Join rabble.ca's Vegan Challenge!

From the link in the OP:

"There are some great resources and films you can watch. See Paul McCartney's Glass Walls video at the PETA website: "MAKING THE CONNECTION" film highlights the impact of an animal based diet on climate change and water, air and land pollution. You can watch it for free on the web here. PETA also has a campaign which addresses the links between climate change and diet."

I have three words for Paul McCartney and PETA: Chicken Fried Steak.

(sorry, couldn't resist  )

I listened to [url=http://www.nealbarnard.org/]Neal Barnard[/url] on PBS talk about reversing type II diabetes with a vegan diet. I didn't realize how much fat we're ingesting with what I thought to be lean meats, poultry and fish like salmon. Impressive. Apparently even your eyesight can improve with low glicemic foods and a fiberous diet.

Quote:

 

What makes you think that Mother Nature (?) intended humans to be meat eaters, Snert?

Well, I can't digest cellulose, which pretty much all terrestrial herbivores (the animal word for vegan) can, for starters. And our nearest relatives in the taxonomy, the great apes, are mostly omnivores.

And then a quick look in the mirror at my canine teeth clinches it. Most carnivores have 'em and no herbivore needs them.

This isn't an attempt to persuade people to eat meat, or to not participate in the Vegan Challenge. I endorse people giving some thought to what they eat. But let's not pretend that we're not, by nature, omnivores.  

I know enough people with working farms that I can get all manner of animal products (except milk products - don't know anyone with a dairy farm) that're locally raised and produced, and don't employ factory farming methods.  I'm fortunate in that in London we have very local farming communities.  If you live in a big city and don't own private transportation, it's a lot more difficult to access the products of working family farms.

The vegan challenge is an excellent exercise in creating awareness of what we eat and its impact on the planet.  I don't happen to think there's much moral high ground on any side of this debate.  For those who are privileged to be able to choose what they eat, it's a matter of personal choice based on a variety of factors.

That said, I've been contemplating giving up pork products for good.  There's something about eating another omnivore that just doesn't sit well with me.

Boom Boom wrote:

From the link in the OP:

"There are some great resources and films you can watch. See Paul McCartney's Glass Walls video at the PETA website: "MAKING THE CONNECTION" film highlights the impact of an animal based diet on climate change and water, air and land pollution. You can watch it for free on the web here. PETA also has a campaign which addresses the links between climate change and diet."

 

 

Seriously? PETA and Paul McCartney? There are numerous babble threads outlining the sexism, racism and overall offensive ridiculous cluelessness of PETA. Paul McCartney is a multi-millionaire who regularly comes out here to the East Coast to bash the traditional lifestyles and diets and an extremely low-income population. Even though most still love his music, he is VERY unpopular in this neck of the woods.If you want to talk sustainable eating, go to a Newfoundland outport. There is still a large part of the population that cans their own food and relies mostly on local things.

Veganism is a privileged lifestyle, especially in Canada. The three territories, Labrador and Newfoundland would find it completely impossible and unrealistic. If if you live on a huge slab of rock or permafrost, where growing anything even for 2 months of the year is very difficult and whales, caribou, moose, seals, salmon, char, etc., etc., etc. are available...how are you to take this vegan challenge?

The B12 issue is also very important and may not be that rare polly. I have two close friends who were vegan and had the exact same issue as Eliza. One has gone back to eating animal products, the other one (and her two preschool kids) get the B12 shots twice a month.

I have nothing against people making their own food choices, but I am a little dismayed that babble considers this feasible or desirable for everyone.

Ghislaine wrote:

 

Veganism is a privileged lifestyle, especially in Canada. The three territories, Labrador and Newfoundland would find it completely impossible and unrealistic. If if you live on a huge slab of rock or permafrost, where growing anything even for 2 months of the year is very difficult and whales, caribou, moose, seals, salmon, char, etc., etc., etc. are available...how are you to take this vegan challenge?

Respectfully - bullshit.  I follow a vegan diet and trust me, my lifestyle is anything but privileged.  I outlined above how I eat during the winter, and northern Alberta doesn't exactly have an extended growing season as compared to Newfoundland.  When I gave up meat, my grocery bill went down  -- so it's certainly not impossible or unrealistic.

