Not So Fast

I'm sick of people saying "we need to eat me, we evolved to do it". Maybe thousands of years ago, eating meat was "natural" for humans but today there are 6 billion of us. There's nothing "natural" about factory farming, hormones and anti-biotic over-use. We do lots of things that aren't "natural", such as using birth control, taking medication, etc but that doesn't stop us from doing them.  A well-balanced vegetarian or vegan diet is approved by the American Dietic Association, so there's really no reason to continue eating meat for health reasons. Yes, you do need to take a Vitamin B12 supplement to be a healthy vegan, but it's not the end of the world to take a supplement!!  It's much preferable to climate change and rainforest destruction!

Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin
- University of Chicago

Earth Interactions, Vol. 10, pp. 1-17, March 2006

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~gidon/papers/nutri/nutri.html ...

Can you be an environmentalist who clear-cuts the rainforest?
Environmentalist should mean something...

click here
Would you ever open your refrigerator, pull out 16 plates of pasta and toss them in the trash, and then eat just one plate of food? How about leveling 55 square feet of rain forest for a single meal or dumping 2,500 gallons of water down the drain? 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. Only a small fraction of the calories consumed by farmed animals are actually converted into the meat that people eat.

A major 2006 report by the United Nations summarized the devastation caused by the meat industry. Raising animals for food, the report said, is "one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global. The findings of this report suggest that it should be a major policy focus when dealing with problems of land degradation, climate change and air pollution, water shortage and water pollution and loss of biodiversity. Livestock's contribution to environmental problems is on a massive scale ...."

Click on this link
for more.

Check out www.Meat.org & www.GoVeg.com.

The government did find merit in vegetarian diets, but was far more cautious regarding vegan diets.  You're right in that an American Dietetic Assn./Dieticians of Canada position paper [1] said that A vegetarian, including vegan, diet can meet current recommendations for all of these nutrients [such as iron, zinc, calcium, and B12.]  They didn't specifically say that we should be vegetarians, just that it can meet the average North American's needs.

The FDA elaborated on the report, adding:
It's wise to take precautions, however, when adopting a diet that entirely excludes animal flesh and dairy products, called a vegan diet...

"The more you restrict your diet, the more difficult it is to get the nutrients you need," says John Vanderveen, Ph.D., director of the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Plant and Dairy Foods and Beverages. "To be healthful, vegetarian diets require very careful, proper planning. Nutrition counseling can help you get started on a diet that is nutritionally adequate." [2]

Probably their most clear-cut findings were that "Most vegetarians eat milk products and eggs, and as a group, these lacto-ovo-vegetarians enjoy excellent health."  From a historical standpoint, this makes sense; until the late 19th Century, we mostly lived on farms, and primarily kept livestock around for either labor or produce (milk & eggs), not just to kill and eat.  We'd only eat the animals once their productive days were over, and that was rather infrequent.

The FDA continued to say that many of the stated benefits of vegetarianism actually relate to not smoking, not drinking, and getting more exercise, practices that tend to be more common among vegetarians.

This is not to say that vegetarianism is a bad thing.  Greenhouse gasses or otherwise, I believe that eating low on the food chain is a better use of our natural resources.  I also believe that modern farming practices are abhorrent, because we've handed our diets over to giant faceless companies who care about money more than nutrition, animal safety, or worker welfare.  But you shouldn't base your life choices on a single study, or worse yet, on how somebody else interprets that study.

--
akbeancounter
[1] http://tinyurl.com/34ehae .  This is an update of a much older position paper.  PeTA references one from 1997, but it's essentially the same.
[2] http://www.fda.gov/Fdac/features/895_vegdiet.html

Taking accounting to the extreme since 2004.

If you eat a steak, your body cannot use all of the protein in it. I don't know the exact numbers, but most of the protein in the steak gets flushed away.

The environmental benefits of not eating meat are huge. I am glad that I have given up meat.  I have no cravings to ever sneak a burger.  I just wish it had not taken me 40 years to become a vegetarian.

