When your food choices contribute to deforestation, it is my business.
When your food choices contribute to desertification, it is my business.
When your food choices contribute to air and water pollution, it is my business.
When your food choices contribute to global warming, it is my business.
When your food choices contribute to topsoil erosion, it is my business.
When your food choices contribute to the depletion of our aquifers, it is my business.
When your food choices contribute to an enormous waste of energy resources and reliance on fossil fuels, it is my business.
When your food choices contribute to medical costs that are so out of control, I can't even afford medical care should I ever need it, it is my business.
When your food choices contribute to millions of people starving to death each year, it is my business.
When your food choices contribute to billions of animals being treated like machines instead of sentient beings, being forced to live out their lives in constant misery, and ultimately being savagely slaughtered, it is my business.
You see, it's my planet, too, and I am inexorably linked to all life upon it, just as you are. If you harm the water, the air, the soil, the fishes, the cows, the sheep, the pigs, the chickens, or whatever other life form, it affects me, profoundly. What I don't understand, is why you don't realize that it affects you even more profoundly. How spiritually and physically crippling it must be to contribute to the demise of life on so grand a scale at each and every meal.
It's time to seriously reconsider your food choices. More and more people are choosing a plant-based diet, because it is compassionate and sustainable. And when you do, too, your body, the animals, and the planet will all thank you for years to come.
Gail Davis is the author of several books on plant-based eating including So, Now What Do I Eat? and Vegetarian Food For Thought: Quotations and Inspirations. As a self-described "foodie," a food coach, and chef's consultant specializing in green cuisine, she heartily admits that she is passionate about food. Committed to alleviating the suffering of both humans and animals, she does so by taking health-seekers and food-lovers on exciting culinary adventures that transform their lives. You can reach Gail through her web page at: http://vegsource.com/davis
I'm glad Ms. Davis specifically uses the word "spirituality' toward the end of this article, as it saves me the trouble of proving that she is essentially arguing her religion. While I may agree with much of what she says, forcing this theology on others is one of the primary fears that cause average Americans to head for the bunkers when they hear the word, "progressive."
Yes, my choice to eat a steak instead of black-eyed peas wastes both energy and food. Yet, we all make hundreds of decisions a day that affect the world community in similar ways that are completely unrelated to diet. For instance, as a Christian, I recognize sins of omission. If I buy a new car when a used car would do, then I in effect commit murder by not sending the difference in price I could save to a credible international relief agency to get food, water or medicine to those in desperate need. If I own a pet and spend money to feed it, then I am being self serving and sinful because that money could feed an entire family in many areas of the world.
Ms. Davis, you cannot simply take one small specific area of life and state that how everyone decides in that area affects you and therefore imply that you should have a say in their decision. Basically, every decision a person makes affects other people. Your decision to focus your energies on the unnecessary killing of cows and other edible animals rather than the unnecessary killing of humans affects me. You, quite likely, will not be interred or executed for writing of the suffering of cows. I, on the other hand, quite likely, will be interred and executed for the writings and doings that are my life's work. I would much rather your passion were spent on keeping our political freedom than keeping our cows.
by
W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 387 comments)
on Sunday, October 5, 2008 at 11:13:33 PM
something and a religious zeal? Let's talk CODEX Alimentarius. Let's talk about GMO. Let's talk about Fluoride in our water. Because these three things are killing us more than all the other things brought up in this article.
CODEX Alimentarius, alone when it goes into world-wide mandatory effect on 12/31/09 will kill 3,000,000,000 people, that's right BILLION, in it's first year of implementation!
But don't believe me, Google it, do your own research. It's simply amassing what one can find out when you turn-off your Boob-tube and make up your own mind instead of being feed propaganda telling you what you should think.
by
Mr M (4 articles, 0 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 1688 comments)
on Monday, October 6, 2008 at 9:41:00 AM
The Dalai Lama has said, “My religionis very simple.My religion is kindness.” Making thoughtful food choices is the simplest thing each of us can do to show kindness to ourselves, each other, the animals, and the planet. And not just once, but several times each day!
