The Fleas Cling to the Golden Fleece
David Weigel | June 1, 2007, 1:39pm
Hosannah, a
brain-splittingly stupid tax plan that even the Senate won't endorse:
In a letter sent Wednesday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), PETA President Ingrid Newkirk stated, “[V]egetarians are responsible for far fewer greenhouse-gas emissions and other kinds of environmental degradation than meat-eaters.”
The letter added that vegetarians should receive a tax break “just as people who purchase a hybrid vehicle enjoy a tax break.”
The best part of this is how little the group's gamed it out:
Asked how the government would certify that taxpayers are vegetarian, PETA spokesman Matt Prescott said, “I imagine that a system could be adopted whereby taxpayers could show receipts for food purchases and/or sign an affidavit attesting … that they are vegetarian. If Congress is seriously interested about rewarding people for reducing their carbon emissions, then it could develop a system to verify that people are vegetarian.”
It could
develop a system! Of course.
Brendan O'Neill
boxed PETA to a TKO back in 2005. Sara Rimensnyder
recounted PETA's battle against People for Eating Tasty Animals back in 2002.
Via
To The People, whose Cicero adds:
I have a similar idea, and I hope PETA supporters and environmentalists are the first to sign up. The federal government should give $10,000 to the family of every person who kills themselves to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions. I call it, "Save the Earth, Drop Dead."
Why go that far?
PETA should steal from the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement and suggest tax breaks for couples who don't breed. (Or bring on Mark Steyn and double the tax break for
Muslim couples.)
Ashish George | June 1, 2007, 4:14pm | #
John C. Randolph: "Let's not forget that Newkirk once wrote a letter to Yasser Arafat complaining about his terrorist thugs loading up a donkey with explosives. Not a peep about killing PEOPLE, mind you."
Um, could that be because as a representative of an animal rights organization her job is to comment on the ethical dimensions of the human interactions with animals on and not the everyday madness in the Middle East?
John wrote: "There was an article in the NYT the other day about these sick fucks who fed their baby a 'vegan diet'. The poor child weighed three pounds before the state stepped in."
Did you bother researching the case? There was more to it than what The New York Times article presented. The couple did not breast feed their child, which was their first mistake. (Breast feeding, of course, is compatible with a vegan lifestyle.) Second, this couple only gave the child soy milk and fruit juice, which means they hardly offered the child much nutrition. They were poor, black, and, in all likelihood, not very educated. Yet the judge in Georgia gave them life in prison for murder. But there was not much evidence of malice; their mistake could just as easily have been one of ignorance.
Later John writes: "What do you want to bet that most of the vegans in the world believe whole heartedly in the 'scientific consensus' on global warming and think anyone who questions a scientist on the subject is a nut. When it comes to the 'scientific consensus' on childhood nutrition, then scientists don't have quite the same credibility in vegen land."
Care to offer a citation for a scientific consensus hostile to the idea of veganism for children comparable to the scientific consensus for the existence of global warming, John?
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
Mike Laursen | June 1, 2007, 4:41pm | #
So what is your position on CO2?
Thanks for asking:
* Agreed, CO2 is nowhere near toxic levels.
* Global climate change due to greenhouse gases (plus deforestation and other effects) is real, not made up.
* Al Gore is probably a dick, but most of the information he's disseminating is what the science really says. Yes, some environmentalists and liberals are obnoxiously smug, but they aren't just making the whole problem up.
* Skepticism about climate change is good, as it helps solidify the science. Outright denial masquerading as skepticism is uncool.
* Global climate change is not the end of the world, but is likely to cause some flooding, severe weather, habitat change, etc. Some of the changes will be beneficial for some interests. Much of it will not be beneficial.
* Some of the bad effects are going to happen. We can't completely solve the problem.
* There are things individuals can do voluntarily to help out: buying a more fuel efficient automobile, etc. In the future, there will be more options.
* Americans are wasteful in their energy use, but it still a good thing that we have comfortable, materially-rich lives.
* I haven't heard any really great ideas for using government to "solve the problem". The best idea I've heard is to set up a carbon trading scheme; it at least has elements of freedom and market orientation. In fact, it can make some things (like acres of preserved rainforest) that currently don't have monetary value have monetary value.
* There are lots of things the government is doing that are harmful to the environment, that it should stop doing.