In addition to the environmental benefits and the health benefits of giving up meat, there is also the moral benefit.  Just watch the video at this site for a few minutes:  http://www.meat.org/
If you can watch this and then go and order up a steak or some chicken fingers with a clear conscience, then I guess I have no idea how to reach you.

One thing we shouldn't forget is that animal advocacy is a social justice issue - not a personal preference.

If I say "I can kick my dog if I want to", I disregard the dog's interests (and luckily there are anti-cruelty laws). It's the same as saying "I can eat meat if I want to". Well sure I can, but I have to admit that I'm ignoring and disregarding an sentient individual's interests in order to accommodate my taste preferences.

Also, did you know that anti-cruelty laws do not protect farm animals? See this article:

http://www.satyamag.com/may97/farm_animals.html

There are 3 basic questions I asked of myself when I considered going veg:

1 - Do I need it to survive? No.
2 - Does it's production often result in suffering? Yes.
3 - Does it's production have a negative impact on ecosystems and biodiversity? Yes.

The only excuse I could find to continue animals was that they tasted good - but then I found seitan. :)

The truth to that isn't the issue, I don't think.  It's the pretentious way PETA chooses to market damn near EVERYTHING they do.  

Listen, I'm a Vegan.  I have been for over 3 years.  I do it for environmental AND moral reasons.  I actually believe the statement "Meat is murder, dairy is rape."  I have sympathies for various groups whose acronym starts with "A" and ends in "F" (with maybe an "L" in there somewhere too).  But I really don't support this campaign as the face of the vegetarian / vegan movement.  It's going to get us nowhere.  It's the source of conflict, not constructive engagement.

Vegan Outreach is an organization that's much more cool-headed about spreading our holy gospel of burgerlessness. :P  

Summary of all that was, is, and will be said here over and over:

• Meat eaters are/are not monsters
  
• Vegetarians are/are not better people
  
• Vegetarians who hate meat-eaters are/are not stupid
  
• Meat eating is/is not unhealthy
  
• Meat-eaters can/ cannot be environmentalists
  
• Meat eating is/is not necessary
  
• Not all/all meat-production is a problem
  
• Cute, furry animals may/may not be used to our benefit

Karsten PolluteLessDotCom

http://www.polluteless.com

1. I had gained weight I could not lose.

2. I discovered the environmental impact of my meat based diet.

My BMI went from 26.5 to 23 in less than 6 months. I grew stronger and have the kind of energy that I once enjoyed as a child. There is no better change a person can make in their life than switching to a plant based diet. Not only for the planet, but for themselves, and the improvement in physical health is equaled only by the change in temperament. As Buddha said;

"To become vegetarian is to step into the stream which leads to nirvana."

The biggest problem with adopting a plant based diet is that nutritious food is not readily available in the supermarkets. Commercial, industrial, processeed food lacks the nutrients to keep us healthy. Fortunately the most nutritious food is organically grown plants, because the fields are mineralized as part of the certification process. As a consequence the plants grown in these fields have all the trace minerals in a form the human body can readily assimilate. The best solution is grow your own when you can and buy local organic when you cannot.

This is known as a confirmation bias , and is natural. I believed most of my life that I was an omnivore. When I finally investigated anatomy, I overcame my confirmation bias and adopted a diet that was correct for my anatomy and biology.

Which facts are you cherry-picking, or ignoring?

Which facts do you think I am cherry-picking and/or ignoring?

You do what you already believe is the right thing to do.

I wish tempers ran less hot and more rational when it comes to eating animal protein. I cannot believe even I am still here. And I rarely eat meat.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com

1.  The AMA has yet to endorse a vegetarian diet.  If you are a vegetarian, doctors will counsel you
on the best way to do this, but they don't advocate vegetarianism.  They think there can be health risks to it.

2.  One good thing that cows and ruminents do is break down cellulose.  We are idiots if we don't use
this attribute to our benefit.  All cattle and
livestock waste should be anaerobically digested
to obtain carbon-neutral biomethane as well as some
good fertilizer for next year's crops.  As the ethanol people know, it is difficult to break down cellulose for use as fuel.  

