quote:<HR>Originally posted by Iontach:
This is a fascinating rhetorical device. By the same token, since the OP does not say she is Zimbabwean, she must indeed be so.

In fact, since she tells us that she is a 23 year old female, then she must, in reality, be a 78 year old male ex-wrestler.

As a newbie round here, you may be unaware that there are a lot of people who refuse to come into the CC because they regard it as an unhealthy place completely devoted to discussing eating disorders. I wish I could say you're combatting that impression, but I can't.

Reboot, old chum, you've made your point. A wise poster knows when to desist. That time was some time ago.<HR>

Let me see if I understand you. You are saying I deliberately created "This is a fascinating rhetorical device. " in order to mislead everyone into believing the OP has an eating disorder and that I did this in order to further my argument that has absolutely nothing to do with the existence, or not, of an eating disorder in the OP? Wait, that doesn't make any sense. Well, perhaps you think I went to this elaborate ruse simply because I'm a nasty old man and took this roundabout way to insult a total stranger even if it doesn't further my argument.

I suggest you reread the thread and review the basic principles of logic. I would love to drop this if people would stop attributing to me both ideas and motives that simply were not any part of my posts.

I must add, that I was not aware people thought this forum was devoted to discussing ED. Indeed, I am very surprised. My impression, from the reaction to my mentioning ED, has been that the regulars of this forum were shocked at even the possibility that anyone with disordered eating would be likely to frequent this forum.

The reaction to my posts regarding dangers, to those at risk for EDs, of the unreserved endorsement of vegetarianism has been almost universal denial of any risk. Almost as if ED was an insignificant problem and therefore my concerns were unfounded. I would have expected that the risks to young female athletes would be easily and immediately recognized by anyone even slightly familiar with ED.

------------------
gotta run...

quote:<HR>Originally posted by reboot:
Let me see if I understand you. <HR>

You don't. I'm not suggesting that you have created argumentum ad ignorantiam, merely that you deploy it.

If your aim was to draw the attention of posters in this thread to the possibility that disordered eating can involve not eating meat, then consider it done. It's only fair, of course, to admit that disordered eating can also involve meat-eating - we can surely assume that you will admit this. Thank you.

quote:<HR>I would love to drop this<HR>

So do.

quote:<HR>I must add, that I was not aware people thought this forum was devoted to discussing ED. Indeed, I am very surprised.<HR>

Well, it's then my privilege to be the first to inform you. When you've been round this forum a little longer than two weeks, and you've seen the number of triggering threads, the number of cries for ED help, the number of posts by people of both sexes recovering from EDs, then you'll realize why there are many members of Cool Running who will not come in here because of its (not entirely justified) reputation as verging on the pro-ana. Dealing with this unfortunate part of this forum forms a large part of the (unpaid) work of Leezle, the moderator of CC - your ignorance of a lot of what goes on here is attributable, perhaps, to her good offices.

If you have negative experience of vegetarianism, then I'm truly sorry. But there are many, many motivations for eating vegan or vegetarian - ethical, economic, environmental, religious, or just taste. There are very good reasons to point up the strengths and weaknesses of any diet - if you want to continue with your theme, then maybe you could start another thread. This one is intended by the OP to garner good advice for being a healthy vegetarian; the threadrot doesn't advance that goal.

Apologies for the bloated page, apparently this forum doesn't support nested quotes.

quote:<HR>
<pre>I became a vegan about the same time that I started running, so I can't really comment on whether my training has been helped or hindered thereby. I don't find any problems with recovery or energy levels and my health has generally improved - I've been sick less often this year (but that could also be a function of increased exercise).</pre>
I'm not at all sure what you expect me or anyone else to conclude from the above. I have been a meat eater for over 60 years and am in excellent health. I'm rarely sick and have gone for as long as 20 years at a stretch without seeing a doctor for any reason. Now what should you conclude from such a story?
<HR>

This was not addressed to you, it was addressed to the OP...