Quote:

The B12 issue is also very important and may not be that rare polly. I have two close friends who were vegan and had the exact same issue as Eliza. One has gone back to eating animal products, the other one (and her two preschool kids) get the B12 shots twice a month.

I have nothing against people making their own food choices, but I am a little dismayed that babble considers this feasible or desirable for everyone.

What I meant was that it is rare for it not to be solved by supplementing.  Vegans may need to supplement B12 after a number of years on a vegan diet, but there are very few who can't solve a deficiency with shots or pills.

Snert wrote:

Quote:

Vegans may need to supplement B12 after a number of years on a vegan diet, but there are very few who can't solve a deficiency with shots or pills.

 

Are you the same Polly Bee who just asked me why I think humans were designed to eat meat?

 

Or, to put it another way, where did the vegans of 300 years ago go for their supplement injections??

 

Probaby 300 years ago the average diet contained a lot more dirt and feces than our current sterilized Safeway fare.  As for the teeth thing, compare th inside of your mouth with both a horse and a lion.  If your mouth looks like the lion, you need a better dentist.

At its best, this initiative is a gimmick.

Caissa, have you ever gone a week without eating animal products?  If not, you might want to recognise that you don't have any first hand experience with what you're talking about.

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

The problem is it is being presented as if it WAS one thing or the other.   A vegan diet is just as environmentally damaging, and in many cases more so, that a diet that includes meat.   That has everything to do with how it was grown and the system in which the food was created.   If the stated goals were really about examining the impact of our food choices a far better experiment would be to try to eat food- or heck even find- enough food for a week that was grown through the industrial food system.  Because news flash most of the fruits, vegetables, legumes and so on that will be eating will have been grown under the same industrial food system as factory farms.

The more I read and think about this experiment the more I actually become offended, because it is really insulting to an awful lot of people who participate with rabble who have thought about food issues and have been activists on them and have come to dramatically different conclusions then what is stated in the OP piece.  It is the basing of this action on a false set of assumptions that leads to this being something not only not worth supporting, but insulting to a number of people.

 

You make some very valid points, and anyone who objects to how the vegan challenge is framed should make their views known to rabble.ca.

I'm not vegan or vegetarian.  I do happen to think that any product - meat, veggies, so-called biofuel, anything pretty much - mass-produced within a multi-national or big-business capitalist model, will fuck up the planet.  In pragmatic terms, it's not the product, it's the process.

Arguing about what product is more harming to the environment really doesn't address the problems of impact on the planet.  Rethinking the way we produce and the ways we consume seem to be most practical.

Krystalline Kraus wrote:

Does that make 'hunting' cultures, cultures that include meat in their diet as a cultural and biological history, less concerned about the environment?

Am I and my people - who are the Saami, which were primarily a hunting culture with very little formal agriculture and maybe informally gathering berries and lichen - less concerned about the environment because of our historical and cultural use hunting as a form of sustenance and meat in our diet?

Are we less civilized or advanced because we haven't been moved away from the consumption of meat and our rights to use hunting - and thus our natural, historic hunting grounds?

Are we then savage in our consumption of meat and the inclusion of the hunt in our, for example, Bear Cult Rite ("Bear" -"Isaivoî" meaning sacred) ceremonies, where meat is consumed?

Do you hunt and gather berries for your food source, or do you buy food in a grocery store?  This is an honest question, as many people do still hunt and forage.

Quote:

Hmmmm....

Exactly! Right there on the second picture. See the teeth third from the midline?

Guess why they're called "canine" teeth and not "equine" or "bovine"!

They're not for ripping and tearing a raspberry. But did you read the article I linked? Lots more proof there, and from a vegetarian site, too.

I eat meat from the hunt, or trap (or net) when avaliable. When not, I eat certain kinds of store bought meat and place tobacco down to honour the sacrifice to us.

But what I was refering to was the cultural phenom of hunting and herding cultures and their use of meat, which I know from personal experience is looked down upon by vegans and vegitarians and has been refered to historically as a 'savage' or undeveloped culture.

Or, as I have sited, the use of meat and cultural and religion ceremonies?

In the North, and I mean the Arctic where my people are indigenous, even today they suppliment their store bought diet with hunt, trap and herd meat as well as picking cloud berries, etc.

But meat is the staple, especially in the winter. I firmly believe that no vegan has the right to judge Indigenous cultural practices - especially urban vegans who have never lived close to the land.

