Is being vegan about trying to change the world? Absolutely not! So why become vegan, if nothing is going to change anyway?
It helps to understand that being vegan is as much as harm minimisation as anything else. It is about doing what is achievable, not about beating your head against the wall. Being vegan is about adopting principles that place value on the world around you, and about finding ways to ensure - as best you can - that any impact you have is either positive, or else is as minimally negative as can be achieved instead. And you would be surprised at just how many things you can do about this, if you are prepared to take the first step of caring about your impact.
No vegan can say that no living creature suffers because of their lifestyle, and neither can any other person make that claim. It is a simple fact of life that merely by being alive we are impacting on the world around us, just as every other creature does too. Even the simple act of building your house has a negative impact on the environment, but we all need a place to live. That's why I used the phrase "harm minimisation" earlier, because while the elimination of suffering is impossible to achieve, we can all do something to at least minimise it even so.
Being vegan means that no animals are abused and slaughtered just so we can eat their corpses or cloth ourselves with their skins. That doesn't mean that no animal suffers for our food, because wildlife can still become innocent victims of agricultural processes even so - but the important thing is that it does certainly eliminate our culpability for the conscious and wilful abuses that millions of animals must endure to feed those who insist on eating meat and consuming dairy and eggs. We don't eliminate suffering entirely with a vegan diet, but we certainly do make a considerable step towards eliminating suffering due to cruelty, and that's more than any omnivore can say. What does it really mean for an omnivore to say they are against animal cruelty, when their daily diet serves as a very pointed and inescapable contradiction?
Being vegan is also about showing a more meaningful concern for the environment. There are entire ecosystems on the verge of collapse because of our insistence as a species in continuing to hunt, breed, and consume animals. Fish stocks in many places have already collapsed, and will never recover, with many more soon to join them, because of relentless fishing. And most of what is caught isn't even used anyway! Pollution from factory farms has destroyed rivers across the world. And then there is the considerable waste of producing food from animals in the first place - how much sense does it make to take 17kg of perfectly good food and process it through an animal to produce a mere 1kg of meat? How much sense does it take to use tens of thousands of litres of fresh drinking water to produce the same kilo of meat, when so many people have no water at all, and so many rivers are dying due to lack of flow? The impact of factory farming is immense, and is so significant that no person who claims to truly care about the environment can ignore the facts of the environmental damage animal-based diets are promoting. Even if you don't care about the animals, there are powerfully compelling reasons for being vegan if you do still care about the environment.
You're not going to change the world on your own by being vegan, but you will at least have the satisfaction of knowing that you're doing something a lot more practical than merely paying lip-service to popular trends. Helping animals is very trendy, but how does donating to the RSPCA help when they are profiting from commercial relationships with battery hen operators who survive by their cruelty to animals? Helping the environment is also very trendy, but what does it mean to install a free water-saving showerhead when a single animal-based dinner uses more water than you'll save in a year anyway?
Being vegan wont save the world. But what it will do is make a meaningful contribution towards lowering your ecological footprint, to living a more sustainable life, and knowing that your presence on this planet is reducing suffering rather than increasing it. It shows you really do care about the world around you, and those in it (whether they are human or not), and that you're doing something active about it. There's no good reason why animals need to be abused and slaughtered to feed us, when we can get all we need without them in the first place; and there's no good reason why the environment should be made to suffer in order to raise animals for the sole purpose of abusing and slaughtering them for human consumption either. Being vegan takes you out of that loop altogether, and while it wont eliminate suffering completely, it's a pretty decent step in the right direction all the same.
Think about it: what's really important to you?
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Sunday, October 21, 2007
But what do you eat???
Many meat-eaters are amazed that people can get by without eating any meat, or even any animal products at all. It seems to be a common misconception that meat is just about the only thing people can eat, with everything else little more than supplements that go with it. This could not be further from the truth!
The real truth is that it is meat which is the supplement, and not even a necessary one at that. There is nothing in meat that we cannot get from plant-based sources, other than vitamin B12 - which doesn't even come from animals in the first place, but is produced by soil bacteria which contaminate the plants that the animals then eat. And there are a range of foods available that are fortified with B12 which you can easily include in your diet, so this simply is not even an issue to begin with.
Protein is the big issue many people have in protesting the vegan diet. "But you NEED to eat meat to get enough protein!", they will often say. Not true at all. Although the levels vary, protein is found in pretty much everything you eat (unless you eat only processed foods with no nutritional value to start with!) - it is, after all, one of the building blocks of life. Wholegrains are one of the best sources, along with nuts, beans, legumes, seeds, and so on - but even the humblest of vegies will still have protein in it.
