Vegetarian Discussion: Americans Start Taking A New Look At The Ethics Of Meat Eating

Americans Start Taking A New Look At The Ethics Of Meat Eating
Posts: 22

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)

Or Www.mantra.com/jai Dr. Jai Maharaj
2006-06-28 04:20:12 EST
Americans start taking a new look at the ethics of meat eating

It Died for Us

By Frank Bruni
The New York Times
Sunday, June 25, 2006

Do oysters have little bivalve souls? Do they dream briny
dreams, scream briny screams? On a level that I suppose
is selfish and somewhat silly, I hope not, because they
are alive when they are shucked right in front of us,
their deaths more proximal than those of so many
creatures we eat.

They don't thrash like the lobster in its scalding pot,
but should we nonetheless worry about how they meet their
end? And whether that end is a sufficiently compassionate
one?

These questions seem less ridiculous than they once did.
This month Whole Foods announced that it would no longer
sell live lobsters, saying that keeping them in crammed
tanks for long periods doesn't demonstrate a proper
concern for animal welfare. The Chicago City Council
recently outlawed the sale of foie gras to protest the
force-feeding of the ducks and geese that yield it.
California passed a similar law, which doesn't take
effect until 2012, and other states and cities are
considering such measures.

All of these developments dovetail with a heightened
awareness in these food-obsessed times of what we eat:
where it came from, what it was fed, how it was penned,
how it perished. If the success of best sellers like
"Fast Food Nation" and "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and
stores like Whole Foods is any indication, more Americans
are spending more time mulling the nutritional,
environmental and, yes, ethical implications of their
diets.

They prefer that their beef carry the tag "grass fed,"
which evokes a verdant pasture rather than a squalid feed
lot, and that their poultry knew the glories of a "free
range," a less sturdy assurance than many people believe.

But these concerns are riddled with intellectual
inconsistencies and prompt infinite questions. Are the
calls for fundamental changes in the mass production of
food simply elitist, the privilege of people wealthy
enough to pay more at the checkout counter? Does fretting
about ducks give people a pass on chickens? Does
considering the lobster allow seafood lovers to disregard
the tuna?

"Foie gras and lobster are not at the heart of the real
tough issues of animal welfare, which are feed lots and
pigs and cattle and chickens and how billions of animals
are treated," said Michael Pollan, author of "The
Omnivore's Dilemma," which traces the messy back stories
of our meals. "On the other hand, the fact that we're
having this conversation at all \ufffd that we're talking
about ethics in relation to what we're eating every day \ufffd
strikes me as a very healthy thing," he said last week.

Mr. Pollan is a contributing writer for The New York
Times Magazine, and the reaction to a 2002 article of his
illustrates how random people's concerns over animal
welfare can be. The article depicted the life on a Kansas
feed lot of a young steer that Mr. Pollan had purchased,
a steer slated for slaughter several months later.

After the article appeared, Mr. Pollan received appeals
from readers willing to pay large sums of money to buy
and save the steer. One reader, he recalled, was a
Hollywood producer who wanted to let the animal graze on
his lawn in Beverly Hills, Calif.

"He kept coming after me," Mr. Pollan said, describing a
crusade that culminated in an offer of a meal at a famous
emporium of porterhouses in Brooklyn. "He finally said,
'I'm coming to New York, we're going to have dinner at
Peter Luger to discuss this.' I'm like, 'Excuse me, we're
going to have a steak dinner to discuss the rescue of
this steer?' How disconnected can we be?"

The dinner never happened. The steer was killed. Mr.
Pollan didn't eat its flesh, but he does eat beef, trying
to make sure it's not from feed lots. He said he won't
eat veal, but has not sworn off foie gras. For different
omnivores there are different codes.

And there is often as much sentiment as sense. The
anecdote about the producer suggests the ways in which
many people make distinctions and decisions based
primarily on the degree to which they have become
familiar with the creatures they ingest, the degree to
which they have anthropomorphized them.

"People look at the lobster and try to imagine what its
experience would be like, but they don't look at a
package of chicken breasts and imagine what the
experience would be like," said Jay Weinstein, a
Manhattan caterer whose book "The Ethical Gourmet" was
published this month. "It's because they're closer to the
final step of the killing."

While the lives of "free-range" chickens are hardly
ideal, the lives of other chickens are even worse, Mr.
Weinstein said. The birds' feet are lacerated by the wire
they are forced to stand on, while their beaks are
clipped so they can't peck at each other in the tight
quarters they occupy. He questioned whether any of that
was less offensive than the force feeding of ducks.

Foie gras and lobster may be drawing special attention
because they're luxury foods whose consumption, like the
wearing of a mink, cannot be defended on the grounds of
necessity. But even that attention entails
contradictions.

Eric Ripert, the chef and a co-owner of the seafood
restaurant Le Bernardin in Manhattan, said he made a
point of killing lobsters not by throwing them into
boiling water \ufffd where, he said, "it looks like they're
suffering" \ufffd but by slicing their heads with a sharp
blade.

"I feel good about doing that," he said in a telephone
interview.

But where do the restaurant's lobsters await their
appointment with the knife? For as many as 24 hours, as
many as 40 lobsters inhabit a container that's just 3-
feet long by 1-foot wide, he said. It doesn't sound much
comfier than a Whole Foods holding tank.

"I should be more compassionate, I guess," Mr. Ripert
said.

But, he added: "When you think about treating animals in
a humane way, it's unlimited. If you start with the
lobster, then next month you should think about the clam,
and then you have to think about the fish, which is
suffocating outside the water after we catch it."

Even before it suffocates, a hooked or netted fish flails
in a doomed effort to avoid its fate. The process is
traumatic enough that David Pasternack, a fisherman and
co-owner of the Manhattan seafood restaurant Esca, noted
that "you can see the struggle in the flesh of a fish."

If the fish hasn't gone down quickly, he said, "The meat
feels and looks stressed out." Does that struggle deserve
as much heed as the grisly realities of the abattoir?

Maybe not. Ample scientific evidence suggests that
various creatures have varying levels of consciousness.
"There really is a difference between the sentience of an
oyster and the sentience of a lobster and the sentience
of a cat," Mr. Pollan said. "These lines really can be
drawn."

And advocates of animal welfare argue that some lines are
better than none, that inconsistencies are better than
inaction.

But there are human considerations as well. Even in a
country as rich as ours,some people can't afford chickens
reared according to exacting standards. Other people's
livelihoods depend on the status quo.

In a memoir published last year, "The Summer of Ordinary
Ways," the Minnesota writer Nicole Lea Helget described
her childhood on a family farm. She said she was
surprised when much of the reaction to her book focused
on the way animals were treated instead of her family's
travails.

An anecdote about her father's killing a recalcitrant cow
with a pitchfork was meant to illustrate his
frustrations, she said. The Publishers Weekly review of
the book frames that story as "a staggering example of
her father's brutality" and refers to him as merciless.

"I thought it really reflected what can happen to a
person," Ms. Helget said in an interview. "I wasn't
really thinking about what was happening to the cow."

She expressed confusion about the concern for animals
serving a purpose as essential as food. "I just spent a
little time in New York," she said. "What seems abnormal
to me is having a Great Dane in a one-bedroom apartment.
I guess it's all a matter of perspective."

More at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/weekinreview/25bruni.html

WHY HINDUS DON'T EAT MEAT

Besides being an expression of compassion
for animals, vegetarianism is followed for
ecological and health rationales

REASONS

In the past fifty years, millions of meat-eaters --
Hindus and non-Hindus -- have made the personal decision
to stop eating the flesh of other creatures. There are
five major motivations for such a decision:

1. The Dharmic Law Reason

Ahinsa, the law of noninjury, is the Hindu's first
duty in fulfilling religious obligations to God and God's
creation as defined by Vedic scripture.

2. The Karmic Consequences Reason

All of our actions, including our choice of food,
have Karmic consequences. By involving oneself in the
cycle of inflicting injury, pain and death, even
indirectly by eating other creatures, one must in the
future experience in equal measure the suffering caused.