quote:<HR><pre>"As javaangel25 points out, vegetarianism has no effect on running. Neither does it have any effect on health in general. It is neither healthier nor less healthy than a more traditional eating style."
Well it depends what you define as a "more traditional eating style". On average, the "more traditional eating style" is far worse than a vegetarian lifestyle, hence the studies showing that on average vegetarians are healthier than the rest of the population.</pre>
You might want to reconsider your logic. Your conclusion that the healthy condition of those practising a vegetarian lifestyle is superior because of the vegetarian practise is just as faulty as the conclusion that the disordered eating by so many young female athletes is because the vegetarian lifestyle. As I have pointed out previously, there is no causal relationship between ED and vegetarianism and you are wrong to conclude there is a causal relationship between meat eating and any health condition.
<HR>

I did not say that there is any relationship between meat eating and any health condition, that was an assumption on your behalf. I would, however, contest that there is not a causal relationship between eating meat at certain quantities and health conditions. Bowel cancer, for instance, is much more prevalent in people who eat a lot of red meat. In fact, it has been proven that eating red meat actually causes cells in your bowel to mutate, predisposing you to cancer.

My actual statement here is that veg*ns are generally more healthy because of their lifestyle in that they are generally more health conscious. Health is a reason (sometimes even the main one) why people become veg*ns and hence they monitor their diet more strictly than most people who are not veg*ns. Have a look at the cross section of people in the US. A huge proportion of these people are overweight or even obese. My statement here is that a vegetarian diet is much better than what these people are eating. Vegetarian diets are not the best diets for health reasons - flexitarian diets have been shown to be the most conducive to longevity, followed by vegetarianism and then veganism.

quote:<HR><pre>"It is however, inconvenient, awkward, expensive, and potentially dangerous."
Inconvenient and awkward? In what way? All it requires is learning to cook, which is a skill that people should learn. As for going out to restaurants, the vast majority of restaurants have vegetarian options on the menu or would be able to organise something if necessary. I have never been to a restaurant where there has not been something I could eat (and I'm a vegan not just a vegetarian)
Expensive? Not in my experience. If you buy lots of expensive packaged food, then yes but if you buy whole foods then it is much cheaper.</pre>
I have no personal knowledge that it is expensive. I was simply repeating a comment frequently made by vegetarians. If you want to make the case that it is not expensive, you'll get no argument from me. I fully expect you will get an argument from your fellow vegetarians however.

That vegetarianism is inconvenient and awkward should be self evident. The OP was specifically expressing a concern related to the inconvenience and awkwardness and most of the initial replies described what steps to take to overcome same. The OP's blog entry for her very first day as an experimental vegetarian focused on the inconvenience and awkwardness of an office noon hour bridal shower where she fully expected to have nothing to eat except what she felt compelled to bring herself. All dietary restrictions produce some degree if inconvenience and awkwardness. Low fat, low salt, low carb, lactose free, or meat free all produce some inconvenience. The more severe the restriction, the more inconvenient and awkward. Vegetarian restricts every meal from the food type that is usually the central focus of most meals. It cannot help but be inconvenient and awkward.
<HR>

I'm going to agree with you here, however, the inconvenience is not inexorable. All it takes is to call ahead at the restaurant or take some kind of action to ensure you have something to eat.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by reboot:<pre>I'm not really sure about the ED proposition. I have heard that many people recovering from EDs are attracted to a veg*n diet because they can be restrictive to a certain extent. However, most veg*ns seem to be pretty health conscious (this is only based on people who visit online forums, so my sample is rather skewed). I think that if there is a problem with people saying they want to be veg*ns and restricting their diet, using that as excuse, people need to be better educated on exactly what it means to be a veg*n and also on the nutritional side of things.
</pre>
If you are not really sure of the "ED proposition", it must be because you are blindly unwilling to even consider anything that might reflect poorly on the vegetarian practise. I have provided three good sources of information regarding the "ED proposition". I can easily provide hundreds more from clinical trials to respected opinions from organizations like a Sports Medicine professional organization. The unfortunate, dangerous and tragic consequences of young female athletes/dancers etc. using vegetarianism to further their obsessive behaviour is extremely well known and documented. Your denial of the commonality of this knowledge does not speak well of your objectivity.
<HR>

