These articles are from Facts of Vegetarianism— a booklet that although we believe published in the early 1970s by a joint effort of the American Vegan Society, American Vegetarians, and Animal Liberation, Inc., still expresses valid considerations for adopting a vegetarian diet. Dudley Giehl, H. Jay Dinshah, Nellie Shriver, and Nathaniel Altman were contributing authors. Facts Of VegetarianismAre We Meat-Eaters By Nature?Health Aspects of VegetarianismThe Ethics of VegetarianismChemicals and AdditivesVegetarian Diet Can Save You MoneyWorld Food CrisisAnswers to Your QuestionsAre We Meat-Eaters By Nature?It has been found that the diet of any animal in it s natural state corresponds to its anatomical structure and general body f unctions. Upon close examination, it is obvious that humans are not naturally suited to a diet which includes flesh. INTESTINE:For example, the natural carnivores (such meat-eating animals as the wolf, lion, hyena, and cat) all possess a digestive tract only three times the length of the animal's body, and are thus capable of eliminating rapidly decaying substances (such as meat) in a very short time. The intestinal canal is relatively simple, and not convoluted. Unlike in vegetarians, the stomach is rich i n hydrochloric acid, which enables them to digest bone and the tough fi brous tissue found in animal muscle. On the other hand, the intestinal canal of humans and other naturally vegetarian animals (such as the anthropoid ape, camel, cow, horse) is ten to twelve times the length of the body, forming a winding, intricate route poorly adapted for the digestion and elimination of flesh food. The digestive system of the natural omnivores (flesh and plant eaters such as the bear, raccoon, and wild boar) lies between these extremes, as they, too, are ideally suited to consume their natural diet. TEETH:Along with sharp claws, all carnivores are given powerful jaws and long fangs — the sharp, elongated canine teeth for spearing and tearing flesh. Dr. A. S. Romer, Professor Emeritus of Zoology at Harvard, has written that "the canines . . . are long and pointed stabbing weapons in all flesh eaters." The so-called "canine teeth" in humans (termed thus because of the relative position in the mouth) have no resemblance to those found in the dog, cat, or even the omnivorous bear. On the other hand, the vegetarian animals are well equipped with sharp incisor teeth for biting into fresh fruits and vegetables; and Page 1 of 21 Facts of Vegetarianism 01/11/2011 http://www.highvibrations.org/archive3/veg.htm
These articles are from Facts of Vegetarianism — a booklet that although we believe published in the early 1970s by a jointeffort of the American Vegan Society, American Vegetarians, and Animal Liberation, Inc., still expresses valid considerations foradopting a vegetarian diet. Dudley Giehl, H. Jay Dinshah, Nellie Shriver, and Nathaniel Altman were contributing authors.
Facts Of Vegetarianism
Are We Meat-Eaters By Nature? Health Aspects of Vegetarianism The Ethics of Vegetarianism Chemicals and Additives Vegetarian Diet Can Save You Money World Food Crisis Answers to Your Questions
Are We Meat-Eaters By Nature?
It has been found that the diet of any animal in its natural state corresponds toits anatomical structure and general body functions. Upon close examination, itis obvious that humans are not naturally suited to a diet which includes flesh.
INTESTINE:
For example, the natural carnivores (such meat-eating animals as the wolf, lion,hyena, and cat) all possess a digestive tract only three times the length of theanimal's body, and are thus capable of eliminating rapidly decaying substances(such as meat) in a very short time.
The intestinal canal is relatively simple, and not convoluted. Unlike invegetarians, the stomach is rich in hydrochloric acid, which enables them todigest bone and the tough fibrous tissue found in animal muscle.
On the other hand, the intestinal canal of humans and other naturally vegetariananimals (such as the anthropoid ape, camel, cow, horse) is ten to twelve timesthe length of the body, forming a winding, intricate route poorly adapted for thedigestion and elimination of flesh food.
The digestive system of the natural omnivores (flesh and plant eaters such asthe bear, raccoon, and wild boar) lies between these extremes, as they, too, areideally suited to consume their natural diet.
TEETH:
Along with sharp claws, all carnivores are given powerful jaws and long fangs —the sharp, elongated canine teeth for spearing and tearing flesh. Dr. A. S.Romer, Professor Emeritus of Zoology at Harvard, has written that "thecanines . . . are long and pointed stabbing weapons in all flesh eaters."
The so-called "canine teeth" in humans (termed thus because of the relativeposition in the mouth) have no resemblance to those found in the dog, cat, oreven the omnivorous bear. On the other hand, the vegetarian animals are wellequipped with sharp incisor teeth for biting into fresh fruits and vegetables; and
unlike the meat-eaters they possess very well developed molar teeth forgrinding and chewing of vegetables, fruits, and nuts. The cat, for example, hasno chewing ability whatsoever.
Nor has human dental structure significantly changed either from or to that of aflesh-eater, in all the time he has been on this planet, in the opinion of notedscientists.
"At the period and place, whenever and wherever it was, when man first lost hishairy covering, he probably inhabited a hot country; a circumstance favourablefor the frugivorous diet on which, judging from analogy, he subsisted." —Charles Darwin (The Descent Of Man , 2nd ed., 1874, page 156.)
The French naturalist, Baron Cuvier, also put forth this view: "Fruits, roots, andthe succulent parts of vegetables appear to be the natural food of man: hishands afford him a facility in gathering them; and his short and comparativelyweak jaws, his short canine teeth not passing beyond the common line of theothers, and the tuberculous teeth, would not permit him either to feed onherbage or devour flesh, unless those aliments were previously prepared by theculinary processes."
In his article, "Source of Perfect Nourishment: The Plant Kingdom" (1949)Geoffrey Hodson quotes the great Swedish naturalist, Karl vonLinne' (Linnaeus): "Man's structure, external and internal, compared with that ofother animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natualfood."
He also cites the opinion of Ernst Haeckel, "Whatever part of the body we
consider, we find upon the most exact examination that man is more nearlyrelated to the higher apes (eaters of fruit and nuts) than are the highest apes tothe lowest apes. It would therefore be unwarranted to regard man asconstituting a (biological/anatomical) class by himself."
It would be imposslble to adequately discuss in this little treatise, the religiousviews on vegetarianism around the world; it suffices to say that there isconsiderable reference in both Old and New Testaments to the concept thatpeople were created as totalvegetarians (Gen. 1:29) and will eventually return tothis Edenic condition (Isaiah 11:6-9). And on the other side of the fence,anthropologists — no matter how far back in time they go — are unable to comeup with any proof that humans have ever been NATURALLY carnivorous. Onthe contrary, all the scientific evidence points to exactly the opposite conclusion,namely that we have always retained our obviously vegetarian construction,even when apparently forced (as by an ice age, or a flood) to temporarily turn toflesh-foods for survival in emergency conditions.