3. The Spiritual Reason

Food is the source of the body's chemistry, and what
we ingest affects our consciousnes, emotions and
experiential patterns. If one wants to live in higher
consciousness, in peace and happiness and love for all
creatures, then he cannot eat meat, fish, shellfish, fowl
or eggs. By ingesting the grosser chemistries of animal
foods, one introduces into the body and mind anger,
jealousy, anxiety, suspicion and a terrible fear of
death, all of which are locked into the the flesh of the
butchered creatures. For these reasons, vegetarians live
in higher consciousness and meat-eaters abide in lower
consciousness.

4. The Health Reason

Medical studies prove that a vegetarian diet is
easier to digest, provides a wider ranger of nutrients
and imposes fewer burdens and impurities on the body.
Vegetarians are less susceptible to all the major
diseases that afflict contemporary humanity, and thus
live longer, healthier, more productive lives. They have
fewer physical complaints, less frequent visits to the
doctor, fewer dental problems and smaller medical bills.
Their immune system is stronger, their bodies are purer,
more refined and skin more beautiful.

5. The Ecological Reason

Planet Earth is suffereing. In large measure, the
escalating loss of species, destruction of ancient
rainforests to create pasture lands for live stock, loss
of topsoils and the consequent increase of water
impurities and air pollution have all been traced to the
single fact of meat in the human diet. No decision that
we can make as individuals or as a race can have such a
dramatic effect on the improvement of our planetary
ecology as the decision not to eat meat.

HISTORY

The book FOOD FOR THE SPIRIT, VEGETARIANISM AND THE WORLD
RELIGIONS, observes, "Despite popular knowledge of meat-
eating's adverse effects, the nonvegetarian diet became
increasingly widespread among the Hindus after the two
major invasions by foreign powers, first the Muslims and
later the British. With them came the desire to be
'civilized,' to eat as did the Saheeb. Those atually
trained in Vedic knowledge, however, never adopted a
meat-oriented diet, and the pious Hindu still observes
vegetarian principles as a matter of religious duty.

"That vegetarianism has always been widespread in
India is clear from the earliest Vedic texts. This was
observed by the ancient traveler Megasthenes and also by
Fa-Hsien, a Chinese Buddhist monk who, in the fifth
century, traveled to India in order to obtain authentic
copies of the scriptures.

"These scriptures unambiguously support the meatless
way of life. In the MAHABHARAT, for instance, the great
warrior Bheeshm explains to Yuddhishtira, eldest of the
Paandav princes, that the meat of animals is like the
flesh of one's own son. Similarly, the MANUSMRITI
declares that one should 'refrain from eating all kinds
of meat,' for such eating involves killing and and leads
to Karmic bondage (Bandh) [5.49]. Elsewhere in the Vedic
literature, the last of the great Vedic kings, Maharaja
Parikshit, is quoted as saying that 'only the animal-
killer cannot relish the message of the Absolute Truth
[Shrimad Bhagvatam 10.1.4].'"

SCRIPTURE

He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating
the flesh of other creatures lives in misery in whatever
species he may take his birth.
MAHABHARAT 115.47

Those high-souled persons who desire beauty,
faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental
and physical strength and memory should abstain from acts
of injury. MAHABHARAT 18.115.8

The very name of cow is Aghnya ["not to be killed"],
indicating that they should never be slaughtered. Who,
then could slay them? Surely, one who kills a cow or a
bull commits a heinous crime. MAHABHARAT, SHANTIPARV
262.47

The purchaser of flesh performs Hinsa (violence) by
his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its
taste; the killer does Hinsa by actually tying and
killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of
killing: he who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts
off the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells
or cooks flesh and eats it -- all of these are to be
considered meat-eaters. MAHABHARAT, ANU 115.40

He who sees that the Lord of all is ever the same
in all that is -- immortal in the field of mortality --
he sees the truth. And when a man sees that the God in
himself is the same God in all that is, he hurts not
himself by hurting others. Then he goes, indeed, to the
highest path. BHAGVAD GEETA 13.27-28

Ahinsa is the highest Dharm. Ahinsa is the best
Tapas. Ahinsa is the greatest gift. Ahinsa is the
highest self-control. Ahinsa is the highest sacrifice.
Ahinsa is the highest power. Ahinsa is the highest
friend. Ahinsa is the highest truth. Ahinsa is the
highest teaching. MAHABHARAT 18.116.37-41

What is the good way? It is the path that reflects
on how it may avoid killing any creature. TIRUKURAL 324

All that lives will press palms together in
prayerful adoration of those who refuse to slaughter and
savor meat. TIRUKURAL 260

What is virtuous conduct? It is never destroting
life, for killing leads to every other sin. TIRUKURAL
312, 321

Goodness is never one with the minds of these two:
one who wields a weapon and one who feasts on a
creature's flesh. TIRUKURAL 253

Copyright (C) 1993, Himalayan Academy, All Rights
Reserved. The information contained in this news report
may not be republished in any form without the prior
written authority of Himalayan Academy.
This is an authorized reproduction.

Jai Maharaj
Born in a Hindu family in Bharat, and a vegetarian since birth
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Harmony
2006-06-28 14:10:19 EST


<*t@mantra.comhmjU3xXs or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
message news:20060627I4m2hmjU3xXshs7a2I3QBWH@BkzN3...
> Americans start taking a new look at the ethics of meat eating
>
> It Died for Us
>

kirastanis say so did jesus.
would be nice if the pope were to say all days are friday.



Dr. Homilete
2006-06-29 06:16:52 EST
harmony aka Pardipshit Parekh wrote:

> <usenet@mantra.comhmjU3xXs or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)> wrote in
> message news:20060627I4m2hmjU3xXshs7a2I3QBWH@BkzN3...
>
>>Americans start taking a new look at the ethics of meat eating
>>
>>It Died for Us
>>
>
>
> kirastanis say so did jesus.
> would be nice if the pope were to say all days are friday.

Would be nice if you were to shut the fuck up. After all, you live among
Christians, and you hate them with a passion. So why don't you walk the
talk, and get the fuck out? Your incessant hatred is tiresome. What
would you say if a white equivalent of your lord and master Jay Maharaj
were to ceaselessly post, for years on end, hatred of Hindus and
everything to do with India? Fact of the matter is, the two of you are
yellow rat coward bastards, living in an environment created by the very
people you direct your hatred at. The Islamists have nothing on you
lily-livered scumbags, who thrust daggers into the hearts of your hosts.
If you weren't such fucking cowards, you might actually have the balls
to be physically confrontational. On the other hand, you need to be
watched because you are likely to do major harm to Christian peoples in
a sly, furtive and dangerous way.

You must be a miserable bastard to your family.

D*@.
2006-06-29 17:46:52 EST
On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 08:20:12 GMT, usenet@mantra.comhmjU3xXs or www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj)
wrote:

>Americans start taking a new look at the ethics of meat eating
>
>It Died for Us
>
>By Frank Bruni
>The New York Times
>Sunday, June 25, 2006
. . .

>developments dovetail with a heightened
>awareness in these food-obsessed times of what we eat:
>where it came from, what it was fed, how it was penned,
>how it perished.

· Vegans contribute to the deaths of animals by their use of
wood and paper products, electricity, roads and all types of
buildings, their own diet, etc... just as everyone else does.
What they try to avoid are products which provide life
(and death) for farm animals, but even then they would have
to avoid the following items containing animal by-products
in order to be successful:

Tires, Paper, Upholstery, Floor waxes, Glass, Water
Filters, Rubber, Fertilizer, Antifreeze, Ceramics, Insecticides,
Insulation, Linoleum, Plastic, Textiles, Blood factors, Collagen,
Heparin, Insulin, Solvents, Biodegradable Detergents, Herbicides,
Gelatin Capsules, Adhesive Tape, Laminated Wood Products,
Plywood, Paneling, Wallpaper and Wallpaper Paste, Cellophane
Wrap and Tape, Abrasives, Steel Ball Bearings

The meat industry provides life for the animals that it
slaughters, and the animals live and die as a result of it
as animals do in other habitats. They also depend on it for
their lives as animals do in other habitats. If people consume
animal products from animals they think are raised in decent
ways, they will be promoting life for more such animals in the
future. People who want to contribute to decent lives for
livestock with their lifestyle must do it by being conscientious
consumers of animal products, because they can not do it by
being vegan.
From the life and death of a thousand pound grass raised
steer and whatever he happens to kill during his life, people
get over 500 pounds of human consumable meat...that's well
over 500 servings of meat. From a grass raised dairy cow people
get thousands of dairy servings. Due to the influence of farm
machinery, and *icides, and in the case of rice the flooding and
draining of fields, one serving of soy or rice based product is
likely to involve more animal deaths than hundreds of servings
derived from grass raised animals. Grass raised animal products
contribute to fewer wildlife deaths, better wildlife habitat, and
better lives for livestock than soy or rice products. ·

Or Www.mantra.com/jai Dr. Jai Maharaj
2006-06-29 20:41:53 EST
Visit:

http://www.pcrm.org

Jai Maharaj
http://tinyurl.com/a5ljc
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

In article <qCzog.284780$5Z.209734@dukeread02>,
"harmony" <aka@hotmail.com> posted:
>
>
> www.mantra.com/jai (Dr. Jai Maharaj) posted:
>
> > Americans start taking a new look at the ethics of meat eating
> >
> > It Died for Us
> >
>
> kirastanis say so did jesus.
> would be nice if the pope were to say all days are friday.