I think you are being overly harsh here. "If you are not really sure of the "ED proposition", it must be because you are blindly unwilling to even consider anything that might reflect poorly on the vegetarian practise." - "I have heard that many people recovering from EDs are attracted to a veg*n diet because they can be restrictive to a certain extent.". The reason why I say I am not really sure is because you make it sound as if there is a causal relationship even though you later deny this. The wording of your first statement made it sound as if every female involved in running who decides to take up a vegetarian diet will, without fail pick up an eating disorder. I'm not denying that some of them do, because I have seen the evidence in the number of posts of people recovering from eating disorders on veggieboards.com.

"Your denial of the commonality of this knowledge does not speak well of your objectivity."
Yes I did deny it. However, that is because I had never heard of it before. Therefore this might hint that it is not common knowledge for people outside those who are heavily involved in sports physiology/psychology. I am a high school student, not the kind of person who has the time or inclination to read hundreds of studies on such topics. If, however, I am able to read an abstract or an overview of such studies, I am happy to take the information in my stride.

Thankyou for alerting me to the "ED proposition". I am not going to deny it, and in my previous post I did not. However, I do not think that it is fair for you to deny people the right to have a moral stance on an issue and act in accordance therewith. You strike me as similar to the people who accuse runners of doing it as a form of self mutilation. It is fine for you to give people information about a problem, but your accusatory tone doesn't win you any supporters.

"Well, that's not very nice. We're "wasting" the food by feeding it to animals?" @sheepfugue: Well is it nice to only raise animals in order to slaughter them? Those animals only exist because people want to eat meat, animals are generally pretty good at surviving without human intervention

http://This message has been edited by bruncle (edited Jul-04-2006).

http://This message has been edited by bruncle (edited Jul-04-2006).

http://This message has been edited by bruncle (edited Jul-04-2006).

Meat and the Environment
Would you ever open your refrigerator, pull out 10 plates of pasta and toss them in the trash, and then eat just one plate of food?1 How about leveling 55 square feet of rain forest for a single meal or dumping 2,500 gallons of water down the drain?2,3 Of course you wouldn't. But if you're eating chicken, fish, turkey, pork, or beef, that's what you're doing?wasting resources and destroying our environment.

Animals raised for food expend the vast majority of the calories that they are fed simply existing, just as we do. We feed more than 70 percent of the grains and cereals we grow to farmed animals, and almost all of those calories go into simply keeping the animals alive, not making them grow.4 Only a small fraction of the calories consumed by farmed animals are actually converted into the meat that people eat.

Growing all the crops to feed farmed animals requires massive amounts of water and land?in fact, nearly half of the water and 80 percent of the agricultural land in the United States are used to raise animals for food.5,6 Our taste for meat is also taking a toll on our supply of fuel and other nonrenewable resources?about one-third of the raw materials used in America each year is consumed by the farmed animal industry.7

Farmed animals produce about 130 times as much excrement as the entire human population of the United States, and since factory farms don't have sewage treatment systems as our cities and towns do, this concentrated slop ends up polluting our water, destroying our topsoil, and contaminating our air.8 And meat-eaters are responsible for the production of 100 percent of this waste?about 86,000 pounds per second!9 Give up animal products, and you'll be responsible for none of it.

Many leading environmental organizations, including the National Audubon Society, the WorldWatch Institute, the Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists, have recognized that raising animals for food damages the environment more than just about anything else that we do. Whether it's the overuse of resources, unchecked water or air pollution, or soil erosion, raising animals for food is wreaking havoc on the Earth. The most important step you can take to save the planet is to go vegetarian.

Read more.