We may study the fangs and jaws of the modern tiger, to realize thedental equipment necessary for a true carnivore:
Next, we may see the diagram of the fossilized skull reconstructionof Pithecanthropus erectus — the so-called "Java Man", said by scientists to
date back perhaps a half million years. Just as in theCro-Magnon and the earlier Neanderthal humans, thissub-Neanderthal supposed precursor of humanitydisplays the teeth of a vegetarian or mainly frugivorous
creature! Without indulging in theological and scientificdisputations regarding the probable age of this planet, or the pedigree of thehuman race, we can easily settle this question for ourselves. Simply look in amirror at YOUR OWN TEETH, or those of any other modernhuman, and decide if they can be said to resemble (by anystretch of the imagination) the fangs of a vicious tiger, or even apet cat or dog.
In addition, carnivores perspire through their tongues, as their skin lacks pores.Being mainly nocturnal hunters, they sleep in the heat of the day. Hodson notes,"This is supported by the fact that dogs, being companions to man and havinglearnt to accompany him by day, thereby being exposed to greater heat, easilybecome overheated, "perspire" through the tongue, and pant to get cool.Furthermore, if carnivora were to perspire at night there would be danger ofsudden chill to the skin."
As vegetarian animals normally function during the day, their skin has millions ofpores, and they freely perspire through the skin to regulate body temperature.Once again, the omnivores in between more closely resemble carnivores in thisrespect than they resemble the vegetarians, including humans.
OUR NATURAL INSTINCT?
It is also obvious that our sensibilities are not inclined towards fleshfood. Allmeat-eaters (other than the scavengers: vultures, hyenas, etc.) kill their ownprey and eat it in its natural state. Most of us must have our meat slaughtered byproxy, as we would be sickened if forced to kill the animals ourselves. Instead ofeating meat in its original state, we age it, and we boil, bake, fry, or broil it,making sure the meat is first suitably "tenderized", and is well-disguised withsauces, spices, and gravies.
If we observe a tiger or leopard stalking its prey, killing and ripping it apart withonly fang and claw, and eating it raw, we may then deduce that this animal hasa carnivorous instinct. Most humans would become sick to their stomachs at theprospect of killing and eating an animal; even in the few sadistic humans whomight relish such a thought and act, this is demonstrably not instinctive but aconditioned indoctrination, as it was not present at birth but carefully learnedlater in life.
On the other hand, a bowlful of grapes, cherries and peaches, would make anynormal human's mouth water; and even the prospect of picking them and eatingthem fresh from the tree would convey no unpleasant or repulsive sounds,sights, smells, or thoughts. The same bowl of fruit would generally have noattraction whatsoever for the carnivore.
ARE ALL TYPES OF VEGETARIAN CREATURES THE SAME IN DIET?
No, there are many differences arnong the vegetarian animals, and thesedistinctions also point the way to a natural diet for man. The cloven hooves,several stomachs, and unique dental formula of the cow, for example, indicatethat its natural diet consists of grass, herbs, possibly grains, and other plants.
But as we have noted, man bears the closest anatomical resemblance to theanthropoid ape (the very term "anthropoid" meaning literally "man-like"), whose
natural diet is composed of fresh fruits, nuts, seeds, and green shoots. Ourhands are made perfectly for gathering this type of food-and without any artificialimplements whatever-and bear no resemblance to the hooves of the grazinganimals or the "paws 'n' claws" of the carnivores.
Our stomach does not have the ruminant's many chambers for digesting grass,nor the murderously high hydrochloric acid content of a carnivore's (very usefulin a cat, for example, to digest fur and bones from a mouse).
Certainly, under extreme conditions, animals may seem to be able to eat almostanything and survive for a time. But such emergency measures cannot beconsidered as a normal — let alone ideal — way of eating or living.
In some cultures and climates, such as in the Arctic regions, meat or animal fatis said to be necessary for survival, as it was during the Ice Age when, scientistsbelieve, man was first forced by expediency and necessity to change fromvegetarian to omnivorous diet. Polar explorers in difficult straits, and survivors ofshipwrecks and airplane accidents in remote locations, have occasionally eventurned to human cannibalism for the sake of emergency survival. However, thisclearly is an aberration, and can hardly be said to be a natural or even desirablepractice. Obviously, in our civilization meat is definitely not needed for survival,whatever may have been the case in ages past or some exceptional instance ofadverse clime or emergency in the present.
So what are we supposed to eat? It seems clear that humans are anatomicallyand instinctively suited to a diet of fruit, vegetables, nuts, seeds, and perhapsgrains. A diet composed entirely of such foods is termed pure vegetarian, totalvegetarian, or "vegan".
Others maintain that from a standpoint of convenience, or for other reasons,humans may or should also eat dairy products and/or eggs. These diets aretermed lacto-vegetarian (including milk), ovo-vegetarian (including eggs), orlacto-ovo-vegetarian (including both items of diet). Those who use some milkand/or eggs in their diet at present constitute the larger number of vegetarians.
People who include fowl, or fish or seafood in their diet are not vegetarians; theyare meat-eaters.
Health Aspects Of Vegetarianism
HEART DISEASE:
a) Meat is high in saturated fats. The cholesterol that accumulates on the arterialwalls constricts the flow of blood in the body, placing a greater burden on theheart to pump harder. Cholesterol is clearly a major factor in the causing ofheart attacks — the number one killer of Arnericans — and crippling or lethalstrokes .
b) Dr. W.A. Thomas reported in the Journal of the American Medical Assn.(6/3/61) that "a vegetarian diet can prevent 90% of our thromboembolic disease
and 97% of our coronary occlusions".
c) Statistics indicate that in countries where meat consumption is high (U.S.,
Canada, Australia), the mortality rate for heart disease is also very high. Thosedeveloped countries with the lowest consumption of meat (Japan and Italy),have significantly lower mortality rates from heart disease. Two such statisticalcharts can be found in "Faith, Love, & Seaweed", by Ian Rose, and "HeartAttack, You Don't Have To Die", by Christiaan Barnard, M.D.
d) The mortality rate for coronary disease is 50% greater in overweight people."People who become fat by overeating animal fats are more likely to developcoronary heart disease than people whose obesity is caused by anoverindulgence in foods that do not elevate the blood cholesterol level." (Dr.Barnard, ibid.)
e) Citing the studies of Drs. Dawber, Kannell, and Dr. Ancel Keys, Dr. Barnardnotes that "people who eat a diet high in animal fats have a higher incidence ofcoronary heart disease than those who donot..."(ibid.)