Dr. Homilete
2006-06-30 06:01:41 EST
Johnny Judas Jay "the jumpin' jackass" Maharaj wrote:

> Visit:
>
> http://www.pcrm.org


Nutrition Performance
By Anssi H. Manninen, MHS

“Physicians” Committee for Responsible Medicine and Anti-Protein Propaganda
"Most Americans are too smart to knowingly take dietary advice from PETA
[People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals]. But when animal rights
activists put on the sheep's clothing of the medical profession, it
becomes harder to know who's credible. These so-called “physicians”
[Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine] have a huge hidden
agenda. Force-feeding animal rights propaganda to Americans doesn't
sound very “responsible” to me, and the established medical community
agrees." —David Martosko,
Director of Research
Center for Consumer Freedom

The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) is a
pseudoscientific association that claims to promote optimal diet for
prevention of disease. They “teach” that dietary protein from animal
sources is detrimental to health. PCRM's reference to animal sources is
key to understanding its true purpose.

PCRM has well-documented ties to the animal rights movement, including
over $850,000 in financing from People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA)*. PCRM president Neal Barnard, a non-practicing
psychiatrist, sits on the board of The PETA Foundation with PETA
co-founder Ingrid Newkirk. According to Barnard´s quacky book Food for
Life, "To give a child animal products is a form of child abuse.” Yeah
sure… and according to my recent textbook Bullshit: Basic Science and
Practical Aspects, Brandy Dahl lives in my underpants.

The American Medical Association (AMA) calls PCRM a “pseudo-physicians
group” (because less than 0.5 percent of physicians are members), has
demanded that PCRM stop its “inappropriate and unethical tactics used to
manipulate public opinion,” and argues that PCRM has been “blatantly
misleading Americans” and “concealing its true purpose as an animal
‘rights’ organization.”

This article examines some of the pseudoscience behind PCRM propaganda.
PCRM Propaganda vs. Scientific Facts
PCRM Propaganda: “For weight loss, studies show that high-protein diets
do not work any better than other diets.”
Scientific facts: Results of several recent studies suggest that
high-protein, low-carbohydrate diets have their benefits. In addition to
sparing fat-free mass (Metabolism, 43:1481-1487, 1994) and producing
greater weight and fat loss than high-carbohydrate diets (Int J Obes
Relat Metab Disord, 23:528-536, 1999), high-protein diets have been
associated with decreases in fasting triglycerides and free fatty acids
in healthy subjects and with the normalization of fasting insulin levels
in hyperinsulinemic, normoglycemic obese subjects (Int J Obes Relat
Metab Disord, 23:1202-1206, 1999; Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord,
23:528-536, 1999).

Furthermore, a 45 percent protein diet reduced resting energy
expenditure to a significantly lesser extent than did a 12 percent
protein diet (Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord, 23:1202-1206, 1999).
PCRM Propaganda: ”High-protein diets are associated with reduced kidney
function. Over time, individuals who consume very large amounts of
protein, particularly animal protein, risk permanent loss of kidney
function.”

Scientific Facts: According to a literature review by Dr. Mackenzie
Walser from the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine published in The Role
of Protein and Amino Acids in Sustaining and Enhancing Performance
(National Academy Press, 1999), “It is clear that protein restriction
does not prevent decline in renal [kidney] function with age, and, in
fact, is the major cause of that decline. A better way to prevent the
decline would be to increase protein intake... there is no reason to
restrict protein intake in healthy individuals in order to protect the
kidney.”

Dietary protein restriction has been recommended as a therapeutic
approach for delaying the progression of chronic renal failure. However,
the results of several recent studies on this subject have been
conflicting. The results of the largest randomized clinical trial, “The
Modification of Diet in Renal Disease (MDRD),” did not demonstrate a
benefit of dietary protein restriction on progression of renal disease
(New Engl J Med, 330:877-884,1994).

PCRM Propaganda: “Very high protein intake is known to encourage urinary
calcium losses and has been shown to increase risk of fracture in
research studies.”
Scientific Facts: Increasing dietary protein increases urine calcium
excretion such that for each 50-gram increment of protein consumed, an
extra 60 milligrams of urinary calcium is excreted. It follows that the
higher the protein intake, the more urine calcium is lost and the more
negative calcium balance becomes. Since 99 percent of the body´s calcium
is found in bone, one would hypothesize that high-protein-induced
hypercalciuria would result in high bone resorption and increased
prevalence of osteoporotic-related fractures.

However, the epidemiological and clinical data addressing this
hypothesis are controversial. On one hand, most, but not all,
epidemiological studies found a positive association between protein
intake and bone mineral density (BMD). On the other hand, many, but
certainly not all, studies report higher fractures in groups consuming a
high-protein diet.

There is growing evidence that a low-protein diet has a detrimental
effect on bone. For example, Dr. Kerstetter and colleagues reported that
in healthy young women, acute intakes of a low-protein diet (0.7 grams
[g] of protein per kilogram [kg] of body weight) decreased urinary
calcium excretion with accompanied secondary hyperparathyroidism. (In
secondary hyperparathyroidism, a high level of PTH occurs as a
compensation for hypocalcemia rather than as a primary abnormality of
the parathyroid gland). The etiology of the secondary
hyperparathyroidism is due, in part, to a significant reduction in
intestinal calcium absorption during a low-protein diet.

Further, in a recent short-term intervention trial, Dr. Kerstetter and
co-workers evaluated the effects of graded levels of dietary protein
(0.7, 0.8, 0.9 and
1.0 grams protein/kg) on calcium homeostasis. Secondary
hyperparathyroidism developed by day four of the 0.7 and 0.8 grams of
protein per kilogram diets (due to the decreased intestinal calcium
absorption), but not during the 0.9 or 1.0 grams of protein per kilogram
diets in eight young women. Similarly, when Dr. Giannini and colleagues
restricted dietary protein to 0.8 grams of protein per kilogram, they
observed an acute rise in serum PTH in 18 middle-aged hypercalciuric
adults. Taken together, both of studies suggest, at least in the short
term, that RDA for protein (0.8 g/kg) does not support normal calcium
homeostasis.

The long-term consequences of restricted protein intake on calcium and
bone metabolism are unknown, but could potentially be an important and
unrecognized problem. Analysis of available data from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture indicated that 31 percent of women over the
age of 20 consume less protein than the 1989 RDA. Only half these women
(i.e., 15 percent of women over age 20) considered their own diets to be
too low in dietary protein.