* Some things we can do as individuals or as a governed society to alleviate greenhouse gas emissions would have other benefits, such as decreasing our dependency on foreign oil.
Ashish George | June 1, 2007, 4:53pm | #
"What exactly are they going to feed the poor child if not soy milk and still be vegen? Further, children need certain nutrients that only come from meat products. If the mother isn't eating them, they won't magically appear in her breast milk."
When you have a child, you need to do research on nutrition. That's why you go to a doctor, which this couple did not. And what vital nutrients are you referring to that can only be obtained through meat products and nowhere else?
In the BBC article you linked to, the scientist you take to be supporting your claim writes, "There have been sufficient studies clearly showing that when women avoid all animal foods, their babies are born small, they grow very slowly and they are developmentally retarded, possibly permanently." But not all animal foods are meat products. She thinks there are other animal products that would be all right without the woman having to resort to eating meat. So even by what you cite as evidence, your claim is too strong.
"She accepted that adults could avoid animal foods if they took the right supplements, but she said adding animal source food into the diet was a better way to tackle malnutrition worldwide than quick fixes with supplements in the form of pills," the BBC article writes of Professor Allen. Be careful here. She is not saying that veganism is an "inherently unhealthy lifestyle" (as you claimed), but rather that as a practical matter it's easier to address malnutrition issues globally with a diet that includes animal products.
"Further, I did offer you one scientific citation from the USDA. Read the BBC article. Find me one scientific study that says you can really raise a healthy child on such an extreme diet. And thank you for proving my point. You believe the scientists about global warming but ignore them and common sense when it comes your own extremists beliefs."
Please respond to what people actually say, not what it's easiest for you to respond to. Here is what I wrote:
"Care to offer a citation for a scientific consensus hostile to the idea of veganism for children comparable to the scientific consensus for the existence of global warming, John?"
I didn't think I could be much clearer. At any rate, you did not offer such a citation in your BBC article. The BBC article simply offered the opinion of one scientist. It was not a meta-analysis of the views of scientists in peer-reviewed journals or academic associations.
According to the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada, "well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence. Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer."
http://www.adajournal.org/article/PIIS0002822303002943/fulltext
Jennifer | June 2, 2007, 8:44am | #
They were poor, black, and, in all likelihood, not very educated.
I just found the article in the New York Times (address below). The baby weighed only 3.5 pounds when he died at the age of six weeks. You don't have to be a wealthy college-grad genius to figure out that babies are supposed to gain weight in the weeks after birth, not lose it.
Nice quotes from the story:
I was once a vegan. But well before I became pregnant, I concluded that a vegan pregnancy was irresponsible. You cannot create and nourish a robust baby merely on foods from plants.
Indigenous cuisines offer clues about what humans, naturally omnivorous, need to survive, reproduce and grow: traditional vegetarian diets, as in India, invariably include dairy and eggs for complete protein, essential fats and vitamins. There are no vegan societies for a simple reason: a vegan diet is not adequate in the long run.
Protein deficiency is one danger of a vegan diet for babies. Nutritionists used to speak of proteins as “first class” (from meat, fish, eggs and milk) and “second class” (from plants), but today this is considered denigrating to vegetarians.
The fact remains, though, that humans prefer animal proteins and fats to cereals and tubers, because they contain all the essential amino acids needed for life in the right ratio. This is not true of plant proteins, which are inferior in quantity and quality — even soy...
Yet even a breast-fed baby is at risk. Studies show that vegan breast milk lacks enough docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, the omega-3 fat found in fatty fish. It is difficult to overstate the importance of DHA, vital as it is for eye and brain development.
A vegan diet is equally dangerous for weaned babies and toddlers, who need plenty of protein and calcium. Too often, vegans turn to soy, which actually inhibits growth and reduces absorption of protein and minerals. That’s why health officials in Britain, Canada and other countries express caution about soy for babies. (Not here, though — perhaps because our farm policy is so soy-friendly.) ...
An adult who was well-nourished in utero and in infancy may choose to get by on a vegan diet, but babies are built from protein, calcium, cholesterol and fish oil. Children fed only plants will not get the precious things they need to live and grow.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/21/opinion/21planck.html?ex=1180929600&en=cc8c58a9f4f2814f&ei=5070
Neu Mejican | June 2, 2007, 11:15am | #
Jennifer,
For one who argues against the harm caused by tobacco (harm which is very well documented), I find it strange that you would jump on the band wagon here...