CANCER:
a) Livestock with cancerous tumors are routinely used for meat. The tumors aresimply cut out before the meat is allowed to pass inspection as "wholesome"and fit for human consumption. There is a certain form of cancer found inchickens that can not be detected without a good deal of effort and expense. Itis, therefore, often passed over. (Owen S. Parrett, M.D., from his essay, "Why IDon't Eat Meat")
b) "Some diseases assumed to be local may be systemic. I worked for a dairyherd, and when I found a diseased animal I recommended it destroyed. Theyshipped it anyway. One day, I found a sore on a cow, about the size of this book
(held up a bookthe size of a typical Bible or church hymn book). I sectioned itand examined it with the microscope. Skin Cancer. They sent the animal tomarket. Did they lose the whole animal? No, just the loin, where the sorewas!" (Richard Walden, M.D., D.V.M., M.S. — Ahimsa 9/62.)
He also stated that even an animal raised by oneself is not necessarily asafe"as early disease stages would not be detectable. (ibid.)
c) Epidemiological studies have shown a strong correlation between theincidence of colon cancer and meat consurnption. (Burkitt DP: "Epidemiology ofcancer of the colon and recturn." "Cancer" 28:3-13, 1971; Gregor O, Toman R,
Prusova F: "Gastrointestinal cancer and nutrition." "Gut" 10:1031-1034, 1969;several other sources.)
"Because the diet, free of animal fats, results in a shorter transit time andprobably the production of less carcinogens, the incidence of cancer of the colonshould be substantially lower than that of omnivores. Time will tell; apparently nocases have yet been reported in vegans (total vegetarians)." (Eva Batt, in"Present Status & Aims Of Veganism", 1971.)
BACTERIA:
a) Meat, being material from a corpse, has a far greater amount of harmfulbacteria than vegetarian foods.
After studying samples from 32 brands of frankfurters bought in supermarkets
"Food experts generally agree that putrefaction has set in when a frankfurter'stotal bacteria count has reached 10 million per gram.
With that as a yardstick, more than 40 percent of the samples we analyzed had
begun to spoil. One sample tested out at 140 million per gram." (Consumer Reports , 2/72, p. 76.)
b) According to Dr. Walden (M.D. and veterinarian who worked as a meatinspector): "Slaughterhouse workers are in constant contact with animals.According to the Bureau of Labor, the poultry processing industry is the 3rdmost hazardous, even ahead of steelworkers and bulldozer operators, due tothe occupational hazard of disease.
"The slaughterhouse is the salvation of the farrner. When he is losing hisanimals to disease, he just ships them off to market, and hopes they are
accepted.
"One of the first suggestions a vet is supposed to make is: ship it to market." Healso cited several cases where he had personally seen diseased animalsshipped to "save their lives" by killing them for meat. (Ahimsa , 9/62.)
c) Two million people in this country are stricken each year with salmonellabacteria poisoning (in most instances not fatal). Meat with salmonella bacteriawill contaminate any raw foods it contacts or simply by the bacteria carried onone's hands to other foods. "Swine and cattle are also prime sources ofsalmonella infection. Meat chosen at random in retail markets has shown a high
incidence of contamination." (James Goddard, M.D., from "Nutrition Today",Sept. 1967.)
KIDNEY DISEASE:
a) A carnivorous diet creates more waste products for the kidneys to contendwith: "Comparative analyses of the urine of low protein feeders and those whotake an ordinary mixed diet show that even moderate meat eaters require oftheir kidneys three times the amount of work in the elimination of nitrogenouswastes than is demanded of the kidneys of flesh abstainers. While the kidneysare young they are usually able to bear this extra burden so that no evidence of
injury appears; but as they become worn with advancing age they becomeunable to do their work efficiently." (J. H. Kellogg, M.D., from The New Dietetics .)
The Ethics Of Vegetarianism
ANIMAL CRUELTY
Many people nowadays have been lulled into a sense of complacency by thethought that animals are now slaughtered "humanely", thus presumablyremoving any possible humanitarian objection to the eating of meat.
Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the actual facts of life . . . anddeath.
The entire life of a captive "food animal" is an unnatural one of artificialbreeding, vicious castration and/or hormone stimulation, feeding of abnormaldiet for fattening purposes, and eventually long rides in intense discomfort to theultimate end. The holding pens, the electric prods and tail-twisting, the abjectterror and fright, the accidental misses of the "humane slaughter" stunningdevice — all these are still very much a part of the most "modern" animalraising, shipping, and slaugbtering. To accept all this and only oppose thecallous brutality of the last few seconds of the animal's life, is to debase andcorrupt the very word "humane"! With the exception of the moment of slaughteritself, all the other cruelties in the animals's life may remain exactly the same.
Nor, for that matter, is all slaughtering done by modern or "humane" methods,and you cannot tell how your meat was raised, or shipped, or killed.
COMPASSION FOR ANIMALS
The beginning of ethical vegetarianism is the knowledge that other creaturesfeel, and that their feelings are very similar to ours. This knowledge encouragesone to ext¢nd personal awareness to also encompass the sufferings of others.This is the essence of compassion — the feeling of the sufferings of others, andsympathizing with them, and doing all we can to change such sorry conditions.
Because we know in ourselves the feeling of pain and suffering, we refuse to bea party to inflicting such anguish upon others.
Because we can smell the urine-drenched straw in the livestock truck and seehow the animals are packed in for transit (although they sometimes even falland break their legs in the sudden stops and starts), we realize the grossly cruel
conditions of servitude imposed by us upon these animals, and oppose thatcruelty.
Because we know that mother cows love their young, and grieve when thecalves are taken from them at birth to be fattened up for veal, we cannot in goodconscience condone such practices. Indeed, a well-developed consciencedictates that we must stand in opposition to these brutal actions.
Ethical vegetarians oppose not only the killing but the whole assortment ofcruelties, artificialities, debasements of humans and animals alike, that go withfood-animal raising, shipping, and killing.
We recognize our moral obligation to actively work to correct such conditions,not by a dab of fresh straw here and there, but by doing away with the wholecallous system of animal-killing for food.
This is done by refusing to create the demand which makes it
profitable for a few, and by helping to educate other thoughtful people to theethical and other benefits of a common-sense vegetarian regimen.
