Meat & Protein: Dispelling the Myths

[bhaktajan 0]

Meat & Protein: Dispelling the Myths - Part 1

Transcript of Gary Null's Radio Show

( http://www.gnhealth.com/articles/whichArticle.php?article=86 )

<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<st1:place w:st="on">GARY</st1:place></st1:City> NULL: I'd like to welcome you to this program. Today part one of an original in depth investigative report: Meat, Protein, and Unraveling the Myths. Most people claim that we live in a violent world, but they are not violent. Do you believe that there is a violence connected to things that we are not directly imparting to another person or an animal? Let me give you an example.

 

Does that make you violent if what you're doing or consuming was in itself violence against another? Imagine for a moment being hung up and unable to move because your body has been paralyzed by an electric shock. Then while you're still conscious your throat is cut. This is how 15 million pigs die each year along with the other cattle that are over 214 million. Now you may not be concerned about pigs because of the stereotypes that we carry around with us, but pigs are intelligent. They're sensitive and highly social animals. They are functionally equivalent to human infants in both intelligence and capacity to suffer.

Before pigs have their throats slit, it's called sticking. They are stunned electrically by placing tongs on either side of the neck behind their ears, but in most cases the stunning is inadequate because they're not held in place for long enough or they're incorrectly placed. The voltages used are insufficient so many pigs remain fully conscious during the bleeding out or even before throat slitting.

 

Thus the animal dies an agonized and terrified death. Tries to escape. Is frequently beaten, kicked, punched, hammered until it finally falls into submission. Still conscious and still aware that it's being killed. Now the question is add into that equation - that's just one - one pig - how about 214 million cattle and calves, 615 million hogs, 377 million lambs and sheep, 128 million goats, nine million horses, 19 million metric tons of birds. That's how many animals are killed in the world in a single recent year.

In the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region> alone 140 million cows, calves, sheep, lambs, and pigs and three and a half billion chickens and turkeys are slaughtered every year. In the 70-year lifetime, the average American eats 11 cows, one calf, three lambs, 23 hogs, 45 turkeys, and 1,097 chickens, and 861 pounds of fish. Some would say that the wanton slaughter of animals in such large numbers gives us an idea just about how violent our world is and specifically people who consume that are.

 

That is what we have become. We have very little regard for life unless it's our own. Many people that eat meat probably profess to like animals, but believe that if it were really possible to prove that they could have a healthy body without having meat there surely would be more incentive to do so. They kind of look at vegetarians and say well. I'm not sure that that is scientifically based. As a result, they don't make the change.

Can they really like animals though knowing the suffering and pain inflicted on them by their chosen dietary habits? Or do we care? When we sit at a restaurant and have a veal Parmesan we don't look at the little calf that's been taken from its mother. Put 24 hours a day in a tiny little iron and concrete cage with no room to turn around and intentionally creating anemia to create a white flesh.

 

So the person who gets it at their dinner table says I like the way that looks. I like the way it tastes. But walk down one of the veal rows as I have and put out your hand and all they do is come over wanting to lick your hand, suckle your finger. They have been taken away before they were even weaned. They still have a desire to be with their mothers, and that's what we're eating.

Now here's a question. Is there an ethic? Is there a moral responsibility to ask more questions and become more involved to see if we have been for too long consuming these animals with the idea that it's the best or only primary source of complete protein? This program is going to delve in great depth into the entire industry into all the different aspects of why we're eating.

 

Can we be healthy without eating meat or animal proteins at all? How can we redefine a true reverence for life, all life? When we examine the food sources how big a problem is world hunger because of our consumption of our meat? There is a connection. The protein myths will be explored in some depth.

In July of 2002 Olivia Rodriguez fidgeted as the monitors at the head of her bed beeped and tubes fed into her arms. She had eaten a meatball, but the meatball was made with ground beef contaminated with E. coli, O157H7, and it was torturing little Olivia's insides. Many others suffered from eating meat that might have come from the same place. One hallucinated that flies were coming through the walls.

 

Another little boy collapsed onto a bathroom floor a blood filled toilet nearby. He screamed in pain all the way to Presbyterian St. Luke's <ST1:PMedical Center in <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Denver</st1:place></st1:City>. Doctors told his parents that Alex nearly died because his platelet count was so dangerously low. "It was almost surreal. It was so awful. You can't even fathom that a little four year old could die because he ate a hamburger," said his father. A recall of 354,000 pounds of contaminated meat from Con Agra Plant in <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Greeley</st1:place></st1:City> came too late. Like most recalls across the country much of the meat had already been eaten.

Gail Eisnitz was recently the author of a book entitled "Slaughterhouse," which promoted the following remarks in a review by Lawrence Carter Long for The Animal Protection Institute. "'A book must be the axe for the frozen sea within us.' That was from Franz Kafka decades ago. A line that could serve just as well as the book jacket and endorsement for Gail's Slaughterhouse book. Her expose of the meat industry shocks us into realizing the horror that exists largely unseen around us, and helps us realize that the impact of the meat industry is felt everywhere from elementary classrooms to government offices to feed lots to courtrooms.

 

The E. coli deaths recently in the news substantiate the evidence of her documents. Can anyone least of all meat eaters still believe that the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region> has an adequate meat inspection system?" Through anecdotes and interviews with USDA inspectors, slaughterhouse workers, undercover investigators, and other industry insiders we have seen there are disturbing indifferences displayed by the meat industry not only toward animal suffering, but also toward the exploitation of its human workers and toward a product that puts its customers at risk through exposing it to life threatening bacteria. Emotional where it needs to be Slaughterhouse is a thoroughly researched and powerfully damning indictment."

One that I would certainly suggest people read, and then go way back. Go to the library and pull out Upton Sinclair's book written in 1906 called "The Jungle." You want to turn your stomach. You want to see what inspired some improved laws to govern the meat industry, but woefully inadequate for what we have today. On January 17, 1961 in his farewell speech to the nation, President Eisenhower warned of the destructive potential of the eminent military industrial complex.

 

As the '60s unfolded his prophecy materialized as a gigantic arms dealing and war making corporation, which killed thousands of American's youth and millions of citizens in <st1:place w:st="on">Southeast Asia</st1:place>. It has taken decades for Americans to begin to acknowledge the direct havoc on our nation and the sizable portion of the planet's been adversely affected.

Ten years after Eisenhower proved precedent another warning slipped on to the public radar. A small voice from vegetarians and ecologists pointed to the new meat industrial complex as a formidable national threat. Accused it of feeding human greed by killing living beings and destroying their environment. However unlike its predecessor this complex did not wait for wars or other diplomatic failures. Driven by grain surpluses, government subsidies, deceptive promotional practices and consumer apathy it carried out its deadly mission every minute of every day of every year. Butchering nine billion cows, pigs, turkeys, chickens, and other innocent animals for human consumption.

It ignored the gathering scientific evidence that linked heart failure, cancer, stroke, and other chronic diseases to the consumption of these animals. It had no inkling of the absurd scenario where millions of other animals were abused and sacrificed in a vain search for a magic pill that would relieve its customers of largely self-inflicted diseases. As the decades passed since the '70s we have begun to recognize that the meat industrial complex poisons the lands and waters with pesticides, fertilizers, and other toxic substances. It depletes irreplaceable topsoil, ground water, and other critical food production resources. It wipes out forests and decimates wildlife in its habitats.

Let's take a look at the genesis of the meat industrial complex and its protein theories. The meat industrial complex remains what the phrase suggests: a power, a leviathan that seems impervious to public concerns and constraints. So perhaps we should retrace the evolution of this late 20th century plague to get our bearings on the lethal social menace. The popularity of meat and other animal proteins in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region> diet can be traced back to the early 1940's when the concept of complete and incomplete proteins was popularized.

 

You may even remember being taught this concept in health or science class where you were shown charts of meat and dairy products and eggs and told these were the good complete proteins. Usually the connotation being that complete is equal to what you should have. Then you were shown other foods like vegetables, grains, legumes, and fruits, which you were probably told were the incomplete or bad sources of protein. Now according to the original theory, complete proteins had all the essential eight amino acids in the right proportions while incomplete proteins lacked certain amino acids and did not have them in the right proportions.

This theory was music to the ears of the meat and dairy industry who did the original research from behind the scenes supporting all this myth to begin with. It was not long before their products alone began to be advertised in dietetic journals and on television as the right kind of protein. An advertisement for the Armour Beef Company in a 1949 issue of The Journal Of The American Dietetic Association states that fine beef is "a rich source of complete protein and various minerals essential to a normal blood picture and fuel supplying calories, and its satiety value and thorough digestibility make it an important addition to virtually every balanced diet."

 

Well that journal soon became chock full of various ads supporting the meat industry. The American Meat Institute of Chicago for example ran full-page ads resembling scientific reports of the kind usually found in medical journals. This was gearing up to get more meat into the stomach of more Americans. These ads tried to lend scientific credence to the idea that meat was the only great food. Another ad called "meat and the dietary fallacies in the public mind run by The American Meat Institute label the scientific findings on the connections between high dietary uric acid intake and degenerative diseases erroneous."

 

They assured the public that meat did not aggravate such disorders as gout, rheumatism, and hypertension; and furthermore they stated that high protein diets were not harmful. A 1948 ad still advertised meat as "Man's Preferred Complete Protein Food." It stated that, "meat provides protein of biological completeness requiring no protein supplementation from other sources. It instead enhances the nutrient value of the daily diet by supplementing incomplete protein foods to full biological activity."

[bhaktajan 0]

Poultry on the other hand was pushed as being "rich in protein and relatively low in calories." The message became clear. Eat meat or if you want to lose weight eat poultry. This kind of advertising was soon being done by other industries whose foods were protein rich. The Dairy Council for instance held milk as a high protein food especially necessary for children and teens.

 

A 1964 ad paid for by The National Dairy Council pictured carefree teenagers romping on the beach and read, "Teenage Nutrition Protein They Could Care Less." But not to worry. The Dairy Council added that as a prime source of readily available high quality protein milk is particularly well endowed to help meet the unique nutritional needs of teenagers.

 

The American Dietetic Association went so far as to endorse ice cream as a good source of protein. They recommended it particularly for different appetites: the convalescent and the elderly. Ice cream only contains 3.85 grams of protein per 100 grams, but it does contain 12 grams of saturated fat, which as we know can clog arteries.

The practice of biased and deceptive advertising by special interest groups still prevails today and even more so. A few years ago the pork industry ran a pro pork campaign. They promoted pork as the lean meat ideal for dieters. They also said that it is a great source of protein despite the fact that pork is high in saturated fat, high in cholesterol, and calories. These ads were seen on television and in magazines like The Journal of The American Dietetic Association.

 

This organization has helped to perpetuate the notion that meat and other animal products are the superior source of complete protein. What is startling about this so-called complete versus incomplete protein theory is that it remained intact and unchallenged for so many years. The proof is that it is wholly a lie. Completely and totally unfounded. No science to back it up. Animal products are only not our own source of protein and aside from the egg they are not even high quality sources of protein. I'll get to that when I talk about the egg project.

I was the one who, of course as a scientist at The Institute of Applied Biology, did the original first work in the ffice:smarttags" />United States to show that all non-animal foods are also complete proteins and contain all eight essential amino acids.

 

That work done originally in 1978 had difficulty getting published even though it was reviewed and supervised by Dr. Berman and Dr. Hilliard Fitzkee and others. It took 12 years before we could get anyone to publish it because just the concept that an entire nation - all of its scientists, all of its doctors, all of its nurses, all of its dieticians, hundreds of thousands of people had all been wrong in the advice given.

 

And then as a consequence tens of millions of Americans had been sickened and killed by misinformation. It could have been one of the reasons why it took 12 years after being proven repeatedly that there is no such thing as complete or incomplete comparing animal to non-animal. It was all a lie.

 

Even to this day the average dietician, the average physician, the average nurse will still tell you that your best sources of protein are your animal sources of protein. They are wrong. It will take up to 30 years if most scientific history is repeating itself here before the notion of what is good or bad about a particular area of science has changed. The facts are not on their side.

 

They still hold however to the old concept. Modern nutritionists, at least those who have broken from the pact, have abandoned the theory of complete and incomplete proteins, and now are evaluating proteins in terms of quality.

Quality is determined using a formula that evaluates the utilization of a protein. Meaning let's say of ten grams protein eaten. How much does a body actually utilize? How much does your cell take in? What amount of that is not utilized?

 

That's what important. It's called net protein utilization or NPU. It tells you how much you actually need in a day of the real good net protein. We also need to take the amino acid content and digestibility of the food into account when assessing it.

 

The highest quality proteins contain the most complete set of essential amino acids, and due to their ideal protein patterns they are utilized with maximum efficiency by the body. The digestibility of the protein containing food is also very important because we cannot thoroughly digest something if we are lacking in enzymes or hydrochloric acid. If we don't thoroughly digest it, then we can't utilize its protein.

So think of all the people who are convalescing who are ill and who have improper digestive symptoms, which is a lot of Americans. So when they do eat a hamburger or a hotdog or chicken because of how it's prepared. It's deep-frying. It's difficulty in digesting the amount of fat in it.

 

Those people only get a percentage of the protein in any case, but none of that is considered by the industries giving us the food. They just want us to crave it, and to eat it without any fear of consequence. That's a mistake.

 

While The American Dietetic Association still supports the old theories on protein originated by the meat, poultry, and dairy industries, biochemists and nutritionists from the US Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration support the more current view of protein.

 

According to the Food and <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<st1:place w:st=" /><st1:place w:st="on">Human </ST1:PNutrition </ST1:PInformation </ST1:PCenter,</st1:place> a division of the US Department of Agriculture, total protein refers to the amino acid composition of a food rather than its completeness.

 

For example animal sources have a higher quality of protein than most individual vegetarian or grain sources. However, the total protein figure for an animal product such as beef is not synonymous with its quality more accurately its net protein utilization. Simply put what matters when you're eating a protein is if it has all the amino acids in the right balance to sustain life, and whether these amino acids are going to be absorbed by you.

So with the exception of only a few foods almost all vegetable foods including fruits, grains, legumes, nuts and seeds contain the essential amino acids. Some of them contain very large amounts of these amino acids, and many have very high net protein utilizations. Meaning they contain these essential amino acids in the right proportion that your body needs.

 

There's no question that we need protein. Men need somewhere between 50 and 70 grams a day, and women between 30 and 50 grams a day depending upon what they're doing and if they're pregnant they're going to need more. Lactating more. High-level training more. Recovering from fever or cancer more. But for the average person that's about right. About nine-tenths of a gram per (inaudible) body weight a day.

 

However contrary to what you may have been led to believe, when you decide to obtain that protein it's important you ask yourself where am I getting the protein. It's a matter of personal choice and responsibility, and when I say that I mean this.

 

Today if I decide to have my protein I could have a hamburger or a pork chop or ham sandwich or fried chicken, but to do that I would also have to accept responsibility for the fact that in the eyes, in the heart and the mind of an innocent animal, an animal with intelligence, an animal that if you're around it as I have been you'll see that they are as friendly and smart as your dog and cat and frequently far more smarter.

 

That animal is going to suffer. That animal is going to die. Do I need to connect my life force with that animal's dead force? Not in my case.

Recently there was a report of a cow that was in line to be slaughtered.

 

If you've ever been - and I recently filmed and you'll see it on a documentary I'm doing on vegetarianism in the near future. You'll see a whole lot of cattle about 1,000 waiting to go into to be killed. The killing process is not pretty.

 

They are supposed to depending upon if everything goes right be able to kill them so the animal doesn't suffer. I've never seen an animal killed without it suffering. Never once. I defy anyone - anyone - to show me an animal that doesn't suffer.

More often than not the animal starts moving around. They see in front of them. They see the other animals being killed, and they try to get out of the confined little chute. They'll try to jump over it, and that's when the guy takes out this ball peen hammer and just starts whacking it in the head and knocks out its eyeball. Knocks out its teeth. It's bleeding.

 

It's screaming. Then two or three guys come and just hold its head down and just keep smashing it in the head until its finally knocked unconscious, and then they'll drag it and put a hook under it and hoist it up and start cutting off its skin. Then suddenly it becomes conscious again.

 

Now it's seeing its skin cut off. It's seeing its organs taking out. This can last a minute to a minute and a half while it's aware that it's being dissected.

So ask yourself okay. Have your hamburger. Kosher or not. But are you willing to be out there and killing the animal? If you're not willing to kill the animal and take the spiritual responsibility for taking that life, then what right do you have under any concept to do so? Well that's for each of us to determine our own way.