1 Mark Gold and Jonathon Porritt, "The Global Benefits of Eating Less Meat," Compassion in World Farming Trust, 2004, p. 23.
2 John Robbins, M.D., The Food Revolution, Conari Press: Boston, 2001, p. 256.
3 Robbins, p. 236.
4 Ed Ayres, "Will We Still Eat Meat?" Time, 8 Nov. 1999.
5 Robbins, p. 238.
6 Marlow Vesterby and Kenneth Krupa, "Major Uses of Land in the United States, 1997," U.S. Department of Agriculture Statistical Bulletin.
7 Jim Motavalli, "The Case Against Meat," E Magazine, Jan./Feb. 2002.
8 Ayres.
9 Motavalli.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vegetarian Diets: Healthy and Humane

A vegetarian diet is as good for humans? health as it is for animals?. There is no nutritional need for humans to eat any animal product; all our dietary needs, even as infants and children, are best supplied by a meatless diet. The American Dietetic Association notes that a vegetarian diet reduces the risk of many chronic degenerative diseases and conditions, including heart disease, cancer, obesity, hypertension, and diabetes.(1)

Animal Products Lead to Heart Disease
Heart disease is the number one health problem in the United States, accounting for more than a million heart attacks and a half million deaths every year.(2) Because we now know what causes heart attacks, we can prevent them. In many studies, researchers have found that higher levels of cholesterol are linked to a greater risk of having a heart attack. For every 1 percent increase in the amount of cholesterol in your blood, there is a 2 percent increase in your risk of having a heart attack; conversely, every 1 percent reduction in your cholesterol level reduces your risk by 2 percent.(3)

Thanks to the dedicated efforts of the meat, dairy, and egg industries, many Americans still believe that animal products are necessary for good health. One of the largest studies on lifestyle and health found that heart disease mortality rates for lacto-ovo vegetarian males was only one-third that of meat-eating men.(4) The British Medical Journal published findings from a study concluding that lifelong vegans have a 57 percent reduced risk of death from heart disease.(5)

Plant foods contain no cholesterol, whereas meat, eggs, and dairy products contain large amounts of cholesterol, saturated fats, and concentrated protein?all harmful substances. Also, the high fiber content of a vegetarian diet (meat, dairy products, and eggs are devoid of fiber) helps ?wash away? excess cholesterol in your digestive tract.

A vegetarian diet can even reverse damage already done. When Dr. Dean Ornish put patients with coronary artery disease on a low-fat vegetarian diet combined with moderate exercise and relaxation techniques, he found that they reversed the buildup of plaque in their arteries.(6)

Cancer?s Connection to Animal Products
The number one recommendation in the American Cancer Society?s (ACS) Guidelines on Nutrition for Cancer Prevention is to eat a diet ?with an emphasis on plant sources.?(7) Researchers have found that vegetarians are between 25 and 50 percent less likely to suffer from cancer, even after controlling for other factors, such as smoking.(8) A recent study by the ACS found that people who ate 3 ounces of meat a day were 30 to 40 percent more likely to develop colon cancer.(9) Researchers for the ACS have also found that while plant foods lower men?s risk of prostate cancer, eating meat raises their risk.(10) Researchers from Yale University report that meat-based diets can cause cancers of the stomach and esophagus, as well as lymphoma (cancer of the lymphatic system).(11,12) Scientists have also found that people who regularly chow down on hot dogs, sausages, or other processed or cured meat suffer from a 70 percent increase in pancreatic cancer rates.(13)


Meat Can Be Poisonous
In addition to causing heart disease and cancer, animal products also contain harmful contaminants?including bacteria, arsenic, dioxins, and mercury?that can affect our health both in the short and long terms.

Every year in the U.S., there are 75 million cases of food poisoning, and 5,000 of these cases are fatal.(14) The overuse of antibiotics in factory farms has caused many of the bacteria found on animal flesh to become antibiotic-resistant. Scientists at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health recently reported that 96 percent of Tyson chicken flesh is contaminated with dangerous antibiotic-resistant campylobacter bacteria.(15) In a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) study, researchers found that 66 percent of beef samples were contaminated with super-bugs resistant to antibiotics.(16) A recent report by the U.S. General Accounting Office warns, ?Antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been transferred from animals to humans, and many of the studies we reviewed found that this transference poses significant risks for human health.?(17)