Build plugin hybrids that run on renewable methane. That's all that's needed.

"If you're an environmentalist, you don't want to miss out on a wonderful opportunity to make a difference by reducing animal product consumption."

Change the world one lunch at a time. Find out how at www.pbjcampaign.org

I am happy that you personally gained so much from being a vegetarian. That does not mean it will or should be for all humans.

My personal opinion is that industrialized meat-production and eating as much meat as the average American (or even European) is cruel, decadent and unsustainable. However, the discussion about why people "feel" being one or the other does not get us anywhere. Everyone can "feel" whatever they want. Unlike facts, which are based on measurable evidence, the validity of feelings cannot be discussed rationally. So why do it if you want convince others (who obviously do not feel the same way)? Of course, everyone cherry-picks facts to a certain extent. That is why it is important to be careful when throwing them around to support one's romantic/spiritual/moral views. And it is important to change ones point of view IF it is based on facts and the facts change.

Post some facts here, someone will tell you whether they are good and valid. This is useful. Post emotions here, some will agree, others will not. No point in this because all you get is an opinion.

We need data, numbers, measurements, definitions, etc. that can be agreed upon. We need to know how much meat production is sustainable on this planet with 6 billion humans on it depending on their location. We need to agree which species of animals should be protected from cruelty. Even though there is a scientific definition, we need to agree what is an animal in this discussion. We need to show how meat is produced, how animals are treated, in a meat-factory and on a small scale farm. We need to not discuss meat-consumption in general, but the impact of its scale in most "modern" countries.

So far, when it comes to vegetarians vs. meat-eaters, most here have not discussed this rationally. A romantic discourse does not lead to agreement or even better understanding of what is talked about. It leads to highly emotional factions who do not change their point of view because the point of view is based solely on whatever they think is right.

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com

Which of the following would you prefer to have?

(a) A reduction in meat consumption in the world.

(b) A reduction in the number of people in the world who eat meat.

Currently, the vehement arguments are for (b). It seems to me that if you want fewer animals killed, then (a) is the preferred choice. If so, perhaps you should direct your efforts away from conversion to absolutist vegetarianism and toward conversion to meat moderation.

The moral superiority and inflexibility so often present in these debates alienates everyone who doesn't already believe as you do. In other words, it alienates precisely those people you most want to reach.

We're all familiar with very basic biology.  Yay us.  That's not the problem.  The problem is the tone or marketing that PETA employs.  I personally love the "If you're an environmentalist, you don't want to miss out on a wonderful opportunity to make a difference by reducing animal product consumption." way of putting it.

As Umbra mentions at the end, yes, you should avoid feed lot and Amazon destroying beef (it's cleared for both pasture and feed - including LOTS of soybeans.)  
But the biggest contribution meat is having is through the basic need for all those cows to belch, toot, and poop, i.e. production of methane and nitrous oxide.  Buying meat from your local beef farm may reduce pressure on the Amazon and Farmer John MAY manage his solid waste better.  But chances are he doesn't manage for climate change, the emphasis is on surface run-off.  (I'm on beef and dairy farms in NH and VT at least once a week.  They get insane money and technical assistance from NRCS and USDA in general - yet most don't seem to manage waste effectively.  And they're large manure impoundments soaking up the sun still release huge amounts of methane that could be captured and burned to produce electricity and reduce warming capacity.  But I digress...)

The Lancet article backs up the FAO findings, and goes further.  (see AP summary here: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hxSQa9KhHaDXNGyeqOyHHb ...  )  It addresses that question that most meat eaters have.  Can farming practices, such as feeding high quality grains, reduce the impact?  The Lancet says not by enough to make any appreciable difference.  

Nobody likes the messenger here - PETA.  I agree, I think they're campaign is despicable and divisive, as usual.  But the truth is undeniable and now that people know it they should do something to reduce their impact.  It's no different than managing the way you drive.  Yes, what one eats seems very personal and no one wants to have a menu for what is acceptable put in front of them.  But now that the impact of meat is as widely known as SUVs, at least among Gristers, those steak orderers at restaurants shouldn't be surprised when they receive the same dirty look usually reserved for Hummer drivers.  