What about everything else though? Carbs, fats, vitamins, minerals? Don't you need lots of dairy to keep your bones strong? That last one is a bigger myth than needing meat. Lactose-intolerance is a very widespread "problem", but is not in fact a problem at all - it is simply our body's way of telling us that we really shouldn't be eating the breastmilk of another animal in the first place - breastmilk in all species is an infant food, and is simply not required beyond infancy (and milk is loaded with fat and cholesterol - typically 87% water, and more than 3% fat - consider the fat percentage when you take out the water though!). The calcium issue is another outright lie - many plant sources are very rich sources of calcium, and in a form that is much easier for our bodies to access as well. Most of the calcium in milk is bound in casein and difficult to absorb, not to mention that dairy actually promotes urinary excretion of calcium and has been strongly implicated in causing osteoporosis - the very ailment it is claimed to be fighting. Not to mention that the best way to strengthen your bones actually has nothing to do with diet in the first place - simple regular load-bearing exercises is far and away the best path to stronger bones.
I could go on, but hopefully you get the point - plants are a fantastic source of nutrients, and they do certainly provide everything we need. (Where do you think those cows, sheep, elephants, and other big animals get their nutrients from? None of them eat meat!) We can eat vegetables (green leafy vegies are good sources of iron, in particular), fruits, grains (wholegrains are best), pasta, legumes, nuts (a good source of good fatty acids) and seeds (sesame seeds are a very rich source of calcium), breads, and the list goes on. There is such a rich variety of foods out there that you will absolutely never get bored or go hungry on a vegan diet - on the contrary, once your eyes are opened to the endless possibilities you'll wonder how you ever managed on the boring meat-based diet you had before - I know I certainly do. I can honestly say that my diet has never been even remotely close to being as varied or interesting, not to mention very tasty and nutritious, as it is now.
One last point re the iron issue (another criticism based on lack of education). Contrary to the myths, lies, and exaggerations, iron-deficiency is not a problem in any balanced vegan diet (and EVERYONE should be eating a balanced diet anyway, whatever your dietary preference). Plant-based iron may be harder to digest than iron from animals, but this can be easily addressed simply by having a glass of fruit juice (that contains vitamin C) with your meal - how easy is that?
Remember: the animals you are eating (if you're not vegan) all got their nutrients from plants in the first place. The only real argument in favour of killing animals to eat them (certainly in Western societies), is a mistaken idea of convenience - and can you really justify all of that pain and suffering that this "convenience" inflicts on animals, when we don't even need to eat them in the first place?
A couple of sites for reference and further reading, if you are so inclined:
http://whatdoveganseat.blogspot.com/ - another blog, focusing specifically on vegan foods, including mouth-watering recipes and pictures.
http://library.thinkquest.org/20922/what_eat.htm - a general, but wide-ranging, list of the many types of foods available to eat, whether you're vegan or not!
http://www.pamrotella.com/health/b12.html - more about B12
http://www.whatdoveganseat.com/ - a more in-depth look at the issues I've been discussing here today.
And remember, even if you think you cannot possibly give up meat, there's no reason why you still can't try the occasional vegan meal anyway. And who knows, once you've seen for yourself how easy it really is to "eat vegan" and go varied and delicious the many options are, you may even feel inclined to consider taking a step or two in that direction after all. :-)
The real truth is that it is meat which is the supplement, and not even a necessary one at that. There is nothing in meat that we cannot get from plant-based sources, other than vitamin B12 - which doesn't even come from animals in the first place, but is produced by soil bacteria which contaminate the plants that the animals then eat. And there are a range of foods available that are fortified with B12 which you can easily include in your diet, so this simply is not even an issue to begin with.
Protein is the big issue many people have in protesting the vegan diet. "But you NEED to eat meat to get enough protein!", they will often say. Not true at all. Although the levels vary, protein is found in pretty much everything you eat (unless you eat only processed foods with no nutritional value to start with!) - it is, after all, one of the building blocks of life. Wholegrains are one of the best sources, along with nuts, beans, legumes, seeds, and so on - but even the humblest of vegies will still have protein in it.
What about everything else though? Carbs, fats, vitamins, minerals? Don't you need lots of dairy to keep your bones strong? That last one is a bigger myth than needing meat. Lactose-intolerance is a very widespread "problem", but is not in fact a problem at all - it is simply our body's way of telling us that we really shouldn't be eating the breastmilk of another animal in the first place - breastmilk in all species is an infant food, and is simply not required beyond infancy (and milk is loaded with fat and cholesterol - typically 87% water, and more than 3% fat - consider the fat percentage when you take out the water though!). The calcium issue is another outright lie - many plant sources are very rich sources of calcium, and in a form that is much easier for our bodies to access as well. Most of the calcium in milk is bound in casein and difficult to absorb, not to mention that dairy actually promotes urinary excretion of calcium and has been strongly implicated in causing osteoporosis - the very ailment it is claimed to be fighting. Not to mention that the best way to strengthen your bones actually has nothing to do with diet in the first place - simple regular load-bearing exercises is far and away the best path to stronger bones.
I could go on, but hopefully you get the point - plants are a fantastic source of nutrients, and they do certainly provide everything we need. (Where do you think those cows, sheep, elephants, and other big animals get their nutrients from? None of them eat meat!) We can eat vegetables (green leafy vegies are good sources of iron, in particular), fruits, grains (wholegrains are best), pasta, legumes, nuts (a good source of good fatty acids) and seeds (sesame seeds are a very rich source of calcium), breads, and the list goes on. There is such a rich variety of foods out there that you will absolutely never get bored or go hungry on a vegan diet - on the contrary, once your eyes are opened to the endless possibilities you'll wonder how you ever managed on the boring meat-based diet you had before - I know I certainly do. I can honestly say that my diet has never been even remotely close to being as varied or interesting, not to mention very tasty and nutritious, as it is now.
One last point re the iron issue (another criticism based on lack of education). Contrary to the myths, lies, and exaggerations, iron-deficiency is not a problem in any balanced vegan diet (and EVERYONE should be eating a balanced diet anyway, whatever your dietary preference). Plant-based iron may be harder to digest than iron from animals, but this can be easily addressed simply by having a glass of fruit juice (that contains vitamin C) with your meal - how easy is that?
Remember: the animals you are eating (if you're not vegan) all got their nutrients from plants in the first place. The only real argument in favour of killing animals to eat them (certainly in Western societies), is a mistaken idea of convenience - and can you really justify all of that pain and suffering that this "convenience" inflicts on animals, when we don't even need to eat them in the first place?
A couple of sites for reference and further reading, if you are so inclined:
http://whatdoveganseat.blogspot.com/ - another blog, focusing specifically on vegan foods, including mouth-watering recipes and pictures.
http://library.thinkquest.org/20922/what_eat.htm - a general, but wide-ranging, list of the many types of foods available to eat, whether you're vegan or not!
http://www.pamrotella.com/health/b12.html - more about B12
http://www.whatdoveganseat.com/ - a more in-depth look at the issues I've been discussing here today.
And remember, even if you think you cannot possibly give up meat, there's no reason why you still can't try the occasional vegan meal anyway. And who knows, once you've seen for yourself how easy it really is to "eat vegan" and go varied and delicious the many options are, you may even feel inclined to consider taking a step or two in that direction after all. :-)
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
UK to switch to UHT milk...is this enough?
The UK government is apparently considering a push to replace "fresh" milk on UK supermarket shelves with UHT (long-life) products instead. The major push behind this is "to reduce the amount of carbon emissions caused by refrigerated milk".
This is a good first step, but it misses some very important points. Probably the greatest of these is that the impact on climate change from cattle themselves is a far greater problem than the electricity needed to refrigerate milk. Cows emit considerable quantities of methane on a daily basis, which is a problem that this move fails to address in any way.
Given that there are no valid nutritional arguments for consuming milk as an essential part of our diet, why not just ditch it altogether, and have a far more positive environmental impact than merely switching to UHT milk? We consume milk because we've been raised to accept it as normal, not because we actually need it. Besides, what is normal about consuming the breast milk of another species anyway?
Switching to UHT milk to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a bit like emptying a bath using a teaspoon. Wouldn't it make more sense to just pull the plug instead?
Here's the news story, if you're interested:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22588489-13762,00.html
This is a good first step, but it misses some very important points. Probably the greatest of these is that the impact on climate change from cattle themselves is a far greater problem than the electricity needed to refrigerate milk. Cows emit considerable quantities of methane on a daily basis, which is a problem that this move fails to address in any way.
Given that there are no valid nutritional arguments for consuming milk as an essential part of our diet, why not just ditch it altogether, and have a far more positive environmental impact than merely switching to UHT milk? We consume milk because we've been raised to accept it as normal, not because we actually need it. Besides, what is normal about consuming the breast milk of another species anyway?
Switching to UHT milk to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is a bit like emptying a bath using a teaspoon. Wouldn't it make more sense to just pull the plug instead?
Here's the news story, if you're interested:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22588489-13762,00.html
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The meaning of life...?