REVERENCE FOR LIFE, AND HUMAN PROGRESS
It is occasionally stated that humans have somehow acquired a need for meatdue to our higher developments. This fallacy is refuted by Dr. Herbert M.Shelton:
"Tenderness and mercy and gentility, and all the spiritual qualities that set manoff so greatly from beasts of prey, are lacking in the lion, tiger, wolf and othercarnivora. The claim that man has evolved to such a high mental and spiritualplane that he must have meat is exactly the opposite of the facts. He must crushand harden his higher nature in order to hunt and fish and prey. The hunter andthe butcher are not symbols of spirituality. They are not embodiments of thehigher mental, moral and social powers of man's nature." (Orthotrophy , vol. II.)
While the entire system of animal-keeping, raising, and slaughtering for man'sfood is catastrophic for the animal kingdom and for the nqtural ecologicalbalance, it is no less than disastrous for the progress of humanity.
The great vegetarian artist and scientific inventor, Leonardo da Vinci, was of thesame mind, when he stated:
"Truly man is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds theirs. We live by thedeath of others. We are burial places! (Merejkowski's "Romance of Leonardo daVinci")
"I have from an early age abjured the use of meat, and the time will come whenmen such as I, will look upon the murder of animals, as they now look upon themurder of men." (From da Vinci' s Notes.)
A similar view in regard to the relationship between respect for human life, andrespect for animal life, was expressed by the first President of the Republic ofIndia, Dr. Rajendra Prasad:
"Any integrated view of life as a whole will reveal to us the connection between
the individual's food and his behavior towards others, and through a process ofratiocination which is not fantastic, we cannot but arrive at the conclusion thatthe only means of escaping the hydrogen bomb is to escape the (type of)mentality which has produced it, and the only way to escape that mentality is tocultivate respect for all life, life in all forms, under all conditions. It is only anothername for vegetarianism." (Quoted in The Case For Vegetarianism , by GeoffreyL. Rudd, 1966 ed.)
Count Leo Tolstoy also recognized the ways in which preying upon the animalscould stunt the peaceful aspirations and spiritual growth of humanity:
"This is dreadful! Not (only) the suffering and death of the animals, but that mansuppresses in himself, unnecessarily, the highest spiritual capacity — that ofsympathy and pity towards living creatures like himself — and by violating hisown feelings becomes cruel." (From his essay, The First Step .)
The philosopher and playwright, Bernard Shaw, echoed this view:
"While we ourselves are the living graves of murdered animals, how can weexpect any ideal conditions on the earth."
"When a man wants to murder a tiger, he calls it sport; when a tiger wants to
murder him he calls it ferocity!"
Possibly the most productive life for mankind, and certainly one of the mosthighly spiritual and saintly, in the past several centuries, was lived by Mahatma
Gandhi of India — a life-long staunch vegetarian but for a few youthfulexperiments — and he declared:
"I do not regard flesh-food as necessary for us at any stage and under any climein which it is possible for human beings ordinarily to live. I hold flesh-food to beunsuited to our species. We err in copying the lower animal world if we aresuperior to it. Experience teaches that animal food is unsuited to those whowould curb their passions.
"...Vegetarianism...may not be lightly given up. It is necessary, therefore, tocorrect the error that vegetarianism has made us weak in mind or body, orpassive or inert in action. The greatest Hindu reformers have been the activestin their generation and they have invariably been vegetarians..." (Young India ,7/10/26.)
The Nobel-Prize winning poet, Rabindranath Tagore, also recognized thedanger in stifling the humane feelings regarding diet:
"We manage to swallow flesh, only because we do not think of the cruel andsinful thing we do. There are many crimes which are the creation of manhimself, the wrongfullness of which is put down to their divergence from habit,custom, or tradition. But cruelty is not of these. It is a fundamental sin, andadmits of no arguments or nice distinctions. If only we do not allow our heart togrow callous it protests against cruelty, is always clearly heard; and yet we goon perpetrating cruelties easily, merrily, all of us — in fact, any one who doesnot join in is dubbed a crank. ...If, after our pity is aroused, we persist inthrottling our feelings simply in order to
join others in preying upon life, we insult all that is good in us. I have decided totry a vegetarian diet."
In his logical and secular philosophy of Reverence for Life, Dr. Albert Schweitzergave to the world and the individual an ethical yardstick against which tomeasure our attitudes and behavior toward others, both human and otherwise:
"From experiences like these, which moved my heart and often made me feelashamed, there slowly grew up in me an unshakeable conviction that we haveno right to inflict suffering and death on another living creature unless there issome unavoidable necessity for it, and that we ought all of us to feel what a
horrible thing it is to cause suffering and death out of merethoughtlessness." (Reverence For Life — Philosophical Library, New York, p.5.)
Quite naturally, he extended his gentle lifeview to his refusal to kill animals forhisown meals. (Several interesting references to his personal dietary principles andpractices — including his typical vegetarian menu at the age of 90 — are to befound in a beautiful article in "Life" magazine of 2/19/65. Photo: From the bustby Prof. Upton Clary Ewing.)
NOTEWORTHY VEGETARIANS
Vegetarianism has been advocated and practiced by many of the greatestphilosophers, scientists, leaders, and others, including Emerson, Thoreau,Buddha, Plato, Socrates, Pythagoras, Origen, Diogenes, Cicero, Herodotus,Porphyry, Sir Isaac Newton, Voltaire, Shelley, Pope, Plutarch, Ovid, H. G. Wells,
Maeterlinck, John Wesley, Scott Nearing, Dr. Annie Besant, Field Marshal LordMontgomery, Sir Stafford Cripps, Air Chief Marshal (RAF — "Battle of Britain")Lord Dowding and Lady Dowding, Louisa May Alcott, Vinoba Bhave, etc.
On the lighter side, in the entertainment world, the ranks of vegetarians haveincluded such stars as the late George Arliss, Dennis Weaver, Clint Walker,Samantha Eggar, Dick Gregory, Susan St. James, Candice Bergen, Melanie,and many others.
In the field of sports, a vegetarian regimen has long been known to help buildendurance. Among the athletes who have lived and/or trained as vegetarians,are swimmer Johnny Weissmuller, Olympic multiple-gold-medal winner MurrayRose, "Flying Finn" runner Paavo Nurmi, wrestling champ GeorgeHackenschmidt, and "Mr. America" wrestler
Gene Stanlee, Jack McClelland and Bill Pickering are famous channelswimmers who are vegetarian; in 1956, Pickering won farne by swimming theEnglish Channel faster than anyone in history.
The Vegetarian Cycling and Athletic Club has held as many as 40% of theNational (bicycle racing) Road Records, although their members comprise asmall percentage of the racers. In 1963, vegetarian Ron Murgatroid swept aseries of 15 out of 15 bicycle events in Great Britain.