Now that you know, if you want to feel better, don't look to local farmers.  Whether your beef was farting locally or in Amazon, it's warming the earth.

On another note, here's a great video from the Sierra Club about the Farm Bill, chicken factory farming and its effects on the environment.  It's great to see environmental groups campaigning against factory farming and I'd like to see more of them do it.  http://www.sierraclub.org/factoryfarms/flash/fowlie01.htm ...

And amc89 if you can actually get all of those nutrients from your food great but I don't know a vegan that doesn't have to get at least some of their nutrients from supplements or fortifed food. You don't become a vegan for health reasons, you can't do a vegan diet without supplementing.  You do a vegan diet for ethical reasons.

As for all of the problems you mention with fish and meat those are also potential problems in eating fresh produce as well except maybe saturated fat.

What I don't understand is that if we're all fairly environmentally conscious here why aren't both sides uniting to get rid of factory farming first and promoting sustainable farming? Why aren't we working together to change the Farming Bill? Once sustainable farming practices are universal then let's splinter into our religious groups of vegans vs. omnivores.

I buy local produce, meat, eggs and any other products I can locally. I also harvest elk and deer in the fall with all of the respect and gratitude I can give to the animal. I tried vegetarianism and it wasn't for me, but I respect people who can do it.

This whole argument is starting to drift into an almost religious division and the vegans are sounding like they are "born again". The vegans are damning the omnivores to hell because we don't agree, or can't healthfully be vegan. Knock it off.

The fact that we subscribe to Grist should prove to you that we take this subject seriously. I sick and tired of being condemned because

I choose and omnivourous diet, which our physiology requres, otherwise we would have flat teeth like other plant eaters and would not have canines.

"For as long as space endures, and for as long as living beings remain, until then may I too abide, to dispel the misery of the world." - Shantideva

How long will it take us to accept that meat is a big factor in driving climate change?  I think most of us have come around to accepting that burning petroleum and coal cause it. But animals, those are natural right?  Well, not exactly.  We've never raised this many animals for consumption in our history.  And these animals "naturally" produce lots of methane, the most important non-CO2 contributor to global warming. Human induced methane has doubled since pre-Industrial times, CO2 has "only" gone up just over 30%.  Methane is over 20 times more heat trapping than CO2.  And guess what it's biggest human-induced contributor is?  That's right, animal production (35-40% alone - see the actual report p. 112).  (Nitrous oxide has well over 300 times the heating capacity of CO2). We would actually be better off if we burned as much of that animal waste methane as possible before it entered the atmosphere.  

Now, as far as animal production contribution to global warming, I don't believe I did miss the point.  On page 112, the first part of section 3.4, the FAO is speaking in the present tense when they state, "Overall, livestock activities contribute an estimated 18 percent to total anthropogenic green house gas emissions from the five major sectors for greenhouse gas reporting: energy, industry, waste, land use, land use change and forestry (LULUCF) and agriculture."
It goes on to say in the next paragraph, "Considering the last two sectors alone, livestock's share is over 50 percent.  For the agriculture sector alone, livestock constitute nearly 80% of all emissions."  

That is in the present tense, that is a fact, now.  That means that other agricultural practices in total contribute 20%.  Shifting more of your diet to consuming more from that "other" sector would have a huge impact.

The Lancet article I spoke of earlier, "Food, livestock production, energy, climate change, and health" in the September 12, 2007 issue also speaks in the present tense.  Here is the abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?tmpl=NoSidebarfi ...

I don't know how long this will all take to sink in.  But PETA certainly isn't helping those who want to dig in their heels and cling to their dogma.  But EVERY consumption decision we make has an impact on global warming.  Why is it so hard to accept that meat just happens to play a bigger role than other factors?  