What you refer to as "one small specific area of life," is what the United Nations 2006 Report on Global Warming calls, "a major threat to the environment."
You can argue all you like to justify your desire to eat a steak, but there can be no "political freedom" as such, when millions of people in third world countries are starving in large part, because people in other parts of the world choose to eat the flesh of cows.
by
Gail Davis (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 66 comments)
on Monday, October 6, 2008 at 12:34:54 PM
Nothing like asking government to force 'Kindness' on our fellow citizens, at the point of a gun, with the threat of death or prison or increased extractions from their already shrinking wallets.
Or, does government have some sort of non-violent tool now to get people to do what it says?
Environmentalism is a popular religion these days. Good thing we (used to) have separation of Church and State.
by
UncleSim (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 137 comments)
on Monday, October 6, 2008 at 4:51:22 PM
Gail, thank you for a thought-provoking article. It's important that people keep an open mind and consider the many ways in which their daily lives impact the environment.
by
Kellie Morton (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Sunday, October 5, 2008 at 11:59:49 PM
What about that fertilizer, pesticides, genetically modified crops that create their own pesticide and which we eat despite the fact it has not be adequately tested.
Not to mention top soil erosion, and the fact is not enough is being grown to feed todays population should they all go 100% veggie, and 100% organic farming would mean even less food than we have today.
Imagine all the trees that would need to be cut down to grow crops for people who become veggies and eat only food from organic farms.
The neo-malthusians reponse is why not eliminate people, cull the herd, save the trees. They just use different language.
The green fascist neo-malthusians religion will take us back into the Dark Ages. BTW, an ice age is coming, and crops do not grow in glacier land. We should be storing meat in the Antarctica ice box.
I do accept the need to regulate those factory farms and reduce the suffering of these animals. That would mean higher prices, and people would naturally eat less meat. But people should be able to eat what they want, if they can afford it.
by
pft (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 499 comments)
on Monday, October 6, 2008 at 2:05:03 AM
Oddly, when reading through the first 8 points of the article, I was not certain whether animal-raising was the culprit at issue, or agriculture itself. Really, it can read either way.
In fact, when you tally up the damage scores, isn't it true that you actually have to cut trees, dispose of natural flora, dig up the ground, and remove the rocks in order to farm? None of that is necessary for grazing sheep or cattle. I never have understood the claim that raising food animals "destroys" the earth. It really appears the exact opposite is true. I might add, it is never necessary to dump massive amounts of horridly poisonous pesticides into the ground and air in order to raise herd of cattle. No frogs ever died because buffalo grazed nearby. Honeybees did just fine for millions of years. Bring in large-scale farming (with its massive gasoline and oil consumption, by the way) and nearly everything nearby dies as a result. If you're talking "my food is nicer to the planet than your food," I would have to say that raising meat is a far better solution for keeping the air, ground, and water safe and clean.
A person might argue that agriculture on a small scale can be done without pesticides, that farming doesn't have to destroy the land or poison the air and water. That is SO true. But, it's also true that raising food animals does not have to mean a miserable life for the animal, or destruction of the environment. I know this. I live in a rural, agricultural area. The cattle here graze on open range, free to wander and herd at will. They graze in green pastures by winding rivers, in the shadows of tall rocky mountains. They lead good lives, and the meat is not the same as the meat in grocery stores, it's delectable. But then, the food I grow in my garden only vaguely resembles what is found in the grocery store, also. One thing I do know is, when the orchards nearby are being saturated with pesticides, the clouds of it hang in the valley. Man, you haven't lived until that crop duster is emptying his tanks a couple hundred feet above your roof. Makes you look at apples in a whole new light.