The truth of the matter is that there has been some study of the issue, but not much. Concerns that exist with a vegan diet appear to be easily addressed. At this point there is reason to say that a vegan mom needs to be well informed, have good prenatal care, and monitor her own and her infants nutrition more carefully than she would when not pregnant/breast feeding. All that advice is true to omnivores as well.
Here are some abstracts. I picked all that I could find that looked at outcomes for the children in anything approaching a reasonable group design. All the articles documenting negative effects I could find involved case studies or communities where malnutrition was an issue due to poverty.
Am J Clin Nutr. 1988 Sep;48(3 Suppl):822-5. Related Articles, Links
Growth and development of British vegan children.
Sanders TA.
Department of Food and Nutritional Sciences, King's College, University of London, UK.
The growth and development of children born of vegan mothers and reared on a vegan diet has been studied longitudinally: All of the children were breast-fed for the first 6 mo of life and in most cases well into the second year of life. The majority of children grew and developed normally but they did tend to be smaller in stature and lighter in weight than standards for the general population. Energy, calcium, and vitamin D intakes were usually below the recommended amounts. Their diets, however, were generally adequate but a few children had low intakes of riboflavin and vitamin B-12. Most parents were aware of the need to supplement the diet with vitamin B-12. It is concluded that provided sufficient care is taken, a vegan diet can support normal growth and development.
J Am Diet Assoc. 2001 Jun;101(6):661-9. Related Articles, Links
Considerations in planning vegan diets: children.
Messina V, Mangels AR.
Nutrition Matters, Inc, 1543 Lincoln St, Port Townsend, WA 98368, USA.
This article reviews research on the growth and nutrient intake of vegan children and provides guidelines for counselling parents of vegan children. Although diets of vegan children meet or exceed recommendations for most nutrients, and vegan children have higher intakes of fiber and lower intakes of total fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol than omnivore children, some studies indicate that they may be low in calcium. In addition, bioavailability of zinc and iron from plant foods can be low. Protein needs are slightly higher for vegan children but are easily met with a varied diet that provides adequate energy. Special attention should be given to dietary practices that enhance absorption of zinc and iron from plant foods. Further, good sources of the omega-3 fatty acid linolenic acid should be emphasized to enhance synthesis of the long-chain fatty acid docosahexanoic acid. Dietetics professionals who counsel vegan families should help parents identify good sources of vitamin B-12, riboflavin, zinc, calcium and, if sun exposure is not adequate, vitamin D. This should not be problematic, due to the growing number and availability of fortified vegan foods that can help children meet all nutrient needs. Therefore, with appropriate food choices, vegan diets can be adequate for children at all ages.
American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Vol 59, 1176S-1181S, Copyright © 1994 by The American Society for Clinical Nutrition, Inc
REVIEW ARTICLES
Vegetarian diets and children
TA Sanders and S Reddy
Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Kings College, University of London, England.
The diets and growth of children reared on vegetarian diets are reviewed. Excessive bulk combined with low energy density can be a problem for children aged < or = 5 y and can lead to imparied growth. Diets that have a high content of phytate and other modifiers of mineral absorption are associated with an increased prevalence of rickets and iron-deficiency anemia. Vitamin B-12 deficiency is a real hazard in unsupplemented or unfortified vegan and vegetarian diets. It is suggested that vegans and vegetarians should use oils with a low ratio of linoleic to linolenic acid in view of the recently recognized role of docosahexaenoic acid in visual functioning. If known pitfalls are avoided, the growth and development of children reared on both vegan and vegetarian diets appears normal.
Steve C. | June 3, 2007, 11:12am | #
Neu Mejican,
You can "call me" on it if you want, but have you actually LOOKED at a bear's teeth? They're not like ours. Not by a long shot. They are true omnivorous animals. They can take down a kill with their TEETH and brute force, as well as eat the meat RAW without getting sick, (barring the occasional parasite, of course). Dogs have also been known to forage in the wild for vegetation as well as meat, and most dogs in the wild eat what's left behind from other kills. They are opportunistic omnivores. It's also why my dogs go crazy for carrots, watermelon, apple, etc., and have been known to eat peppers right off of the plants in my garden.
