Sunday, April 30, 2006

Hail to red meat

My response to this outrageously formulated column by Tom Purcell in today's Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, in which the author claims he can't trust vegetarian scientists telling us a vegetarian diet is better for the environment:
Reading your column, it occurred to me that you were missing an important point.

By condemning these vegetarian researchers that have scientifically demonstrated the environmental impact of meat (which is really not news at all -- visit WorldWatch.org for a recent report, "Happier Meals," with more information on that subject), you are blind-siding yourself and readers. Heck, even all the little surveys in the current Wired Magazine and all the various environmental websites take into account whether you're a meat-eater to determine your footprint on our planet.

Given enough information that a vegetarian diet is healthier for us and our environment, a scientist cannot be blamed for going veg. Now, I'm no scientist, but if I was, and I learned there was not enough research in the field after having my eyes opened by the results of some other studies, I would also likely roll up my sleeves and try to fill that knowledge gap. If my results only support the initial conclusions of my early studies, and those of others, then that doesn't make my results suspect.

Let's take a different scientist. A doctor by the name of T. Colin Campbell. Dr. Campbell is a former meat-eater who has a rural upbringing and a rigorous scientific intellect. He wrote a recent book called "The China Study," in which he pretty much condemns animal protein of all types from the point of view of health. So, if a rational scientific person goes vegetarian based on results of his studies, the logic of your column would have us say, "Oh, but the book was written by a vegetarian."

But of course! If I discovered something important and life-changing, I'd want to tell the whole world, and I'd be an idiot not to take my own advice, too.
I don't expect Mr. Purcell to go vegan after reading this, but I hope he'll rethink his faulty premise and think more deeply before attacking vegetarian-oriented research.

Tags: | |

Health: Does 'Milk' Hurt Kids?

Newsweek/MSNBC.com | The Tip Sheet

A relatively innocuous and important article about how soy milk and rice milk aren't direct replacements for cow's milk (not that cow's milk is necessary, either), goes seriously wrong at the end, striking another blow for Big Dairy:
Talk to your pediatrician and check your child's diet against the American Academy of Pediatrics' recommendations (aap.org). After all, it's your job to do their body good.
Tell me no one is going to associate that last line with cow's milk. They will. The dairy industry would probably have paid for that kind of conclusion, if it could.

This type of final line tag seems fairly common in Newsweek, and it's this sort of glib, obnoxious tactic that led to canceling my subscription. Yes, it's your job to raise your children healthy, but does a news magazine writer have to spin things so that he or she is promoting dairy? I don't think so.

Tags: | | | |

Sunday, April 23, 2006

Slaughterhouses of 2006 a different kind of 'Jungle'

Keep in mind that slaughterhouses are bad for the workers, not just the animals:

ContraCostaTimes.com

The price of meat-consumption is too high all around.

Tags: |

Saturday, April 22, 2006

Forgot to celebrate my 4th veganniversary!

I went vegan four years ago this past Thursday, and it passed by without the usually fanfare (basically, a special meal out).

I had to wonder, does this mean it's been long enough that I'm kinda taking the veganism for granted?

Or is it that I'm just busy enough right now that a lot of things are slipping by at the moment?

Could be both of those things, and it could also be that I've been eating out too much lately! I've been too busy to cook at home, and so every night is a "special" meal out. Nice to be in a city where I can do that. I have 5 restaurants literally within 2 blocks of my apartment where I can get at least one vegan meal without having to order an item "minus the--", with one of those options being an actual vegan restaurant. Popular one, too.

If this former carnist from Kansas City can go vegan and have it become second nature, then how long will it be before I can order a wholeseome, delicious vegan option straight off the menu at just about any restaurant in the city?

Woo-hoo!

Tags: | |

Tuesday, April 18, 2006

Vegan diets healthier for planet, people than meat diets

innovations report

This is one of the more thorough articles I've seen on the report by University of Chicago’s Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin. In a bid to make their findings more accessible to the general public, they are clear to state they don't judge people for their eating habits, and offer that improvements to one's diet in the direction of veganism can still have a real impact:
"We say that however close you can be to a vegan diet and further from the mean American diet, the better you are for the planet. It doesn’t have to be all the way to the extreme end of vegan. If you simply cut down from two burgers a week to one, you’ve already made a substantial difference."
Looking at the problem from an exclusively environmental view, their findings confirmed what many of us already knew, or at least strongly suspected:
In their study, Eshel and Martin compared the energy consumption and greenhouse-gas emissions that underlie five diets: average American, red meat, fish, poultry and vegetarian (including eggs and dairy), all equaling 3,774 calories per day.