Maybe the problem with our diets, whatever we choose to eat, is not WHAT we eat, but how we produce it, and how we've given our power of choice to large and profit-driven conglomerates thousands of miles away. Maybe a simple commitment to producing more of our own food the way WE want it done, is the way to eliminate global-scale damage from agriculture OR herding.
If you want to choose not to eat animals because you love them, I say more power to you. That seems a loving choice. You still have to kill some plants to eat them, though, so that wouldn't work for me, I'm afraid - it's all life to me, and none less alive than any other. Unfortunately, all life is required to consume other life in order to survive, and if we don't like it, we have to take it up with the Creator who designed it that way. Even eating nuts and eggs means you're robbing that potential life, how do you get away from it? But if we can reclaim our ability to farm and herd on a smaller scale, and go back to eating local produce and meat, there would be no need to slash, burn, poison, torture, or raze anything. We can't get away from the killing completely, but we can still keep the planet safe no matter what we individually choose to eat. We did it before, and there is no reason we can't do it again.
by
Susan Saphire (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 4 comments)
on Monday, October 6, 2008 at 2:19:32 AM
If you choose to hunt and kill your own food, that is your choice. But the truth is, that most people have little or no contact with the flesh that ultimately ends up on their plates. Rather, their meat comes from the billions of animals raised inhumanely on factory farms, in filthy conditions, with no regard for their basic living needs.
by
Gail Davis (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 66 comments)
on Monday, October 6, 2008 at 12:42:37 PM
You may not be a vegetarian, but I doubt you're deliberately cruel, are you? For Californians, we have a prop up for vote in Nov. If you vote YES on Prop 2, farm animals such as chickens, baby male calfs(identified as 'veal' even though they're cows) and pigs will be allowed to be raised in environments where they can 'stretch their wings/limbs', 'turn around', and 'lie down'.
The prop does not require free-range outdoor living although the opposition is trying to use scare tactics implying there is a threat of 'bird flu' contact with wild waterfowl with it's passage. The opposition also claims that allowing farm animals to be allowed to stretch, turn and sleep will result in 'Global Warming'.
You do not need to be a vegetarian to be against animal cruelty. Please make this clear by voting YES on Prop 2.
Thanks. C
by
colleen dekoning (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Monday, October 6, 2008 at 4:38:08 AM
BTW- I also read the word 'spirituality' in the OP as the first poster did. I, however did not have the knee-jerk reaction that it implied any particular religion. I wish I'd been surprised to read that the first poster identified themselves as being 'Christian' but I wasn't. Luckily, I know many vegetarians who identify themselves as Christians, so I know better than to assume that this one person speaks for all Christians. Christians appear to be just as likely to be vegetarian or against animal cruelty as adherents to any other religion are.
It does make me wonder what 'religion' they thought the OP was- since all the vegetarians I know, as well as people who are just generally against animal cruelty, belong to a diverse rainbow of different religions.
Anyone can claim a religion- but not everone can embody that religion's virtues, especially it seems, on online forums. While it would seem that most people of any religion would claim to be against animal cruelty, it always surprises me when they don't. It surprises me even more when it appears they'll go out of their way to insult people who say they do.
I am curious as to what religion the OP is implied to be just because they used the word 'spiritual'. I'm drawing a blank since all religions claim to be spiritual. I'm especially interested as it seemed to be intended as an insult. Is there some 'vegetarian religion' that throughout my 24 years of being a vegetarian I haven't been privy to? Please tell!
c
(Californians can vote against animal cruelty by voting YES on prop 2)
by
colleen dekoning (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments)
on Monday, October 6, 2008 at 5:06:53 AM
I agreed with much of what Ms. Davis wrote in her article (that would be the parts about cruelty to animals). I objected to the seemingly religious intolerance she had of other people making different choices. I pointed out in my own faith, Christianity, how sins of omission are found in nearly every decision a person makes, considering we live in an interdependent world in which each dollar I unnecessarily spend on myself necessarily starves other human beings. And if this is an insult, then so be it: yes, I think people in the animal rights movement have their values misplaced. The human rights movement should come first.