And to comment on your response to Amc89, I think you would do well to educate yourself, as she recommends.  You might want to look into what bioaccumulation and biomagnification in the food chain are.  I'm not aware of any food plants that accumulate "antibiotics, cholesterol, saturated fat, salmonella, dioxin, mercury, PCBs".  But those are all real risks in meat consumption, unfortunately many also relate to wild meat now.  See this recent article on Inuit girl births outnumbering boys: http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2166996, ...  

And as far as a vegan diet not being nutritionally complete, well, that might be true if you were cutting out meat and trying to stick to a traditional American diet.  But the only actual necessary vitamin lacking in a vegan diet is a trace vitamin - Vitamin B12. http://www.vrg.org/nutrition/b12.htm It's also lacking in a meat diet, unless you get some of the poop in the meat.  You see, only bacteria produce B12 and they do that in the colon.  If you get a little  poop in you're golden.  That's how traditionally vegan peoples do it.  They fertilize they're foods with their own feces and then don't bother to scour them before eating.  But that's beside the point... If you're concerned about nutrition in the vegetarian diet ask a trained nutritionist.  If you choose to ask your doctor for advice, you may want to ask first how many nutrition classes he took in medical school.  You'll probably be surprised to hear, just one.  But educate yourself and then make the choice that works.  I'm not going to give up my car any time soon, but I try hard to minimize the impact I make with it by keeping it small, tuned up, and not driving it very often.  If you like meat and dairy, don't bash vegans.  But realize this is one legitimate way people can choose to reduce their footprint.  

Here are some sites for you to check out:

Mercury bioaccumulation and biomagnification.  I live in the NorthEast so this is a great locally relevant site: http://www.briloon.org/centers/mercury.htm
Dioxins: http://www.ejnet.org/dioxin/
Antibiotics and salmonella: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/meat/safe/o ...
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Livestock-and-Farming/1985 ...  

I think we all, as concerned environmentalists, will get along swimmingly once we educate ourselves and read what the facts are, not what we want them to be.  (See the above posting by skyhunter on "confirmation bias").

I think it's funny that so many people say they don't like the tone people take when stating meat has a large impact, therefore they're going to continue to eat their meat.  Yes, vegans are righteous, but they've also got it right when it comes to reducing livestock contributions to greenhouse gases.  They support 0% of that. But this is why I stopped discussing vegetarianism with people years ago, even after they pressed with questions.  It's obvious when people want to learn more about your stance as a vegan, just so that they can try to poke holes, not so that they can seriously consider the practice and the resulting impact.

Like I said above, all of our consumption choices affect global warming including flying, driving, having children, where we work, where we shop, etc.  We should all try to have as little impact as possible and be ready to adapt our lifestyles as more facts come available.  Even when the issue seems clear-cut we should keep our minds open.  Which is why I'm not advocating everyone become vegan.  But they should internalize this new truth, until it is proven otherwise.

Also, buying local "might" reduce food miles.  But it isn't a given.  Food movement 'harms environment' http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4684693.stm
As stated ad nauseam above, just the production of animals produces significant greenhouse gases.  I think we shouldn't be arguing about whether my diet or yours has an acceptable amount of greenhouse gases to pass as a "true environmentalist". Put your sensitive feelings aside. Rather, we should be ceaselessly looking for ways to reduce that impact.  This is a big one, so try reducing your meat consumption just 10% as the FAO recommends.   If you eat meat with every meal, like most Americans, that means cutting meet from 2 or 3 meals a week and you've done it.  That may be all you need to feel good about yourself.  For others, it takes a more drastic change.  

If you don't exercise freedom, the terriers have already won.  And freedom means doing what you want to do.  For some people, that means not causing global warming.  And for others, it means having a big steak.  So the message that I think the omnivores here are having a hard time putting into words is "I don't care."  People who drive SUV have a hard time saying it too.  They'll come up with dozens of arguments...SUVs are safer, they get better traction, they make your penis grow, etc.  Lots of people own second or third homes and they likewise feel like these righteous PETA types are unfair and biased.