It is not uncommon for farmers to lace chicken feed with arsenic to kill parasites, and some of the arsenic stays in the animals? flesh. One USDA study concluded, ?Eating 2 ounces of chicken per day?the equivalent of a third to a half of a boneless breast?exposes a consumer to 3 to 5 micrograms of inorganic arsenic, the element?s most toxic form.?(18) Daily exposure to low doses of arsenic can cause cancer and other ailments in humans.(19)

Fish flesh is also not a healthy food. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), residual industrial compounds that can be found in the environment, have caused cancer in animals and skin problems and liver damage in humans.(20) Fish flesh has been found to harbor levels of PCBs thousands of times higher than those in the water in which they live.(21) Researchers at the University of Illinois found that fish-eaters with high levels of PCBs in their blood had difficulty recalling information that they had learned just 30 minutes earlier.(22) Fish also accumulate methylmercury in their bodies, and pregnant women and children have been cautioned not to eat fish that may contain high levels of this toxic substance.(23)

Factory Farming Hurts Animals
Animals are much more intelligent and complex than most people realize, and scientists are providing more and more evidence of this all the time.

According to researchers, cows enjoy mental challenges and feel excitement when they use their intellect to overcome an obstacle. Dr. Donald Broom, a professor at Cambridge University, says that when cows figure out a solution to a problem, ?The brainwaves showed their excitement; their heartbeat went up and some even jumped into the air. We called it their Eureka moment.?(24) Scientists now know that pigs have the cognitive skills of 3-year-old human children.(25) Biologists wrote in Fish and Fisheries that fish are ?steeped in social intelligence, pursuing Machiavellian strategies of manipulation, punishment and reconciliation, exhibiting stable cultural traditions, and cooperating to inspect predators and catch food.?(26) Chickens form friendships and social hierarchies, recognize one another, develop a pecking order, and even have cultural knowledge that is passed between generations.(27)

Nearly all the animals raised for food in America today spend their lives in factory farms. These animals, who feel pain and fear just as the dogs and cats who share our homes do, are separated from their families and crammed by the thousands into filthy warehouses. They are mutilated without the use of painkillers and deprived of everything that is natural to them?they won?t be permitted to see the sun or breathe fresh air until the day when they are forced onto trucks bound for the slaughterhouse. On the killing floor, many animals are completely conscious and struggling to escape while their throats are cut?and some are still conscious while their bodies are hacked apart or when they are dunked into tanks of scalding-hot water.

Factory Farming Hurts Our Planet
Raising animals for food requires massive amounts of resources. Of all the agricultural land in the U.S., 80 percent is used to raise animals for food and to grow the grain to feed them?that?s almost half the total land mass of the lower 48 states.(28) Chickens, pigs, cattle, and other animals raised for food are the primary consumers of half the water in the U.S.(29)

Each day, factory farms produce billions of pounds of manure, which ends up in lakes, rivers, and drinking water. Farmed animals produce about 130 times as much excrement as does the entire human population of the United States?87,000 pounds of waste per second!(30,31) A California study found that a single dairy cow ?emits 19.3 pounds of volatile organic compounds per year, making dairies the largest source of the smog-making gas, surpassing trucks and passenger cars.?(32)

What You Can Do
? Include high-fiber foods in your diet. Whole-wheat bread, brown rice, oats, flax seeds, and vegetables supply fiber, which helps lower cholesterol.
? Avoid dairy products; they contain cholesterol and saturated fats. Calcium can be obtained from beans, broccoli, sesame seeds, and green, leafy vegetables.
? Visit VegCooking.com for delicious eggless, nondairy vegetarian recipes.
? Call 1-888-VEG-FOOD or visit GoVeg.com for a free vegetarian starter kit.

References

1) The American Dietetic Association, ?Position of the American Dietetic Association and Dieticians of Canada: Vegetarian Diets,? Journal of the American Dietetic Association 103 (2003): 748-65.
2) American Heart Association, ?Heart Attack and Angina Statistics,? 3 Oct. 2003.

3) Neal Barnard, Food for Life (New York: Harmony Books, 1993) 34.
4) R.L. Phillips et al., ?Coronary Heart Disease Mortality Among Seventh-Day Adventists With Differing Dietary Habits: A Preliminary Report,? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 31 (1978): S191-8.
5) M. Thorogood et al., ?Plasma Lipids and Lipoproteins in Groups With Different Dietary Practices Within Britain,? British Medical Journal 295 (1987): 351-3.
6) Dean Ornish et al., ?Can Lifestyle Changes Reverse Coronary Heart Disease?? The Lancet 336 (1990): 624-6.
7) American Cancer Society, ?Cancer Prevention and Early Detection: Facts and Figures, 2004,? 2004.
8) J. Chang-Claude et al., ?Mortality Pattern of German Vegetarians After 11 Years of Follow-Up,? Epidemiology 3 (1992): 389-91.
9) Jessica Heslam, ?Don?t Have a Cow, Man: Docs: Meat Hikes Cancer Risk by up to 50 Percent,? Boston Herald 12 Jan. 2005.
10) American Cancer Society, Inc., ??Good? Fat Linked to Lower Prostate Cancer Risk,? 29 Sep. 1999.
11) Yale University, ?Animal-Based Nutrients Linked With Higher Risk of Stomach and Esophageal Cancers,? news release, 15 Oct. 2001.
12) Daniel DeNoon, ?Diet Linked to Non-Hodgkin?s Lymphoma: Lots of Meat, Saturated Fat, Dairy May Raise Risk,? WebMD Medical News 9 Mar. 2004.
13) ?Processed Meat May Cause Pancreatic Cancer,? Xinhua News 22 Apr. 2005.
14) Reuters, ?CSPI: Seafood, Eggs Biggest Causes of Food Poisoning in U.S.,? CNN.com 7 Aug. 2000.
15) Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, ?Drug-Resistant Bacteria on Poultry Products Differ by Brand,? Johns Hopkins Public Health News Center 16 Mar. 2005.
16) ?Drug-Resistant Bacteria Found in U.S. Meat,? Reuters Medical News, 24 May 2001.
17) Dave DeWitte, ?Report Urges USDA to Accelerate Study of Livestock Antibiotic Risks for Humans,? The Gazette 26 May 2004.
18) Dennis O?Brien, ?Arsenic Used in Chicken Feed May Pose Threat,? The Baltimore Sun 4 May 2004.
19) O?Brien.
20) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, ?ToxFAQs for Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)? 16 Sep. 2003.
21) Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
22) Susan Schantz et al., ?Impairments of Memory and Learning in Older Adults Exposed to Polychlorinated Biphenyls via Consumption of Great Lakes Fish,? Environmental Health Perspectives June 2001.
23) U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ?What You Need to Know About Mercury in Fish and Shellfish,? brochure, Mar. 2004.
24) Jonathan Leake, ?Cows Hold Grudges, Say Scientists,? The Australian 28 Feb. 2005.
25) ?New Slant on Chump Chops,? Cambridge Daily News 29 Mar. 2002.
26) ?Scientists Highlight Fish ?Intelligence,?? BBC News, 31 Aug. 2003.
27) Valerie Elliott, ?Why Did the Chicken Cross the Road?? Times Online 18 Mar. 2005.
28) Marlow Vesterby and Kenneth S. Krupa, ?Major Uses of Land in the United States, 1997? Statistical Bulletin No. 973, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1997.
29) Bill McKibben, ?Taking the Pulse of the Planet,? Audubon Nov. 1999.
30) Ed Ayres, ?Will We Still Eat Meat?? Time 8 Nov. 1999.
31) U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, ?Animal Waste Pollution in America: An Emerging National Problem,? Dec. 1997.
32) Jennifer M. Fitzenberger, ?Dairies Gear Up for Fight Over Air,? Fresno Bee 2 Aug. 2005.

A Barnes&Noble expert on the world.
This is the exact type of biased political BS I'm talking about. You know what happens to waste on animal farms? It is not dumped straight into rivers and streams, it is used as natural fertilizer on the fields where the crops are grown, practically eliminating the need for polluting chemical fertilizers (on your veggie farms, they use tons of chemical fertilizers, the phosphates from which run into the water and create algal blooms in the lakes). There are offenders who don't take steps to prevent runoff but most farmers take appropriate measures...of course, you've likely never set foot on a farm so you quote some book written by someone with an agenda. You have no real-life experience with the world outside your cookie-cutter suburban neighborhood, so you take anything in print as gospel truth.

Let me use clear words with you as you didn't listen the first time. Farmers WILL NOT let land go fallow, they can't afford to. So TELL ME, if tomorrow we all stopped eating meat, what would we do with all the extra cereals? Who would eat them? Obesity is at epidemic levels so we hardly need to stuff them in anyone's face. The only people starving don't have access to them (Africa) anyways, so this argument about wasting calories is just plain dumb. You know why food is so cheap? Because corn is $1.80 or so a bushel....the same price it was in 1960. We already have massive over-supply of crops, so what on earth are we going to do with more if we off'ed all the farm animals?

As for pollution, city people like to pretend they're all environmentally correct. I've got news for you. Do you know what happens to all the phosphates from your cleansers, fertilizers and herbicides from your "I-must-have-the-greenest-lawn-on-the-block" lawn? They go right thru the treatment process nearly unchanged and ARE DUMPED STRAIGHT INTO RIVERS. Farmers at least use the absolute smallest amount of these products they can....they're expensive and profit margins are razor-thin. That bottle of Round-Up you use on your lawn is about 100X the concentration we'd put on a farm crop. And you drove 10 miles to buy it with your 1.5 kids in a Ford Excursion getting 10mpg when a small sedan would fill your needs just fine.

I'm not interested in discussing this with someone whose experience with the world comes from Barnes & Noble and over a broadband connection. Don't try to tell me what happens on a farm when you've never been on one, reading some book gives you no credibility. I can find statistics in print to say just about anything I want, people on both sides will abuse them to further their agenda.

Again, great job on honoring a request not to start a political discussion. No wonder this particular board has its implied reputation. Maybe reboot was right.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by reboot:
This kind of animal production is far more hazardous to the environment (even in the very small minority of cases where they are fed a strict vegetable diet) than all the food animal production combined. To my knowledge, neither the individual vegetarians nor the various vegetarian associations have any policy encouraging any form of restriction on this type of animal production. The vegetarian movement will never have any credibility with me unless or until they start publicly speaking out against the irresponsible and unrestricted production of these animals. The animals I am referring to are, of course, humans.
<HR>

All of the vegetarians I know have frequent discussions about zero population growth and many, if not most, either have no children, have only one or two children, or adopt. None of the meat-eaters I know discuss such things in any seriousness (and obviously, I know far more meat-eaters, but I am exposed to large numbers of vegetarians via online forums and such). It is a pressing concern among vegetarians. Vegetarian associations are obviously more concerned about encouraging vegetarianism and not scaring off people by telling them not to have children. This entire line of reasoning is ridiculous - why should the vegetarian movement, which was certainly not really created to have an environmental impact, but an ethical one, have a position on the growth of the human population? It does so happen that vegetarianism could support a population more efficiently than meat-eating (whatever the size of that population) and certainly the vegetarian movement has embraced that finding, but it's hard enough to get across the merits of vegetarianism without bringing up more ridiculousness to be attacked on.

This argument is completely nonsensical - because your ideology does not deal with every single problem ever created it should be rejected in totality?

Vegetarianism is not my religion and it's not my political movement, but it is a way of life that is supported by my religion and my political persuasion - I am not looking to it to solve every problem of my life, but to help me act more in accordance with my belief system while still living a full, healthy, meaningful life.

(P.S. thanks Merigayle for the research above and there's much more where that came from)

Merigayle, calling people names is not a good way to win supporters or win an argument.

@Andy Hass: I can see what you mean in regard to cereal production. The sad part of it is that if veg*ns ever do become a majority it will mean that the farmers who were producing grain for animal consumption will be forced out of the market because of the laws of supply and demand. Not really much you can do about it under a capitalist economy.

http://This message has been edited by bruncle (edited Jul-05-2006).