The vegetarian diet turned out to be the most energy-efficient, followed by poultry and the average American diet. Fish and red meat virtually tied as the least efficient.
Eat lower on the food chain, right? This, of course, is also good for one's health, and it's nice to see that mentioned as well:
"The adverse effects of dietary animal fat intake on cardiovascular diseases is by now well established. Similar effects are also seen when meat, rather than fat, intake is considered," Martin and Eshel wrote. "To our knowledge, there is currently no credible evidence that plant-based diets actually undermine health; the balance of available evidence suggests that plant-based diets are at the very least just as safe as mixed ones, and most likely safer."
It's nice to know a vegetarian diet can go a long way toward saving the planet, but when you tie it to individual health, you may get people concerned not just for their children's world, but their own lives.

Tags: | | |

Monday, April 17, 2006

Nestlé looks set to swallow up McCartney range of frozen meals

Independent Online Edition | News

Nestlé is either trying to change its image as one of the ten most unethical companies in the world by whitewashing its image with acquisitions of more ethical companies, or it is truly moving in the direction the winds seem to indicate the market is heading, or it is trying to put more ethical companies out of business to eliminate the competition...

I have to say, I'm really surprised at this sale. I'd like to think that the middle option is the likeliest choice, but I'm not above suspecting Nestlé's motives:
The McCartney range, benefiting from celebrity endorsement and early entry into the market, has been a staple of British supermarket freezers for 15 years and is even popular among some non-vegetarians.

[snip]

Now the food giant Heinz, which has owned the range for seven years, is thought to be preparing to sell it and other frozen foods lines, which are suffering a slump as consumers turn to chilled, ready-prepared microwave meals in the belief that they are healthier. The same trend caused a 13 per cent drop in sales of the Birds Eye range, which is being sold by Unilever.

Nestlé owns 50.1 per cent of Israel's Ossem, whose subsidiary Tivall is understood to be preparing an offer for the McCartney range. Tivall already sells similar products to the British supermarkets Marks & Spencer, Sainsbury and Tesco.
So, yeah, at first blush it seems pretty evil, but then the fine print reveals that Nestlé's subsidiary already sells similar products, and is probably just bolstering its line. Ain't it funny how the multinational conglomerate world criss-crosses around all over the place until you don't even know who owns what?

Makes me want to run out to a farmer's market tomorrow.

Tags: | | | |

Monday, April 10, 2006

Guidance on vegetarian and vegan labelling

Food Standards Agency

Good news for UK vegetarians, and those of us outside the UK fortunate to find these products on shelves elsewhere:
The [Food Standards] Agency has published guidance for to improve food labelling for vegans and vegetarians.

It was produced after consultation with stakeholders including The Vegetarian Society and The Vegan Society and provides criteria for the use of the terms vegetarian and vegan on food labels for the first time.

There are approximately 3.5 million vegetarians and 0.25 million vegans in the UK. The guidance should make it easier for these consumers to identify the products that are suitable for them.

It aims to improve consistency in the use of the terms on food labels by manufacturers and caterers and help enforcement agencies to identify misleading labelling.

The guidance should also help to prevent some common mistakes by companies such as labelling drink or food that has been derived from animal products or fish as suitable for 'vegans' and 'vegetarians'.

[snip]

George Rodger, Chair of The Vegan Society said: 'As more and more foods have become available in packaged form, vegans have had to become accustomed to reading long lists of ingredients to see whether or not a product is suitable for them.

'The new food-labelling guidance from the Food Standards Agency will make things so much easier. If a product is labelled ‘suitable for vegans’ in accordance with this guidance, they need look no further.'
I see the occasional labels like this in the U.S. -- as well as, simply, "VEGAN" -- on various products, particularly brands with a reputation for being veg-friendly, like Amy's Organics and Fantastic Foods. But it would nice to see this on any product that is also "accidentally" vegan.

I am just tired of reading labels.

Categories: |

Sunday, April 09, 2006

CU may seed veggie revival

DenverPost.com | Business

Newly returned from Chapter 11 bankruptcy status, Gardenburger (once again Wholesome & Hearty Foods Co.) has found a creative way to get back in the game:
The University of Colorado at Boulder is one of five universities nationwide vying to win an account from Gardenburger to promote veggie burgers to college students.

College students are a "natural target," Gardenburger spokeswoman Melanie Flaherty said. "They eat the products because they are vegetarian, or for health reasons, or for environmental and compassion reasons. College students tend to be more aware ... about the environment or about health."

Gardenburger approached advertising classes at universities in health-conscious cities, such as California State University at Long Beach, the University of Oregon in Eugene and Columbia University in New York City.

Gardenburger plans to use ideas from at least one university for a new marketing campaign scheduled for the fall.