Someone asked a question about this topic on a forum I'm on, and I wrote a few words in response. I thought I might include them here as well...
---
Why does life have to have a meaning in the first place? It has no meaning for any of the tens of billions of other creatures that share this planet with us, so what makes humans so special that our lives alone should have meaning?
In addition to the point above, there is no afterlife for the tens of billions of other creatures that share this planet with us, so what makes humans so special that we alone should get one? Other than the priceless arrogance of religious doctrine (unsupported by evidence or reason), I can't think of any good reason at all.
Why can it not be enough to simply accept that life is life, and is followed by death? That is what the facts support, after all. There doesn't need to be any point to life for our lives to still be worthwhile, and nor does there need to be anything after death.
The only reason we have religion is because we are aware enough of our surroundings to know that we die - and in our fear of death, we invent a mechanism by which that fear can be "taken away". That mechanism is superstitious religious belief.
One of the main reasons why so many animals continue to suffer today is because religions teach that humans have a god-given dominion over animals, and they are ours to do with as we wish. Sorry, but if that's what "god" is happy for us to do, and for us to act, then that's just one more reason out of a long and growing list to reject both deities and their messengers!
---
Why does life have to have a meaning in the first place? It has no meaning for any of the tens of billions of other creatures that share this planet with us, so what makes humans so special that our lives alone should have meaning?
In addition to the point above, there is no afterlife for the tens of billions of other creatures that share this planet with us, so what makes humans so special that we alone should get one? Other than the priceless arrogance of religious doctrine (unsupported by evidence or reason), I can't think of any good reason at all.
Why can it not be enough to simply accept that life is life, and is followed by death? That is what the facts support, after all. There doesn't need to be any point to life for our lives to still be worthwhile, and nor does there need to be anything after death.
The only reason we have religion is because we are aware enough of our surroundings to know that we die - and in our fear of death, we invent a mechanism by which that fear can be "taken away". That mechanism is superstitious religious belief.
One of the main reasons why so many animals continue to suffer today is because religions teach that humans have a god-given dominion over animals, and they are ours to do with as we wish. Sorry, but if that's what "god" is happy for us to do, and for us to act, then that's just one more reason out of a long and growing list to reject both deities and their messengers!
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Being vegan is bad for your health! Or is it?
Two of the biggest concerns (and therefore sources of criticism) for non-vegans is that we "must" eat animals, and animal products, in order to guarantee our continued good health. This notion is perhaps one of the biggest myths surrounding veganism - in fact, it is so far from the truth that it is more accurate to label it an outright lie. It simply isn't true. I've already mentioned the numerous cancers that have been strongly linked to the consumption of meat and dairy in particular, but today I thought I'd look at some specific nutrition issues.
My prompt to do this was getting some test results back from my doctor today. I've been meaning to go and get a proper checkup for a while, and last week finally got some blood tests done - checking for diabetes, cholesterol, iron/haemaglobin, and so on. Basically, if there was any dietary concerns at all with being vegan, these tests were going to show it. And I'm pleased (but not at all surprised) to be able to say that I could not be a better picture of health in ANY way - passed absolutely everything with flying colours, not even a passing concern for anything.
Iron is one of the big things. Meat-eaters swear that you MUST eat meat or you simply will not be able to get enough iron in your diet. Tell that to my body, lol. I eat a pretty reasonable diet that is 100% meat-free, and yet my haemaglobin level was 145 - right smack-bang in the middle of the accepted range, exactly where you'd want it. Nothing wrong there at all. If there was any "need" for meat in order to get enough iron, there is no way my results would have been so good. So how did I do it? It was pretty easy actually: I just eat a well-balanced diet in the first place! That's it, nothing special, no more to it than that. Plenty of leafy green vegetables, nuts, legumes, and so on - just half a handful of cashews, for one example, gives you 10% of your daily iron all on its own.
Calcium is the other big one. Everyone knows you MUST have lots of milk/dairy to get enough calcium so your bones are big and strong! Well, sorry, but everyone who thinks that is wrong. First of all, milk is actually a rather poor source of calcium in terms of what our bodies can actually extract - only about 25% of calcium in milk is absorbable, the rest is bound up in insoluble compounds and inaccessible to our bodies. In other words, that glass of milk that supposedly gives you 28% of your daily needs in fact only gives you 7%. And yet the dietary advice always refers to the total amount of calcium - I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that such advice is misleading at best. That advice also ignores the very strong links between dairy consumption and osteoporosis - yes, that's right - dairy actually does more to weaken your bones than to strengthen them, and increases urinary excretion of calcium. The best way to get strong bones is weight-bearing exercise - and cutting down on dairy!
But how do you get enough calcium then? Again, those green leafy vegetables are a wonderful source, as well as nuts, seeds (sesame especially), etc. Ever tried tahini? Just 5g of tahini (as much as you'd use if you spread it thinly on a single slice of bread) contains around 29mg of calcium (tahini made from unhulled sesame seeds). And you don't have to use tahini as a spread, there are a multitude of excellent recipes in which you could use it. Again, you certainly do NOT need to consume animal products in order to meet your full nutritional needs.
So what were my calcium levels? Surely they'd be low if I'm not consuming any dairy/animal products at all? Quite the contrary, actually. My calcium level was 2.33mmol/L, which once again is smack-bang right in the middle of the range it should be in. I was never a big dairy consumer prior to becoming vegan, and obviously have cut it out altogether since then. And yet I have clearly had no trouble whatsoever in maintaining very healthy levels of calcium even so.
I've saved the best for last though, the one everyone always wants to know about: cholesterol. You do not actually need ANY cholesterol in your diet at all. Not even a microgram. Your body actually makes all the cholesterol it actually needs, and any dietary cholesterol is a bad idea - and yet, you cannot consume animal products without getting it anyway. Meat is particularly bad for cholesterol, but dairy isn't much better. Some people naturally make more than they should anyway, so adding dietary cholesterol is just making things even worse again in such cases. All of the fuss about adding good cholesterol to your diet is only because it is needed to balance the bad cholesterol present in animal products - take out the bad cholesterol, and you don't even need the good cholesterol either. Your body can look after itself just fine, on a properly balanced animal-free diet.
Okay, so what were my levels then? Some basic info about it first. According to the CSIRO, if your cholesterol levels are 6.5 mmol/L then your risk of heart attack is 4 times greater than someone whose levels are 4mmol/L. Approximately 50% of Australians have cholesterol levels greater than 5mmol/L, with 5.5 (around 200 mg/dL if you're American) considered the maximum "safe" level - although in this case, "safe" just means that your risk isn't as high as for those with higher levels, it doesn't actually mean that it's a good level to have. In basic terms, ANY dietary cholesterol is needlessly increasing your risk of heart disease and other disorders. And my cholesterol level? 2.5mmol/L (97mg/dL) - it really doesn't get much better (or lower) than that!
The great thing about cholesterol levels is that they will start to drop pretty much from the moment you stop consuming products that contain it. Remember, you don't need ANY cholesterol in your diet. So even if you've been a lifelong consumer of animal products, you will start to reverse some of the damaging effects of your diet from the very moment that you start to change it.
Anyway, that's probably MORE than enough for one day. I hope it is much clearer now that you really do NOT need to consume animal products in order to remain healthy, and that in fact removing animal products is one of the most effective steps towards improving your health. You certainly will not lack for any of your nutritional needs on a vegan diet, all you need to do is what you should do anyway: make sure it is well balanced with a good variety of different types of foods.
Animal free - good for you, good for the animals, good for the planet. Contrary to the myths and misunderstanding spread by meat-eaters (particularly the meat and dairy industry), switching to a vegan diet is probably one of the best things anyone could do for their health.
If you'd like to find out easily just what is in different types of food, check out http://www.nutritiondata.com You can look up pretty much any food, prepared in pretty much any way, and it shows you a comprehensive listing of nutritional values. A very handy resource for all of us, irrespective of dietary preferences.
My prompt to do this was getting some test results back from my doctor today. I've been meaning to go and get a proper checkup for a while, and last week finally got some blood tests done - checking for diabetes, cholesterol, iron/haemaglobin, and so on. Basically, if there was any dietary concerns at all with being vegan, these tests were going to show it. And I'm pleased (but not at all surprised) to be able to say that I could not be a better picture of health in ANY way - passed absolutely everything with flying colours, not even a passing concern for anything.
Iron is one of the big things. Meat-eaters swear that you MUST eat meat or you simply will not be able to get enough iron in your diet. Tell that to my body, lol. I eat a pretty reasonable diet that is 100% meat-free, and yet my haemaglobin level was 145 - right smack-bang in the middle of the accepted range, exactly where you'd want it. Nothing wrong there at all. If there was any "need" for meat in order to get enough iron, there is no way my results would have been so good. So how did I do it? It was pretty easy actually: I just eat a well-balanced diet in the first place! That's it, nothing special, no more to it than that. Plenty of leafy green vegetables, nuts, legumes, and so on - just half a handful of cashews, for one example, gives you 10% of your daily iron all on its own.
Calcium is the other big one. Everyone knows you MUST have lots of milk/dairy to get enough calcium so your bones are big and strong! Well, sorry, but everyone who thinks that is wrong. First of all, milk is actually a rather poor source of calcium in terms of what our bodies can actually extract - only about 25% of calcium in milk is absorbable, the rest is bound up in insoluble compounds and inaccessible to our bodies. In other words, that glass of milk that supposedly gives you 28% of your daily needs in fact only gives you 7%. And yet the dietary advice always refers to the total amount of calcium - I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks that such advice is misleading at best. That advice also ignores the very strong links between dairy consumption and osteoporosis - yes, that's right - dairy actually does more to weaken your bones than to strengthen them, and increases urinary excretion of calcium. The best way to get strong bones is weight-bearing exercise - and cutting down on dairy!
But how do you get enough calcium then? Again, those green leafy vegetables are a wonderful source, as well as nuts, seeds (sesame especially), etc. Ever tried tahini? Just 5g of tahini (as much as you'd use if you spread it thinly on a single slice of bread) contains around 29mg of calcium (tahini made from unhulled sesame seeds). And you don't have to use tahini as a spread, there are a multitude of excellent recipes in which you could use it. Again, you certainly do NOT need to consume animal products in order to meet your full nutritional needs.
So what were my calcium levels? Surely they'd be low if I'm not consuming any dairy/animal products at all? Quite the contrary, actually. My calcium level was 2.33mmol/L, which once again is smack-bang right in the middle of the range it should be in. I was never a big dairy consumer prior to becoming vegan, and obviously have cut it out altogether since then. And yet I have clearly had no trouble whatsoever in maintaining very healthy levels of calcium even so.
I've saved the best for last though, the one everyone always wants to know about: cholesterol. You do not actually need ANY cholesterol in your diet at all. Not even a microgram. Your body actually makes all the cholesterol it actually needs, and any dietary cholesterol is a bad idea - and yet, you cannot consume animal products without getting it anyway. Meat is particularly bad for cholesterol, but dairy isn't much better. Some people naturally make more than they should anyway, so adding dietary cholesterol is just making things even worse again in such cases. All of the fuss about adding good cholesterol to your diet is only because it is needed to balance the bad cholesterol present in animal products - take out the bad cholesterol, and you don't even need the good cholesterol either. Your body can look after itself just fine, on a properly balanced animal-free diet.
Okay, so what were my levels then? Some basic info about it first. According to the CSIRO, if your cholesterol levels are 6.5 mmol/L then your risk of heart attack is 4 times greater than someone whose levels are 4mmol/L. Approximately 50% of Australians have cholesterol levels greater than 5mmol/L, with 5.5 (around 200 mg/dL if you're American) considered the maximum "safe" level - although in this case, "safe" just means that your risk isn't as high as for those with higher levels, it doesn't actually mean that it's a good level to have. In basic terms, ANY dietary cholesterol is needlessly increasing your risk of heart disease and other disorders. And my cholesterol level? 2.5mmol/L (97mg/dL) - it really doesn't get much better (or lower) than that!
The great thing about cholesterol levels is that they will start to drop pretty much from the moment you stop consuming products that contain it. Remember, you don't need ANY cholesterol in your diet. So even if you've been a lifelong consumer of animal products, you will start to reverse some of the damaging effects of your diet from the very moment that you start to change it.
Anyway, that's probably MORE than enough for one day. I hope it is much clearer now that you really do NOT need to consume animal products in order to remain healthy, and that in fact removing animal products is one of the most effective steps towards improving your health. You certainly will not lack for any of your nutritional needs on a vegan diet, all you need to do is what you should do anyway: make sure it is well balanced with a good variety of different types of foods.
Animal free - good for you, good for the animals, good for the planet. Contrary to the myths and misunderstanding spread by meat-eaters (particularly the meat and dairy industry), switching to a vegan diet is probably one of the best things anyone could do for their health.
If you'd like to find out easily just what is in different types of food, check out http://www.nutritiondata.com You can look up pretty much any food, prepared in pretty much any way, and it shows you a comprehensive listing of nutritional values. A very handy resource for all of us, irrespective of dietary preferences.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
But aren't things different in Australia?
Some people say "yeah, that's pretty rough, but things are better here in Australia aren't they? We don't really need to worry about stuff like that here".
Firstly, let me point out that I'm not writing this just for people in Australia. I'm writing this for people everywhere, so issues anywhere are fair game in that respect. But I'm not interested in just picking out the worst abuses and trying to make out it happens that way everywhere, because we all know it does not. Keep in mind that in a world of global trade, even if your own country is pretty good, that's no guarantee that products on your supermarket shelves haven't still come from somewhere that has major problems. More on this issue later.
The US in particular is almost a poster-child for worst-practice when it comes to animal abuse issues on farms, as well as environmental destruction/mismanagement. But that doesn't mean they're on their own. Australian feedlots may well be required to operate to a higher environmental standard than in the US, and may have tighter restrictions on feeding animal waste to other animals, but we're still just as bad in terms of problems such giving our livestock toxic food in the form of grains, which is a core practice here as well. Australian feedlots supply 40-50% of the meat you'll find in your supermarket, so don't kid yourself by thinking that we aren't setting ourselves up for problems too, and that we don't have a wide range of abuses that are accepted standard industry practice.
One thing in particular that I'll have more to say about later is mulesing, and that's something that Australia almost seems to be proud of. But will you still feel that way when you know what mulesing really is and how it's really done here? Firstly, sheep are very much unsuited to the Australian climate and environment to be begin with, so we've got environmental issues already on that score. But there are significant health and welfare problems too. Our merino sheep have been selectively bred to have more folds of flesh, so they will produce more wool - but this includes folds all over their bodies, including around their buttocks. Flies are attracted to the faeces and urine that sticks to the wool, and flystrike can result - a frequently fatal, and always excrutiating, affliction. And here's the problem: flystrike can be treated and avoided quite simply by proper management techniques, and the industry doesn't deny this. However, it costs money to do so, and they decided that a better option was (without using ANY anaesthetic at all) to cut off half the sheep's arse (and occasionally part of the vagina also by accident) and then just leave them to heal and get over it on their own. That's mulesing. They don't do it for animal welfare, they do it for economics, because they make more money if production costs are lower. Can you honestly say that such practices are acceptable when they aren't even necessary in the first place? I certainly can't.
Firstly, let me point out that I'm not writing this just for people in Australia. I'm writing this for people everywhere, so issues anywhere are fair game in that respect. But I'm not interested in just picking out the worst abuses and trying to make out it happens that way everywhere, because we all know it does not. Keep in mind that in a world of global trade, even if your own country is pretty good, that's no guarantee that products on your supermarket shelves haven't still come from somewhere that has major problems. More on this issue later.
The US in particular is almost a poster-child for worst-practice when it comes to animal abuse issues on farms, as well as environmental destruction/mismanagement. But that doesn't mean they're on their own. Australian feedlots may well be required to operate to a higher environmental standard than in the US, and may have tighter restrictions on feeding animal waste to other animals, but we're still just as bad in terms of problems such giving our livestock toxic food in the form of grains, which is a core practice here as well. Australian feedlots supply 40-50% of the meat you'll find in your supermarket, so don't kid yourself by thinking that we aren't setting ourselves up for problems too, and that we don't have a wide range of abuses that are accepted standard industry practice.
One thing in particular that I'll have more to say about later is mulesing, and that's something that Australia almost seems to be proud of. But will you still feel that way when you know what mulesing really is and how it's really done here? Firstly, sheep are very much unsuited to the Australian climate and environment to be begin with, so we've got environmental issues already on that score. But there are significant health and welfare problems too. Our merino sheep have been selectively bred to have more folds of flesh, so they will produce more wool - but this includes folds all over their bodies, including around their buttocks. Flies are attracted to the faeces and urine that sticks to the wool, and flystrike can result - a frequently fatal, and always excrutiating, affliction. And here's the problem: flystrike can be treated and avoided quite simply by proper management techniques, and the industry doesn't deny this. However, it costs money to do so, and they decided that a better option was (without using ANY anaesthetic at all) to cut off half the sheep's arse (and occasionally part of the vagina also by accident) and then just leave them to heal and get over it on their own. That's mulesing. They don't do it for animal welfare, they do it for economics, because they make more money if production costs are lower. Can you honestly say that such practices are acceptable when they aren't even necessary in the first place? I certainly can't.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Farmers doing it tough
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22486693-2,00.html
It seems the drought is really making life tough for farmers at the moment. In the above article "Egg, milk, pork and meat producers have complained that higher grain prices were hitting them particularly hard as they were forced to pay more for livestock feed." Sounds pretty bad at first, but lets take a look at one point they don't mention.
Everyone has heard about the antibiotics that are fed to cattle, and some of the concerns about the impact this has on their efficacy in humans. But it's all for the good of the cows, right? If only. It is only because cattle are kept in such unsanitary conditions on feedlots, and that they are fed grains, that they get as sick and diseased as they do. Rather than helping keep the cattle well, in many instances the antibiotics are simply keeping the cattle alive long enough to reach slaughter weight.
But why is grain such a problem for cattle? Surely they can eat it no worries, after all, grains are good for you, right? Well yes, provided you're a human or other animal with a digestive system designed to handle it. But cattle are not. They are ruminant animals, with a vastly different digestive system altogether, intended for grass and not a whole lot more. What happens to them then, if they eat grain? Well, one of the worst problems is a condition called "feedlot bloat", which can actually suffocate them if not treated properly - but they wouldn't get it at all if not for being fed an unnatural grain-based diet. And that's only one of many health problems directly caused by this diet.
In countries like the US (and this applied to Australia also until mad cow scare), cattle are also fed meat remnants, restaurant leftovers (including assorted animal parts), fecal matter, dead chickens, chicken feathers, and spilled feed (which can include beef and bone meal). In other words, farmers are taking a 100% herbivorous animal that should only be eating grass, and forcing it to eat grains supplemented by other animals - including cattle. Does this really sound like the sort of thing we should be doing, or allowing to happen anywhere? Mad cow disease is essentially a disease that we, the people who farm them, have wilfully inflicted upon cattle for no good reason at all, to the suffering of all - mad cow disease has killed people too, and it is unfortunate that it took the deaths of people before any action was ever taken to address a problem that would never have arisen had cattle been treated humanely and fed properly in the first place.
And that's really only a very small aspect of the problems and cruelty inherent in feedlot operations. Environmentally, it is as bad if not worse, when you consider such facts as the need for 60,000-100,000 litres of water to produce 1 kilo of beef, or the 17 kilo of grain to produce that same kilo. In a world with so many people going hungry, and so many places devastated by severe water shortage and drought - including many parts of Australia - does this again seem like a very wise use of scarce natural resources? More on this later.
Read "The Ethics of What We Eat", by Peter Singer and Jim Mason, for a more detailed review of feedlot operations among other aspects of food production. It's not about being vegan, just about how our food is produced, and makes an interesting read no matter your perspective or dietary preference.
It seems the drought is really making life tough for farmers at the moment. In the above article "Egg, milk, pork and meat producers have complained that higher grain prices were hitting them particularly hard as they were forced to pay more for livestock feed." Sounds pretty bad at first, but lets take a look at one point they don't mention.
Everyone has heard about the antibiotics that are fed to cattle, and some of the concerns about the impact this has on their efficacy in humans. But it's all for the good of the cows, right? If only. It is only because cattle are kept in such unsanitary conditions on feedlots, and that they are fed grains, that they get as sick and diseased as they do. Rather than helping keep the cattle well, in many instances the antibiotics are simply keeping the cattle alive long enough to reach slaughter weight.
But why is grain such a problem for cattle? Surely they can eat it no worries, after all, grains are good for you, right? Well yes, provided you're a human or other animal with a digestive system designed to handle it. But cattle are not. They are ruminant animals, with a vastly different digestive system altogether, intended for grass and not a whole lot more. What happens to them then, if they eat grain? Well, one of the worst problems is a condition called "feedlot bloat", which can actually suffocate them if not treated properly - but they wouldn't get it at all if not for being fed an unnatural grain-based diet. And that's only one of many health problems directly caused by this diet.
In countries like the US (and this applied to Australia also until mad cow scare), cattle are also fed meat remnants, restaurant leftovers (including assorted animal parts), fecal matter, dead chickens, chicken feathers, and spilled feed (which can include beef and bone meal). In other words, farmers are taking a 100% herbivorous animal that should only be eating grass, and forcing it to eat grains supplemented by other animals - including cattle. Does this really sound like the sort of thing we should be doing, or allowing to happen anywhere? Mad cow disease is essentially a disease that we, the people who farm them, have wilfully inflicted upon cattle for no good reason at all, to the suffering of all - mad cow disease has killed people too, and it is unfortunate that it took the deaths of people before any action was ever taken to address a problem that would never have arisen had cattle been treated humanely and fed properly in the first place.
And that's really only a very small aspect of the problems and cruelty inherent in feedlot operations. Environmentally, it is as bad if not worse, when you consider such facts as the need for 60,000-100,000 litres of water to produce 1 kilo of beef, or the 17 kilo of grain to produce that same kilo. In a world with so many people going hungry, and so many places devastated by severe water shortage and drought - including many parts of Australia - does this again seem like a very wise use of scarce natural resources? More on this later.
Read "The Ethics of What We Eat", by Peter Singer and Jim Mason, for a more detailed review of feedlot operations among other aspects of food production. It's not about being vegan, just about how our food is produced, and makes an interesting read no matter your perspective or dietary preference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