 I would actually say that kind of superior judgement making of other cultures is on the slippert slope of racism. It's offensive.

Krystalline Kraus wrote:

But meat is the staple, especially in the winter. I firmly believe that no vegan has the right to judge Indigenous cultural practices - especially urban vegans who have never lived close to the land.

I agree with you 100%.

I don't think this campaign is directed toward Indigenous peoples though.  It would be good if the campaign made this explicit.  Indigenous people do not need tips on environmental stewardship, dietary or otherwise.

I think this campaign is good even though imperfectly executed.  It is already getting people talking about the politics of food.

Catchfire wrote:

I also disagree with M. Spector's analysis which seeks to divorce the individual from her larger community or polis.

Nonsense. It's the celebration of veganism as the cure for the environmental crisis that divorces the individual from the larger community or polis that is systematically destroying the environment and creating a hunger crisis throughout the world. We're supposed to believe that by making a personal "lifestyle choice" that is unavailable to the other 99% of humanity who are trapped in a destructive and oppressive food production system we are doing our bit for the planet.

Instead of participating in petty bourgeois gimmicks people should be educating themselves about the real world out there and the need for international solidarity in the fight for climate justice and food sovereignty. They could start by reading [url=http://rabble.ca/babble/environmental-justice/happy-belated-food-day]this babble thread.[/url] 

polly bee wrote:

Quote:

The B12 issue is also very important and may not be that rare polly. I have two close friends who were vegan and had the exact same issue as Eliza. One has gone back to eating animal products, the other one (and her two preschool kids) get the B12 shots twice a month.

I have nothing against people making their own food choices, but I am a little dismayed that babble considers this feasible or desirable for everyone.

What I meant was that it is rare for it not to be solved by supplementing.  Vegans may need to supplement B12 after a number of years on a vegan diet, but there are very few who can't solve a deficiency with shots or pills.

If you have to eat supplements, your diet is not balanced.  You shouldn't need to "solve" anything.  If you have to go to the lengths of getting a shot...  Well, that's pretty extreme for most people. 

Without supplementation, the proportion of vegans who have B12 issues (and sometimes even with supplements, esp. oral, depending on absorption, which can be tricky for some, esp. as you get older) is much higher than omnivores.

It's possible that one could get more b12 from contaminated foods and water (from some articles I've read, don't know exactly how true that is), but I don't think courting food-borne illness is quite the way to go, even if it is as natural as all-get-out.  Maybe better to eat a little meat and egg.

polly bee wrote:

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

 Because news flash most of the fruits, vegetables, legumes and so on that will be eating will have been grown under the same industrial food system as factory farms.

....and meat eaters eat all of these food items at some point.  I don't know anyone who simply cooks a pork chop and sets it in the middle of the plate all by itself.  So how the hell does not eating meat suddenly become unsustainable, when eating vegetables, fruits, AND meat is tickety boo?

If you bother to read and think about what others are saying you will find that at no point did I suggest it is "tickety boo".  What I suggested and have actual practical experience, unlike all but a few in this thread, on what the costs of food production are is that there is no real differences in production type when food is grown in the industrialized food system.  And when you look at it from that perspective then you find there is no real difference between whether you eat meat or are only a raw fruit vegan.  That's the point.  It is also factual to say that there are points in the industrial food production system where the growing of fruits, vegetables, legumes and ceral grains are more destructive to the environment than industrial meat production.  But you wouldn't know it from what rabble is saying in promotion of this.   There are of course points were meat production is more destructive to the environment in the industrial food system to - as I have repeatedly said.

It is also factual, based on 40 years experience of growing food for others, to say that animal agriculture is a intregal part of sustainable agricultural production.  Animal agriculture and vegetable, fruit, legumes and grains are all interdependent on each other.   If you try to grow food on the same plot of land you must keep that land healthy, or invent new land, or take over a new area (that was the First Nation's solution in Southwestern Ontario for example) or eventually you will be feeding less and less people off that land and the food will have less and less nutrients in it, because the sources will be depleted in the soil.

Timebandit wrote:

 

Without supplementation, the proportion of vegans who have B12 issues (and sometimes even with supplements, esp. oral, depending on absorption, which can be tricky for some, esp. as you get older) is much higher than omnivores.