Ignoring the fact that humans have to COOK our meat in order to eat it is one of the most ridiculously overlooked flaws when it comes to arguing that humans are omnivores.
If our molars and side-to-side jaw movements (characteristic of herbivorous animals) don't speak volumes, as well as our ridiculously small "canine" teeth, as well as our need to cook meat before we eat it, as well as the similarity in length of our digestive systems to that of herbivorous animals, as well as our alkaline saliva characteristic of herbivorous animals, as well as our lack of talons or claws, or just about EVERYTHING ELSE about us doesn't speak VOLUMES about our intended diet, well, I'm not sure what else it should take to convince someone.
Comparing us to our closest relatives does not MAKE us our closest relatives. We are not chimpanzees. We have physically evolved in a much different direction than chimpanzees, and our closest primate relatives. We have similarities, but we're not the same.
I invite you to look at a picture of the skull of a howler monkey, and tell me that our teeth look the same.
http://www.glendale.cc.ca.us/skull/howler_monkey/left-front.htm
Take a look at a bear skull as well:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/gallery2/main.php?g2_itemId=5897
You can "call me" on it if you wish, but the pictures speak for themselves.
Steve C. | June 3, 2007, 5:13pm | #
Neu Mejican,
I did indeed read the articles. Did you perhaps read what I said about the physiological differences in the rest of our bodies as well?
As far as Carne Cruda, kibbe, carpaccio, kitfo, steak tartare -- there have been far more cases of food-related sicknesses and death from the consumption of these foods over say, a tomato. -- indeed a clue.
Your one article was particularly interesting, because it used a lot of speculation instead of fact with quotes such as "These indicate we
COULD BE omnivores depending on diet, not taxonomic group."
Also giving weight to what I said about dogs was the quote: "Dogs (which are carnivores) have intestinal specializations more characteristic of omnivores than carnivores such as cats."
Dogs can be fed a vegan diet and thrive on it, because they are, indeed, omnivores. Cats are a much different story being total carnivores and requiring much higher levels of fats and taurine.
I'm not going to debate with you whether or not humans are CAPABLE of consuming things that we shouldn't. Sure we can shove anything we want into our mouths. It doesn't mean that we're physically DESIGNED for these type of things. All you need to do is to take a look at the westernized diet and high incidences of heart disease, obesity, and type 2 diabetes, and there should be SOME clue as to the cost of our high-fat, high-meat, high cholesterol diets. -- True omnivores don't have to "discriminate" and take out the bad fats and cholesterols and modify their foods. They can eat it in it's whole (festering and rotten, even) form -- and remain healthy.
I'm sure that the occasional insect slips into a cow's grass while it's grazing. Does that therefore make it an omnivore? Of course not. The insect won't kill it, but the cow is certainly not designed to eat a diet totally composed of insects.
If YOU personally feel inclined to go out into the wild, and take down a gazelle with your bare teeth, feel free. Personally, I think it would provide an excellent lesson on exactly what our bodies as well as our teeth AREN'T designed to do, but it'll certainly be a lesson that may make you rethink the false notion that humans are "designed to eat meat".
Steve C. | June 4, 2007, 12:47pm | #
Neu Mejican,
Because I don't feel the need to carry on ad nauseam (although the debate has been quite fun indeed), I'll leave you with a couple of responses and just leave it at that.
It is not the meat or the tomato that makes you sick... it is the nasty bug it carries...
You are correct, HOWEVER, almost all of the cases of food poisoning, and foodborne illness is undeniably a result of animal contamination, whether directly contaminated (meat) or from cross-contamination (e. coli transferred to green onions from animal based fertilizer, etc.)
Use this as an example; Take an apple and a steak, leave them out at room temperature for say, a couple of days, and figure out which one is going to make the human sick. It's pretty obvious isn't it? While the human gets sick from the steak, many omnivorous animals would consider it "just right", even though it's festering and borderline rotten.
As far as arguing for our hunting skills, sure, I won't deny that technology and ingenuity can help us to achieve anything that we want to do. We have managed to overcome our nature very well as you say, by eating meat all these years. My argument is simply that our physiology doesn't match that of a true omnivore. We can prepare and eat what we wish, however, our bodies pay the price when we eat what we weren't intended to. See my comments on diet-related disease above.
