms of moving towards a much healthier and eco-harmonious way of living, which includes diet, in a holistic sense that everyone can benefit greatly from? Taking into consideration that each of us are unique, hence what works for some might not work well for others, even if following the same prescriptions and such, and also looking at the rate diseases and environmental issues are taking place these days.
Your constructive feedbacks are appreciated for the benefit of everyone, many thanks
1. “i would appreciate if you could list some of the scientific sources where you derive the messages that you have stated on the ’science fiction’ & ‘test tube food’ which you are refering to?”
Dr Jacobs was the one who suggested reading sci-fi as a solution to replacing animals and plants as a source of food, not I.
I asked Dr Jacobs what source of nutrients ‘test tube meat’ would grow on – he has not replied.
2. “how do you come to know of people’s ‘true intention/motives’ for using health and environment reasons to support the beliefs that animals should not be killed for food?”
By inference. I stated my reasons in my post.
3. “So what is your proposal then for us in terms of moving towards a much healthier and eco-harmonious way of living, which includes diet, in a holistic sense that everyone can benefit greatly from?”
That is not my purpose for posting here.
Hi Godwin,
Thanks for your prompt response.
As i only browse through the postings here, hence i might not get the full picture of it, pardon for that.
I’m still unclear what’s is your purpose for posting here then for us?
Appreciated
I am against the intellectual dishonesty of using scientific reasons (like health and the environment) to create a false dichotomy to support an irrational belief.
If someone feels that we shouldn’t kill feeling animals for food, then I respect that point of view and his right to spread that belief; but if I gave up eating animals for health and environmental reasons, is it alright to that person if I killed animals for sport or my pleasure? The answer gives a clue to his true intention.
From what I understand, I don’t think Dr Jacobs is bending scientific reasons to support his believe. The scientific reasons have prove it such, and it is presented, that’s all.
As for animals killed for sport or pleasure, Dr Jacobs has mentioned well-being of animals as a reason supporting vegetarianism.
I personally find the reduction of environmental destruction, health benefits, and well-being animals very positive actions. And if being a vegetarian can contribute to these, it doesn’t really matter to me whether his intention is for animals rights, for vegetarianism, for environmental reasons, or for health benefits. Most important is if by practicing these, we can achieve a positive result that is better for the world. If it will, I adopt it.
The very inspiring talk (the link to which I posted), basically puts forth that the healthiest and longest-lived communities share certain common lifestyle traits. One of these is a primarily plant-based diet.
Another study which supports this was headed by Professor Colin Campbell who published his findings in the book, The China Study:
http://www.thechinastudy.com/about.html
And yet another was by Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn:
http://www.heartattackproof.com/
For those who are genuinely interested in the issues (even if we do not agree), thanks for the interesting discussion.
For those who enjoy debate for the sake of debate, I thank you as well, and take my leave. :)
Cheers.
Godwin
Thanks for sharing your intentions.
I do understand your concern that we do want to promote understanding base on what is authentic and true especially these days where information, messages get so overwhelming and complex that leaves many people puzzled and confused.
If you do have any valid findings and informations that would benefit humanity in terms of health, environment and to promote peace, loving and harmonious living, do feel free to share your constructive feedbacks, appreciated.
I take offence with your branding animals as ‘feeling, thinking beings’. flimsy it is for you to base your idea on this: the claim that animals are sentient beings. perhaps you might go against animal experimentation next. why not, they’re ‘feeling, thinking beings’ and don’t deserve to have experiments conducted upon after all. while the idea of us sacrificing a carnivorous palate for other ‘feeling, thinking beings’ is not ludicrous, you, author, are one step closer to asking us to be the next experiment subjects for drugs and medical treatments. why not? we’ve already sacrificed a diet for ‘feeling, thinking beings’, sacrificing our lives wouldn’t matter.
To Godwin – Rather than debating endlessly via this site, why don’t we meet for a vegetarian meal? What about some weekday evening in the CBD area? pls email me at info@vss.sg
To trr: There is lots of scientific research supporting the idea that non-human animals, such as pigs and chickens, are sentient.
As to the connection with eating less meat and using non-human animals for research, those are separate issues. For example, i know a vegetarian who is a Nutrition Professor who does animal research in his lab.
My opinion is that we should seek ways to end or at least greatly minimize the uses of our fellow animals in research.
Sorry, Dr Jacobs – it’s not dinner for me unless at least one animal died to provide it; if you have something to share, share it here.
By the way, in your opinion, is it worse to eat a steak (which accounts for one cow being killed), or nasi lemak with ikan bilis (which accounts for dozens of fish being killed)?
Hi Godwin – I eat at lots of non-veg restaurants. For example, today I ate dinner at a non-veg North Indian place. Most non-veg restaurants have many veg options. So, can?
Thanks for the steak/nasi lemak question. I don’t rank better or worse non-veg meals. Cheers
Thanks once again for the invitation, Dr Jacobs.
I think you have stated your position on this page and I have stated my criticism of it. I don’t mind carrying on the discussion here, but I’ll pass on dinner.
I think Godwin has a point. Vegetarian and vegan diet has been hailed in the media as a healthy alternative to an omnivorous diet. This couldn’t be further from the truth.
It is not true to say a no-meat diet has al lthe essential nutrients needed for healthy living. Important vitamins like B12 and A are only found in meat based products.
If you consider some sedentary individuals, adopting a no-meat diet may be okay. But if you are an athlete, such diet will be inadequate (Sprinter Carl Lewis is the famous exception). And I would take all this news about vegetarian diets being healthier with a pinch of salt.
The media has been quick to vilify meat and especially animal fat, with their poor understanding of cholesterol and the mechanism of heart disease. For unbiased views on this, you may wish to see the Weston A Price website: http://www.westonaprice.org/
Ketogenic diets like the Atkins diet have been shown to actually be beneficial in improving blood lipids and sugar control, together with weight loss. The only reason such diets fail is due to people’s inability to comply on a life-long basis.
> Important vitamins like B12 and A are only found in meat based products.
Vitamin B12 is manufactured by neither animals nor plants, but by bacteria.
So animals obtain B12 from bacteria. Vegans easily obtain it from supplements.
Some rich plant sources of vitamin A:
Carrots, sweet patato, capsicum pepper (red), spinach, watercress, mangoes, apricots.
> if you are an athlete, such diet will be inadequate (Sprinter Carl Lewis is the famous exception).
Carl Lewis is a prime example. Here are 10 more:
1. Bill Pearl (bodybuilder)
2. Joe Namath (football)
3. Martina Navratilova (tennis)
4. Tony La Russa (baseball)
5. Robert Parish (basketball)
6. Prince Fielder (baseball)
7. Dave Scott (six-time Ironman world champion)
8. Billie Jean King (tennis)
9. Tony Gonzalez (football)
10. Scott Jureck (ultra-marathoner)
Singapore’s record holder for the marathon, Murugiah Rameshon, is also a long-time vegetarian.
And before anyone jumps too quickly into the Atkins Diet, you might want to read this:
http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/97/Dietitians_Warn_of_Low-Carbo_Diet_Dangers.htm
I didn’t say that a vegetarian diet is unhealthy, skipper – I said that a vegetarian diet can also be unhealthy. Dr Jacob’s write-up on his Reason #1 gives the impression that vegetarian diet = health benefits without qualifying that a pure veg diet can also be unhealthy.
To Godwin,
I didn’t say nor imply that vegetarian diets are unhealthy. I was just making a comment on the misconception that they are healthy alternatives to a non vegetarian diet.
To Clarence,
Thanks for the list of vegetarian athletes. It only makes you wonder if they would have been even better at what they do had they adopted an omnivorous diet.
A word on your list of vegetables containing vitamins. I’m afraid none of those contain an iota of vitamin A. At best, they contain carotene, a precursor to vitamin A. Your body has to convert this carotene into vitamin A, and not everybody can do that. Many little children, diabetics and people with certain other ailments are unable to manufacture vitamin A from carotenes.
You are right about vitamin B12. Vitamin B12 is produced by bacteria in the colon. However, little, if any, of this is absorbed across the colon wall, so we must get this vitamin from animal sources. By suggesting vegetarians get this from supplementation, you are implying vegetarian diet is inadequate.