It's possible that one could get more b12 from contaminated foods and water (from some articles I've read, don't know exactly how true that is), but I don't think courting food-borne illness is quite the way to go, even if it is as natural as all-get-out.  Maybe better to eat a little meat and egg.

 

 You're post got me thinking about an ecological analysis based on a shot vs eating some eggs to get B12 based on my own situation. It's interesting to go through the thought process. 

A shot for me would me once or twice a month visit to the doctor.  That's  a 60km round trip(gas and pollution).   Unfortunately the only doctor I could find is that far and isn't in an area I normally travel so it means a special trip just for that so no combining it with some other errand.  Financial cost with gas is about 5.00 on an individual level.  Not sure what it is in terms of health care system. 

The shot itself:  The manufacture of the B12 liquid.  Manufacture of the vial.  Transport of the vial to the doctors.   Manufacture of the needle and transport.  Disposal of the needle, it's a one use product,  which I think because it's considered a biohazard means some sort of incineration.   So a certain amount of energy and resource use in all of that, plus transport eco costs.  Times that by 12 to 24.

Duck egg:   My ducks, one male and one female are free range.  Their diet is supplemented by organic grains (more in winter then spring summer and fall)  though I am working on introducing and growing more of their diet on site.   Would have to do a calculation on exactly how much in terms of off site land use for that.    They eat veggie scraps that I don't.   They forage on the marginal parts of my land where growing other crops would mean changing it.  In this case putting in some sort of big drainage system or trucking in tons of soil to build it up.  That would mean loss of habitat for all the frogs, dragonflies, other crawlies and native plants already there.  Also a loss for the pair of cranes that uses it for breeding every spring.     Their waste provides fertilization as they forage and their coop waste is composted and is used on the veggie garden.   They also can provide some pest control in the growing areas.  Slugs in particular.     I get 4 to 5 eggs per week which provide a good 'shot' of regular B12 in my diet.  Plus they have the ability to be perpetual since they could reproduce. 

The only financial cost for me is the feed I bring in which averaged would be around the ten dollar or less mark.   I hadn't thought this out before but even without any of the ecological analysis from a purely individual economic stand point the one duck that lays wins out over the shot money wise and provides more benefits overall.   Weekly food, protein and other nutrients besides the B12 I need, pest control, fertilizer for other food, exercise and a certain amount of emotional satisfaction. (They're hilarious and joy to just sit a watch).

polly bee wrote:

Quote:

  (Life, the Universe..)

If you bother to read and think about what others are saying you will find that at no point did I suggest it is "tickety boo".  What I suggested and have actual practical experience, unlike all but a few in this thread, on what the costs of food production are is that there is no real differences in production type when food is grown in the industrialized food system.

 

No, what you said is  "This is based on the assumption that a vegan diet is better for the environment- that is 100 per cent false."  Then you went on to explain how the production of fruits and vegetables can also be very destructive, as well as sugar and ethanol production etc...  What I am trying to say (and this is the last time I will bother) is that even if there wasn't ONE vegetarian on the planet, there would still be destructive crops of fruits and vegetables, as well as sugar production and ethanol.  they would just be there in addition to the destructive practises raising livestock in factory farms.  Vegetarians are not the cause of destructive planting practises,  as many of these posts would lead you to believe.

Having said that, I am out of this thread.  Carry on.

Again you very disrespectfully misrepresent.   THere is nothing untrue about saying that veganism is not better for the environment.  That is factual.  The statement that it would be a great thing for planet earth to be a vegan is not true.  

Your point about not being one vegetarian is completely nonsensical.  It has nothing to do with anything.  The claim is the opposite - that a vegan - or vegetarian diet is inherently better for the environment so therefore the proper thing to do is to adopt this choice.   Again that is completely false.   That industrial production of all food products is bad is not the issue.  It is the claims of the state of holiness one attains by being a vegan.  

al-Qa'bong wrote:

 

 

 

Isn't Lent some time around April?  If so, this is a traditional time for some cultures to give up meat, etc. anyway.  I know I make a lot of Lebanese/Arabic dishes that are "lenten" (lentils, cracked wheat and onions, f'rinstance) but which would be called "vegan" by others, I suppose.

Lent is happening right now.  Started on the 9th and ends April 23. 