The only knee-jerk reaction I saw anywhere in this thread was your reaction to my confession of being a Christian. But we are not all fundamentalists. I am summa cum laude in political science and philosophy, and hold a juris doctorate, along with post-graduate studies in macro-economics and political economy. I regularly study the most contempory theological issues. I am more Marxist than anything else, but differ with Marx, obviously, on some very fundamental questions. I have read, understood, and even found a typographical error in Marx's calculus in the former Soviet edition of the English translation of Volume III of Das Kapital: an error that went undiscovered for decades, so complex is Vol. III. So please do not assume someone's intellect by virtue of their belief in Christianity. I find, rather, that disbelief is a sign of a failure of imagination and a lack of historical knowledge, or simply disinterest. Few things disinterest me.
by
W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 387 comments)
on Monday, October 6, 2008 at 5:59:02 AM
Rather than the question of meat, I would put forth the question of eating at all. The current forcast for hunger is bleak.
We often cry "what can we do to improve the country/ the world/ life in general?"
What we eat and how much is directly affecting the ecology of the planet. Our demands for specific, energy intensify foods are as stressful to the planet as transportation. They are tied together.
Moderation is needed. No meat? Not at all. Rabbit is one of the most energy effecient digestive machine available. Rabbit manure is recycleable directly without burning plants. The advantages are endless. Hydroponics in conjunction with fisheries is viable for both small and large scale production. Options for systematic, low impact agriculature are incredibly varied. The knowledge base is incredible. The practice isn't.
Food production does not need to be a burdon on our planet (or our 'souls') if profits and consumption are not the first considerations.
And the alternatives to moderation and healthy alternatives to current trends will not require 2 or 3 generations to be felt.
by
sometimes blinded (1 articles, 44 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 210 comments)
on Monday, October 6, 2008 at 8:27:03 AM
One gets the feeling that what the author of this article wants is not so much finding ways to produce food with as little negative impact as possible on the planet, but impose her rigid, intolerant beliefs on other people and control their lives.
I have given up on big animals, but I am not a complete vegetarian either because I don't suscribe to the notion that all meat is evil. Free range chickens, rabbits, eggs, fish do not destroy the planet anymore than intensive farrming of cereals, fruit and veggies. In fact, the core of the matter, as said above, is not so much what is produced, but how it is produced.
I am ecologically aware and dislike cruelty to animals, waste and destruction of ressources but such an intolerant and mean spirited article does a disservice to the cause it aims to defend.
by
francine (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 361 comments)
on Monday, October 6, 2008 at 9:57:49 AM
I think it is wonderful that you have decided to leave off eating "big animals." That was my first step on my journey towards a more healthful and compassionate diet. I never ate rabbits, but I soon discovered that eating chickens, ducks, turkeys, and fish are no more healthful, compassionate, or environmentally sound than eating cows, sheep, or pigs. If you knew what chickens were fed or the filthy conditions they "lived" in, it would turn your stomach. And if you knew how tightly packed together most egg-laying hens are confined in, it might reduce your appetite for eggs.
Regarding fish, most of the world's fishing waters are not only comparable to toxic toilet bowls, (and "fish farms" are no better.) According to many scientists, the ocean's fish are being depleted so fast that eating seafood might be just a memory in 40 years. How's that a good thing for the environment?
by
Gail Davis (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 66 comments)
on Monday, October 6, 2008 at 12:53:52 PM
First, Ms. Davis, thank you for an eloquent article. Short, sweet and yet to the point. I would like to comment on the comments that you received for your views.
Mr. WML, you state that you would "much rather Ms. Davis spend her time on keeping our political freedom than keeping our cows". Indeed, Ms. Davis is working on her political freedom. Isn't it the first amendment that allows her the freedom of speech? Further, our "farms" today are governed by government subsidies.
Direct payment subsidies are provided to farmers regardless of commodity prices or farm income levels. Despite record prices for some crops and for net income for subsidized crops, and projections of similar market and income conditions over the next five years, Congress is poised spend another $26 billion on direct payment subsidies under the 2008 farm subsidy bill. Like other crop subsidies, direct payments are heavily concentrated in the hands of the very largest farm operations.
This means that fewer and fewer small farms exist today. Our "farms' today are really giant factory farms. These factory farms produce wase lagoons and manure sprayfields (just to name a few) - two widespread andenvironmentalyy hazardous technologies that are poorly regulated.
Most factory farm animals are crowded into small areas. Their waste is sent to massive waste lagoons. These often break, overflow or leak, allowing microbes, nitrate pollution and drug resistant bacteria into our water sources. The lagoons emit toxic gases such as ammonia, hydrogen sulfide and methane. Did you know that these "farms" spray the manure onto the land (as fertilizer) which brings even more harmful substances into our air and water. (for more information on this please go to http://www.nrdc.org)
Susan commented that it could be argued that it isn't what we eat, rather how we produce it. She says "You still have to kill some plants to eat them, though, so that wouldn't work for me, I'm afraid - it's all life to me, and none less alive than any other." We are talking the difference between eating a plant or an animal. The plant is not a sentient being. It does not have the ability to feel pain and stress. Plants do not nurse their young and stay in herds or packs. While true that a plant is living, it is not comparable to an animal and to make the comparison is simply incredible.
Mention was also made to "free range" animals. Regulations governing the application of free range to birds raised for meat in the US, mainly chicken and turkeys, are scarcely more strict than the nonexistent rules governing the applicationof that term to egg-laying poultry. Poultry raised for meat may be sold as "free range" only if the birds so designated have access to the outdoors. That access must be certified by the USDA, which reviews and approves labels for federally inspected meat products. No other criteria, vegetation, range size, number of birds, or space per bird are implied by this term.
For example, chickens can live active lives for up to 15 years, but after a year or two commercial free range hens are hauled away in transport crates the same as are battery hens, who spend all their lives in cages. Free range status is misleading the public who believe that free range means that the meat is healthier and more humane. It is simply a myth. Free range birds are still debeaked to prevent pecking due to overcrowding.
And finally Francine, who states that "I am ecologically aware and dislike cruelty to animals, waste and destruction of ressources but such an intolerant and mean spirited article does a disservice to the cause it aims to defend." I am just perplexed. I don't find the same mean spirit in the article. Rather, I see someone who wants you to take the time to think of the impacts that all of our choices make. My belief is that the article was intended to provoke people to see over the fence to the other side.
I myself am on the other side as well with Ms. Davis. I believe there is a more compassionate way to live and that our food should not come from the torture and abuse of an animal who is afraid all of it's life. Afraid, sick, force fed, force bred and slaughtered sometimes without the use of numbing drugs.
The whole case for behaving decently to animals rests on the fact that we are th superior species. We ar ethe species uniquely capable of imagination, rationality and moral choice and that is precisely why we are under an obligation to recognize and respect the rights of animals. - Brigid Brophy
by
KD (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Monday, October 6, 2008 at 1:17:14 PM
I learned most of what you describe (and quite more) by reading the excellent series of books by Melissa Rossi entitled "What Every American Should Know About...Who's Really Running America...Who's Reallly Running The World...the Rest of the World...Europe." No progressive could approve of such treatment of living entities and this planet. That is why I constantly promote a community based communal solution to the provision of the necessities of life. We should not have to rely on Albertsons or Publix or some remote slaughterhouse or lettuce field to provide our communities with the food we need to exist. We are technologically advanced enough to take turns at farming the local arable land, use available open space for fruit and nut bearing trees, and even decrease our work week to about twenty hours a week. Most of what we do is the useless movement of paper for outdated corporate structures.