As to what zombie has to say, I do agree. What does the paleologic evidence matter? After all, we're able to grow and learn and evolve. There's little doubt that animal based agriculture is a vile, cruel, needless industry, which slaughters BILLIONS yearly to satisfy a fleeting moment on our tastebuds. Absolutely! This is generally the approach that I use when talking to someone about veganism. I just couldn't handle listening to everyone's un-educated ranting on this page and the constant quotes of "WE'RE OMNIVORES, WE NEED MEAT" anymore without putting my $0.02 in.
As for pseudo-science, there's a lot of argument that goes both ways as to our true nature. I'll leave it at that, however having been a long-time vegan and seeing the changes in my body first-hand, there's little room for me to deny to myself just what my body was designed to consume.
Steve C. | June 4, 2007, 6:40pm | #
OK, I couldn't resist. I guess I'm just a glutton for punishment, or a sucker for getting the last word in, either way...
Any physiological trait that is found in an omnivore is consistent with omnivores, because the classification is one of behavior not physiology. Hominid behavior places them squarely in the omnivore category for at least the last 2.5 million years, so any attempt to describe omnivore physiology would need to include the physiological traits of hominids.
Ok, now I'm going to go out on a limb another time and say this; By your definition, if a house cat (which is scientifically categorized as a total carnivore) is somehow compelled to eat spaghetti off of my plate (which I've had happen) does that therefore make it an omnivore because of the behavior that it exhibited by eating spaghetti, a non-meat item?
I think we both know the answer.
Denying the physical trait commonalities between total carnivores, omnivores, and total herbivores is pseudo-science as well, and it doesn't work to explain anything except for learned behavior. Physical characteristics speak every bit as loudly, if not more so, and denying them is a grave mistake.
Ironically, it's also one of the first-resorted to arguments from omnivores who say that "we have canine teeth to eat meat" in error.
As far as the error in the reasoning that I am making, you are right, if we are under the premise that categorization is based solely on behavior, however we both know that behavior doesn't necessarily dictate what is "natural", and therefore is flawed. My argument is that physiology and physiological similarities among carnivores, omnivores, and herbivores should not be discarded as a means to determine classification, as we both know that behavior is not always consistent with physiology.
It's been fun!!! I'd shake your hand and buy you a beer if I could, Neu Mejican!
Ciao!
Neu Mejican | June 4, 2007, 7:07pm | #
Last word indeed...
"By your definition, if a house cat"
"a" house cat tells you nothing about how the species is classified. Taxonomy depends upon trends not individual cases.
"to explain anything except for learned behavior"
to keep with cats. Cats have to learn from other cats that they should eat things that they kill (which is an instinctual behavior), does this mean that they are not natural carnivores?
The error in logic is to try and fit a causal arrow into a correlation between trends in physiology and trends in behavior.
"behavior doesn't necessarily dictate what is "natural", and therefore is flawed."
But behavioral trends across large groups of individuals is how behavioral categories are determined. If you are trying to figure out what "natural" behavior is, then behavioral observation is your only tool. Physiological traits are orthogonal to the question of what "natural behavior" is exhibited by a species.
Environmental/contextual factors determine the challenges that a particular animal's behavioral/physiological mechanism must rise to meet. Either system can fail the animal. Humans highly adaptable behavior and physiology have allowed us to thrive in all environments we have attempted to inhabit. We "naturally" have a wide range of behavioral and physiological mechanisms (flexible physiology paired with flexible behavior). Our physiological ability to exploit the high energy food stuff our behaviors (including hunting) provided us with as a species helped to shape our evolution. Those individuals that had physiologies that allowed them to exploit the widest range of foods provided by their behavioral tool kit survived in greater numbers. And both the behavioral and physiological tools were passed on. How this can be construed as unnatural is beyond me.
You use the word "designed" a lot in your presentation of your position. I am not sure how it can be properly applied to the topic. Evolution doesn't provide for designs with built in requirements for use. The design either meets the environmental challenge or not (and that is always a pairing of behavior and physiology. Neither is primary in the relationship).
"I'd shake your hand and buy you a beer if I could..."
Given that alcohol is highly toxic to our physiology, wouldn't that be a maladaptive behavior?
;^)
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSS
