The Myths of Vegetarianism

[Guest guest]

I found this interesting and certainly set me straight about a couple

of things. I couldn't put the whole thing on this email so you will need to

go to the url to read the whole article.

blessings

Shan

 

The Myths of Vegetarianism

by Stephen Byrnes, PhD, RNCP

http://www.westonaprice.org/mythstruths/mtvegetarianism.html

 

Originally published in the Townsend Letter for Doctors & Patients, July

2000. Revised January 2002. This paper is posted at:

http://www.powerhealth.net/selected_articles.htm .

 

" An unflinching determination to take the whole evidence into account is the

only method of preservation against the fluctuating extremes of fashionable

opinion. " -Alfred North Whitehead

 

Bill and Tanya sat before me in my office in a somber mood: they had just

lost their first baby in the second month of pregnancy. Tanya was particularly

upset. " Why did this happen to me? Why did I miscarry my baby? " The young couple

had come to see me mostly because of Tanya's recurrent respiratory

infections, but also wanted some advice as to how they could avoid the heartache

of

another failed pregnancy.

 

Upon questioning Tanya about her diet, I quickly saw the cause of her

infections, as well as her miscarriage: she had virtually no fat in her diet and

was

also mostly a vegetarian. Because of the plentiful media rhetoric about the

supposed dangers of animal product consumption, as opposed to the alleged health

benefits of the vegetarian lifestyle, Tanya had deliberately removed such

things as cream, butter, meats and fish from her diet. Although she liked liver,

she avoided it due to worries over " toxins. "

 

Tanya and Bill left with a bottle of vitamin A, other supplements and a

dietary prescription that included plentiful amounts of animal fats and meat.

Just

before leaving my office, Tanya looked at me and said ruefully: " I just don't

know what to believe sometimes. Everywhere I look there is all this low-fat,

vegetarian stuff recommended. I followed it, and look what happened. " I assured

her that if she and her husband changed their diets and allowed sufficient

time for her weakened uterus to heal, they would be happy parents in due time.

In November 2000, Bill and Tanya happily gave birth to their first child, a

girl.

 

The Evolution of a Myth

 

Along with the unjustified and unscientific saturated fat and cholesterol

scares of the past several decades has come the notion that vegetarianism is a

healthier dietary option for people. It seems as if every health expert and

government health agency is urging people to eat fewer animal products and

consume

more vegetables, grains, fruits and legumes. Along with these exhortations

have come assertions and studies supposedly proving that vegetarianism is

healthier for people and that meat consumption is associated with sickness and

death. Several authorities, however, have questioned these data, but their

objections have been largely ignored.

 

As we shall see, many of the vegetarian claims cannot be substantiated and

some are simply false and dangerous. There are benefits to vegetarian diets for

certain health conditions, and some people function better on less fat and

protein, but, as a practitioner who has dealt with several former vegetarians

and

vegans (total vegetarians), I know full well the dangerous effects of a diet

devoid of healthful animal products. It is my hope that all readers will more

carefully evaluate their position on vegetarianism after reading this paper.

 

· Myth #1: Meat consumption contributes to famine and depletes the Earth's

natural resources.

· Myth #2: Vitamin B12 can be obtained from plant sources.

· Myth #3: Our needs for vitamin D can be met by sunlight.

· Myth #4: The body's needs for vitamin A can be entirely obtained from

plant foods.

· Myth #5: Meat-eating causes osteoporosis, kidney disease, heart disease,

and cancer.

· Myth #6: Saturated fats and dietary cholesterol cause heart disease,

atherosclerosis, and/or cancer, and low-fat, low-cholesterol diets are healthier

for people.

· Myth #7: Vegetarians live longer and have more energy and endurance than

meat-eaters.

· Myth #8: The " cave man " diet was low-fat and/or vegetarian. Humans

evolved as vegetarians.

· Myth #9: Meat and saturated fat consumption have increased in the 20th

century, with a corresponding increase in heart disease and cancer.

· Myth #10: Soy products are adequate substitutes for meat and dairy

products.

· Myth #11: The human body is not designed for meat consumption.

· Myth #12: Eating animal flesh causes violent, aggressive behavior in

humans.

· Myth #13: Animal products contain numerous, harmful toxins.

· Myth #14: Eating meat or animal products is less " spiritual " than eating

only plant foods.

· Myth #15: Eating animal foods is inhumane.

 

Myth #1: Meat consumption contributes to famine and depletes the Earth's

natural resources.

 

Some vegetarians have claimed that livestock require pasturage that could be

used to farm grains to feed starving people in Third World countries. It is

also claimed that feeding animals contributes to world hunger because livestock

are eating foods that could go to feed humans. The solution to world hunger,

therefore, is for people to become vegetarians. These arguments are illogical

and simplistic.

 

The first argument ignores the fact that about 2/3 of our Earth's dry land is

unsuitable for farming. It is primarily the open range, desert and

mountainous areas that provide food to grazing animals and that land is

currently being

put to good use (1).

 

The second argument is faulty as well because it ignores the vital

contributions that livestock animals make to humanity's well-being. It is also

misleading to think that the foods grown and given to feed livestock could be

diverted

to feed humans:

 

Agricultural animals have always made a major contribution to the welfare of

human societies by providing food, shelter, fuel, fertilizer and other

products and services. They are a renewable resource, and utilize another

renewable

resource, plants, to produce these products and services. In addition, the

manure produced by the animals helps improve soil fertility and, thus, aids the

plants. In some developing countries the manure cannot be utilized as a

fertilizer but is dried as a source of fuel.

 

There are many who feel that because the world population is growing at a

faster rate than is the food supply, we are becoming less and less able to

afford

animal foods because feeding plant products to animals is an inefficient use

of potential human food. It is true that it is more efficient for humans to

eat plant products directly rather than to allow animals to convert them to

human food. At best, animals only produce one pound or less of human food for

each

three pounds of plants eaten. However, this inefficiency only applies to

those plants and plant products that the human can utilize. The fact is that

over

two-thirds of the feed fed to animals consists of substances that are either

undesirable or completely unsuited for human food. Thus, by their ability to

convert inedible plant materials to human food, animals not only do not compete

with the human rather they aid greatly in improving both the quantity and the

quality of the diets of human societies. (2)

 

Furthermore, at the present time, there is more than enough food grown in the

world to feed all people on the planet. The problem is widespread poverty

making it impossible for the starving poor to afford it. In a comprehensive

report, the Population Reference Bureau attributed the world hunger problem to

poverty, not meat-eating (3). It also did not consider mass vegetarianism to be

a

solution for world hunger.

 

What would actually happen, however, if animal husbandry were abandoned in

favour of mass agriculture, brought about by humanity turning towards

vegetarianism?

 

If a large number of people switched to vegetarianism, the demand for meat in

the United States and Europe would fall, the supply of grain would

dramatically increase, but the buying power of poor [starving] people in Africa

and Asia

wouldn't change at all.

 

The result would be very predictable -- there would be a mass exodus from

farming. Whereas today the total amount of grains produced could feed 10 billion

people, the total amount of grain grown in this post-meat world would likely

fall back to about 7 or 8 billion. The trend of farmers selling their land to

developers and others would accelerate quickly. (4)

 

In other words, there would be less food available for the world to eat.

Furthermore, the monoculture of grains and legumes, which is what would happen

if

animal husbandry were abandoned and the world relied exclusively on plant

foods for its food, would rapidly deplete the soil and require the heavy use of

artificial fertilizers, one ton of which requires ten tons of crude oil to

produce (5).

 

As far as the impact to our environment, a closer look reveals the great

damage that exclusive and mass farming would do. British organic dairy farmer

and

researcher Mark Purdey wisely points out that if " veganic agricultural systems

were to gain a foothold on the soil, then agrochemical use, soil erosion,

cash cropping, prairie-scapes and ill health would escalate. " (6)

 

Neanderthin author Ray Audette concurs with this view:

 

Since ancient times, the most destructive factor in the degradation of the

environment has been monoculture agriculture. The production of wheat in ancient

Sumeria transformed once-fertile plains into salt flats that remain sterile

5,000 years later. As well as depleting both the soil and water sources,

monoculture agriculture also produces environmental damage by altering the

delicate

balance of natural ecosystems. World rice production in 1993, for instance,

caused 155 million cases of malaria by providing breeding grounds for mosquitoes

in the paddies. Human contact with ducks in the same rice paddies resulted in

500 million cases of influenza during the same year.(7)

 

 

There is little doubt, though, that commercial farming methods, whether of

plants or animals produce harm to the environment. With the heavy use of

agrochemicals, pesticides, artificial fertilizers, hormones, steroids, and

antibiotics common in modern agriculture, a better way of integrating animal

husbandry

with agriculture needs to be found. A possible solution might be a return to

" mixed farming, " described below.

 

The educated consumer and the enlightened farmer together can bring about a

return of the mixed farm, where cultivation of fruits, vegetables and grains is

combined with the raising of livestock and fowl in a manner that is

efficient, economical and environmentally friendly. For example, chickens

running free

in garden areas eat insect pests, while providing high-quality eggs; sheep

grazing in orchards obviate the need for herbicides; and cows grazing in

woodlands and other marginal areas provide rich, pure milk, making these lands

economically viable for the farmer. It is not animal cultivation that leads to

hunger

and famine, but unwise agricultural practices and monopolistic distribution

systems. (8)

 

The " mixed farm " is also healthier for the soil, which will yield more crops

if managed according to traditional guidelines. Mark Purdey has accurately

pointed out that a crop field on a mixed farm will yield up to five harvests a

year, while a " mono-cropped " one will only yield one or two (9). Which farm is

producing more food for the world's peoples? Purdey well sums up the ecological

horrors of " battery farming " and points to future solutions by saying:

 

Our agricultural establishments could do very well to outlaw the

business-besotted farmers running intensive livestock units, battery systems and

beef-burger bureaucracies; with all their wastages, deplorable cruelty,

anti-ozone

slurry systems; drug/chemical induced immunotoxicity resulting in B.S.E. [see

myth

# 13] and salmonella, rain forest eradication, etc. Our future direction must

strike the happy, healthy medium of mixed farms, resurrecting the old

traditional extensive system as a basic framework, then bolstering up

productivity to

present day demands by incorporating a more updated application of biological

science into farming systems. (10)

 

It does not appear, then, that livestock farming, when properly practiced,

damages the environment. Nor does it appear that world vegetarianism or

exclusively relying on agriculture to supply the world with food are feasible or

ecologically wise ideas.

 

Myth #2: Vitamin B12 can be obtained from plant sources.

 

Of all the myths, this is perhaps the most dangerous. While lacto and

lacto-ovo vegetarians have sources of vitamin B12 in their diets (from dairy

products

and eggs), vegans (total vegetarians) do not. Vegans who do not supplement

their diet with vitamin B12 will eventually get anemia (a fatal condition) as

well as severe nervous and digestive system damage; most, if not all, vegans

have impaired B12 metabolism and every study of vegan groups has demonstrated

low

vitamin B12 concentrations in the majority of individuals (11). Several

studies have been done documenting B12 deficiencies in vegan children, often

with

dire consequences (12). Additionally, claims are made in vegan and vegetarian

literature that B12 is present in certain algae, tempeh (a fermented soy

product) and Brewer's yeast. All of them are false as vitamin B12 is only found

in

animal foods. Brewer's and nutritional yeasts do not contain B12 naturally;

they are always fortified from an outside source.

 

There is not real B12 in plant sources but B12 analogues--they are similar to

true B12, but not exactly the same and because of this they are not

bioavailable (13). It should be noted here that these B12 analogues can impair

absorption of true vitamin B12 in the body due to competitive absorption,

placing

vegans and vegetarians who consume lots of soy, algae, and yeast at a greater

risk

for a deficiency (14).

 

Some vegetarian authorities claim that B12 is produced by certain fermenting

bacteria in the lower intestines. This may be true, but it is in a form

unusable by the body. B12 requires intrinsic factor from the stomach for proper

absorption in the ileum. Since the bacterial product does not have intrinsic

factor bound to it, it cannot be absorbed (15).

 

It is true that Hindu vegans living in certain parts of India do not suffer

from vitamin B12 deficiency. This has led some to conclude that plant foods do

provide this vitamin. This conclusion, however, is erroneous as many small

insects, their feces, eggs, larvae and/or residue, are left on the plant foods

these people consume, due to non-use of pesticides and inefficient cleaning

methods. This is how these people obtain their vitamin B12. This contention is

borne out by the fact that when vegan Indian Hindus later migrated to England,

they came down with megaloblastic anaemia within a few years. In England, the

food supply is cleaner, and insect residues are completely removed from plant

foods (16).

 

The only reliable and absorbable sources of vitamin B12 are animal products,

especially organ meats and eggs (17). Though present in lesser amounts than

meat and eggs, dairy products do contain B12. Vegans, therefore, should consider

adding dairy products into their diets. If dairy cannot be tolerated, eggs,

preferably from free-run hens, are a virtual necessity.

 

That vitamin B12 can only be obtained from animal foods is one of the

strongest arguments against veganism being a " natural " way of human eating.

Today,

vegans can avoid anemia by taking supplemental vitamins or fortified foods. If

those same people had lived just a few decades ago, when these products were

unavailable, they would have died.

 

Myth #3: Our needs for vitamin D can be met by sunlight.

 

Though not really a vegetarian myth per se, it is widely believed that one's

vitamin D needs can be met simply by exposing one's skin to the sun's rays for

15-20 minutes a few times a week. Concerns about vitamin D deficiencies in

vegetarians and vegans always exist as this nutrient, in its full-complex form,

is only found in animal fats (18) which vegans do not consume and more

moderate vegetarians only consume in limited quantities due to their meatless

diets.

 

It is true that a limited number of plant foods such as alfalfa, sunflower

seeds, and avocado, contain the plant form of vitamin D (ergocalciferol, or

vitamin D2). Although D2 can be used to prevent and treat the vitamin D

deficiency

disease, rickets, in humans, it is questionable, though, whether this form is

as effective as animal-derived vitamin D3 (cholecalciferol). Some studies

have shown that D2 is not utilized as well as D3 in animals (19) and clinicians

have reported disappointing results using vitamin D2 to treat vitamin D-related

conditions (20).

 

Although vitamin D can be created by our bodies by the action of sunlight on

our skin, it is very difficult to obtain an optimal amount of vitamin D by a

brief foray into the sun. There are three ultraviolet bands of radiation that

come from sunlight named A, B, and C. Only the " B " form is capable of

catalyzing the conversion of cholesterol to vitamin D in our bodies (21) and

UV-B rays

are only present at certain times of day, at certain latitudes, and at certain

times of the year (22). Furthermore, depending on one's skin color, obtaining

200-400 IUs of vitamin D from the sun can take as long as two full hours of

continual sunning (23). A dark-skinned vegan, therefore, will find it

impossible to obtain optimal vitamin D intake by sunning himself for 20 minutes

a few

times a week, even if sunning occurs during those limited times of the day and

year when UV-B rays are available.

 

The current RDA for vitamin D is 400 IUs, but Dr. Weston Price's seminal

research into healthy native adult people's diets showed that their daily intake

of vitamin D (from animal foods) was about 10 times that amount, or 4,000 IUs

(24). Accordingly, Dr. Price placed a great emphasis on vitamin D in the diet.

Without vitamin D, for example, it is impossible to utilize minerals like

calcium, phosphorous, and magnesium. Recent research has confirmed Dr. Price's

higher recommendations for vitamin D for adults (24).

 

Since rickets and/or low vitamin D levels has been well-documented in many

vegetarians and vegans (26), since animal fats are either lacking or deficient

in vegetarian diets (as well as those of the general Western public who

routinely try to cut their animal fat intake), since sunlight is only a source

of

vitamin D at certain times and at certain latitudes, and since current dietary

recommendations for vitamin D are too low, this emphasizes the need to have

reliable and abundant sources of this nutrient in our daily diets. Good sources

include cod liver oil, lard from pigs that were exposed to sunlight, shrimp,

wild salmon, sardines, butter, full-fat dairy products, and eggs from properly

fed chickens.

 

Myth #4: The body's needs for vitamin A can be entirely obtained from plant

foods.

 

True vitamin A, or retinol and its associated esters, is only found in animal

fats and organs like liver (27). Plants do contain beta-carotene, a substance

that the body can convert into vitamin A if certain conditions are present

(see below). Beta-carotene, however, is not vitamin A. It is typical for vegans

and vegetarians (as well as most popular nutrition writers) to say that plant

foods like carrots and spinach contain vitamin A and that beta-carotene is

just as good as vitamin A. These things are not true even though beta-carotene

is

an important nutritional factor for humans.

 

The conversion from carotene to vitamin A in the intestines can only take

place in the presence of bile salts. This means that fat must be eaten with the

carotenes to stimulate bile secretion. Additionally, infants and people with

hypothyroidism, gall bladder problems or diabetes (altogether, a significant

portion of the population) either cannot make the conversion, or do so very

poorly. Lastly, the body's conversion from carotene to vitamin A is not very

efficient: it takes roughly 6 units of carotene to make one unit of vitamin A.

What

this means is that a sweet potato (containing about 25,000 units of

beta-carotene) will only convert into about 4,000 units of vitamin A (assuming

you ate

it with fat, are not diabetic, are not an infant, and do not have a thyroid or

gall bladder problem) [28].

 

Relying on plant sources for vitamin A, then, is not a very wise idea. This

provides yet another reason to include animal foods and fats in our diets.

Butter and full-fat dairy foods, especially from pastured cows, are good vitamin

A

sources, as is cod liver oil. Vitamin A is all-important in our diets, for it

enables the body to use proteins and minerals, insures proper vision,

enhances the immune system, enables reproduction, and fights infections (29). As

with

vitamin D, Dr. Price found that the diets of healthy primitive peoples

supplied substantial amounts of vitamin A, again emphasizing the great need

humans

have for this nutrient in maintaining optimal health now and for future

generations.

 

Myth #5: Meat-eating causes osteoporosis, kidney disease, heart disease, and

cancer.

 

Oftentimes, vegans and vegetarians will try to scare people into avoiding

animal foods and fats by claiming that vegetarian diets offer protection from

certain chronic diseases like the ones listed above. Such claims, however, are

hard to reconcile with historical and anthropological facts. All of the diseases

mentioned are primarily 20th century occurrences, yet people have been eating

meat and animal fat for many thousands of years. Further, as Dr. Price's

research showed, there were/are several native peoples around the world (the

Innuit, Maasai, Swiss, etc.) whose traditional diets were/are very rich in

animal

products, but who nevertheless did/do not suffer from the above-mentioned

maladies (30). Dr. George Mann's independent studies of the Maasai done many

years

after Dr. Price, confirmed the fact that the Maasai, despite being almost

exclusive meat eaters, nevertheless, had little to no incidence of heart

disease,

or other chronic ailments (31). This proves that other factors besides animal

foods are at work in causing these diseases.

 

Several studies have supposedly shown that meat consumption is the cause of

various illnesses, but such studies, honestly evaluated, show no such thing as

the following discussion will show.

 

Osteoporosis

 

Dr. Herta Spencer's research on protein intake and bone loss clearly showed

that protein consumption in the form of real meat has no impact on bone

density. Studies that supposedly proved that excessive protein consumption

equalled

more bone loss were not done with real meat but with fractionated protein

powders and isolated amino acids (32). Recent studies have also shown that

increased animal protein intake contributes to stronger bone density in men and

women

(33). Some recent studies on vegan and vegetarian diets, however, have shown

them to predispose women to osteoporosis (34).

 

Kidney Disease

 

Although protein-restricted diets are helpful for people with kidney disease,

there is no proof that eating meat causes it (35). Vegetarians will also

typically claim that animal protein causes overly acidic conditions in the

blood,

resulting in calcium leaching from the bones and, hence, a greater tendency to

form kidney stones. This opinion is false, however. Theoretically, the

sulphur and phosphorous in meat can form an acid when placed in water, but that

does

not mean that is what happens in the body. Actually, meat contains complete

proteins and vitamin D (if the skin and fat are eaten), both of which help

maintain pH balance in the bloodstream. Furthermore, if one eats a diet that

includes enough magnesium and vitamin B6, and restricts refined sugars, one has

little to fear from kidney stones, whether one eats meat or not (36). Animal

foods like beef, pork, fish, and lamb are good sources of magnesium and B6 as

any

food/nutrient table will show.

 

Heart Disease

 

The belief that animal protein contributes to heart disease is a popular one

that has no foundation in nutritional science. Outside of questionable

studies, there is little data to support the idea that meat-eating leads to

heart

disease. For example, the French have one of the highest per capita consumption

of meat, yet have low rates of heart disease. In Greece, meat consumption is

higher than average but rates of heart disease are low there as well. Finally,

in Spain, an increase in meat eating (in conjunction with a reduction in sugar

and high carbohydrate intake) led to a decrease in heart disease (37).