In Jared Diamond's book "Collapse," he demonstrated that there were a few factors that brought about the collapse of many civilizations.  One thing that all collapsed civilizations had in common was the fact that individuals chose to ignore facts once they were presented and were too inflexible to change their habits.  In the case of the norse in Greenland during the Little Ice Age, the people there chose to starve to death rather than change what they ate.  Beef was very important to them, you see.

Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

I think you've hit on a major flaw in many of the anti-omnivore arguments, and one I was trying to get at in my earlier post.

IMO, our primary goal is not (should not be? I suppose here's where my religion comes in) to feel better about ourselves. Our primary goal is to reduce human impact on the environment.

It's that emphasis on moral superiority ("feeling better about ourselves") that focuses attention on the behaviors of a single individual (e.g., veg -vs- omni) and away from behaviors of a group (e.g., overall reduction in meat consumption in the US).

Fundamental change in group behaviors has a greater and longer lasting impact. And who knows? As we get used to eating less meat as a country, more people just might decide to go veg.

Just as pastor's like Ted Haggard can hate homosexuals and drug users, people who support factory farming can also call themselves environmentalists.  In this case, it's not the vegans who are being religious.  No...God so loved the world that he gave his only son to take our sins away with him.  He's coming again.  This time, he's going to offset our carbon.  Factory farms will be forgiven at the rapture.  Don't worry, ye omnivores, all will be forgiven.

Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

If that's so, why be so defensive about eating meat?  That seems to be the issue here.  I'm not claiming to be morally superior.  I'm saying that I've looked at the facts, studied how I can have an impact, and acted.  I don't eat meat, dairy or eggs.  But that's not all you should be offended about.  I also live in a small home, restrict my travel and car miles, wear old clothes, turn off my CFLs when not in use, keep the thermostat super low in the winter, and it goes on and on.  Who the hell cares if I DO feel morally superior to you, or not?  The problem is that you're feelings are so hurt that I'm willing to take more drastic measures than you that you feel you can disregard my opinion, and even worse, the facts that they are based on.  That's the real problem here.  The moment you feel offended your mind snaps shut.  Suck it up and make a change.

Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

Ok...here's where my faith comes in.  PETA and vegans obviously have no faith.  They're getting all of their information from U.N. studies.  I get my information from The Good Book.  And it says eat meat.  Sure...Palestine used to be covered by forest but was overgrazed to hell.  But like I said earlier, it will all be repaired after the rapture.  I don't need any U.N. studies.  Eating beef just feels right.  I can't explain it.  You just need more faith.  

Remember, God accepted Abel's offering...meat.  Cain...that vegan freak was jealous and killed his brother.  Vegans are dangerous.  Don't listen to what they say.  Or the U.N.  Or scientists.  Or your high school chemistry teacher.

Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

I don't care if you feel morally superior to me. If you do, more power to you. What I do care about is reducing the environmental impact of humans.

Grist offers a forum for debating the best way to achieve that goal. I do not believe that self-righteous pressure to become vegan is the best way. To the contrary, that approach is often counter-productive because  of (1) the lack of respect it gives to meat-eaters (precisely those people it aims to convert) and (2) the black & white, right-vs-wrong framing of a fraught issue.

And just imagine the discussion that would occur if  the headline and article were "On Child Bearing and Global Warming".

Karsten
http://www.polluteless.com

So...can we all agree that some things are absolutely bad and shouldn't be taken in moderation.  Just a few landmines.  Just a little lead paint.  Just a little child abuse.  As long as these things aren't used too much, too often, or by too many people, we'll all be ok.  It's kind of like a non-binding resolution to maybe possibly do something about global warming.

Look...I'm not saying you have to watch out for earth worms or ant while you're walking.  But factory farming is an absolute evil.  Get yourself some chickens and throw them a handful of grain every morning.  I've got no problem with that.

Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

So...can we all agree that some things are absolutely bad and shouldn't be taken in moderation.  Just a few landmines.  Just a little lead paint.  Just a little child abuse.  As long as these things aren't used too much, too often, or by too many people, we'll all be ok.  It's kind of like a non-binding resolution to maybe possibly do something about global warming.