PCRM Propaganda: “Typical high-protein diets are extremely high in
dietary cholesterol and saturated fat… Such diets pose additional
cardiovascular risks, including increased risk for cardiovascular events
immediately following a meal.”
Scientific facts: Overwhelming evidence shows that the addition of
saturated fat to an otherwise low-fat diet will adversely affect serum
(blood) markers of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. However, some
evidence indicates there may not be a simple relationship between
increasing dietary intake of saturated fat and cholesterol and the serum
markers of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Some humans can adapt
to increased intake of dietary cholesterol by decreasing absorption and
increasing excretion (New Engl J Med, 324:896-899,1991). Dr. Westman and
co-workers reported decreases in total cholesterol and total
triglyceride levels and increases in HDL (“good cholesterol”)
concentrations in patients prescribed a ketogenic high saturated fat
diet (Am J Med,113:30-36,2002; see my article “Low-Carbohydrate
Ketogenic Diet: Friend or Foe?” in the January issue of MD).
The aim of a recent study by Dr. James Hayes and colleagues at Christina
Health Care Services was to determine whether a diet high in saturated
fat and avoidance of starch (HSF-SA) results in weight loss without
adverse effects on serum lipids in obese non-diabetic patients (Mayo
Clin Proc, 78:1331-1336, 2003). Twenty-three patients with
atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease participated in this prospective
six-week trial. All patients were obese and had been treated with
statins before entry into the trial. Authors concluded that the “HSF-SA
diet results in weight loss after six weeks without adverse effects on
serum lipids… and further weight loss with a lipid-neutral effect may
persist for up to 52 weeks.”

The earliest humans consumed a considerable amount of meat. From the
available evidence, Drs. Eaton and Konner concluded that the Paleolithic
people generally ate much more protein and less fat than we do (N Engl J
Med, 312:283,1985). Their diet contained more essential fatty acids and
much higher ratios of polyunsaturated to saturated fats, although their
cholesterol intake was high. Also, their intake of dietary fiber was
much higher than ours, while sodium intake was remarkably low.
On the whole, one is left with the impression that the diet of our
Paleolithic ancestors was superior to ours in terms of promoting health.
This impression is further strengthened by the observation that coronary
heart disease, hypertension and type 2 diabetes were relatively unknown
among the few surviving hunter-gatherer populations whose way of life
and eating habits most closely resembled those of the pre-agricultural
human beings (N Engl J Med, 312:283,1985).

PCRM Propaganda: “And evidence shows that dairy product consumption
contributes to obesity...”
Scientific Facts: According to a recent review by Dr. Michael Zemel
published in the Journal of Nutrition (133:252S-256S, 2003), “a growing
body of evidence now clearly demonstrates a beneficial role for dietary
calcium in the partitioning of dietary energy, resulting in reductions
in body fat and an acceleration of weight and fat loss during energy
restriction. Interestingly, dairy sources of calcium exert substantially
greater effects than supplemental or fortified sources of calcium...
These data have important implications for the prevention of both
pediatric and adult obesity, especially in light of the marginal calcium
intakes exhibited by the majority of the population and the
population-based data indicating protection from obesity and the insulin
resistance syndrome in populations consuming greater amounts of dairy
products.”

Bottom Line
Clearly, PCRM is a propaganda machine whose press conferences are
charades for disguising its ideology as news events. Don´t believe them!
*PETA has been described as “by far the most successful radical
organization in America.” The key word is radical. PETA seeks “total
animal liberation,” according to its president and co-founder, Ingrid
Newkirk. That means no meat or dairy, of course; but it also means no
aquariums, no circuses, no hunting or fishing, no fur or leather and no
medical research using animals. PETA is even opposed to the use of
seeing-eye dogs. For more information on PETA, visit www.activistcash.com

Pearl
2006-06-30 10:21:54 EST
"Dr. Homilete" <look@my.mojo> wrote in message news:9E6pg.3154$Ws2.2082@trndny04...

> Jai Maharaj wrote:
>
> > Visit:
> >
> > http://www.pcrm.org
>
>
<..> a huge hidden agenda. ....
> Center for Consumer Freedom

'Using \ufffdfreedom of choice\ufffd as his battle cry, Berman has now
taken on PETA and a number of other groups and organizations
whose points of view could have an impact on the profits of his
clients by waking consumers up. Berman\ufffds Guest Choice
Network has an \ufffdadvisory panel\ufffd whose members in 1998 included
officials representing companies ranging from Cargill Processed
Meat Products and Outback Steakhouse to Minnesota Licensed
Beverage Association and Sutter Home Winery. Berman\ufffds clients
are companies with vested interests in low employee wages;
cheap, unhealthy restaurant-chain food, particularly meat; and
tobacco, soft drink, and alcohol consumption\ufffdcompanies like
Ruth\ufffds Chris Steakhouse, Armour Swift, and Philip Morris, whose
product line includes Kraft Foods and everything from Marlboro
cigarettes to Oscar Meyer wieners and which is a major
shareholder in its former subsidiary Miller Brewing, now known
as SABMiller.
...'
http://www.consumerdeception.com/index.html


Am J Clin Nutr 1999 Sep;70(3 Suppl):532S-538S
Associations between diet and cancer, ischemic heart disease,
and all-cause mortality in non-Hispanic white California
Seventh-day Adventists.
Fraser GE. Center for Health Research and the Department of
Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Loma Linda University, CA USA.

Results associating diet with chronic disease in a cohort of 34192
California Seventh-day Adventists are summarized. Most Seventh-day
Adventists do not smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol, and there is a wide
range of dietary exposures within the population. About 50% of those
studied ate meat products <1 time/wk or not at all, and vegetarians
consumed more tomatoes, legumes, nuts, and fruit, but less coffee,
doughnuts, and eggs than did nonvegetarians. Multivariate analyses
showed significant associations between beef consumption and fatal
ischemic heart disease (IHD) in men [relative risk (RR) = 2.31 for
subjects who ate beef > or =3 times/wk compared with vegetarians],
significant protective associations between nut consumption and fatal
and nonfatal IHD in both sexes (RR approximately 0.5 for subjects
who ate nuts > or =5 times/wk compared with those who ate nuts
<1 time/wk), and reduced risk of IHD in subjects preferring whole-grain
to white bread. The lifetime risk of IHD was reduced by approximately
31% in those who consumed nuts frequently and by 37% in male
vegetarians compared with nonvegetarians. Cancers of the colon and
prostate were significantly more likely in nonvegetarians (RR of 1.88
and 1.54, respectively), and frequent beef consumers also had higher
risk of bladder cancer. Intake of legumes was negatively associated
with risk of colon cancer in nonvegetarians and risk of pancreatic
cancer. Higher consumption of all fruit or dried fruit was associated
with lower risks of lung, prostate, and pancreatic cancers.
Cross-sectional data suggest vegetarian Seventh-day Adventists have
lower risks of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and arthritis than
nonvegetarians. Thus, among Seventh-day Adventists, vegetarians are
healthier than nonvegetarians but this cannot be ascribed only to the
absence of meat. - PMID: 10479227


'Campbell TC, Junshi C. Diet and chronic degenerative diseases:
perspectives from China. Am J Clin Nutr 1994 May;59(5 Suppl):
1153S-1161S.
A comprehensive ecologic survey of dietary, life-style, and mortality
characteristics of 65 counties in rural China showed that diets are
substantially richer in foods of plant origin when compared with
diets consumed in the more industrialized, Western societies. Mean
intakes of animal protein (about one-tenth of the mean intake in the
United States as energy percent), total fat (14.5% of energy), and
dietary fiber (33.3 g/d) reflected a substantial preference for foods
of plant origin. Mean plasma cholesterol concentration, at
approximately 3.23-3.49 mmol/L, corresponds to this dietary
life-style. The principal hypothesis under investigation in this paper
is that chronic degenerative diseases are prevented by an aggregate
effect of nutrients and nutrient-intake amounts that are commonly
supplied by foods of plant origin. The breadth and consistency of
evidence for this hypothesis was investigated with multiple intake-
biomarker-disease associations, which were appropriately adjusted.
There appears to be no threshold of plant-food enrichment or
minimization of fat intake beyond which further disease prevention
does not occur. These findings suggest that even small intakes of
foods of animal origin are associated with significant increases in
plasma cholesterol concentrations, which are associated, in turn,
with significant increases in chronic degenerative disease mortality
rates.

http://www.diseaseproof.com/archives/healthy-food-298-research-yes-diet-has-a-huge-role-in-health.html





Dr. Homilete
2006-07-03 03:46:49 EST
Associated Press ignores group’s anti-food industry bias and calls them
‘physicians committee.’

by Todd Drenth
June 29, 2005

The latest lawsuit by a perennial opponent of the food industry
has already had some of its desired impact – good media coverage. A June
28, 2005, Associated Press article left out several facts and skewed the
story to benefit the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM).

Only five percent of the members of the group are actually
doctors, a key fact left out by the AP story, but included in a June 29,
2005, Washington Post article. The AP story, by Frederic J. Frommer,
referred to the group as a “physicians committee” and provided no
background other than that it “advocates a vegan diet.” PCRM has an
extensive history of opposing the milk industry and milk consumption. A
2001 press release from the group urged D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams to
drop the idea of doing a “Got Milk” ad and “to consider his
constituents' best interests and not promote milk, a product that makes
so many of them sick.”

Frommer also left out the fact that PCRM has links with the
radical animal rights extremist group People for the Ethical Treatment
of Animals (PETA), and that suing the dairy industry has been a focus of
PCRM.

One of the lawsuits Frommer reported, seeks an injunction from a
district court in Alexandria, Va. banning advertisements funded by the
dairy industry that the PCRM claimed in its press release June 28 “are
misleading consumers with deceptive advertising that makes
scientifically unsubstantiated claims about the effects of dairy
products on weight-loss.”

Deception is something PCRM and its president Neal Barnard have
been criticized for in the past. Barnard, long time president of PCRM,
was also president of the Foundation to Support Animal Protection in
2000. The Web site Animal People reported, in December 2000, a
connection between PCRM and PETA.

Animal People charged, “"the major purpose of (FSAP) appears to be
to enable PETA and PCRM to evade public recognition of their
relationship and the real extent of their direct mail expenditures."

The AP story, as well as the article in the Post and one in The
Washington Times, all ignored the fact that this lawsuit came shortly
after PCRM “launched an ad campaign on the public transit system in
Washington, D.C., to find plaintiffs for a class action lawsuit against
the milk industry,” as reported by Jim Lovel of Adweek.com on June 17, 2005.

The other lawsuit PCRM filed Tuesday seeks monetary damages for
plaintiff and PCRM member Catherine Holmes of Arlington Va., who Frommer
reported “went from 162 pounds to 164 pounds while increasing her dairy
consumption with products such as yogurt and cottage cheese.”

The court papers stated that Ms. Holmes, who has been a member of
PCRM for two years, “significantly” added dairy products into her diet
according to a June 29, 2005 article by Marguerite Higgins of The
Washington Times. Higgins noted that “Ms. Holmes would not say whether
she changed her caloric intake or exercise level.”

Frommer pointed out that the PCRM views studies conducted by
Professor Michael B. Zemel who runs the Nutrition Institute at the
University of Tennessee as “suspect” because his research has been
largely funded by grants from the dairy industry. However none of the
three articles mentioned that research conducted by the PCRM is lined to
PETA or asked if that “compromised” its own research.
http://freemarketproject.org/news/2005/news20050629b.asp

Jaques Meihoph
2006-07-07 14:55:06 EST
ugh this is like too long and who cares.


and the cross posting is very crippling.




give me good old ADD and a hemp sammich with tree twigs consomme.


Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> Americans start taking a new look at the ethics of meat eating
>
> It Died for Us
>
> By Frank Bruni
> The New York Times
> Sunday, June 25, 2006
>
> Do oysters have little bivalve souls? Do they dream briny
> dreams, scream briny screams? On a level that I suppose
> is selfish and somewhat silly, I hope not, because they
> are alive when they are shucked right in front of us,
> their deaths more proximal than those of so many
> creatures we eat.
>
> They don't thrash like the lobster in its scalding pot,
> but should we nonetheless worry about how they meet their
> end? And whether that end is a sufficiently compassionate
> one?
>
> These questions seem less ridiculous than they once did.
> This month Whole Foods announced that it would no longer
> sell live lobsters, saying that keeping them in crammed
> tanks for long periods doesn't demonstrate a proper
> concern for animal welfare. The Chicago City Council
> recently outlawed the sale of foie gras to protest the
> force-feeding of the ducks and geese that yield it.
> California passed a similar law, which doesn't take
> effect until 2012, and other states and cities are
> considering such measures.
>
> All of these developments dovetail with a heightened
> awareness in these food-obsessed times of what we eat:
> where it came from, what it was fed, how it was penned,
> how it perished. If the success of best sellers like
> "Fast Food Nation" and "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and
> stores like Whole Foods is any indication, more Americans
> are spending more time mulling the nutritional,
> environmental and, yes, ethical implications of their
> diets.
>
> They prefer that their beef carry the tag "grass fed,"
> which evokes a verdant pasture rather than a squalid feed
> lot, and that their poultry knew the glories of a "free
> range," a less sturdy assurance than many people believe.
>
> But these concerns are riddled with intellectual
> inconsistencies and prompt infinite questions. Are the
> calls for fundamental changes in the mass production of
> food simply elitist, the privilege of people wealthy
> enough to pay more at the checkout counter? Does fretting
> about ducks give people a pass on chickens? Does
> considering the lobster allow seafood lovers to disregard
> the tuna?
>
> "Foie gras and lobster are not at the heart of the real
> tough issues of animal welfare, which are feed lots and
> pigs and cattle and chickens and how billions of animals
> are treated," said Michael Pollan, author of "The
> Omnivore's Dilemma," which traces the messy back stories
> of our meals. "On the other hand, the fact that we're
> having this conversation at all - that we're talking
> about ethics in relation to what we're eating every day -
> strikes me as a very healthy thing," he said last week.
>
> Mr. Pollan is a contributing writer for The New York
> Times Magazine, and the reaction to a 2002 article of his
> illustrates how random people's concerns over animal
> welfare can be. The article depicted the life on a Kansas
> feed lot of a young steer that Mr. Pollan had purchased,
> a steer slated for slaughter several months later.
>
> After the article appeared, Mr. Pollan received appeals
> from readers willing to pay large sums of money to buy
> and save the steer. One reader, he recalled, was a
> Hollywood producer who wanted to let the animal graze on
> his lawn in Beverly Hills, Calif.
>
> "He kept coming after me," Mr. Pollan said, describing a
> crusade that culminated in an offer of a meal at a famous
> emporium of porterhouses in Brooklyn. "He finally said,
> 'I'm coming to New York, we're going to have dinner at
> Peter Luger to discuss this.' I'm like, 'Excuse me, we're
> going to have a steak dinner to discuss the rescue of
> this steer?' How disconnected can we be?"
>
> The dinner never happened. The steer was killed. Mr.
> Pollan didn't eat its flesh, but he does eat beef, trying
> to make sure it's not from feed lots. He said he won't
> eat veal, but has not sworn off foie gras. For different
> omnivores there are different codes.
>
> And there is often as much sentiment as sense. The
> anecdote about the producer suggests the ways in which
> many people make distinctions and decisions based
> primarily on the degree to which they have become
> familiar with the creatures they ingest, the degree to
> which they have anthropomorphized them.
>
> "People look at the lobster and try to imagine what its
> experience would be like, but they don't look at a
> package of chicken breasts and imagine what the
> experience would be like," said Jay Weinstein, a
> Manhattan caterer whose book "The Ethical Gourmet" was
> published this month. "It's because they're closer to the
> final step of the killing."
>
> While the lives of "free-range" chickens are hardly
> ideal, the lives of other chickens are even worse, Mr.
> Weinstein said. The birds' feet are lacerated by the wire
> they are forced to stand on, while their beaks are
> clipped so they can't peck at each other in the tight
> quarters they occupy. He questioned whether any of that
> was less offensive than the force feeding of ducks.
>
> Foie gras and lobster may be drawing special attention
> because they're luxury foods whose consumption, like the
> wearing of a mink, cannot be defended on the grounds of
> necessity. But even that attention entails
> contradictions.
>
> Eric Ripert, the chef and a co-owner of the seafood
> restaurant Le Bernardin in Manhattan, said he made a
> point of killing lobsters not by throwing them into
> boiling water - where, he said, "it looks like they're
> suffering" - but by slicing their heads with a sharp
> blade.
>
> "I feel good about doing that," he said in a telephone
> interview.
>
> But where do the restaurant's lobsters await their
> appointment with the knife? For as many as 24 hours, as
> many as 40 lobsters inhabit a container that's just 3-
> feet long by 1-foot wide, he said. It doesn't sound much
> comfier than a Whole Foods holding tank.
>
> "I should be more compassionate, I guess," Mr. Ripert
> said.
>
> But, he added: "When you think about treating animals in
> a humane way, it's unlimited. If you start with the
> lobster, then next month you should think about the clam,
> and then you have to think about the fish, which is
> suffocating outside the water after we catch it."
>
> Even before it suffocates, a hooked or netted fish flails
> in a doomed effort to avoid its fate. The process is
> traumatic enough that David Pasternack, a fisherman and
> co-owner of the Manhattan seafood restaurant Esca, noted
> that "you can see the struggle in the flesh of a fish."
>
> If the fish hasn't gone down quickly, he said, "The meat
> feels and looks stressed out." Does that struggle deserve
> as much heed as the grisly realities of the abattoir?
>
> Maybe not. Ample scientific evidence suggests that
> various creatures have varying levels of consciousness.
> "There really is a difference between the sentience of an
> oyster and the sentience of a lobster and the sentience
> of a cat," Mr. Pollan said. "These lines really can be
> drawn."
>
> And advocates of animal welfare argue that some lines are
> better than none, that inconsistencies are better than
> inaction.
>
> But there are human considerations as well. Even in a
> country as rich as ours,some people can't afford chickens
> reared according to exacting standards. Other people's
> livelihoods depend on the status quo.
>
> In a memoir published last year, "The Summer of Ordinary
> Ways," the Minnesota writer Nicole Lea Helget described
> her childhood on a family farm. She said she was
> surprised when much of the reaction to her book focused
> on the way animals were treated instead of her family's
> travails.
>
> An anecdote about her father's killing a recalcitrant cow
> with a pitchfork was meant to illustrate his
> frustrations, she said. The Publishers Weekly review of
> the book frames that story as "a staggering example of
> her father's brutality" and refers to him as merciless.
>
> "I thought it really reflected what can happen to a
> person," Ms. Helget said in an interview. "I wasn't
> really thinking about what was happening to the cow."
>
> She expressed confusion about the concern for animals
> serving a purpose as essential as food. "I just spent a
> little time in New York," she said. "What seems abnormal
> to me is having a Great Dane in a one-bedroom apartment.
> I guess it's all a matter of perspective."
>
> More at:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/weekinreview/25bruni.html
>
> WHY HINDUS DON'T EAT MEAT
>
> Besides being an expression of compassion
> for animals, vegetarianism is followed for
> ecological and health rationales
>
> REASONS
>
> In the past fifty years, millions of meat-eaters --
> Hindus and non-Hindus -- have made the personal decision
> to stop eating the flesh of other creatures. There are
> five major motivations for such a decision:
>
> 1. The Dharmic Law Reason
>
> Ahinsa, the law of noninjury, is the Hindu's first
> duty in fulfilling religious obligations to God and God's
> creation as defined by Vedic scripture.
>
> 2. The Karmic Consequences Reason
>
> All of our actions, including our choice of food,
> have Karmic consequences. By involving oneself in the
> cycle of inflicting injury, pain and death, even
> indirectly by eating other creatures, one must in the
> future experience in equal measure the suffering caused.
>
> 3. The Spiritual Reason
>
> Food is the source of the body's chemistry, and what
> we ingest affects our consciousnes, emotions and
> experiential patterns. If one wants to live in higher
> consciousness, in peace and happiness and love for all
> creatures, then he cannot eat meat, fish, shellfish, fowl
> or eggs. By ingesting the grosser chemistries of animal
> foods, one introduces into the body and mind anger,
> jealousy, anxiety, suspicion and a terrible fear of
> death, all of which are locked into the the flesh of the
> butchered creatures. For these reasons, vegetarians live
> in higher consciousness and meat-eaters abide in lower
> consciousness.
>
> 4. The Health Reason
>
> Medical studies prove that a vegetarian diet is
> easier to digest, provides a wider ranger of nutrients
> and imposes fewer burdens and impurities on the body.
> Vegetarians are less susceptible to all the major
> diseases that afflict contemporary humanity, and thus
> live longer, healthier, more productive lives. They have
> fewer physical complaints, less frequent visits to the
> doctor, fewer dental problems and smaller medical bills.
> Their immune system is stronger, their bodies are purer,
> more refined and skin more beautiful.
>
> 5. The Ecological Reason
>
> Planet Earth is suffereing. In large measure, the
> escalating loss of species, destruction of ancient
> rainforests to create pasture lands for live stock, loss
> of topsoils and the consequent increase of water
> impurities and air pollution have all been traced to the
> single fact of meat in the human diet. No decision that
> we can make as individuals or as a race can have such a
> dramatic effect on the improvement of our planetary
> ecology as the decision not to eat meat.
>
> HISTORY
>
> The book FOOD FOR THE SPIRIT, VEGETARIANISM AND THE WORLD
> RELIGIONS, observes, "Despite popular knowledge of meat-
> eating's adverse effects, the nonvegetarian diet became
> increasingly widespread among the Hindus after the two
> major invasions by foreign powers, first the Muslims and
> later the British. With them came the desire to be
> 'civilized,' to eat as did the Saheeb. Those atually
> trained in Vedic knowledge, however, never adopted a
> meat-oriented diet, and the pious Hindu still observes
> vegetarian principles as a matter of religious duty.
>
> "That vegetarianism has always been widespread in
> India is clear from the earliest Vedic texts. This was
> observed by the ancient traveler Megasthenes and also by
> Fa-Hsien, a Chinese Buddhist monk who, in the fifth
> century, traveled to India in order to obtain authentic
> copies of the scriptures.
>
> "These scriptures unambiguously support the meatless
> way of life. In the MAHABHARAT, for instance, the great
> warrior Bheeshm explains to Yuddhishtira, eldest of the
> Paandav princes, that the meat of animals is like the
> flesh of one's own son. Similarly, the MANUSMRITI
> declares that one should 'refrain from eating all kinds
> of meat,' for such eating involves killing and and leads
> to Karmic bondage (Bandh) [5.49]. Elsewhere in the Vedic
> literature, the last of the great Vedic kings, Maharaja
> Parikshit, is quoted as saying that 'only the animal-
> killer cannot relish the message of the Absolute Truth
> [Shrimad Bhagvatam 10.1.4].'"
>
> SCRIPTURE
>
> He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating
> the flesh of other creatures lives in misery in whatever
> species he may take his birth.
> MAHABHARAT 115.47
>
> Those high-souled persons who desire beauty,
> faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental
> and physical strength and memory should abstain from acts
> of injury. MAHABHARAT 18.115.8
>
> The very name of cow is Aghnya ["not to be killed"],
> indicating that they should never be slaughtered. Who,
> then could slay them? Surely, one who kills a cow or a
> bull commits a heinous crime. MAHABHARAT, SHANTIPARV
> 262.47
>
> The purchaser of flesh performs Hinsa (violence) by
> his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its
> taste; the killer does Hinsa by actually tying and
> killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of
> killing: he who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts
> off the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells
> or cooks flesh and eats it -- all of these are to be
> considered meat-eaters. MAHABHARAT, ANU 115.40
>
> He who sees that the Lord of all is ever the same
> in all that is -- immortal in the field of mortality --
> he sees the truth. And when a man sees that the God in
> himself is the same God in all that is, he hurts not
> himself by hurting others. Then he goes, indeed, to the
> highest path. BHAGVAD GEETA 13.27-28
>
> Ahinsa is the highest Dharm. Ahinsa is the best
> Tapas. Ahinsa is the greatest gift. Ahinsa is the
> highest self-control. Ahinsa is the highest sacrifice.
> Ahinsa is the highest power. Ahinsa is the highest
> friend. Ahinsa is the highest truth. Ahinsa is the
> highest teaching. MAHABHARAT 18.116.37-41
>
> What is the good way? It is the path that reflects
> on how it may avoid killing any creature. TIRUKURAL 324
>
> All that lives will press palms together in
> prayerful adoration of those who refuse to slaughter and
> savor meat. TIRUKURAL 260
>
> What is virtuous conduct? It is never destroting
> life, for killing leads to every other sin. TIRUKURAL
> 312, 321
>
> Goodness is never one with the minds of these two:
> one who wields a weapon and one who feasts on a
> creature's flesh. TIRUKURAL 253
>
> Copyright (C) 1993, Himalayan Academy, All Rights
> Reserved. The information contained in this news report
> may not be republished in any form without the prior
> written authority of Himalayan Academy.
> This is an authorized reproduction.
>
> Jai Maharaj
> Born in a Hindu family in Bharat, and a vegetarian since birth
> http://www.mantra.com/jai
> Om Shanti
>
> Hindu Holocaust Museum
> http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
>
> Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
> http://www.hindu.org
> http://www.hindunet.org
>
> The truth about Islam and Muslims
> http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
>
> o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
> purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
> have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
> poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
> fair use of copyrighted works.
> o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
> considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
> e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
> o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
> not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.
>
> FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
> which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
> owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
> understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
> democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
> that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
> provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
> 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
> profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
> information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
> subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
> go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
> If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
> your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
> copyright owner.


