Comments

I have unfortunately had to delete a number of comments in response to some posts. This blog was started for the sole purpose of providing information and support for vegans - it is NOT a forum for meat-industry activists or for those who wish to peddle infantile nonsense such as "it is a common misconception that animals suffer when you slaughter them, it's a painless process". Only someone lacking any sense of compassion, or a supporter of slaughter-for-profit would come out with rubbish like that - how is it painless to be electrocuted, then have your throat slashed whilst conscious (because the electrocution didn't work), and then dumped in a vat of scalding water and be roasted alive? Doesn't sound all that painless to me, but maybe I'm missing something, hey?

For the record, the process described above is an objective fact, backed by a fairly hefty volume of unimpeachable evidence, and it is the unfortunate - and unacceptable - reality for millions of chickens every year. Maybe you are happy to support such abuse and to invent whatever excuses you need in order to avoid facing up to it - but some of us are a bit more honest and decent than that, and are not prepared to accept the unacceptable.

Anyway...if you have something sensible and intelligent to contribute, then please feel free to do so. But if all you can come up with is excuses for supporting abuse of animals and the environment because you're too lazy or uncaring to change, then I'm just going to delete your comments - so don't waste your time. :-)

Is it ethical to watch shows like Mythbusters?

Someone recently asked on a forum "is it ethical for vegans to watch shows like Mythbusters, because they use dead animals for their experiments?". Now, I can understand that someone might have concerns about the specifics of certain experiments, but I think the underlying sentiment is actually quite dangerous, not least of all because it represents a serious departure from what I would consider to be reason and basic commonsense. The post below is my response to this topic, originally posted on that forum, and reproduced here because I think it is important to stress that being vegan is about making a difference, not about changing the world.

-----

I'm sure plenty of people here have seen the Godfather, with its infamous "horse-head-in-the-bed-scene". I'm pretty sure they didn't go and actually behead a real horse just for that scene, yet they have nonetheless depicted an act of great cruelty to an animal and profited from it.

Should a vegan then not watch the Godfather on those grounds? Seems a bit silly if they did, if you ask me.

If it were to be decided that we should not watch a tv show because someone killed an animal, then the immediate and inescapable demand arises that we also boycott every single other tv show in existence, without exception - because really, just how many vegan tv shows are there? On that logic, any show depicting any person eating meat - or even talking about eating meat - is off limits to us, on the grounds that it is promoting cruelty to animals. Likewise, we would have to decline all social invitations from non-vegans, because they would be consuming animal products. We would also have to cease trade with supermarkets that sell animal products, and on it goes, all because through these activities animals are exploited by others for profit and enjoyment.

It's one thing to have ideals as to how the world should be. But it is a different matter altogether to ignore reality and isolate yourself completely from the world. Being vegan is supposed to be about making a difference, isn't it? Showing others that it is possible to live a life of plenty without anyone having to suffer for it. But what can we show anyone if we've cut ourselves off from them and they're no longer aware we exist??? Can't see the good in that, myself...

How to lose weight and keep it off...the vegan way.

It seems the CSIRO can't help itself when it comes to releasing dangerously misleading studies sponsored by meat-industry money. In the latest one to do the rounds, Dr Manny Noakes has claimed that a diet high in protein (in the form of red meat) is "more effective" at stripping away "dangerous tummy fat" in men. On the face of it, this might seem to have some positive health implications, due to the problems caused by this fat but as they say, "it ain't necessarily so"!

First of all, as nutritionist Rosemary Stanton quite correctly points out (and backed up the World Cancer Research Fund), diets high in red meat are also very strongly linked with a significant occurrence of a swath of cancers, most prominent of which is colorectal cancer, a leading cancer killer. So following Manny Noakes advice may shed the tummy fat, but it exposes you to an even bigger problem in the process. Not much of a bargain really, if you ask me.

Secondly, it ignores the bleeding obvious. Meat is but one of many sources of protein, so even if you accept the basic premise of the research (ie. high protein reduces tummy fat), it does not follow that you have to eat meat to achieve this benefit. There are many nutrient-rich sources of protein available from the plant world that don't carry any of the negative implication of a meat-based diet at all.

I'm not the only person to have found almost immediate health benefits from switching to a vegan diet, but I'll add a personal account to illustrate just how quickly and easily such benefits can be obtained without any meat - or any other animal products - in your diet at all.

Since becoming veg*n 6 months ago, I've lost - and kept off - 6kg. And this is without altering my total food consumption at all. The only thing I've done with my diet is to exclude all animal products. We were vegetarian for a month, and then realised that simply being vegetarian didn't really mean a lot given our reasons (primarily ethical), due to the appalling treatment of dairy cattle and chickens. I did lose a kilo or two in that first month, but the real weight loss didn't come until after we took that extra step of becoming vegan.

It was only when I attended a wedding last week that I realised just how much weight I'd actually lost. Not only did a lot of people comment about how different I looked due to the lost weight, but my clothes told a pretty compelling story also.

I have known for some time that my jeans were quite a bi looser than they had been previously, and had been planning to update my wardrobe accordingly, but hadn't got around to doing anything yet. Then I put on the same belt that I had worn for my own wedding in April, and had not worn since (it was new at the time). The mark from where I had worn it previously was very clear, and yet the point to which I needed to do it up was 13cm further along than it had been previously, necessitating the cutting of a new hole on the spot in order to be able to wear the belt.