In football, a 1970 article on former Oakland Raiders linebacker Chip Oliver(said to be "one of the finest young prospects in football") noted that he playedbetter after switching to a vegetarian diet. And the annual race — ON FOOT —to the top of Pike's Peak, was recently won two years in a row by a vegetarian.
No serious vegetarian would claim that by adopting this way of living one willautomatically become an instant superman, or increase one's I.Q. by 50 points.But we should examine WHY so many thoughtful, intelligent, compassionatepeople become vegetarians.
TOWARD A BETTER WORLD
The benefits of vegetarianism are available at the level of the individual, thefamily, the nation, or the whole world. Such progress, however, must begin withindividuals, making their own free choice for this better way.
Vegetarians are not merely impractical idealists. On the contrary, vegetarianismis reinforced by consistent and authoritative medical and scientific facts,statistical surveys of comparative health in various groups, and by long practiceover thousands of years in many parts of the world. The land-use and nutritionalarguments in favor of vegetarianism make of it a humanitarian crusade ofunparalleled urgency and importance to all of humanity today.
We are often told that people are inherently cruel or depraved, that it is part ofour very nature to be vicious and selfish. Looking at the world around us, wecould not deny that there might be some reason for such a pessimistic world-
view. But vegetarians do not just view present conditions and ask "Why?". Weare more interested in visualizinfg a better, nobler future and saying "WHYNOT!" We prefer to emphasize the higher and greater part of human nature, andto encourage this side of humanity to blossom forth with all the bountiful
blessings this would bring upon the face of the entire world.
Chemicals and Additives
PESTICIDES:
As the name implies, pesticides are used to control unwanted insects.
There is considerable controversy over the advisability of pesticide use.However, the fact remains that most crops today are grown with suchchemicals.
DDT is one that has been very widely used [In the U.S.A. DDT was outlawed in1972, but has been and might continue to be used in other countries. — editor].Scientists have found this chemical to be a probable cause of cancer and havealso linked its use to liver disease. It is virtually impossible to find areas of landthat are unpolluted with DDT, as it is easily carried long distances though the
soil by the rain and underground streams. It is also blown by the wind for manymiles from the place where it was originally sprayed. In view of recentrestrictions placed on the use of this chemical, it is of interest to note that DDTresidue will remain in the soil for many years, even if it were banned completely.
As DDT is fat-soluble, it is usually stored in the fatty tissues of the body. Wheneating meat, you are taking into your own body the concentrations of DDT andother chemicals that have accumulated in the animal for the fifteen months or sothat it was being raised. Because of this accumulative effect, it is estimated thatmeat contains thirteen times as much DDT as opposed to vegetables, fruits, andgrains.
It is interesting to note that the choice cuts of meat are "marbled" with fat (this iswhat provides that "rich" flavor). The prime grade contains about 63% more fatthan the general grade, and that much more DDT.
"The fatty storage depots act as biological magnifiers, so that an intake of aslittle as 1/10 of 1 part per million in the diet results in the storage of about 1O to15 parts per million, an increase of one-hundredfold or more. In the diet in theaverage home, meats and any products derived from animal fats contain theheaviest residues of chlorinated hydrocarbons. This is because these chemicalsare soluble in fat. Cooking does not destroy residues." (Rachel Carson, in Silent
Spring , Fawcett, 1962, pp. 29/162.)
ARSENIC:
Arsenic is, of course, a known poison. It is used in the feed of livestock animalsas a growth stimulant. Arsenic compounds used as feed additives includearsenilic acid, sodium arsonilate, and 3-nitro-4 hydraxyphenyl arsonic acid.Black's Veterinary Dictionary says this of arsenic: "The disposal of dungcontaining arsenic residues from poultry houses, etc., may accordingly befraught with danger. Administered in small doses over a long period, arsenicmay give rise to cancer."
Arsenic is also the main component of a solution that is used to "dip" cattle andsheep to rid them of mites, ticks, and other parasites. The value of "cowhide" (a
by-product of the meat industry) is greatly decreased if it contains too many tickmarks.
The U.S. Dept. of Agriculture Yearbook for 1915 stated that the Meat InspectionService recognized the existence of 42 distinct groups of "diseases or conditionswhich make the meat of the affected animals dangerous or abhorrent". Thereport further stated, "It is not at all likely that science will everbe able to doaway with all of these". The U.S,D.A. Yearbook of 1954 reported that there were80 different diseases affecting livestock which could also be transferred tohumans. Scientists estimate there are at least 1000 varieties of parasites thatprey on these animals. In the earlier part of this century, such diseases asanthrax, blackleg, hog cholera, bovine tuberculosis, diphtheria, and othersspread to epidemic proportions throughout the country and struck a seriouseconomic blow to the meat industry. The health of the nation was, of course,also jeopardized. Special breeding and the large quantities of animals used inthis industry make it quite susceptible to such outbreaks on epidemic levels aswitnessed at that time. Anthrax, for example, is noted by the U.S.D.A. to show a"marked preference for high-grade stock".
These diseases are now controlled by the use of various antibiotics that aregiven to meat animals. Some of the drugs used for this purpose are terramycin,bacitracin, hygromycin B, oxytetracycline tyosin, neomycin, aureo 250,streptomycin, penicillin, tetracycline, chlortetra cycline, and aureomycin. Asidefrom the standard vaccination shots the animals receive each season, theseantibiotics are regularly mixed with their feed. Antibiotics are also used topromote growth and as a preserving agent.
Scientists have warned that continued use of these drugs will create aresistance to them and could have serious consequences for patients treatedwith such antibiotics in severe illness. The consequence of eating meat withantibiotic residue range from violent reactions (for those people with a lowtolerance to such drugs) to an acquired immunity to such drugs as penicillin orstreptomycin. The Journal of the American Medical Assn. states, "A method ofdeveloping sensitization is by administering the agent in small repeated dosage,in the manner paralleling that of repeatedly ingesting food preserved with anantibiotic".
A government task force (January, 1972) voiced strong criticism of the use ofantibiotics in meat. Their findings were in accord with previous studies whichstate that constant exposure to antibiotics could make human diseaseorganisms resistant to the drugs. Even worse, the report continues, we thenmay have NEW disease strains that are immune to penicillin or other commonlyused antibiotics.
An example of this occurred in 1969 when 41 babies were admitted to severalpediatric clinics in Manchester, England. The diarrhea and vomiting theyexperienced was caused by an intestinal bacteria (Escherichia coli). Doctorsunsuccessfully tried to treat them with various modern antibiotics, but the babiesdied. Two microbiologists from a London research institute for intestinaldiseases were sent to make a complete report on the tragedy.