"We're doing it for free and it gives our students real-world experience on a real client, not some assignment out of a textbook," said Greg Wagner, adjunct professor of advertising at CU.

In previous years, CU advertising majors have worked on campaigns for Izze soft drinks, Quiznos, Crocs, Frontier Airlines, Mania TV and Noodles and Co.

The growing diet for vegetarian and organic foods nationwide has brought increased competition for Gardenburger, with food giants Kellogg Co. and Kraft Foods Inc. gobbling up small burger manufacturers such as Boca Burgers and Morningstar Farms.
I liked that the article goes into that last bit at the end, as it emphasizes the growing heat in the vegetarian foods market, for better and for worse. Here's hoping the winning school comes up with a great campaign that results in more animal-free burgers sold in stores everywhere.

Categories: |

Film Contest: A fallen vegetarian, a rising filmmaker

Obnoxious in at least three different ways:

The Seattle Times

Yes, you can watch the film, if you want. Somehow I don't think it portends a rising filmmaker, but perhaps I'm a bit too annoyed to give any credit where it might be due...
I suppose I can't legally call myself a vegetarian anymore, since I've decided that if there happens to be some good ham in the vicinity — organic, free-range ham from pigs who've been read to and slaughtered nonviolently in their sleep — then gosh darn it, I can have some ham. But having no interest in poultry or beef, nor any other pork product, I'm not quite willing to live under the carnivore label. I'm thinking something more like, "hamatarian." Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?
Quite simply? No.

Categories: |

Bad news on beans and lentils

stuff.co.nz

Agricultural practices down under are having unexpected and unfair consequences for vegetarians:
When lentils, chickpeas, beans and other pulses are a vital part of your everyday diet, going without is a problem.

This is the situation Dr Guy Hatchard and his family have found themselves in, due, he says, to stringent regulations, introduced last year by Biosecurity New Zealand, a division of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, regarding the importation of dried "seeds" for consumption.

"We are vegetarians," says Hatchard. "We eat a lot of pulses because they are full of protein, but these regulations mean that many of the beans or lentils you buy now are as hard as bullets. They can't be cooked."

Hatchard, a doctor of economics, former director of the Natural Food Commission and former market-analysis director for global company Genetics ID, says heat treatment to prevent the possible spread of exotic pests is rendering the products inedible and, in the case of beans such as mung beans, unsproutable.

He believes this discriminates against vegetarians and other groups for whom beans, lentils and other pulses are an important part of the daily diet. And lack of labelling by some retailers means people may be unknowingly buying heat-treated products then having to throw them away, without knowing why they won't cook.
Biosecurity NZ has requested funding to look at alternatives to heat treating but that has yet to be finalized.

Categories: |

Thursday, April 06, 2006

Mankind benefits from eating less meat

PhysOrg.com

Now there's a headline you don't see everyday. I mean, vegetarians and vegans talk about this frequently, particularly at sites like VeggieBoards, but it's always a pleasure to see a science and technology-oriented site point out the obvious for those that haven't quite caught on:
If people were to eat more vegetable proteins instead of animal proteins, this would result in multiple – and much-needed – benefits. Such a 'protein transition' will positively affect sustainable energy production, sustainable water use, biodiversity, human health and animal welfare.
Categories: | |

Sunday, April 02, 2006

Movie role more important than animal suffering for actor Josh Hartnett

Digital Spy | Showbiz: Hartnett gives up vegetarianism for film

Assuming this is for real, Josh Hartnett has joined the list of actors who have sold out their vegetarianism for superficial reasons.

Categories: | |

Vegetarian eating style can be helpful

Maine doctor Stephen Sears, MD, has gone on record to make sure readers of the Morning Sentinel know:
Is it healthy to be a vegetarian? The short answer is yes.
He goes on to describe the various veg diets and how to transition easily to and safely to them.

Any more doctors like this in the house?


Categories: |

Saturday, April 01, 2006

The best way we could battle global warming is stop consuming animals

Asheville Citizen-Times.com

A guest commentary from a long-time vegan scores big points for environmentalism when suggesting that a plant-based diet can play an important role in helping to stem global warming. After making a research-based case against eating animal products, Terri David goes on to say:
Most environmental groups can barely spit out the words, “eat lower on the food chain,” but they would better serve the earth if they made veganism the cornerstone of their global warming campaigns. They should be shouting about it, but, instead, won’t even have the conversation.
Harsh words for the environmental movement, but much needed, I think. Any environmental activist that eats the standard American diet is really only chipping at the tip of the iceberg in terms of what he or she can do for the planet. Go vegan. Stay vegan.

vegan environment