Quite clearly, you do NOT need to eat red meat - or indeed any animal products whatsoever - to shed weight or significantly reduce your waistline. All that is required is simply eating a properly balanced diet in the first place. Meat is not required at all, just commonsense and intelligence, properties sadly lacking in far too many CSIRO studies - that wouldn't be sponsorship money from the meat industry talking for them, by any chance? In case you didnt know, the supposedly acclaimed "Total Well-being Diet" supported by the CSIRO was the product of work sponsored directly by the Meat & Livestock Association. Credible advice? Hardly.

Not to mention that a diet lacking in meat, apart from its proven weightloss properties, is also absent the worries of the many cancer-promoting properties that meat-eaters must continue to contend with.

Here's the original news story if you'd like to read it for yourself.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22881871-2,00.html?from=mostpop

Jane's Story

As I've mentioned previously, there are a host of ethical, environmental, and rights issues that support people in their decision to become vegan. For various reasons, they want to reduce the the impact of their lives on the world around them, and try to make it a better world for all of us to live in. No one expects to actually change the world though, but it can be important to stand up and say what sort of world we'd like to see.

Today I'd like to share with you a story that I think says it better than I could do myself. Although it is fictional, the things it describes are all very solidly based on verified fact, and that makes this a story worth thinking about. What you do from there is up to you, but at least think about it.

http://www.upc-online.org/broiler/121206jane.html

I'm still here! :-)

Unfortunately I don't have a 'proper' entry for you today, but just wanted to post to let you all know that I am still here! It's been a while since the last post, but I've been really snowed-under with a lot of family and end-of-year commitments with work, and this blog is just one of many things that have dropped down the list as I try to get it all done.

But I've got holidays coming up, and hopefully will have more time to focus on a few issues of interest that I can then post on the blog. And don't forget that questions are always welcome, so if there's something you'd like to know about being vegan then please ask! If I don't know the answer myself, then I'll make every effort to track down someone who does, and will post it for you here.

Your patience and support is much appreciated, so thanks to all of you! :-)

"The environment is important...but I don't want to give up meat!"

Someone said to me today:

"Whilst i do what i can do reasonably to cut down my ecological footprint, there are limitations and in this case i cannot have a cow in my backyard and i am not willing to give up meat."

Okay, so reducing your ecological footprint is important, but you don't want to give up meat? That's fine, I'm not trying to make you do that anyway, simply to provide some information to consider and promote understanding).

Here's something for you to consider. According to UNESCO, the production of 1kg of meat requires 15,000L of water. There are many who would say that figure is ridiculously low, but we'll run with it anyway, all sides agree that this is at least a minimum accurate figure. That's the first point to keep in mind.

The second is this. ACTEWAGL (an Australian water/electricity provider) claims in a current tv ad that an 8 minute shower can use up to 160L of water, whereas installing an efficient shower head and having only 4 minute showers can reduce this to 36L. So, if you followed their advice you would, in the course of an entire calendar year, save a grand total of 45,260L of water.

Now compare that to the figures above for meat. You could save the same amount of water simply by reducing your annual meat consumption by a measly 3kg. According to the MLA (Meat and Livestock Association), that's about 6 weeks total consumption for the average Australian (they say 480g, but that's an average figure that is based on total population, not actual consumers of meat). Assuming an average serving size of 100g of meat, you could easily achieve this saving by cutting out meat from as little as 1 meal a fortnight.

One meal a fortnight without meat, and you save 45,000L of water a year! Not a big ask, is it? And it gives you the best of both worlds - you're reducing your ecological footprint, and you can still eat meat. The advice they give re showers is supposed to be one of the simplest things people can do to make a big difference to water consumption - but as these figures show, you can make just as much of a difference just by reducing your annual meat consumption by only 3kg (which you probably wouldn't even notice). Worth considering?

The life of food

Today I thought I'd share a poem I wrote recently.

----

The choking dust never settled
because the crowded masses never ceased
their efforts to find some room to breathe
in the soaring heat that stifled,
the closeness that suffocated,
the relief that never came.

It had always been this way,
as far as anyone knew,
until they dropped in their place
and lay there in death as they had
once stood in life,
and eventually were taken away.

Searing pain,
the loss of feeling,
and life of tasteless misery to follow,
was their welcome to this world,
for those 'lucky' few permitted
to live beyond their birth.

Old age was unknown in
this brief and hectic life,
where weeks became a lifetime
and a lifetime was all you had,
memories of youth the apex
of short lives unfulfilled.

The claustrophobic heat continued
to sap and drain their strength,
spent in the daily struggle
to reach the scant relief
of water insufficient
and food baked in bodily waste.

At least it was not in vain
this suffering of endless generations,
as their youthful corpses garnish nightly
the dinner plates of their masters,
a glass of white to wash it down
with compliments to the chef.

----

That's merely a brief glimpse into the life of the chickens that wind up on your dinner plate (if you eat chicken), and at places like KFC and Red Rooster et al. Is the brief enjoyment of a food we don't even need really worth forcing innocent creatures to endure such abuse from the moment of birth until their painful and messy death?