 

I'm just trying to make you aware. Holding a mirror up as painful as it may be. Think before you eat that next piece of flesh because that's what's going to happen. There must be the suffering, the violence. There must be the highly indiscriminate importation of pain before that animal becomes your meal.

 

In different cultures they have preferences for different animals.

In <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">France</st1:place></st1:country-region> for some reason they seem to love horsemeat. So horses are killed. The very same horses that Americans love and we have seven million horse owners. Over there it's just another form of protein. Other cultures it is monkeys.

 

They bring a monkey to a table. They open the table up after you've selected the monkey. Then they come and put a corkscrew in its head. Its body is below the table. Its head is in a little hole above the table so it can't get out. So it's watching you as the waiter comes over and puts a corkscrew in.

 

Takes off the top of its head. Now the brain itself doesn't have the pain. Cutting its scalp will cause it pain and it's frightened. It's highly intelligent. Then they start eating its brains and dipping it into sauce. The Chinese love to do that. Those in <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Bangkok</st1:place></st1:City> they certainly do it.

 

Then in <st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region>, <st1:country-region w:st="on">Korea</st1:country-region>, and in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Thailand</st1:place></st1:country-region> they'll eat puppies. The things that you love come out of box at Christmas time. Well to them that's lunch. Some other countries they eat other things. But all around the world people who have this idea that there is no moral responsibility for this. But then again they're not the ones suffering.

 

So let's take a look at beyond that suffering and beyond the responsibility for that all with the idea that we're getting our protein by an industry that has lied, manipulated. That has used its advertising power to keep the mainstream media from wanting to even see is it true or not.

 

There are other things that we should be concerned with. Let's start with antibiotics. Those meat lovers who discount the arguments over the protein qualities in meat there's a more sinister problem. Meat is also one of the most chemically treated foods in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> diet.

 

Currently some 20 to 30 thousand different drugs are administered to animals. Of these it is known that 4,000 may be transferred to the human population be it the dairy, the egg, the meat, or the cheese.

Most of these drugs because they are initially administered to animals and not humans do not require FDA approval. Even those drugs that are FDA approved are not safe. Antibiotics are perhaps the most widely used and abused of these drugs, and since they were first introduced into animal feed in 1949 the use of antibiotics has grown from 490,000 pounds in 1954 to 1.2 million pounds in 1960. Today it's nine million pounds.

 

The cost of these additives exceeds 300 million dollars annually. These antibiotics are primarily administered to stave off disease that would otherwise be rampant in the closed, highly unsanitary conditions in which meat animals are forced to live.

They are fed to veal because these calves are purposely made anemic by iron deprivation in order to yield the white pale meat preferred by many chefs. In this anemic condition the calves are prey to many sorts of infections.

 

Now these highly level of antibiotics have numerous side effects on the people who eat these animals.

 

First of all a bacteria becomes resistant to antibiotics very quickly. It's now recognized that these resistant strains of bacteria can be passed from animal to man, and that they may not be treatable by other antibiotics.

 

Second the antibiotics themselves remain in the animal flesh after it has been slaughtered, and then passed on to the consumer. Over time these drug resistant residues can build up and make your own body resistant to antibiotics when you really need them.

 

So when you need an antibiotic it's not working. Third people who are allergic to antibiotics fed to the animal may suffer from very serious adverse reactions when eating meats full of the drug residues. Just complete that one thought I just realized I didn't complete.

So anyhow on this one feedlot one of the cows was so frightened by what it saw of the cow in front of it being slaughtered that it managed rather miraculously so to jump over a five foot retaining wall and hit the ground well below it. Got up and tried to find a door. Ran out a door. Ran out through a lot. Ran across the street. Jumped over a fence and ran out and hid in a thicket. They searched around. Couldn't find the cow.

 

The cow wouldn't move. The cow was hiding. Now think of it. Hiding from what it knew would be its own death. When this got out on the news, and when they found the cow and of course were going to kill it again that's when Peter Max, a unique and very special artist and humanist called and said I'll buy the cow.

 

Well that cow was probably worth about $700, but they charged him I believe $30,000. Exploited the situation, but Peter paid it. Now that cow is living on a farm upstate.

 

One cow saved by one person who really showed his heart. But in the time of a blink of an eye there are another 5,000 cows that don't have that opportunity to be saved.

[bhaktajan 0]

There are other drugs that are widely used on these animals including hormones to regulate breeding, to tranquilize, and to promote weight gain. Now these synthetic hormones can and do cause cancer in the animals given the drugs, which in most cases does not affect the marketability of the meat. So the fact that a cow can have cancer doesn't mean they're going to condemn the cow.

 

They figure just cut out the cancer as if cancer were merely a localized condition, which it is not. It's systemic. We do not yet know the degree to which cancer is viral in its origins, but recent studies have found viruses to be responsible for some cancers. So apart from the unappetizing aspect of eating cancerous meat this meat may actually be the vehicle for cancer viruses to enter our body.

Additionally the residues of estrogen one of the hormones commonly fed to these animals may also increase women's chances of contracting uterine and breast cancer. Also children exposed to estrogen may enter puberty prematurely. Androgen, a growth-promoting hormone, may cause liver cancer. Diethylstibestrol (?) hormone, which was banned for human use in 1960's, remained in use in animals until 1979.

 

Other drugs which are used are Ralgrow, an estrogen like compound; Synovax a naturally occurring hormone which affects weight gain and Lutalyse, a prostaglandin often given to an entire herd so that they will ovulate at the same time. Now this drug can affect the menstrual cycle of women. It can also cause pregnant women to miscarry.

 

Cattle are also commonly and frequently sprayed with pesticides such as Vapona, which is in the same family as nerve gas. This is the same chemical used on the no pest strips, and it's considered so toxic that The World Health Organization set the daily allowable limit at .004 milligrams per kilogram. You could exceed this limit by merely staying indoors with one of these strips for nine hours.

Unfortunately meat is not the only product, which is filled with chemicals. The chemicals fed to milk cows or are sprayed on them are passed into their milk. Chickens are given the same assortment of drugs that beef cattle are given, which in turn shows up in eggs. Chickens are given additional drugs to promote shell hardness and uniformity of yolks in their eggs. So actually the complete protein found in meat, eggs, poultry, fish and milk can be associated with saturated fat, elevated cholesterol, nitrates, hormones, pesticides, herbicide residues, antibiotics, preservatives, and countless additives.

 

Therefore animal proteins can be worse for you by far than vegetable protein even though the meat industry would have you think otherwise. Unfortunately the ffice:smarttags" /><?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> population is towing the meat industry line. On average the individuals in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region> eat about 200 pounds of red meat and 50 pounds of chicken and turkey and 10 pounds of assorted fish and 300 eggs and 250 pounds of various dairy products per year per person.

 

Now consider that that takes into account every single American citizen. I eat none of the above. Babies don't eat any of that. Many senior citizens and vegetarians don't eat that, which means that the people really eating these are eating a lot more.

In December of 2002, a hopeful development occurred in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Denmark</st1:place></st1:country-region> where the results of a ban on antibiotic use in animal feed since 1995 was released by Professor Heinrich Wagner of The Danish Veterinary Institute. It was found that using antibiotics as growth hormones did not boost farm productivity as much as good animal husbandry, which has the added benefit of reducing antibiotic resistance.

 

In a previous landmark study in the early '90s, the professor and his colleagues discovered that bacteria in the animal gut were developing strong resistance to antibiotics. These resistant bacteria were then finding their way into the human population causing infections in hospitals that did not respond to antibiotics and becoming difficult to treat.

 

That research led to a voluntary ban on the use of antibiotic feed in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Denmark</st1:place></st1:country-region>. Now during the phase out between 1995 and 2000 the agriculture use of antibiotics fell from 210 tons to 96 tons per year. The researchers found that this was followed by a large drop in the incidence of antibiotic resistant bacteria in animals. One strain of resistant bacteria dropped from 80 percent of poultry and 20 percent in pigs to just three percent in both species.

Because of these dramatic results, Europe is now considering following <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Denmark</st1:place></st1:country-region>'s lead. A meeting of the European Union Agriculture Ministries for later this year will decide whether or not to ban the use of antibiotics in animal feed all together. Meanwhile in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region> antibiotics are a big business when it comes to raising animals. Over one-half of the nation's annual antibiotic production goes to livestock and poultry.