Sure, sustainable, ethical meat production on a local scale is an answer.  As is controlled hunting.  But how many of you are willing to pay $10/lb for chicken?  Take away the fossil fuels and that's what you'll be paying.  And obviously, not all of us can go hunting...the entire deer, moose, and bear population in my home state of Maine would be gone in just one year if everybody there hunted.

Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

What people don't like about PETA and their campaigns is that they don't offer the same, watered-down bs that everyone else is offering.  They put the ugly stuff right in your face and you have to choose to acknowledge it or look away and pretend you didn't see it.

Actually, my problem with PeTA is that they seem more concerned with media opportunities than actually helping animals.

Here in Alaska, you may have heard that our state's only zoo has a resident elephant, Maggie.  She's not doing so well, because Alaska is no place for an elephant.  There's been public pressure from the local groups for years saying that they should send her to a preserve down south.

About two months ago, on the tail-end of a locally organized protest, PeTA swoops in and decides that they're concerned for Maggie's well-being too.  They send out a mass e-mail, thoroughly misrepresenting Maggie's living conditions (I'll grant you that they're not great, because she's alone and elephants need companionship, and elephants need several acres to mosey and daydream, but they made it sound like a drab concrete spider-hole), to rile up support from out-of-state slacktivists who, until then, had never heard of Maggie.

They make some phony-baloney offer to fly the director of the zoo to a wildlife preserve, without asking when he would be free for such a trip.  Then, when the director says he can't fit a trip to Tennessee (it's about an twelve-hour flight to Nashville, so he'd have to clear two days at very least), they pose for the media, saying how the zoo doesn't care about Maggie, and POOF!  They pack up and go home again, news clippings in hand so they can claim credit when she's eventually relocated.

PeTA doesn't give a hoot about Maggie, and I'd be surprised if they've taken any quantifiable action to help any other animals.  As with so many other once-noble organizations, PeTA has become so obsessed with its own celebrity that it doesn't have any time left for the mission.

-- A.

Taking accounting to the extreme since 2004.

If PETA is only seeking media coverage and not truly trying to shape the decisions that people make, they still accomplished their mission in this situation.  They garnered themselves plenty of attention while getting you to pay attention to an issue that you would have otherwise overlooked.  Now the question is what are you going to do with the information?  This is not PETA's information.  It's the U.N.'s.  Do you choose to ignore the report because PETA likes it?

Il faut cultiver notre jardin.

If we all stop eating meat, the economy will collapse.  There are several rational reasons for this and I'll give just a few:

1.  The meat industry uses huge amounts of fossil fuel.  Fuel to create fertilizers.  Fuel to grow the corn and soy.  Fuel to harvest and transport.  Fuel to build the megadams and pump huge quantities of water into irrigated fields of alfalfa in Arizona and Utah.  Fuel to keep the meat cool, transport it across the country, and keep it cold at the grocery store.  Now...if we all switch to vegan diets, this will reduce demand for petroleum drastically, which the petroleum industry tells us will cause the economy to collapse.

2.  Americans today are primarily service workers.  Do you want to put all the burger flippers and steakhouse workers out of work?  Talk about something that will cause an economic impact.  Also, burgers and steaks cost more than salads and so most of the fast-food chains would go broke.  If the profit margins of the meat restaurants go down, the economy will collapse.  Not to mention that it will take a huge amount of resources to retrain all of the burger flippers.  Who is going to train them all to go from flipping burgers to tossing salads?  You?

3. Skilled workers vs. unskilled labor.  Flipping burgers is a highly-paid profession that requires years of education.  Tossing salads, by comparison, is something that requires no education.  Most people, meat eaters included, know how to toss a salad almost instinctively.  It's also pays less than flipping burgers, putting further strain on our consumer-driven economy.

4.  Health professionals will be put out of work.  If heart disease, cancer, and other meat-related diseases are reduced drastically, many highly-educated doctors will be put out of work.  Are you going to trail all of them to toss salads too?