I gave up a couple of things this year.

Krystalline Kraus wrote:

While my love and commitment for rabble.ca will always remain strong, I have always questioned the fervor of some on the left who push the issue of veganism as - quote taken from above - "Going vegan is one of the strongest ways most of us can contribute to Earth Week and make every day Earth Day!"

I consider it very bad form that anyone would announce such a proclamation that considers veganism is a superior cultural phenom (either in the case, for example, of some small Indo-European or South Asian cultures or of a certain urban dwelling, lefty-types.)

It is the cultural statement of superiority found in the main post above that fuels this call out for going vegan as "one of the strongest ways...contribute to Earth" as if those two elements are inclusively linked to one other.

By cultural superiority (with the usual hint of righteous indignation), I mean that this call out and others I have heard are supposing that veganism is better than other forms of human diet and cultural practices that involve meat. [...]

Krystalline Kraus, I want to thank you for making your points so clearly and concisely. The only qualification to my appreciation of your post is that you didn't add two words to the end of your fourth paragraph "cultural practices that involve meat [and dairy]".

Perhaps it is a result of my ancestors coming from both sides of the Irish Sea and the both sides of the English Channel that causes this ommission to stand out to me, but in any discussion of the complete avoidance of any animal products it is important to remember that it is not just the "hunter" that is being scrutinized (and all too often condemned) but also the pastoralist. I am not particularly eager to jump on what I consider an essential religious bandwagon about the superior morality of avoidance of any animal product or byproduct and I think you have wonderfully articulated some of the deep reservations about veganism that a number of us share.

I think the OP and the discussion are of value, but that a lot of us are going to arrive at substantially different conclusions as to what are the appropriate actions to be taken during Earth Week. As one of the people not living in southwestern Ontario or on the lower mainland of British Columbia, I think it more likely that I will be making a short trip (only a couple of blocks) to Valta Bison and purchasing some stewing meat. I am also thinking about the waste involved in industrial cattle raising, and think it just as valid a way to focus attention (if even just my own) on industrialized meat production by avoiding the standardized products (roasts and chops and steaks and even ground round) and purchasing some offal - I have enough family recipes for utilizing kidney, liver and tripe that I should do quite nicely with it.

M. Spector wrote:

Maybe the 60% of the world's population whose staple diet is rice could do the planet a favour by finding something else to eat instead? Of course not, but it makes just as much sense as thinking you can save the planet by giving up meat.

I'm not trying to save the planet by not eating meat (any more than I'm trying to save the planet by using Linux - oddly enough, everyone seems to think THAT makes perfect sense): I'm just trying to resist a system that causes immense suffering to other creatures. Some of you refuse to shop at Walmart, as do I. That position could be critiqued in the same way: trendiness, the prerogative of the affluent, contempt for those who have no other option, etc.

About aboriginal peoples eating meat: that's another matter. I've said before that hunting for survival is on another plane completely from factory farming. I'm sure some vegans have made some offensive statements. So have some omnivores. (And I suspect I'm as entitled to say "we" when talking about aboriginal peoples as are some other people here.)

It's true that in parts of the world, you can't be a vegetarian unless you have money. But the reverse is true in other parts of the world (and I think for the greater part of the world's population): meat is a luxury. 

But my main reason for my vegetarianism or veganism (I have no objection to eggs or milk if the animals are well treated) is that I know something about factory farms and slaughter plants. 

Catchfire wrote:

On that note, it's rather amazing the traction this thread has gleaned these past two days. Start a thread on grammar or veganism and watch the hits roll in...

That's because everyone assumes he or she is an expert on those subjects and has an opinion on them. Just like when parents organizations discuss sex education in schools; everyone's an "expert". But ask for their input on the math curriculum, and all you'll get is blank stares.

Would the Rabble-supported exercise have value, I wonder, if it was aimed at challenging people to eliminate berries or root vegetables from their diets? It would certainly provoke a re-evaluation of our eating habits, but is that really the point? Or is the point to make people think we should be eating vegetables and fruits and not meat, eggs, and milk?

It's disingenuous to deny that there's a definite agenda at work here.    

And my remarks about the celebration of veganism as the answer to the earth's problems was not a reference to the discussion in this thread. It was a criticism of Rabble.ca's cheerleading for veganism - in the link you provided in the OP.