 

Antibiotics for livestock and poultry account for 800 million dollars in annual sales in the major nations of the worlds, and the figure is expected to rise steadily as is the number of medical feed additives now figured to be around 50.

 

The massive wealth being accumulated as a result of this brisk and flourishing enterprise has benefited only a few major companies though. Nearly three-quarters of the feed additive sales in the <st1:place w:st="on"><st1:country-region w:st="on">United States</st1:country-region></st1:place> is generated by only three companies: Eli Lilly, American CytoMed, and Pfizer.

[bhaktajan 0]

Let's take a look at the meat inspection. Most people believe that everything they eat has been inspected and therefore must be safe. These are the pillars of the meat industrial complex. They have the clout to prevent proper inspection of their slaughterhouses. For example The US Department of Agriculture was opposed to the passage of the Humane Slaughter Act, but was nevertheless made responsible for its enforcement.

 

However while the intentional violation of the Meat Federal Inspection Act carry stiff fines and imprisonment violations of the Human Slaughter Act carry no penalties at all. When inspectors observe violations of the Humane Slaughter Act they're required to stop the slaughter process until violations are corrected. The threat of these stoppages is supposed to assure an industry compliance with the law since downtime can result in fewer profits for the day. But the inspectors are prevented from properly observing the plants. How so?

 

Well the General Accounting Project's Tom Devine says, "Inspectors who have attempted to stop the production line of a slaughter have been reprimanded, resigned, reassigned, physically attacked by plant employees, and then disciplined for being in fights. Had their performance appraisals lowered. Been placed under criminal investigation. Fired or being subjected to other forms of retaliation that were necessary to neutralize them."

Another fact is - I'll quote from this. "Inspectors are required to enforce humane regulations on paper only. Very seldom do they ever go into that area and actually enforce humane handling in slaughter." They can't. They're not allowed to because the inspectors' stations are at the beginning and end of the line, and they aren't allowed to leave their stations. "I'd go to the office," says one man. "I'd go to OSHA, Occupational And Safety Health Administration. I'd say look. You got live hogs here. Number one. People are getting cut. Number two. It's cruel.

 

Meaning living hogs. Those are hogs that weren't anesthetized so they're being butchered alive. No one would take action. I was also the safety representative for the union, and I got lots of complaints about it." Another person says, "They make sure everything is by the book when anybody official visits. Whenever OSHA comes to check on things the stick pit where animals are bled out runs like a jewel.

 

As soon as they're gone it's back to business as usual." Another person, "I asked Mike why the union hadn't brought the humane violations to the USDA's attention. Neither he nor the other local union officials were aware that USDA had any enforcement authority regarding the humane treatment of livestock or that there was a Humane Slaughter Act. No one knew." This was the union representing the people who were doing the slaughtering.

What are these inspectors? These were all meat inspectors I just mentioned. Federal inspectors. Well why didn't they get their report out to the public? Here's what an inspector says. There's no way these animals can bleed out in a few minutes. It takes up to that time just to get them up the ramp. By the time they hit the scalding tank they're still fully conscious and squealing, and then they're dumped into boiling hot water. Now you've got them cut, bleeding, and bruised bad.

 

They're thrown into a tank of scalding hot water and they try to get out of it. It could take 15 minutes of them trying to get out of it all the while their body and their skin is peeling off from being boiled." Another says, "Bad sticks when the person who is supposed to be hitting the right vein in the animal's neck sends the blood flowing from the animal's body misses the vein, which is easy. Usually you don't have enough time to bleed out. What do they do? They just take this bleeding animal fully conscious and they drown them by holding them under water in a scalding tank."

Think of that for a moment. Think of that the next time you have your regular kosher piece of meat. That animal could have been intentionally drowned in scalding boiling water fully conscious. Do you have a responsibility for the meat that you eat? Then go and drown a screaming terrified cow or pig, and while you're holding it under water and you're looking in its eyes and you're watching it gasp for breath and air. It's 400 degrees. You watch its skin bubbling up. It may take two or three minutes.

 

Ask yourself is your belief so strong that you could kill without any thought of any consequence. Some people no problem at all. Other people they'd have to think about that. Still other people are repulsed by the concept. If you're repulsed by the concept of the vast majority of animals - the vast majority - suffering this way before you have them on your plate, then you should be equally repulsed by your own lack of conviction of pushing it away. Unless you're willing to kill it and take the moral responsibility for killing it, what right do you have to eat it?

"Animal abuse is so common that workers who've been in the industry for years get into a state of apathy about it. After a while it doesn't seem unusual anymore. In the wintertime they are always hogs stuck to the sides of the floor freezing on the floors of the truck. They go in there with wires and knives and just cut the skin off and pry the hogs loose with crowbars. The skins pull right off. These hogs were alive when they did this. Animal abuse is so commonplace nobody even thinks about it anymore." That's from an inspector.

Another inspector, "One time the knocking gun was broke all day. They were taking a knife and cutting the back of the cow's neck open while he's still standing up. They would just fall down and be shaking, and they then just start stabbing the cow in the butt to try to make him move. They'd break their tails. They'd beat them badly. I've drugged cows until they're bones start breaking while they're still alive." And another one, "Bringing them around the corner they'd get stuck in the doorway. Just pull them until their hide ripped off until the blood just dripped on the steel and concrete. Breaking their legs pulling them in. The cow was crying with its tongue stuck out. They'd pull him until his neck just popped off."

"Dragging cattle with a chain and forklift is standard practice at the plant," explained a long-term inspector at a large beef operation in <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<st1:place w:st="on">Nebraska</st1:place></st1:State>. He says, "And that's even after the forklift operator rolled over and crushed the head of one cow while dragging another. They go through the skinning process alive. They'd actually be living. Conscious and being skinned alive.

 

I saw that myself a bunch of times. I found them alive clear over to the rump stand. And that's happened in every plant. I've worked in four large ones and a bunch of small ones. They're all the same. Everybody gets so used to it that it doesn't mean anything. Workers drag cripples with a garden tractor and a chain crunching their bones."

I'm Gary Null. Part one of my in depth investigative report on meat and protein. For those of you who have not eaten meat, but you eat chicken consider the following. Science studies of market ready chickens found that campylobacter, which is a very serious bacterium, on up to 82 percent of chickens. In a survey of 50 brand name broilers in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Georgia</st1:place></st1:country-region>, government researchers found 90 percent contaminated with campylobacter. Even Food Safety Review, the USDA's own publication, reported "heavily contaminated flocks may result in a contamination rate of 100 percent for finished products."

 

Again, even with chlorine and other so-called improvements in place for sanitation, the campylobacter was found on up to 100 percent of the chickens coming out of the chill tank. A <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">US</st1:place></st1:country-region> inspection report highlights this impotency (?). "Anyone reading this may wonder why the inspectors didn't do something to stop the problems. The leadership at The Department of Agriculture wouldn't let us. We used to stop production for hours if necessary to get the facility cleaned up. But by the time I left anyone who tried to do that would have to find another job."

Let's take a look at the meat industrial complex today. If we recognize the complicity of the meat industrial complex and the creation of these threats to the lives of the meat consumers we have to take a look then at Tom Devine. At GAP, he told the following: "The very same officials who are charged with promoting the sale of agricultural products are also supposed to protect the consumers from filth and unscrupulous practices."

 

As a result of the USDA's duplicitous mandate and its primary focus on marketing, the department's ranks have long been filled with industry leaders meaning the meat and chicken industry leaders how have demonstrated their abilities at increasing industry profits. In fact as far back as 1983 author Kathleen Hughes wrote "Return To The Jungle," an expose of the collusion and the partnership between the Reagan Administration and the meat industry.

By that time Ronald Reagan had already appointed three agribusiness leaders to head up the USDA.

 

The Secretary of Agriculture was John Block, a corporate hog producer from <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Illinois</st1:place></st1:State>. The Assistant Secretary later to be Secretary of Agriculture was Richard Line, President of The American Meat Institute. The Assistant Secretary for Marketing and Inspection Services was William McMillan, a former meatpacking executive and Vice President of The National Cattlemen's Association.

 

In May of 1989 Joanne Smith was appointed Secretary Treasurer of Agriculture for Marketing and Inspection Services. She was a cattle rancher and previous President of the National Cattlemen's Association and previous Chair of The Beef Board, a public relations organ for the beef industry. Now she was the enforcer, and the trend continued into the '90s.