I agree with you and the original poster on basically every point except the poster's argument that what I eat is her business. There simply is more fundamental change at issue than diet, and we must remain ever vigilant as we test the waters of socialism to insure that freedom be preserved at all costs. Socialism is wrought with the danger of totalitarianism, and attitudes like those of the author, as well-natured and high-valued as they are, still remain that exact road to that totalitarianism. As they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
by
W.M.L. (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 387 comments)
on Tuesday, October 7, 2008 at 7:23:31 PM
When tallying up the damage scores, well, actually ... No!
I agree with you that much of the environmental devastation that takes place is due to all the toxic chemicals used in all conventional food production. Humans really need to wake up and stop poisoning their own planet, by going back to organic food production methods.
But it takes far less land and water to support a vegetarian diet than a meat-based one, and far less land and water to support a vegan diet than a vegetarian one. And you don't have to cut down trees in order to grow plant foods. In fact, orchards are the most environmentally friendly use of land for the purposes of growing food for humans.
It's absurd to say that raising meat is a far better solution for keeping the air, ground, and water safe and clean. Take away the pesticides, herbicides, and other toxic chemicals used to rear and feed these animals, and you still have massive air and water pollution. Increasing the number of cattle to meet the world's growing appetite for beef (particularly in China), is simply not sustainable. There is not enough arable land on the planet to support the Standard American Diet should most of the people living in China choose to adopt it.
Raising cattle for food also wastes enormous amounts of water and food that could go to feed people directly. It takes 5,000 gallons of water to produce 1 lb. of beef, and 60%-80% of the grains we grow are used to fatten cattle. Imagine how many more people we could feed, if that grain was used to feed people, instead? It's simple: Feed one person a meat-based diet, or feed 12-14 people a vegan diet.
The argument that eating plants involves killing them and therefore, is in some way equal to taking the life of a pig or a cow or a rabbit is weak. We have not been able to identify central nervous systems in plants, and therefore, we have no reason to believe that they suffer when they are killed. However, it is painfully clear that chickens, cows, fish, and pigs all know when they are going to die, and fear for their lives and value them as much as you and I value our own.
It is not so much about loving these animals, as acknowledging that I do not need to cause harm to them in order to be strong and healthy. Quite the contrary: Eating a pure plant-based diet protects me from heart disease, stroke, breast, prostate, and colon cancer, osteoporosis, diabetes, and other diseases of affluence.
by
Gail Davis (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 66 comments)
on Monday, October 6, 2008 at 1:17:20 PM
And it's caused by Corporation Control of our Food Supply.
High Fructose Corn Syrup, MSG (MonoSodiumGlutamate) Hydrodgenated Vegitable oil, GMO Plants, modified to except Roundup which is a pesticide and is taken up into the plant and you comsume it when you eat these foods.
High Fructose Corn Syrup is taken from these GMO plants and it is now put in just about everything that uses sugar. You have to read labels in order to not get poisoned by these chemical additives, and then you don't know what your getting
If it isn't Natural, don't eat it. In order to eat nutritional food that has what your cellular system requires, you have to go back to Nature.
The best food now available with everything we need is in the ocean and that is where we will get our food in the future. In fact right now there is a product that has Marine phytoplankton, the most nutrional rich food on the planet, and it's called "FrequenSea" I've been taking it for 8 months now and it has changed my health more that anything I have taken for years.
Since insects are the most efficient way of growing and delivering protein to the human food supply, I am proposing a law to force all Americans to start eating bugs at least one meal a day.
Unless someone thinks free people shouldn't be told by their government (or busybody neighbors) what to eat. Or think.
by
UncleSim (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 137 comments)
on Monday, October 6, 2008 at 1:21:51 PM
I appreciate that you took the time to read my article!
However, such flippancy does nothing to address the immediate crises of global warming, environmental devastation, human suffering, and animal suffering.
by
Gail Davis (4 articles, 1 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 66 comments)
on Monday, October 6, 2008 at 1:39:02 PM
5
5
3