As for the website you mentioned, I have perused it and wouldn’t put too much trust in it. It seems designed with an ulterior motive. It quotes the American Dietetic Association (ADA), which is heavily influenced by the pharmaceutical industry. The ADA has been giving dietary advice to Americans for over 30 years, and over this period, America has become the fattest and unhealthiest nation on earth. The ADA’s “heart-healthy” diet has been shown to be ineffective in preventing and reducing diabetes/heart disease (look up the Framigham study).
Perhaps you could look into Prof. Ravnskov’s book about the cholesterol myths for a clearer (unbiased) picture about the real role of cholesterol and animal fat in your body.
> It only makes you wonder if they would have been even better at what they do had they adopted an omnivorous diet.
Quite the opposite. Carl Lewis has said that his best year as an athlete was when he turned vegan. Scott Jureck and others have also credited their performance to their diet. Singapore’s Rameshon has said the same.
> By suggesting vegetarians get this from supplementation, you are implying vegetarian diet is inadequate.
It’s quite simple:
Can vegans easily obtain B12? Yes.
Can the mentioned minority groups easily obtain vitamin A? Yes.
No need to confuse the issue. :)
Thanks for mentioning the Framingham Heart Study. Here’s a quote from William Castelli, MD, director of the Framingham Heart Study: “vegetarians have the best diet. They have the lowest rate of coronary disease of any group in the country and they have a fraction of our heart attack rate and they have only 40% of our cancer rate.”
Clarence,
Thanks for the information. Can Dr Castelli provide data to back up his claims, I wonder, bearing in mind that statistics can be easily manipulated to suit one’s own agenda.
I am not being argumentative for the sake of argument, but this issue is something close to my heart (pun not intended). It affects our lives, so I would really like to get the truth, not something the government tries to push onto us to suit their own interests, or the interests of whoever is pulling their purse strings.
Skipper,
I couldn’t agree with you more. I too don’t like to be a puppet of someone else’s agenda.
There is the saying ‘the proof of the pudding is in the eating’.
Most vegetarians I know were once big meat-eaters (myself included). We have been on both sides of the fence. When we talk about health benefits, it is not just intellectual posturing, but personal experience.
Of course one could be vegan and consume French fries and cola all day, so it is indeed possible to still be very unhealthy.
But when you stat moving closer to a natural, whole foods, plan-based diet, the health improvements speak for themselves. Don’t need to wonder who’s right anymore. :)
Spaces, Clarence.
I do not actually care about the intestinal tract ratio between carnivores, herbivores, and humans. There are really more compelling arguments on either side to use. I was just using it to refute a flimsy argument with absolutely no backup evidence.
It’s probably not apparent, but I do think having more vegetables and fruits in your diet is a good thing. But the insistence of vegetarians and vegans that everyone else convert, and throwing around accusations of cannibalism in the process, is incredibly annoying.
By the way, I’m sure that there are also many non-vegetarian athletes…?
Jem, you might have misunderstood the cannibalism comment. In any case, I really should retire from this thread. Cheers.
Dear All
The editors of TOC have asked that I write another article on the same general topic. I plan to do so next month, although I can’t guarantee that it will be published.
Thus, there’s a good chance that we will be able to resume our discussions in July.
Also, those who aren’t in 100% with my views might also see if TOC would like to publish something by them.
Finally, here is one point that is sometimes raised against moving towards a plant based diet, as I didn’t see it raised here: Animals, such as rodents who live in fields, are killed when plants are harvested by machine.
Hope to dialogue with you again next month. Cheers
I am very impressed by the discussion here, mentioning many of the sources and facts that I wanted to mention.
As a Canadian activist who has discussed these very issues with T. Colin Campbell, John Robbins and others, it seems best to avoid arguments about what humans must eat and focus on what we should eat. There are moral reasons for changing what we have been doing. As Peter Singer puts it, we know animals are our equals in being able to feel pain or distress, and that’s reason enough to not keep them in terrible conditions their whole short lives and then kill them. We can do it, but it doesn’t mean we should.
This is not an argument based on animal rights but on human responsibilities. We harden ourselves to cruelty when we kill animals and make them suffer. We should go vegan because it is better for humans as a society. Numerous great minds have stated something like this, going back hundreds of years.
Appreciating the commitment you put into your site and detailed information you provide. It’s nice to come across a blog every once in a while that isn’t the same unwanted rehashed information. Wonderful read! I’ve saved your site and I’m adding your RSS feeds to my Google account.
buyfor less