Don Tyson, Senior Chairman of the Board of Tyson Foods of Arkansas, the world's largest poultry processor and one of the nation's leading seafood and pork producers maintains close ties to the White House. In addition to being a long time <st1:City w:st="on">Clinton</st1:City> friend, Tyson was also the second largest contributor to a $220,000 fund that <st1:City w:st="on">Clinton</st1:City> used to pursue his <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Arkansas</st1:place></st1:State> political agenda. A Mr. Frielander (sp?), a USDA insider said that 14 former USDA executives he personally knew had recently moved directly into industry jobs.

 

Not just vets he explained. Training officers. Area supervisors. Regional directors. Agency administrators. <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Washington</st1:place></st1:State> staff officers. Not only does the meat industry control the government bureaucracy at the top, but also now we have the hazardous analyst critical control point, which turns over regulation to the plants themselves. Plant workers now with no whistle blower protection at all are replacing federal workers on the line. Could the meat industry finally be trusted with corporate self-inspection? Not on your life, and yet that's exactly what has happened.

We have seen whistle blower files documenting the type of products some of the nation's largest meat and poultry plants have tried to slip into human food channels in 1995 and '96. Red meat animals and poultry that were dead on arrival at the plants were hidden from inspectors and hung up to be butchered. Several heads of from cancer eye cattle were switched to smaller carcasses before inspection so less meat would be condemned. Up to 25 percent of slaughtered chicken on the inspection line was covered with feces and bile and ingesta.

 

In one enforcement action at a single facility, inspectors retained six tons of ground pork with rust, which was bound for a school lunch program in <st1:State w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Indiana</st1:place></st1:State>. Fourteen thousand pounds of chicken speckled with metal flakes. Five thousand pounds of rancid chicken necks and 721 pounds of green chicken that made employees gag from the smell.

Despite the fact the federal agency employees had documented the sell of nearly two million pounds of tainted food, USDA was allowing the sale (?) buterol treated calves to be sold to the American public. Instead of altering this and alerting consumers to the widespread use of these chemicals, the investigating agencies trying to protect the veal industry from what its members stated could be potential ruin initiated a major news blackout. When meat inspectors work for the government they yielded appraisals such as the company employees told us that rats were all over the coolers at night running on top of meat and gnawing on it.

 

We saw fecal contamination get through one to one foot smears as well as flukes, which are liver parasites. Grubs, worm-like fly larvae that burrow into the cow's skin and work their way through the animal's body. Abscesses, which are encapsulated infections filled with pus.

 

Hide hair and ingesta, which is partially digested food found in the stomach or the esophagus. Cows are slaughtered that have been dead on arrival. So some long that they're ice cold. So it's hard to believe that such blatant corruption is possible when the industry regulates itself. And that's the part of the story people are not aware of.

The meat industry is so pervasive in its sinister effects that even its workers are vulnerable. With nearly 36 injuries or illnesses for every 100 workers, meatpacking is the single most dangerous industry in the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>. In fact a worker's chance of suffering an injury or illness in a meat plant are 600 percent greater than if that the same person worked in a coal mine.

If it seems harsh and irrational and unfair to call the meat industrial complex a plague, by the late 1990's the public was reacting to just such a perception. Nearly a century ago in 1907 a doctor Alzheimer had published a treatise about the disease that would one day carry his name.

 

He had two young colleagues who worked with him, a Dr. Creutzfeldt and Dr. Jakob. They too had identified a similar brain wasting disease that now had <st1:place w:st="on">Europe</st1:place> in a panic. The disease caused the brains of cows to turn into sponge-like mass and their behavior was called mad. But now over 90 years later, it was repeating itself.

I'm Gary Null. In the next installment of our special program we'll go in depth into looking at the true cause of mad cow disease and looking at the statements that we had nothing to worry about in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>. No mad cow disease here or so they said. Could we have it here? How would we know? When an industry regulates itself and is one of the single most corrupt in our nation, what can we do about it? First thing we have to do is dispel the myths, and we'll do that on our next program.

 

Thank you very much for listening. (End of Part One of Meat, Protein and Dispelling the Myths)

[Bart Happel 0]

Dear Bhaktajan,

 

I’ve just finished eating a meal, consisting of mashed potatoes and vegetables, topped with a deliciously prepared piece of pork-meat. When I was eating, my thoughts were with the content of this topic. In fact, I noticed that my attention (appetite) was constantly drawn towards the meat; even though I clearly realized what might have been the ultimate fate of the animal that I was eating. And I really enjoyed eating the meat! Perhaps this particular piggy died (relatively) peacefully. I don’t know..

 

I think I do know, however, that where I live, it is common practice in slaughterhouses, to first kill animals by electrocution, before they are boiled or butchered. Killing the animals first, is much more efficient, less noisy, and better for the worker’s peace of mind. Actually I don’t see why animals would be killed and processed for consumption (large scale) any other way, anywhere..

 

Kind regards, Bart

[theist 1]

Bart, I am curious about something. Do you believe in karma? You know, what you do to others will be done to you.

 

You must not believe in karma or why else would you eat meat knowing that it means one day you will be the animal in the slaughterhouse being killed so that some human who wants to taste your flesh and blood will be able to.

[Bart Happel 0]

 

Bart, I am curious about something. Do you believe in karma? You know, what you do to others will be done to you.

 

You must not believe in karma or why else would you eat meat knowing that it means one day you will be the animal in the slaughterhouse being killed so that some human who wants to taste your flesh and blood will be able to.

 

First of all, I agree that a lot is wrong with the meat industry. This is especially evident from the way the animals are kept and transported, and possibly the methods used to kill the animals are inadequate. This must all change of course. However, I don’t agree with the suggestion, that the general public doesn’t care about the suffering of the animals, because they eat the meat. I think the general public isn’t aware of the possible extent of the suffering, and most people are inclined to think that the meat on their plate is in fact ‘kosher’. Then again, maybe this wasn’t suggested at all in the first posts..

 

Regarding your question: one has to believe in both karma and reincarnation, as well as in the unavoidability of being slaughtered and eaten in a next life oneself, as a consequence of eating meat. I’m okay with karma and reincarnation, but I have difficulty accepting the last conjecture. For example, there appears to be a circularity in the whole idea. When I eat an animal, I may (indirectly) ‘balance’ the karma of another soul that reincarnated as the animal that I’m eating.

 

Kind regards, Bart

[bhaktajan 0]

Bart,

 

You, as a fleash eater, take for granted that the source of flesh foods are something you can afford.

 

The price of flesh is your ticket to experiencing the uniqueness of being slaughtered yourself.

{DYK: "once for every hair on the body of a cow --weather rancher, transporter, butcher, cook, waiter, eater" --all earn the unique stopover on the souls' surjourn through the cosmos}.

 

When Charlsten Heston the American Cinema Actor said in the movie about Institionalized Society Canabalism:

"Soylent-green is People!"

 

and,

 

When Charlsten Heston the American Cinema Actor said in the movie 'Planet of The Apes'--when seeing the Statute of Liberty fallen and broken in ruins on the sea shore, "You Bastards!"

 

The notion of mass-bad-karma was embedded in my heart and mind.

 

[in deference to most young people these days, who lack historical literacy--I have not used examples of WWII survivors here inlieu of pop-culture references due ].

 

When I read everyday how yet another twenty score of Men, Women & Children have died in some most grusome & Embarrassing (baring one's ass?) & stupifying way --what is embedded in my heart and mind is:

 

"the ways and means to be in that type of position of death is a result of twisted and intertwined networks of 'IMPLICATION/AIDING & ABETTING' of some past life activity that similarly caused the same circumstance of death"--but it is not something that the daily newly dead ever did any thing to avoid--no contrition, no austerity, no penance --just enjoy blissfully while the reat of the world is in conflict.

 

There is a season and a place, even for all those on the most exceedingly fine & slowest of queues.

 

Sometimes I think that the 'meek shall inherit the world' indicates that one day in the distant future the earth will be covered only with chickens.

[RadhaMukunda 0]

I think the point Bart is trying to make is that these type of posts won't effect the habits of meat eaters. They will read it and then ignore the content. I always think that if vegetarians put their efforts away from trying to convert meat eaters, vegetarians would have a lot of time and energy left.

 

I wish vegetarians put more effort into building vegetarian eating places and bringing tasty vegetarian products on the market. One reason people eat at McDonald's and Burger King is because it is convenient and eating vegetarian is not. We need more vegetarian entrepreneurs rather than teenagers who think they can protest everyone into vegetarianism.

 

This might be a problem for Hare Krishnas, because they only eat prasadam. I don't think selling prasadam is a good thing. But I have this idea for anyone from ISCKON. You could open a vegetarian restaurant with satvik food and have a small deity installed in the room where costumers can offer their own food to Krishna.

[bhaktajan 0]

I am reposting this data from a post Suchandra made:

 

......................................................................................

this cannot be repeated often enough!:

 

"Ahimsa means not arresting the progressive life of any living entity. One should not think that since the spirit spark is never killed even after the killing of the body, there is no harm in killing animals for sense gratification. People are now addicted to eating animals, in spite of having an ample supply of grains, fruits and milk. There is no necessity for animal killing. This injunction is for everyone. When there is no other alternative, one may kill an animal, but it should be offered in sacrifice. At any rate, when there is an ample food supply for humanity, persons who are desiring to make advancement in spiritual realization should not commit violence to animals. Real ahimsa means not checking anyone’s progressive life. The animals are also making progress in their evolutionary life by transmigrating from one category of animal life to another. If a particular animal is killed, then his progress is checked. If an animal is staying in a particular body for so many days or so many years and is untimely killed, then he has to come back again in that form of life to complete the remaining days in order to be promoted to another species of life. So their progress should not checked simply to satisfy one’s palate. This is called ahimsa."

 

Garden Discussion on

Bhagavad-gītā Sixteenth Chapter

by His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupāda

June 26, 1976, New Vrindaban

.......................................................................

Check out to this 20 Min College lecture:

 

 

“Mark Bittman: What's wrong with what we eat”

In this fiery and funny talk, New York Times food writer Mark Bittman weighs in on what's wrong with the way we eat now (too much meat, too few plants; too much fast food, too little home cooking), and why it's putting the entire planet at risk.

</SPAN>

[theist 1]

 

First of all, I agree that a lot is wrong with the meat industry. This is especially evident from the way the animals are kept and transported, and possibly the methods used to kill the animals are inadequate. This must all change of course. However, I don’t agree with the suggestion, that the general public doesn’t care about the suffering of the animals, because they eat the meat. I think the general public isn’t aware of the possible extent of the suffering, and most people are inclined to think that the meat on their plate is in fact ‘kosher’. Then again, maybe this wasn’t suggested at all in the first posts..

 

Well there is some truth there. People are certainly in ignorance about the consequences of actions. There is a whole industry formed to insure this ignorance stays in place.

 

But even granting that that excuse becomes mute once the person is made aware of the animals plight and the suffering they are forced to endure. At thre point of awareness the gentle hearted will feel bad for their actions and reform. The ones who hear the truth and them choose to ignore it have no excuse. Does this apply to you?

 

 

Regarding your question: one has to believe in both karma and reincarnation, as well as in the unavoidability of being slaughtered and eaten in a next life oneself, as a consequence of eating meat. I’m okay with karma and reincarnation, but I have difficulty accepting the last conjecture. For example, there appears to be a circularity in the whole idea.

 

Yes there is a circularity. What is wrong with that? Karma is like a boomerang. You throw it out and it comes back to you. That is circularity.

 

What do you think it means to reap what you have sown?

 

 

When I eat an animal, I may (indirectly) ‘balance’ the karma of another soul that reincarnated as the animal that I’m eating.

 

 

That's fine but there are a couple of things we should acknowledge here. One "you" are not balancing any karma. "You" are not in control. Any balancing is arranged by higher authorities using you . Second in you statement you acknowledge the circularity which previously you have a problem with. And then you try to stop the circulatory once the circle comes back to you. That is an inconsistency which ruins the example.

 

Perhaps don't see just in terms of circles but rather spirals. Some spirals lead up (heavenword) while others tend down (towards hell). The fact that you are eating the murdered animal's corpse is intrinsictally bound the spiral downward that accompanines involvement in that particular spiral. In the Gita Krishna exlains He sends the sinful downward just as he raises the pious up. This is not partiality but He is only fulling our desires and results according to our desires.

 

Here is a simple example. A man is born with the karma to spend most of his life in prision. He comes upon an old rich man and whle robbing him also kills him. According to your philosophy he has just balanced that man's karma and should not therefore receive any negative reactions himself.

 

But in reality His committing the crime is simply the prelude to his karma of receiving a life imprisionment sentence. So whle the victim may be have paid a certain karmic debt the perpatrator has now incured more himself.

 

Karma is and unfathomable maze of actions and reactions.

 

Best to keep it very simple. If we cause grief to others then grief will come to us. If we do good to others good will come to us. We leave the details for God's mind.

 

Please be gentle and give up your participation in animal slaughter.

 

Hare Krishna

[bhaktajan 0]

Here in the material world,

material nature forces the living entity to change his body

due to his different desires for sense gratification.

 

These desires are represented in the various species of life,

from germs to the most perfected material bodies,

those of Brahma and the demigods.

 

All of these bodies are composed of matter in different shapes.

 

The intelligent man sees oneness not in the variety of the bodies but in the spiritual identity.

 

The spiritual spark,

which is part and parcel of the Supreme Lord,

is the same whether he is in a body of a hog or in the body of a demigod.

 

The living entity takes on different bodies

according to his pious and vicious activities.

 

The human body is highly developed and has full consciousness.

 

According to the Bhagavad-gita (7.19),

the most perfect man surrenders unto the Lord

after many, many lifetimes of culturing knowledge.

 

The culture of knowledge reaches perfection only when the knower comes to the point of surrendering unto the Supreme Lord, Vasudeva.

 

Otherwise,

 

even after attaining knowledge of one’s spiritual identity,

if one does not come to the point of knowing that the living entities are eternal parts and parcels of the whole and can never become the whole, one has to fall down again into the material atmosphere.

 

Indeed, one must fall down even if he has become one with the brahmajyoti.

[bhaktajan 0]

Orginally Posted by Suchandra:

 

“Of all the senses, the tongue is the most difficult to control,” says the Prasäda-sevayä, a song composed by Çréla Bhaktivinoda Öhäkura, one of the spiritual predecessors of Çréla Prabhupäda, “but Kåñëa has kindly given us this nice prasäda to help us control the tongue.”

The Vegetarianism Debate, by Vinod Sastry

http://www.hinduyuva.org/tattva-blog...-vinod-sastry/

 

 

posted September 1 2008

 

The question as to whether or not it is the duty of a Hindu to be vegetarian has long been a source of debate in our society. Some are strong proponents of vegetarianism, while others feel it is okay for Hindus to eat meat. Usually those who promote vegetarianism quote concepts like ahimsa, health bene-fits, and environmental benefits. Those who eat meat give the argument of the right of an individual to choose, or that in the past, kshatriyas and other sects within Hinduism did eat meat. For example, many people in coastal areas of Kerala make a livelihood selling and eating fish. Even during Shri Rama’s vanvaas, there is the story of him eating meat offered by Guha, his childhood friend. So what is the right answer? There seem to be convincing arguments both ways. The truth is that we must establish a paradigm, a way of thinking before approaching this question. The paradigm in Hinduism has always been one of Dharma, of promoting harmony. First we shall establish the tenets of this paradigm, and then apply it to our question regarding vegetarianism.

Hinduism focuses primarily on creating harmony within oneself. It talks more of peace of mind (manah shanti) than of external peace. As Hindus, it is important that we see divinity, or Brahman, in all existence. We are indeed one with all of life, connected by a life force that pervades every inch of this universe. In some sense, once we have this mindset, whether or not we are vegetarian has no relevance. This is the mental state of a Rishi, and therefore all our actions will also be Dharmic once we attain this state.

There is a story of a great samurai warrior that illustrates this idea. Long ago a samurai was studying the martial arts under a great master. The master was murdered one night, and the samurai was able to figure out who the murderer was. With great rage and fury he rushed after the murderer and was about to kill him with his sword. Suddenly he became aware of the intensity of his anger and fled the scene without killing the murderer. He waited until his mind was peaceful and then went back and killed the murderer gracefully with his sword. From the outside, whether or not the samurai killed the murderer out of rage or not would not have made any difference. Yet, he realized that even punishing wrongdoers must be done out of compassion and peace. Thus it was the state of mind from which his action was done that was primary, not the action itself. Another example is of Native Americans, who would first pray to the Gods asking for forgiveness prior to killing buffalos for their nourishment. It is this feeling of gratitude and humility that is essential even in our concept of Dharma.

Now that we have understood our paradigm, we are ready to tackle the question of vegetarianism. First we must mention a few facts about the meat industry. Eating meat today (particularly in America) is different from eating meat thousands of years ago or even from fishermen in Kerala eating fish. Today the meat industry is a pure profit-making industry, born out of complete disrespect and irreverence for nature. It contributes tremendously to the destruction of the environment. For example, factory farms pack as many animals on their farm as possible, generating immense amounts of waste, in billions of pounds, each year, polluting our environment. Overgrazing by animals, such as cows, has led to much soil erosion in the United States. These issues barely scratch the surface of the issue of how the meat industry today is destroying our environment. (For precise figures and more information, go to www.meatrix.com.)

There are also plenty of facts about the health benefits of being vegetarian, which one can find online. From the reduction of the risk of heart disease, to longer lives, to better flow of pranic energy, the list is endless. The fact is that there was probably no time before today when becoming vegetarian meant such a significant reduction of stress on Mother Earth that we humans are causing. If we were to adopt the Dharmic paradigm described above, the least we could do on a practical level is to be vegetarian.

So does this mean that from now on it is our duty to convert everyone into vegetarianism? No. Simply making people vegetarian would not solve our problems, for that also could become a new dogma. We cannot expect the fishermen in Kerala to stop eating meat. In fact that would create more discord than harmony. Ultimately it is the adoption of the Dharmic mindset, the view that all creation is divine, the feeling of connection between all beings that needs to be spread to every corner of this planet. It is the loss of this mindset that has led to all the problems we face in today’s society. It is our duty to spread this idea across the world, and take the world to the pinnacle of peace and prosperity, param vaibhavam.

 

Vinod Sastry is a Ph.D student at University of California, Irvine. He can be contacted at vgrss1925@gmail.com.

[bhaktajan 0]

Survey of Vegetarianism: The Journey of an Idea

By Leah Renault

Jun 12, 2005

Vegetarianism is a growing trend all over the world. Though the exact numbers are unclear, many polls indicate that between 2.5% to 4% of the population in the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<st1:country-region w:st=" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> are vegetarians.

 

In the same polls, 10% of people between the ages of 25-34 years have stated to be vegetarian.[1] Studies have also shown that women to be more likely to be vegetarian than men.[2] People have cited reasons of faith, health and economics as their reasons for this lifestyle.

 

Americans are able to trace their vegetarian roots back to Reverend William Metcalfe. Though there were others that practiced vegetarianism before Rev. Metcalfe, a meatless diet did not become well known until 1817.

 

That was the year Reverend William Metcalfe, and his small congregation of 40, arrived in <st1:City w:st="on">Philadelphia</st1:City> from <st1:country-region w:st="on">England</st1:country-region> to establish the Bible-Christian church in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">America</st1:place></st1:country-region>.

 

All members of this religious sect did not consume meat. Rev. Metcalfe’s ideals also helped to persuade other famous American vegetarians such as Sylvester Graham, inventor of the graham cracker, to the benefits of a vegetarian diet.

 

In 1850 Metcalfe, Graham, and others helped establish the American Vegetarian Society in <st1:State w:st="on">New York</st1:State>, shortly after Metcalfe had learned of the Vegetarian Society in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Britain</st1:place></st1:country-region>.

 

Horace Greeley, founder of the New York Times, was even said to have been in attendance during the charter meeting. Other cities across the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> soon followed suit and established vegetarian societies of their own.

 

Also helpful in the spread of vegetarianism in <st1:country-region w:st="on">America</st1:country-region> was Ellen G. White, who founded the <st1:place w:st="on">Seventh Day </ST1:PAdventist Church</ST1:P</st1:place>. White authored more than 40 books and thousands of articles on multiple subjects including a vegetarian diet. She should also be acknowledged for being the most translated woman, or American author.[3]

 

Today, there are approximately 2 million Adventists throughout the world (25% of them reside in America). About 50% of Adventists are vegetarian.[4] Two other famous Adventist vegetarians were Dr. Harvey Kellogg and his younger brother W.K. Kellogg, most noted for their invention of the first dry cereals.

 

The <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com<st1:place w:st=" /><st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">U.S.</st1:place></st1:country-region> is not the only country following this trend. <st1:place w:st="on">Europe</st1:place> also has high numbers of vegetarians. A survey conducted in <st1:country-region w:st="on">Britain</st1:country-region> in 2001, estimates that the <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">United Kingdom</st1:place></st1:country-region> was home to 3.4 million vegetarians, or 5.7% of the population, up from 2.6% in 1985.

 

Another survey done in the <st1:country-region w:st="on">United Kingdom</st1:country-region> states that 10% of 15- to 18-year-old girls claimed to be vegetarian.[5] The word Vegetarian was coined in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">England</st1:place></st1:country-region> 1847, by Joseph Brotherton. The word is derived from the Latin word vegetus.

 

There have been several famous vegetarians in <st1:place w:st="on">Europe</st1:place>, including influential writers like Leo Tolstoy, George Bernard Shaw.[6] Henry Salt was a pioneer vegetarian who has unfortunately not received wide recognition for his work.

 

Salt, son of an Army colonel, was born in <st1:country-region w:st="on">India</st1:country-region> in 1851 but grew up in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">England</st1:place></st1:country-region>. He wrote almost 40 books on various humane reforms, including the treatment of animals.

 

His first book "Plea for Vegetarianism" was published in 1886.[7] Mohandas K. Gandhi, in his autobiography, sites Henry Salt’s "Plea for Vegetarianism" to be the reason he became convinced that vegetarianism was important from a moral standpoint, not only because of his promise to his parents or his duty as a Hindu.[8]

"From the date of reading this book (in 1888), I may claim to have become a vegetarian by choice. I blessed the day on which I had taken the vow (not to eat meat) before my mother.

 

I had all along abstained from meat in the interests of truth and the vow I had taken, but had wished at the same time that every Indian should be a meat-eater, and had looked forward to being one myself freely and openly some day, and enlisting others in the cause (of meat-eating). The choice was now made in favor of vegetarianism, the spreading of which henceforth became my mission."

 

Gandhi’s vegetarian activism did not stop at the promotion of Henry Salt’s books. He started his involvement in The London Vegetarian Society (founded in 1888), by subscribing to their weekly journal. He was later elected and served on the executive committee of the L.V.S. He then helped to start a vegetarian club of his own in 1890 and served as the club’s Secretary.[10]

 

Even in countries like <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region>, a culture that values meat as a symbol of wealth and good health, people have started to look towards vegetarianism. <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region> has been a country that could be thought of as being fickle in their vegetarian beliefs. From ancient Chinese Dynasties to the modern day Republic, the Chinese have flip-flopped on their attitudes toward eating meat.

 

The first Prophet King, Fu Xi, was a vegetarian. The Ancient Chinese so loved their Prophet King, they chose to call him Thien Ce, meaning Son of God. These people were very religious and began teaching their way of life known as Tao, which was “based on inner-spiritualism, naturalism, pacifism, compassion, and vegetarianism.”[12] However, the way of the Prophet did not continue, with the rise and fall of each dynasty, the diet of the people of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region> also changed.

 

In <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region> today, the Communist government is relaxing its hold on religious freedoms resulting in greater awareness of the vegetarian movement. However, not all people are accepting of this new idea in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region>.

 

People who do chose to be vegetarian have a lonely and hard road to travel. Quoted from an article in the La Times, by Henry Chu, “They battle restaurants that stir-fry everything, even vegetable dishes, in animal-based oils. They suffer the ridicule of family and friends, who sometimes dismiss vegetarianism as little more than superstition.”[13] However, there are hopes with the economy improving; people in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region> will have more income to spend at restaurants and specialty food stores, increasing the possibility of the acceptance of a meatless diet.

 

There is a strong force behind the vegetarian movement in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region>. There are currently 33 vegetarian restaurants in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region> listed on HappyCow.net.[14] Vegetarians push to increase the numbers of these restaurants, on the premise that easier access to vegetarian restaurants will make it easier for people to stay on a meatless diet.