According to their findings, the death of the children was caused by a NEWgerm-type that had devloped a resistance to antibiotics by their use in animalfeeds.
The staphylococcus ("staph") germ has already developed a resistance toantibiotics. It is sometimes fatal. Interestingly enough, a major meat packingcompany in the U.S. recalled its salami (7/71) when it was found to containtoxins produced by "staph" bacteria. Several people who ate the tainted meatexperienced vomiting and nausea.
Dr. Hartman, commenting on the harmful effects of antibiotics, noted thataureomycin, which is widely used in animal feed, destroys bacteria in theintestinal tract upon which we actually depend to make vitamins for us.
SODIUM NITRATE, SODIUM NITRITE, AND SODIUM SULPHITE:
Sodium nitrite and sodium nitrate areused as preservatives to retard theputrefaction process (to which all meat is subject), in sandwich meats such asfrankfurters, salami, bologna, sausage, etc. This type of meat may remain in thestore for weeks before it is sold.
It should be borne in mind that the conditions of spoilage (as reported on page8, col. 2) can exist even with the use of toxic chemical preservatives .
Dr. Charles C. Edwards, Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, intestimony before a House subcommittee (3/71) stated that sodium nitrite ispotentially dangerous to small children, can deform the fetus in a pregnantwoman, and can cause serious damage to anemic persons. He also stated thatthe use of this chemical in meat is a possible cause of cancer, an opinion heldby other scientists for some time now.
Sodium sulphite is used to give meat a "fresh red appearance". This chemical
can restore the color of rancid meat that has turned black, and will alsomiraculously eliminate the strong odor of putrefaction. One New York Statesurvey found sulfite in 26 out of 30 samples of hamburger. ("Der Spiegel", June21, 1971.) If you have ever purchased meat that "looked delicious" but tastedbad, it is very likely that it had been doused with sodium sulphite.
People who eat meat now have three alternatives. They can insist that the useof antibiotics, hormones, preservatives, and poisons such as arsenic, bebanned. If this could be done, the price of meat would have to be greatlyincreased. If meat were not preserved with hazardous chemicals and antibiotics,it probably could not be marketed on the mass level that it is at present. It would
certainly necessitate better refrigeration and handling methods, and a far higherstandard of sanitation than is likely to be maintained on an economical basis.
The second alternative is to maintain the status quo. We can continue to eatmeat, with the added risks of cancer, the known or unknown side-effects fromdrugs or antibiotics in the meat, and the developing of sensitivity or immunity tothe drugs on which we might rely in the future.
The manufacturing process of certain vitamins in the body could also beimpaired, leaving one prone to various diseases caused by vitamin deficiencies.
The third alternative: We can return to our natural diet, by choosing to bevegetarians.
Writing in regard to the atrocities of the modern factory-farm, Rachel Carsonwarned not only of the physical harm to the animals and to humans, but also ofthe ethical and other questions involved:
"As a biologist whose special interests lie in the field of ecology, or the relationbetween living things and their environment, I find it inconceivable that healthyanimals can be produced under the artificial and damaging conditions thatprevail in the modern factory-like installations, where animals are grown andturned out like so many inanimate objects. The crowding of broiler chickens, therevolting insanitary conditions in the piggeries, the lifelong confinement of layinghens in tiny cages....
"....This artificial environment is not a healthy one. Diseases sweep throughthese establishments, which indeed are kept going only by the continuousadministrations of antibiotics. Disease organisms then become resistant to theantibiotics. Veal calves, purposely kept in a state of induced anaemia so theirwhite flesh will satisfy
the supposed desires of the gourmet, sometimes drop dead when taken out oftheir imprisoning crates.
...The menace to human consumers from the drugs, hormones, and pesticidesused to keep this whole fantastic operation somehow going is a matter neverproperly explored.
"The final argument against the intensivism now practised in this branch ofagriculture is a humanitarian one . . . Has (man) the right, as in these examples,to reduce life to a bare existence that is scarcely life at all? Has he the further
right to terminate these wretched lives by means that are wantonly cruel? Myown answer is an unqualified no. "It is my belief that man will never be at peacewith his own kind until he has recognized the Schweitzerian ethic that embracesdecent consideration for all living creatures — a true reverence for life."(Rachel Carson, from her Foreword to the book Animal Machines , by RuthHarrison.)
Vegetarian Diet Can Save You Money
In the past several years, food prices have skyrocketed, with meat leading thespiral. The average person who manages a home is hard pressed to make the
best use of the grocery dollar, and provide the family with good, nourishing food.
A vegetarian diet has been proven to be an excellent source of quality protein,as well as the other nutritional constituents, at a very reasonable price. For theaverage family, an imaginative meatless diet of salads, soups, casseroles,loaves, stews, fresh breads, and fruit and nuts, can sharply reduce the food bill.
Contrary to popular belief, vegetarians are not merely restricted to amonotonous dietof limp celery or canned soyabeans. The variety of vegetariandishes is nearly endless, and the imaginative chef can provide a family withliterally hundreds of exciting, palatable, nutritious, and economical meals.
The following table compares the cost of usable protein which the average 154-pound male is said to need each day. The list includes meat, fish, and dairyproducts, as well as grains, nuts, and other high protein sources from thevegetable kingdom. It should be noted that in this context, the term "usableprotein" refers to the complete amino-acid balanced protein that requires nofurther arnino-acid supplementation to be of high biological value to a humanbeing.
We might bear in mind that the vegetable products generally contain additionalsignificant amounts of amino-acids which are NOT in the ideal combination orbalance, and it is erroneous to think of these as "useless proteins"; quite thecontrary: they are everybit as useful to the body if the amino-acid(s) in whichthey are deficient aremadeup,through combining with another food of differentdeficiency. In any normal meal, such foods as fruits, leafy greens, etc., wouldalso contribute significant amino-acids which would further raise the quantity ofcomplete, usable protein available from that meal.
In preparing this chart, these factors have deliberately been ignored; if they werealso considered, it would obviously still further lower the costs of obtainingcomplete protein from the vegetable foods.
SELECTED PROTEIN COST COMPARISONS (Prices given are typical ofsupermarkets in the New York City area in June, 1973.)
Not that protein is all there is to good nutrition, but as it is of prime importance to
the body, and it is the nutritional constituent so constantly advertised andpublicized by animal-food interests, it is well to illustrate how easily we canobtain our protein requirements from vegetarian food, and at less expense.
This should be no surprise, when we consider the 90-95% waste factor involvedin feeding vegetable-foods (grains, soyabeans, etc.) to animals for meat, aspointed out already. And if we were to examine nutritional constituents otherthan protein, such as vitamins, useful minerals, enzymes, etc., then of coursewe would again demonstrate
quite clearly the economic and nutritional benefits weighing so heavily in favor of
vegetarianism.
World Food Crisis
THE WORLD FOOD SITUATION
According to United Nations sources, more than half of the world's people arehungry or malnourished, and nearly half of them have barely enough food onwhich to survive.
In terms of the world food deficit, there is a shortage of over eight million tons offood, which will increase to a shortage of an estimated 100 million tons by theyear 2000.
Are we using the land in the most practical and productive manner?
OUR WASTED LAND
It has been found that arable land will support far more human beings per acre,if devoted to the growing of vegetable matter for direct human consumption,than for raising animals for food.
Isaac Asimov, noted biochemist and professor at the Boston University Schoolof Medicine, states: "At each step of feeding there is considerable waste so thatonly 10 percent of the living matter of the creature fed upon is converted intothelivingmatterof the creature who is feeding." Taking the ecological chain onelink further, he says that a creature living on other carnivorous creatures wouldonly return about 1% (10% of 10%) of the food value eaten by the first creaturesin the chain. On the other hand, "By cutting out items in the food chain, then,afeeder can do better in terms of its own numbers and mass" He makes thepoint that if we were to bypass just one link in the ecological food-chain, we"would then have a food supply ten times as great" compared with the former,second-hand food source. (Where Do We Go From Here? — Fawcett CrestBook, edited by Dr. Asimov, 10/72 ed., page 247.)
Slightly more than half of the acreage harvested in the United States is planted
with animal-feed crops: 91% of the corn, 77% of the soybean meal, 64% of thebarley, and 88% of the oat crop is fed to animals instead of to people. If thesetremendous food resources were rechanneled for direct human consumption,our present American food shortage would cease to exist, and would insteadbecome a whopping surplus.
The following chart (used some years ago in "Corn Or Cattle", by C.W.Forward)gives estimated possibilities of food production for one acre of land in one yearor in a day. Obviously, many variable factors exist; but the animal-to-vegetableratios are always great:
Even if we compare food production exclusively from the protein standpoint,vegetarian foods prove their vast superiority.
Meat runs generally under 20% protein, leg of lamb running about 16%, withcorned beef going up to 25%.
Protein contents of the vegetable foods in the above table, are estimated asfollows: Wheat, 12%; Barley, 9.6%; Oats, 12%; Beans (Soya, fresh), 10.9%;Maize (corn), 3.5%; Rice (Whole brown), 7.5%; Potatoes, 2.1%. These are byno means the highest-protein vegetable foods (Peanuts run 26%; Pumpkin andsquash seeds, 29%; Sunflower seeds, 24%; Pignolia nuts, 31%), but even withthese given examples we can easily demonstrate the wisdom of directconsumption of vegetable foods by human beings. (Figures, from Composition And Facts About Foods , by Ford Heritage; and Why Kill For Food? by GeoffreyL. Rudd.)
The following chart is based on the first one, and gives the production figure per
acre per day, of actual protein in each respective food:
BEEF ......2.0 oz. OATS.......11.5 oz.
MUTTON.....1.6 oz. BEANS...... 8.7 oz.
MAIZE...... 4.7 oz.
WHEAT .....8.6 oz. RICE.......15.0 oz.
BARLEY.....7.7 oz. POTATOES . 18.5 oz.
It may readily be seen from this, that the protein requirements of human beingsare ill served by the feeding of vast quantities of vegetable foods to animals, toproduce the tiny protein amounts returned to humans. The waste factor is farmore than we can afford. Nor should it be supposed that the quality of vegetable
protein is in any way inferior to that of animals; in fact, many of the concentratedprotein sources within the vegetable, kingdom (including most nuts and seeds,leafy green vegetables, wheat germ, soya beans, etc.) are in complete amino-acid balance for human needs, and virtually every other proteinous food can be
utilized in harmony with others to make up complete protein combinations.
Nor can we let the matter rest with the highly favorable showing of vegetablefoods in the matter of protein production. In the production of similarly necessaryand vital vitamins, minerals, and enzymes, vegetarian foods are incomparablybetter than animal flesh. Another vital factor in feeding the world's billions, issimple caloric requirement (food energy, or fuel for the body). In this
case, we may see again how much more productive is the vegetable kingdomthan the animal:
FOOD ENERGY STORED IN A GIVEN TIME FOR HUMAN USE (BASED ON ABEEF AND MUTTON CONSTANT OF 1.0) —
BEEF . . . . . . 1.0
MUTTON . . . . . 1.0
WHEAT . . . . . 10.0
BARLEY . . . . . 11.6
OATS . . . . . . 15.5BEANS . . . . . 4.5
MAIZE . . . . . 5.4
RICE . . . . . . 30.0
POTATOES . . . . 27.9
What this table illustrates is that, in regard to a specific amount of land and in aspecified length of time, for every single food-energy calorie produced by meat-animals, 10 times as much would be produced by wheat, or 4 1/2 times as muchby soyabeans, or 30 times as much by rice, or nearly 28 times as much bypotatoes.
It is a great modern tragedy that today the have-nations are even importingtremendous quantities of foodstuffs from have-not nations; England, forexample, imports every year from India, some 100,000 tons of oil-seed cakematerial which is very high in protein. Methods have been developed already, toextract this high-quality protein from the oil-seed cake material, for humanconsumption. But the 100,000 tons per year of oil-seed cake material are usedto help feed the vast quantities of factory-farmed food-animals of Britain, so thatthe British people may continue to enjoy their high standard of dietarycholesterol! Similarly, Europe takes in from Africa comparable amounts of suchmaterials, for use as food for animals that are destined for ultimate slaughter.The amounts involved would apparently at least make up the protein
deficiencies in these poorer areas of the world.
WATER
Pure water is becoming increasingly scarce these days. But if we eat meat weare in effect consuming far more than our rightful share. According to the U.S.Dept. of Agriculture, the mixed meat-and-vegetable type of diet uses 8 times asmuch water as the purely vegetarian regimen.
The standard omnivorous diet in the United States requires 2500 gallons ofwater per person per day (used for irrigation of crops, drinking water for the
animals, washing, cooking, etc.). The pure-vegetarian (vegan) diet uses only300 gallons, while the lacto-ovo-vegetarian (using milk andl eggs) would liebetween these extremes.
Moreover, the cost of water per pound of meat is about 25 times that of the costof water for a pound of vegetables, according to U.S.D.A. sources.
100,000,000 gallons of water are used every day by just one plant thatprocesses chickens. This is enough water to service acommunity of 25,000people. ("Food Price Rises" by Sylvia Porter, N.Y. Post, 7/27/73.)
ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
One study of wastes from the meatpacking industry in Omaha, Nebraska, citedthe fact that the meat packing companies located in that city discharge over100,000 pounds of grease, carcass dressing, casing cleaning, intestinal waste,paunch manure, and fecal matter from the viscera, into its sewer system eachday. This empties into the Missouri River. (Terracide , by Ron Litton.)
Slaughterhouses and feedlots (where the animals are fattened up beforeslaughter) are among the nation's most arrogant pollutors of the land, water, and
air. The discharges of phosphates, nitrates, and fats into the waterways, and thenoxious odors and smoke from the 7000 U.S. and Canadian abbatoirs, arenotorious.
The waste runoffs from the various feedlots in the United States have beentermedby Newsweek as "ten to several hundred times more concentrated thanraw domestic sewage."
Answers to Your Questions
(A page of brief but illuminating answers to some of the questions most often
asked about vegetarianism.)
1) CAN YOU REALLY GET ENOUGH PROTEIN? WHAT DO YOUSUBSTITUTE FOR MEAT?
Actually, it is meat that is the substitute for more natural foods, and its place inthe diet can be taken easily by these vegetarian foods.
Remember, the vegetable kingdom is the real source of ALL protein.Vegetarians simply eat it "direct" instead of getting it second-hand from thevegetarian animals.
Concentrated sources include most nuts and seeds (about 15-30%, of mainlycomplete-balance protein); legumes (peas, beans, lentils, about 6-8% protein inthe fresh state); leafy greens also contribute an excellent quality protein insmaller but significant amounts. And many vegetarians also use dairy productsand/or eggs for this purpose.
Whole grains also furnish protein (averaging 10-12%), and nutritional yeast runsabout 50%.
2) ISN'T IT VERY DIFFICULT TO PLAN VEGETARIAN MEALS? AND IT
MUST BE BORING, JUST EATING SPINACH AND CELERY?
...Plus a hundred other types of vegetables, plus the delicious seeds and nuts,
plus all the luscious ripe fruits, plus the whole grains, plus (for most vegetarians)the variety of daiy products, etc., plus all the innumerable delightful recipes thatcan be prepared form such tempting natural ingrediants! "Vegetarian" does notmean "straw-eater", nor confine one to vegatables alone. There is a greatassortment of vegetarian recipe books available, and one can become quite agourmet if one wishes.
It is true that many vegetarians prefer a much simpler dietary regimen, but this isout of choice, not lack of imagination or possibilities.
Vegetarian meals can be nutritious and well-balanced while still being attractive,tasty, and yet simple and easy to prepare. A nice dividend is the liberation fromthe drudgery of cleaning up greasy pans and sticky ovens. Even when it iscooked, vegetarian food usually requires far less preparation time, and it ismuch easier to clean up afterwards.
3) WON'T THE ANIMALS OVERRUN THE EARTH, IF WE DO NOTCONTINUE TO KILL AND EAT THEM?
It is difficult to imagine how, considering that virtually all the meat we use fromland animals and birds, comes from pitiful domesticated or even cagedcreatures whom we have specifically bred for this purpose.
At a time when we are exterminating so many species from the face of the earththrough greed and rapacious ecological ignorance and manipulation, it shouldbe clear to all by now that it is WE — not the animals — who are in danger ofoverrunning the earth.
4) CAN I RAISE MY CHILDREN AS VEGETARIANS?
Yes, if you want them to have the best chance of enjoying good health and long,vigorous life.
Comparative medical and dental studies prove that children raised asvegetarians, on the type of recommended natural whole-foods, haveincomparably better teeth, and much greater freedom from so-called children'sdiseases as well as colds, allergies, and problems of degenerative diseases.
5) ISN'T IT A HYPOCRISY FOR A VEGETARIAN TO WEAR FURS, OR
LEATHER SHOES?
It would depend upon one's motives for being a vegetarian. If based uponhealthful reasons, then it would not necessarily be so inconsistent to wear fur orleather. Most ethical vegetarians would of course oppose killing animals for fursas well as for food.
Many vegetarians hold that leather is a by-product of slaughter rather than aprime cause of it. Many others have re-examined this position, and a largeproportion have changed to shoes of natural or synthetic non-animal materials.
Vegetarianisn. is not a monolithic cult; it embraces many points of view, from thebasic vegetarian (who eschews meat, fish, and fowl) to the extreme vegan (whouses no food, clothing, soaps, cosmetics, etc., with any animal ingredients).
6 ) EXPERIMENTS INDICATE THAT PLANTS HAVE CONSCIOUSNESS;HOW DO VEGETARIANS FEEL ABOUT THIS?
Wonderful! Vegetarians have been battling for centuries against the cynicalattitude that even the ANIMALS are unfeeling brutes; and vegetarian sages ofIndia have taught plant-consciousness and the Universality of all Life, over thepast thousands of years. So we are at last making progress in educating thepublic. Pioneering scientific experiments in this field were made half a centuryago by a vegetarian, when Dr. Bose examined rudimentary consciousness inthe plants, albeit a greatly different type from that in humans and animals. Butwe need no Crescograph or Polygraph to prove that ANIMALS are subject to theSAME feelings of pain and emotions as we are.
Still, vegetarians can easily live on those foods which do not require the killing,or even harming, of the plants. These would include ripe fruits & nuts, berriesand melons, legumes, tomatoes, seeds, squashes and pumpkins, okras,cucumbers, and many other vegetables. Potatoes are dug from the ground afterthe planthas died. Most vegetables are annuals, harvested at or near the end oftheir natural life. But please bear in mind that animals must eat about ten timesas much vegetable food to return to us one unit of food value as meat. Thus,even in terms of destruction of plant-life, we see a factor of 10 to 1. Obviously,the question of plant consciousness can only be a strong point FORvegetarianism.
7) THERE IS SO MUCH CRUELTY TO PEOPLE; WHY DO YOU WASTE TIMEON ANIMALS?
Can we really separate cruelty to fellow man, to children, to animals, or to natureand the world? If we never learn compassion, pity, and mercy for the weak anddefenseless, is it likely we will ever begin to treat our fellow man fairly?
ALL brutality and cruelty poisons and stifles the higher, finer nature in humanity;ALL kindness helps make a better world for all. Vegetarianism — and all itimplies — is of the utmost importance and potential benefit for animal andhuman alike. Thus, there is no question of choosing between them.
Click Back button on your browser to return to previous page location.