 

Cancer

 

The belief that meat, in particular red meat, contributes to cancer is, like

heart disease, a popular idea that is not supported by the facts. Although it

is true that some studies have shown a connection between meat eating and some

types of cancer (38), its important to look at the studies carefully to

determine what kind of meat is being discussed, as well as the preparation

methods

used. Since we only have one word for " meat " in English, it is often difficult

to know which " meat " is under discussion in a study unless the authors of the

study specifically say so.

 

The study which began the meat=cancer theory was done by Dr. Ernst Wynder in

the 1970s. Wynder claimed that there was a direct, causal connection between

animal fat intake and incidence of colon cancer (39). Actually, his data on

" animal fats " were really on vegetable fats (40). In other words, the

meat=cancer

theory is based on a phony study.

 

If one looks closely at the research, however, one quickly sees that it is

processed meats like cold cuts and sausages that are usually implicated in

cancer causation (41) and not meat per se. Furthermore, cooking methods seem to

play a part in whether or not a meat becomes carcinogenic (42). In other words,

it is the added chemicals to the meat and the chosen cooking method that are at

fault and not the meat itself.

 

In the end, although sometimes a connection between meat and cancer is found,

the actual mechanism of how it happens has eluded scientists (43). This means

that it is likely that other factors besides meat are playing roles in some

cases of cancer. Remember: studies of meat-eating traditional peoples show that

they have very little incidence of cancer. This demonstrates that other

factors are at work when cancer appears in a modern meat-eating person. It is

not

scientifically fair to single out one dietary factor in placing blame, while

ignoring other more likely candidates.

 

It should be noted here that Seventh Day Adventists are often studied in

population analyses to prove that a vegetarian diet is healthier and is

associated

with a lower risk for cancer (but see a later paragraph in this section).

While it is true that most members of this Christian denomination do not eat

meat, they also do not smoke or drink alcohol, coffee or tea, all of which are

likely factors in promoting cancer (44).

 

The Mormons are a religious group often overlooked in vegetarian studies.

Although their Church urges moderation, Mormons do not abstain from meat. As

with

the Adventists, Mormons also avoid tobacco, alcohol, and caffeine. Despite

being meat eaters, a study of Utah Mormons showed they had a 22% lower rate for

cancer in general and a 34% lower mortality for colon cancer than the US

average (45). A study of Puerto Ricans, who eat large amounts of fatty pork,

nevertheless revealed very low rates of colon and breast cancer (46). Similar

results can be adduced to demonstrate that meat and animal fat consumption do

not

correlate with cancer (47). Obviously, other factors are at work.

 

It is usually claimed that vegetarians have lower cancer rates than

meat-eaters, but a 1994 study of vegetarian California Seventh Day Adventists

showed

that, while they did have lower rates for some cancers (e.g., breast and lung),

they had higher rates for several others (Hodgkin's disease, malignant

melanoma, brain, skin, uterine, prostate, endometrial, cervical and ovarian),

some

quite significantly. In that study the authors actually admitted that:

 

Meat consumption, however, was not associated with a higher [cancer] risk.

 

And that,

 

No significant association between breast cancer and a high consumption of

animal fats or animal products in general was noted. (48)

 

Further, it is usually claimed that a diet rich in plant foods like whole

grains and legumes will reduce one's risks for cancer, but research going back

to

the last century demonstrates that carbohydrate-based diets are the prime

dietary instigators of cancer, not diets based on minimally processed animal

foods (49).

 

The mainstream health and vegetarian media have done such an effective job of

" beef bashing, " that most people think there is nothing healthful about meat,

especially red meat. In reality, however, animal flesh foods like beef and

lamb are excellent sources of a variety of nutrients as any food/nutrient table

will show. Nutrients like vitamins A, D, several of the B-complex, essential

fatty acids (in small amounts), magnesium, zinc, phosphorous, potassium, iron,

taurine, and selenium are abundant in beef, lamb, pork, fish and shellfish,

and poultry. Nutritional factors like coenzyme Q10, carnitine, and alpha-lipoic

acid are also present. Some of these nutrients are only found in animal

foods--plants do not supply them.

 

Myth #6: Saturated fats and dietary cholesterol cause heart disease,

atherosclerosis, and/or cancer, and low-fat, low-cholesterol diets are healthier

for

people.