 

This proliferation also makes vegetarianism more socially acceptable among other residents in <st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region>, where “taking friends out to a vegetarian restaurant is considered ‘cheap’ in <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Shanghai</st1:place></st1:City>.”[15] One vegetarian restaurant, Jujube in <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Shanghai</st1:place></st1:City> offers a promotion to its customers. “the customer was given a card which had the names and addresses of all the vegetarian restaurants in <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Shanghai</st1:place></st1:City>. If she visited each of these and got them to stamp their seal on the card, Jujube gave her a free gift.”[13]

 

However, vegetarianism is not a new phenomenon. Pythagoras, the ancient Greek philosopher whose name has become associated with what we now call the Pythagorean Theorem, is known as the father of vegetarianism in the West. He began to teach of the philosophy of a meatless diet between 490-430 BC. His desire was to “create a universal and absolute law including injunctions not to kill "living creatures," to abstain from "harsh-sounding bloodshed," in particular animal sacrifice, and "never to eat meat."”

 

"Animals share with us the privilege of having a soul." - attributed by Ovid [16]

 

In fact, until 1847 people who ate meatless diets were called Pythagoreans.

 

Leonardo da Vinci is also a well-known vegetarian.[6] His belief was so strong that Leonardo would often purchase caged birds from poultry vendors to set them free. Some of his recipes appear in De Honesta Voluptate, written by Bartolomeo Plantina in 1475.

 

There is even some who believe that Jesus Christ was a vegetarian. There are several books and articles written about Jesus belonging to a group of strict vegetarians called the Essenes.[17] It makes sense to believe that Jesus, who preached of virtues such as kindness and compassion to others, would have been a vegetarian. PETA has also tried to commercialize on this belief of Jesus being a vegetarian. They hope to win over the hearts of Christians, who are taught to try to be like Christ; to also follow his vegetarian lifestyle.

 

However, the true question is where did this movement start? According to some scholars, the roots of this belief can be traced to <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region>. It is shown that <st1:country-region w:st="on">India</st1:country-region> was helpful for the return of vegetarianism to <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region> at the beginning of the Han Dynasty (206 BC – 221 BC).

 

“It was because the Buddhism Missionaries started to come to <st1:country-region w:st="on">China</st1:country-region> from <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region>.”[12] Also it is known that Pythagoras traveled to <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region>, [18] where he studied under the Buddhist monks and Brahmins and was greatly influenced by their teachings. The British may have been influenced by Indian vegetarian beliefs, when they occupied <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region>.

 

There is also evidence of vegetarianism in the Vedas, Upanishads, Dharma Shastras, Yoga Sutras and most sacred texts of Hindus. These scriptures unambiguously support the meatless diet. This was observed by the ancient traveler Megasthenes and also by Fa-Hsien, a Chinese Buddhist monk who, in the fifth century, traveled to India in order to obtain authentic copies of the scriptures.[19]

 

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

 

In the Tirukural, a Tamil scripture written over 2,000 years ago, abstaining from a diet consisting of flesh is clearly stated as a virtue.

 

"Greater than a thousand ghee offerings consumed in sacrificial fires is to not sacrifice and consume any living creature..." - Tirukural

 

However, Hindus did not always believe in the merits of vegetarianism. During the early Vedic period meat was often consumed after animal sacrifice to the Gods. In time, Animal sacrifices became less popular, and although people didn’t give up eating meat entirely, they ate much less of it. Gradually, a lot of people became vegetarians. The growth of Buddhism and Jainism, both of which preached ahimsa (or non-violence) towards all living beings, also helped spread vegetarianism.[20]

 

Today India has the highest population of vegetarians in the world. According to reports 20% of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region>’s population is vegetarian.[21]

 

Indians have been behind some of the greatest discoveries and ideas in the world. From mathematics, to astronomy to literature, the Indian mind has always been able to give form to abstract ideas and concepts. Vegetarianism is just one more thing that we should thank <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region> for fostering.

 

 

--------------------------

 

References:

[1] http://www.vrg.org/press/2003poll.htm

[2] http://www.vegsoc.org/info/realeat.html

[3] http://www.whiteestate.org/about/egwbio.asp#who

[4] http://www.ivu.org/history/adventists/white.html

[5] http://www.time.com/time/europe/magazine/article/0,13005,901021014-361598,00.html

[6] http://www.ivu.org/history/museum.html

[7] http://www.informationblast.com/Henry_Salt.html

[8] http://utminers.utep.edu/best/papers/vegenvani/gandhi.htm

[9] http://www.ivu.org/history/salt/rights.html

[10] http://www.ivu.org/history/vfu/lva.html

[11] http://www.gandhiserve.org

[12] http://www.ivu.org/history/east/china.html

[13] http://www.aapn.org/latimes.html

[14] http://www.happycow.net

[15] http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mag/2003/07/20/stories/2003072000740700.htm

[16] http://www.ivu.org/history/greece_rome/pythagoras.html

[17] http://www.ivu.org/history/christian/christ_veg.html

[18] http://www.wisdomworld.org/additional/ancientlandmarks/Pythagoras.html

[19] http://www.ivu.org/religion/articles/hindus.html

[20] http://www.indianchild.com/vegeterianism_in_india.htm

[21] http://www.montelis.com/satya/backissues/feb98/around_india.html

[bhaktajan 0]

Hinduism: Is there a rule about Hindus eating meat?

By Gurudeva Sivaya Subramuniyaswami

Hinduism: Is there a rule about Hindus eating meat?

Introduction

This is a very touchy subject.

Basically, there is a rule, an overlying rule, which gives the Hindu answer to this query. It is called ahimsa, refraining from injuring - physically, mentally or emotionally - anyone or any living creature. The Hindu who wishes to strictly follow the path of non-injury to all creatures naturally adopts a vegetarian diet.

We have collected many scriptural quotes which counsel Hindus not to eat meat. There are references in the Vedas and Manu Dharma Shastras to this effect, as well. As in other matters, Hinduism has very few rigid "do's and don'ts." Rather, its injunctions are called restraints and observances.

 

The ultimate authority for answers to such questions is one's own guru, or our religious community and sampradaya and our own understanding of the spiritual benefits from abstaining from eating meat. Let me put it this way. There are good Hindus who eat meat, and there are bad Hindus who are vegetarians.

Today in <st1:country-region w:st="America</st1:country-region"> and <st1:place w:st="on">Europe</st1:place> there are literally millions of vegetarians. This is because they want to live a long time and be healthy. Many feel a certain moral obligation to their own conscience which they wish to fulfill. There are some good new books on vegetarianism, such as Diet for a New America by John Robbins. If you want to know about vegetarianism from the American perspective, write to us and we can refer you to some excellent books. </st1:country-region>

 

Perhaps at your next meeting you can invite some of these authorities to come and speak to your group. There is also a fine magazine dedicated to the subject, "Vegetarian Times," which comes out monthly. Now to some answers that you can memorize when asked about vegetarianism and its relationship to Hinduism.

Answer #1: Simply put, vegetarians are more numerous in the south of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region> than in the north. This is because of climactic conditions and the Islamic influence within the north of our country. Our religion does not lay down rigid "do's and don'ts." There are no commandments. Our religion gives us the wisdom to make up our own mind on what we put in our body, for it is the only one we have, in this life at least.

Answer #2: All of our priests and religious leaders are definitely vegetarian, because they have to awaken the more refined areas of their nature in order to perform their work. Our soldiers and law-enforcement people are generally not vegetarians. This is because they have to keep alive their aggressive forces in order to perform their work. To practice yoga and be successful in spiritual life it is advisable to become a vegetarian. It is a matter of wisdom. Wisdom is the application of knowledge at any given moment.

Answer #3: Today, about twenty or thirty percent of all Hindus are vegetarians and the rest are not.

Summary

Through my forty years of presenting the eternal Truths of Hinduism, I have found that families who are vegetarian have fewer problems than those who are not. This is because when we eat meat, fish, fowl and eggs, we absorb the vibration of the instinctive creatures into our nerve system and this amplifies our own lower nature. Our lower nature is prone to fear, anger, jealousy, confusion, resentment and the like. We advise all members of my <st1:place w:st="on"><st1>Saiva Siddhanta Church </st1>to be well-established vegetarians prior to initiation into mantram and then remain vegetarian afterward. However, we don't insist upon members becoming vegetarian if they are not seeking initiation.</st1:place>

Prepared for the July 4th, 1990 meeting of the youth of the <st1>Hindu </st1>Temple of greater <st1:city w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Chicago</st1:place></st1:city>, by Gurudeva, Sivaya Subramuniyaswami