And/or Www.mantra.com/jai Dr. Jai Maharaj
2006-07-08 13:58:39 EST
Visit:

http://www.pcrm.org

> > Americans start taking a new look at the ethics of meat eating
> >
> > It Died for Us
> >
> > By Frank Bruni
> > The New York Times
> > Sunday, June 25, 2006
> >
> > Do oysters have little bivalve souls? Do they dream briny
> > dreams, scream briny screams? On a level that I suppose
> > is selfish and somewhat silly, I hope not, because they
> > are alive when they are shucked right in front of us,
> > their deaths more proximal than those of so many
> > creatures we eat.
> >
> > They don't thrash like the lobster in its scalding pot,
> > but should we nonetheless worry about how they meet their
> > end? And whether that end is a sufficiently compassionate
> > one?
> >
> > These questions seem less ridiculous than they once did.
> > This month Whole Foods announced that it would no longer
> > sell live lobsters, saying that keeping them in crammed
> > tanks for long periods doesn't demonstrate a proper
> > concern for animal welfare. The Chicago City Council
> > recently outlawed the sale of foie gras to protest the
> > force-feeding of the ducks and geese that yield it.
> > California passed a similar law, which doesn't take
> > effect until 2012, and other states and cities are
> > considering such measures.
> >
> > All of these developments dovetail with a heightened
> > awareness in these food-obsessed times of what we eat:
> > where it came from, what it was fed, how it was penned,
> > how it perished. If the success of best sellers like
> > "Fast Food Nation" and "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and
> > stores like Whole Foods is any indication, more Americans
> > are spending more time mulling the nutritional,
> > environmental and, yes, ethical implications of their
> > diets.
> >
> > They prefer that their beef carry the tag "grass fed,"
> > which evokes a verdant pasture rather than a squalid feed
> > lot, and that their poultry knew the glories of a "free
> > range," a less sturdy assurance than many people believe.
> >
> > But these concerns are riddled with intellectual
> > inconsistencies and prompt infinite questions. Are the
> > calls for fundamental changes in the mass production of
> > food simply elitist, the privilege of people wealthy
> > enough to pay more at the checkout counter? Does fretting
> > about ducks give people a pass on chickens? Does
> > considering the lobster allow seafood lovers to disregard
> > the tuna?
> >
> > "Foie gras and lobster are not at the heart of the real
> > tough issues of animal welfare, which are feed lots and
> > pigs and cattle and chickens and how billions of animals
> > are treated," said Michael Pollan, author of "The
> > Omnivore's Dilemma," which traces the messy back stories
> > of our meals. "On the other hand, the fact that we're
> > having this conversation at all - that we're talking
> > about ethics in relation to what we're eating every day -
> > strikes me as a very healthy thing," he said last week.
> >
> > Mr. Pollan is a contributing writer for The New York
> > Times Magazine, and the reaction to a 2002 article of his
> > illustrates how random people's concerns over animal
> > welfare can be. The article depicted the life on a Kansas
> > feed lot of a young steer that Mr. Pollan had purchased,
> > a steer slated for slaughter several months later.
> >
> > After the article appeared, Mr. Pollan received appeals
> > from readers willing to pay large sums of money to buy
> > and save the steer. One reader, he recalled, was a
> > Hollywood producer who wanted to let the animal graze on
> > his lawn in Beverly Hills, Calif.
> >
> > "He kept coming after me," Mr. Pollan said, describing a
> > crusade that culminated in an offer of a meal at a famous
> > emporium of porterhouses in Brooklyn. "He finally said,
> > 'I'm coming to New York, we're going to have dinner at
> > Peter Luger to discuss this.' I'm like, 'Excuse me, we're
> > going to have a steak dinner to discuss the rescue of
> > this steer?' How disconnected can we be?"
> >
> > The dinner never happened. The steer was killed. Mr.
> > Pollan didn't eat its flesh, but he does eat beef, trying
> > to make sure it's not from feed lots. He said he won't
> > eat veal, but has not sworn off foie gras. For different
> > omnivores there are different codes.
> >
> > And there is often as much sentiment as sense. The
> > anecdote about the producer suggests the ways in which
> > many people make distinctions and decisions based
> > primarily on the degree to which they have become
> > familiar with the creatures they ingest, the degree to
> > which they have anthropomorphized them.
> >
> > "People look at the lobster and try to imagine what its
> > experience would be like, but they don't look at a
> > package of chicken breasts and imagine what the
> > experience would be like," said Jay Weinstein, a
> > Manhattan caterer whose book "The Ethical Gourmet" was
> > published this month. "It's because they're closer to the
> > final step of the killing."
> >
> > While the lives of "free-range" chickens are hardly
> > ideal, the lives of other chickens are even worse, Mr.
> > Weinstein said. The birds' feet are lacerated by the wire
> > they are forced to stand on, while their beaks are
> > clipped so they can't peck at each other in the tight
> > quarters they occupy. He questioned whether any of that
> > was less offensive than the force feeding of ducks.
> >
> > Foie gras and lobster may be drawing special attention
> > because they're luxury foods whose consumption, like the
> > wearing of a mink, cannot be defended on the grounds of
> > necessity. But even that attention entails
> > contradictions.
> >
> > Eric Ripert, the chef and a co-owner of the seafood
> > restaurant Le Bernardin in Manhattan, said he made a
> > point of killing lobsters not by throwing them into
> > boiling water - where, he said, "it looks like they're
> > suffering" - but by slicing their heads with a sharp
> > blade.
> >
> > "I feel good about doing that," he said in a telephone
> > interview.
> >
> > But where do the restaurant's lobsters await their
> > appointment with the knife? For as many as 24 hours, as
> > many as 40 lobsters inhabit a container that's just 3-
> > feet long by 1-foot wide, he said. It doesn't sound much
> > comfier than a Whole Foods holding tank.
> >
> > "I should be more compassionate, I guess," Mr. Ripert
> > said.
> >
> > But, he added: "When you think about treating animals in
> > a humane way, it's unlimited. If you start with the
> > lobster, then next month you should think about the clam,
> > and then you have to think about the fish, which is
> > suffocating outside the water after we catch it."
> >
> > Even before it suffocates, a hooked or netted fish flails
> > in a doomed effort to avoid its fate. The process is
> > traumatic enough that David Pasternack, a fisherman and
> > co-owner of the Manhattan seafood restaurant Esca, noted
> > that "you can see the struggle in the flesh of a fish."
> >
> > If the fish hasn't gone down quickly, he said, "The meat
> > feels and looks stressed out." Does that struggle deserve
> > as much heed as the grisly realities of the abattoir?
> >
> > Maybe not. Ample scientific evidence suggests that
> > various creatures have varying levels of consciousness.
> > "There really is a difference between the sentience of an
> > oyster and the sentience of a lobster and the sentience
> > of a cat," Mr. Pollan said. "These lines really can be
> > drawn."
> >
> > And advocates of animal welfare argue that some lines are
> > better than none, that inconsistencies are better than
> > inaction.
> >
> > But there are human considerations as well. Even in a
> > country as rich as ours,some people can't afford chickens
> > reared according to exacting standards. Other people's
> > livelihoods depend on the status quo.
> >
> > In a memoir published last year, "The Summer of Ordinary
> > Ways," the Minnesota writer Nicole Lea Helget described
> > her childhood on a family farm. She said she was
> > surprised when much of the reaction to her book focused
> > on the way animals were treated instead of her family's
> > travails.
> >
> > An anecdote about her father's killing a recalcitrant cow
> > with a pitchfork was meant to illustrate his
> > frustrations, she said. The Publishers Weekly review of
> > the book frames that story as "a staggering example of
> > her father's brutality" and refers to him as merciless.
> >
> > "I thought it really reflected what can happen to a
> > person," Ms. Helget said in an interview. "I wasn't
> > really thinking about what was happening to the cow."
> >
> > She expressed confusion about the concern for animals
> > serving a purpose as essential as food. "I just spent a
> > little time in New York," she said. "What seems abnormal
> > to me is having a Great Dane in a one-bedroom apartment.
> > I guess it's all a matter of perspective."
> >
> > More at:
> > http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/weekinreview/25bruni.html
> >
> > WHY HINDUS DON'T EAT MEAT
> >
> > Besides being an expression of compassion
> > for animals, vegetarianism is followed for
> > ecological and health rationales
> >
> > REASONS
> >
> > In the past fifty years, millions of meat-eaters --
> > Hindus and non-Hindus -- have made the personal decision
> > to stop eating the flesh of other creatures. There are
> > five major motivations for such a decision:
> >
> > 1. The Dharmic Law Reason
> >
> > Ahinsa, the law of noninjury, is the Hindu's first
> > duty in fulfilling religious obligations to God and God's
> > creation as defined by Vedic scripture.
> >
> > 2. The Karmic Consequences Reason
> >
> > All of our actions, including our choice of food,
> > have Karmic consequences. By involving oneself in the
> > cycle of inflicting injury, pain and death, even
> > indirectly by eating other creatures, one must in the
> > future experience in equal measure the suffering caused.
> >
> > 3. The Spiritual Reason
> >
> > Food is the source of the body's chemistry, and what
> > we ingest affects our consciousnes, emotions and
> > experiential patterns. If one wants to live in higher
> > consciousness, in peace and happiness and love for all
> > creatures, then he cannot eat meat, fish, shellfish, fowl
> > or eggs. By ingesting the grosser chemistries of animal
> > foods, one introduces into the body and mind anger,
> > jealousy, anxiety, suspicion and a terrible fear of
> > death, all of which are locked into the the flesh of the
> > butchered creatures. For these reasons, vegetarians live
> > in higher consciousness and meat-eaters abide in lower
> > consciousness.
> >
> > 4. The Health Reason
> >
> > Medical studies prove that a vegetarian diet is
> > easier to digest, provides a wider ranger of nutrients
> > and imposes fewer burdens and impurities on the body.
> > Vegetarians are less susceptible to all the major
> > diseases that afflict contemporary humanity, and thus
> > live longer, healthier, more productive lives. They have
> > fewer physical complaints, less frequent visits to the
> > doctor, fewer dental problems and smaller medical bills.
> > Their immune system is stronger, their bodies are purer,
> > more refined and skin more beautiful.
> >
> > 5. The Ecological Reason
> >
> > Planet Earth is suffereing. In large measure, the
> > escalating loss of species, destruction of ancient
> > rainforests to create pasture lands for live stock, loss
> > of topsoils and the consequent increase of water
> > impurities and air pollution have all been traced to the
> > single fact of meat in the human diet. No decision that
> > we can make as individuals or as a race can have such a
> > dramatic effect on the improvement of our planetary
> > ecology as the decision not to eat meat.
> >
> > HISTORY
> >
> > The book FOOD FOR THE SPIRIT, VEGETARIANISM AND THE WORLD
> > RELIGIONS, observes, "Despite popular knowledge of meat-
> > eating's adverse effects, the nonvegetarian diet became
> > increasingly widespread among the Hindus after the two
> > major invasions by foreign powers, first the Muslims and
> > later the British. With them came the desire to be
> > 'civilized,' to eat as did the Saheeb. Those atually
> > trained in Vedic knowledge, however, never adopted a
> > meat-oriented diet, and the pious Hindu still observes
> > vegetarian principles as a matter of religious duty.
> >
> > "That vegetarianism has always been widespread in
> > India is clear from the earliest Vedic texts. This was
> > observed by the ancient traveler Megasthenes and also by
> > Fa-Hsien, a Chinese Buddhist monk who, in the fifth
> > century, traveled to India in order to obtain authentic
> > copies of the scriptures.
> >
> > "These scriptures unambiguously support the meatless
> > way of life. In the MAHABHARAT, for instance, the great
> > warrior Bheeshm explains to Yuddhishtira, eldest of the
> > Paandav princes, that the meat of animals is like the
> > flesh of one's own son. Similarly, the MANUSMRITI
> > declares that one should 'refrain from eating all kinds
> > of meat,' for such eating involves killing and and leads
> > to Karmic bondage (Bandh) [5.49]. Elsewhere in the Vedic
> > literature, the last of the great Vedic kings, Maharaja
> > Parikshit, is quoted as saying that 'only the animal-
> > killer cannot relish the message of the Absolute Truth
> > [Shrimad Bhagvatam 10.1.4].'"
> >
> > SCRIPTURE
> >
> > He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating
> > the flesh of other creatures lives in misery in whatever
> > species he may take his birth.
> > MAHABHARAT 115.47
> >
> > Those high-souled persons who desire beauty,
> > faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental
> > and physical strength and memory should abstain from acts
> > of injury. MAHABHARAT 18.115.8
> >
> > The very name of cow is Aghnya ["not to be killed"],
> > indicating that they should never be slaughtered. Who,
> > then could slay them? Surely, one who kills a cow or a
> > bull commits a heinous crime. MAHABHARAT, SHANTIPARV
> > 262.47
> >
> > The purchaser of flesh performs Hinsa (violence) by
> > his wealth; he who eats flesh does so by enjoying its
> > taste; the killer does Hinsa by actually tying and
> > killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of
> > killing: he who brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts
> > off the limbs of an animal, and he who purchases, sells
> > or cooks flesh and eats it -- all of these are to be
> > considered meat-eaters. MAHABHARAT, ANU 115.40
> >
> > He who sees that the Lord of all is ever the same
> > in all that is -- immortal in the field of mortality --
> > he sees the truth. And when a man sees that the God in
> > himself is the same God in all that is, he hurts not
> > himself by hurting others. Then he goes, indeed, to the
> > highest path. BHAGVAD GEETA 13.27-28
> >
> > Ahinsa is the highest Dharm. Ahinsa is the best
> > Tapas. Ahinsa is the greatest gift. Ahinsa is the
> > highest self-control. Ahinsa is the highest sacrifice.
> > Ahinsa is the highest power. Ahinsa is the highest
> > friend. Ahinsa is the highest truth. Ahinsa is the
> > highest teaching. MAHABHARAT 18.116.37-41
> >
> > What is the good way? It is the path that reflects
> > on how it may avoid killing any creature. TIRUKURAL 324
> >
> > All that lives will press palms together in
> > prayerful adoration of those who refuse to slaughter and
> > savor meat. TIRUKURAL 260
> >
> > What is virtuous conduct? It is never destroting
> > life, for killing leads to every other sin. TIRUKURAL
> > 312, 321
> >
> > Goodness is never one with the minds of these two:
> > one who wields a weapon and one who feasts on a
> > creature's flesh. TIRUKURAL 253
> >
> > Copyright (C) 1993, Himalayan Academy, All Rights
> > Reserved. The information contained in this news report
> > may not be republished in any form without the prior
> > written authority of Himalayan Academy.
> > This is an authorized reproduction.
> >
> > Jai Maharaj
> > Born in a Hindu family in Bharat, and a vegetarian since birth
> > http://www.mantra.com/jai
> > Om Shanti
> >
> > Hindu Holocaust Museum
> > http://www.mantra.com/holocaust
> >
> > Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
> > http://www.hindu.org
> > http://www.hindunet.org
> >
> > The truth about Islam and Muslims
> > http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate
> >
> > o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
> > purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
> > have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
> > poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
> > fair use of copyrighted works.
> > o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
> > considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
> > e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
> > o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
> > not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the
> article.
> >
> > FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
> > which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
> > owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
> > understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
> > democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
> > that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
> > provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with
> Title
> > 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
> > profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
> included
> > information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
> > subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
> > go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
> > If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
> > your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
> > copyright owner.
>
Page: 1 2 3   Next  (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron