Visit our Site Map for even more articles
- topics - related issues
Nick Hall sent a message using the contact form at http://news.iskcon.com/contact.
Please make all of your readers aware of these sites that explain your rights when dealing with the RSPCA and the many criticisms of their behaviour.
RSPCA-Animadversion
http://cheetah.webtribe.net/~animadversion/
SHG
13 year-old cow Gangotri was unable to walk, but had no disease. Despite protests from the Hindu community, the RSPCA vet sneaked in and took her life.
The shock and bereavement felt by Hindu monks yesterday after a temple cow was killed by the RSPCA, was today turning to anger and a mobilisation of Hindus throughout the country.
Hindu leaders are united in their condemnation. “I understand that assurances were given, both by the government department Defra and the police, that nothing like this would possibly happen,” said Arjan Vekharia, of the Hindu Forum of Britain, “It is quite unthinkable that the RSPCA entered a holy place and killed an animal which is considered by Hindus to be worthy of the greatest care and affection. It is quite outrageous that the priests were lied to.”
“Hindu leaders from all over the country are gathering this Sunday,” said Sudarshan Bhatia, head of the Hindu Forum of Europe. “This issue has incensed and united everyone. They are extremely shocked and angry about this, and the completely underhanded way it was conducted. The entire episode is shameful and I am disgusted with how our peaceful and law-abiding community has been dealt with.”
Gauri Das, head of the Bhaktivedanta Manor temple, explained: “Our belief is that life itself is sacred and that we must always make every effort to prolong life. Death, even for an animal, should be met with dignity.”
The temple head further added that none of the customary last rites were performed for a cow that served her community for many years, and he is now engaged in a last-minute desperate attempt to plead with government ministers that her ashes should not be thrown into a landfill site along with other household rubbish.
“How is it that in Britain we have to have such things happen to our faithful pets, even when that pet happens to be a cow? Cows are beautiful creatures, and although they are routinely viewed as food and killed, a little dignity is all we’re asking for.”
But Hindus are not content with merely protesting and expressing their anger. “We want a change in the law,” said Britz actor Ravin Ganatra, “If the animal welfare law states that it is alright for Jewish and Muslim communities to have their own legal methods of killing, why can’t the Hindu community have a law passed that helps to keep animals alive?”
For more information please contact Gauri das on:
07809 548 673 (m)
07912 533 397 (PA)
07818 815 978 (Communications Secretary)
In an act that will shock Britain's Hindu community, the RSPCA aided by a vet and escorted by police officers this morning secretly killed a cow at the largest Hindu temple in Britain while worshipers were at prayer.
The cow, named Gangotri, a 13 year-old Belgian Blue and Jersey cross, and much loved by the community, was killed at 9.00 am at the Bhaktivedanta Manor. Police bundled away monks who were in attendance of the sick cow, and the head farmer was kept talking while inside the barn a lethal injection was given to the cow.
Cows are sacred to Hindus, and the killing of a cow is considered to be an outrageous act. The killing of a cow at a temple amounts to religious sacrilege of the worst kind.
The killing was conducted despite personal assurances given the previous day from RSPCA officers and police that due to religious sensitivities no immediate action would be taken.
Concerns that they now had an extended legal situation on their hands, rather than an imminent action, caused the priests at the temple to contact sympathetic MPs who then contacted Hilary Benn MP, the head of DEFRA. Again, assurances were given from DEFRA that no immediate action would be taken.
"This is shocking and duplicitous behaviour" said Gauri Das, the head of the community. "We have been deceived by those who had given us their word."
The religious concern of the Hindu community was evidenced recently by the protests surrounding the case where a temple bull in Wales, Shambo, had a notifiable disease.
It was for this reason that, the previous day, RSPCA regional veterinary Superintendent Timothy Wass, accompanied by two assistants, together with local Hertfordshire police, had visited the temple and engaged in lengthy discussions with Gauri das, who said: "They expressed their sensitivities, and the police gave us their assurances that we would be given time to pursue a legal recourse."
The cow was sick but had no disease. She was being cared for by temple residents and visiting worshipers, and was being administered pain relief.
The temple runs 'The Cow Protection Project' and allows old cows and bulls to die naturally.
Head Farm Manager and former Royal Marine Stuart Coyle explained: "Gangotri was unable to walk, but due to her condition there was some tolerable discomfort".
Editor's Notes:
Stuart Coyle continued in detail: "When she first became sick we called our local vet and followed all the recommendations he directed. Along with with allopathic treatments from our local vet we have also administered a range of alternative treatments which include homeopathy, acupunture, manipulation, massage, and reiki."
"We did expect that she would pass on quite soon after going down however here we are one year and quarter on and she was still going strong.
We have one of our farm personnel who is specifically tasked to nurse her and attend to all her needs.
She was located in the most visitor-accessible position in the farm to enable her to get plenty of company and also to demonstrate an important aspect of Cow protection wherein our cows are cared for the entirety of their natural life.
Over the past month there has been a series of visits from various professional persons who have been requested to make a judgment on her condition. About one month ago our local vet came to visit her at the request of a visitor.
Last week on the 4th of December a Vet from the State Veterinary Service (SVS) came to conduct a test on three of our cows and at the same time to look at Gangotri again at the request of a visitor to the farm. The Vet was informed of our position regarding cows and how we take care of them within our faith. Despite this information he wrote a formal letter advising us that we make arrangements to kill the cow. I have not received this letter yet but I was shown it when he visited again on the 7th of December.
On the second visit of the vet from the SVS he stated his opinion regarding Gangotri and I gave the position of the temple. He indicated on his departure that nothing further would probably come from it taking into count the seriousness of the cows connection with the Hindu Faith.
On the 10th and 11th (I wasn't available on the 10th) of December we were visited by an officer from the RSPCA who had also been contacted by a visitor to the temple regarding Gangotri. He had already been in contact with DEFRA.
He read me my rights under caution and proceeded to issue me with a warning notice stating that we should euthenize gangotri immediately. Later in the afternoon a police office came under the request of the RSPCA to also reinforce the legal position of the RSPCA officer and the SVS vet. Both the RSPCA and police indicated that they would not act without any notification but reminded us that the legal wheels are now turning.
On the 12th of December we were visited by a senior member of the RSPCA
accompanied by two other junior RSPCA officers. The RSPCA were also accompanied
by two local police officers. During the visit the RSPCA pointed out their
position regarding Gangotri and we informed them of our position.
During the meeting we were led to believe that we would have the opportunity
of taking some legal action to stop the slaughter notice. The police indicated
that we would get time to counter the slaughter notice.
The next morning - this morning - at 9am I received a call that the RSPCA and police were at the farm. On my entering the farm the police issued me with a warrant to enter the premises. At the same time the head of the RSPCA delegation stopped me and apologized about the action they were going to have to make.
During my protestations to the RSPCA officer another officer came and reported that the cow had already been killed. The senior officer had delayed me whilst they sneakily were killing our cow.
I immediately went to the barn to see a vet declaring the cow was dead
accompanied by other RSPCA officers."British ISKCON Community Betrayed
by RSPCA
http://news.iskcon.com/british_iskcon_community_betrayed_rspca
By Radha Mohan Dasa on 15 Dec 2007
In an act that will shock Britain's Hindu community, the RSPCA aided by a vet and escorted by police officers this morning secretly killed a cow at the largest Hindu temple in Britain while worshipers were at prayer.
The cow, named Gangotri, a 13 year-old Belgian Blue and Jersey cross, and much loved by the community, was killed at 9.00 am at the Bhaktivedanta Manor. Police bundled away monks who were in attendance of the sick cow, and the head farmer was kept talking while inside the barn a lethal injection was given to the cow.
Cows are sacred to Hindus, and the killing of a cow is considered to be an outrageous act. The killing of a cow at a temple amounts to religious sacrilege of the worst kind.
The killing was conducted despite personal assurances given the previous day from RSPCA officers and police that due to religious sensitivities no immediate action would be taken.
Concerns that they now had an extended legal situation on their hands, rather than an imminent action, caused the priests at the temple to contact sympathetic MPs who then contacted Hilary Benn MP, the head of DEFRA. Again, assurances were given from DEFRA that no immediate action would be taken.
"This is shocking and duplicitous behaviour" said Gauri Das, the head of the community. "We have been deceived by those who had given us their word."
The religious concern of the Hindu community was evidenced recently by the protests surrounding the case where a temple bull in Wales, Shambo, had a notifiable disease.
It was for this reason that, the previous day, RSPCA regional veterinary Superintendent Timothy Wass, accompanied by two assistants, together with local Hertfordshire police, had visited the temple and engaged in lengthy discussions with Gauri das, who said: "They expressed their sensitivities, and the police gave us their assurances that we would be given time to pursue a legal recourse."
The cow was sick but had no disease. She was being cared for by temple residents and visiting worshipers, and was being administered pain relief.
The temple runs 'The Cow Protection Project' and allows old cows and bulls to die naturally.
Head Farm Manager and former Royal Marine Stuart Coyle explained: "Gangotri was unable to walk, but due to her condition there was some tolerable discomfort".
Editor's Notes:
Stuart Coyle continued in detail: "When she first became sick we called our local vet and followed all the recommendations he directed. Along with with allopathic treatments from our local vet we have also administered a range of alternative treatments which include homeopathy, acupunture, manipulation, massage, and reiki."
"We did expect that she would pass on quite soon after going down however here we are one year and quarter on and she was still going strong.
We have one of our farm personnel who is specifically tasked to nurse her and attend to all her needs.
She was located in the most visitor-accessible position in the farm to enable her to get plenty of company and also to demonstrate an important aspect of Cow protection wherein our cows are cared for the entirety of their natural life.
Over the past month there has been a series of visits from various professional persons who have been requested to make a judgment on her condition. About one month ago our local vet came to visit her at the request of a visitor.
Last week on the 4th of December a Vet from the State Veterinary Service (SVS) came to conduct a test on three of our cows and at the same time to look at Gangotri again at the request of a visitor to the farm. The Vet was informed of our position regarding cows and how we take care of them within our faith. Despite this information he wrote a formal letter advising us that we make arrangements to kill the cow. I have not received this letter yet but I was shown it when he visited again on the 7th of December.
On the second visit of the vet from the SVS he stated his opinion regarding Gangotri and I gave the position of the temple. He indicated on his departure that nothing further would probably come from it taking into count the seriousness of the cows connection with the Hindu Faith.
On the 10th and 11th (I wasn't available on the 10th) of December we were visited by an officer from the RSPCA who had also been contacted by a visitor to the temple regarding Gangotri. He had already been in contact with DEFRA.
He read me my rights under caution and proceeded to issue me with a warning notice stating that we should euthenize gangotri immediately. Later in the afternoon a police office came under the request of the RSPCA to also reinforce the legal position of the RSPCA officer and the SVS vet. Both the RSPCA and police indicated that they would not act without any notification but reminded us that the legal wheels are now turning.
On the 12th of December we were visited by a senior member of the RSPCA
accompanied by two other junior RSPCA officers. The RSPCA were also accompanied
by two local police officers. During the visit the RSPCA pointed out their
position regarding Gangotri and we informed them of our position.
During the meeting we were led to believe that we would have the opportunity
of taking some legal action to stop the slaughter notice. The police indicated
that we would get time to counter the slaughter notice.
The next morning - this morning - at 9am I received a call that the RSPCA and police were at the farm. On my entering the farm the police issued me with a warrant to enter the premises. At the same time the head of the RSPCA delegation stopped me and apologized about the action they were going to have to make.
During my protestations to the RSPCA officer another officer came and reported that the cow had already been killed. The senior officer had delayed me whilst they sneakily were killing our cow.
I immediately went to the barn to see a vet declaring the cow was dead accompanied by other RSPCA officers."
Meetings
I'm writing at the end of a long day. I arrived at the temple for the 7.00 am darshan this morning, and immediately went to work completing the final details of a Powerpoint presentation on "2008: The Year of the Congregation." Next year is thus designated so that we'll all put more effort into developing strategies for 'Learning, Guidance and Organisation' for our growing congregation in London and the South.
The senior managers of the temple took everything needed for long-term growth in this important area and formed a strategic planning document for it. Well, at least we completed the Vision, Mission Statements and the Key Result Areas. Our KRAs came to eight in number, so we labelled that the 'eight petals' of our lotus and head-hunted qualified devotees for those areas.
Included in this online-book:
Devotees deceived, then cow secretly killed on Krishna temple farm
http://namahatta.org/en/node/6030
Cow Killed at Hare Krishna Temple: Day One http://namahatta.org/en/node/6058
The Madness of Modern Morality http://namahatta.org/en/node/6062
Day Two http://namahatta.org/en/node/6065
Day Three http://namahatta.org/en/node/6070
Day Four: Hindu Leaders Plan the Next Move http://namahatta.org/en/node/6074
Everything on one page http://namahatta.org/en/book/export/html/6030
General Content
Four ISKCON restaurants have been included in the top 15 best vegetarian restaurants to eat by the Australian public.
The I LOVE FOOD awards has been established to find the best places in Australia to eat out. Over 11,000 eateries were nominated in 36 categories by the public. So congratulations to GOVINDA’S in Sydney, CARDAMOM POD in Byron bay, GAURA NITAI’S in Cairns and GOPAL’S in Melbourne.
All these restaurants are either run by the temple or devotee couples.
For more information visit the http://www.lifestylefood.com.au
site.
Australians Vote with Their Tongues
http://www.iskcon.net.au/kurma/2007/12/20#a4295
Australia's LifeStyle FOOD Channel has conducted a survey (based on a public voting system) on Australia's most popular restaurants.
Of the top 15 vegetarian restaurants in Australia http://www.lifestylefood.com.au/eatoutguide/?Type=VEGETARIAN, four are Hare Krishna restaurants: Govinda's in Darlinghurst NSW, The Cardamom Pod in Byron Bay NSW, Gaura Nitai's in Cairns QLD, and Gopal's in Melbourne, Victoria.
Congratulations! And thanks to the Australian public for letting us know what you like (Kurma dasa).
Courtesy of Hinduism Today
While religions around the world share a quest for spirituality, they vary in their perception that respecting all forms of life is integral to that quest. In the following 13 pages, we focus on the subject of compassion as it is practiced by the adherents of eight religions--four East and four West--and reflected in their choice to eat meat, or not .
By Jane Srivastava, South Carolina
All religions of the world extol compassion, yet they vary in their commitment to expressing this virtue through nonviolence and vegetarianism. A growing number of today's vegetarians refrain from eating meat more for reasons pertaining to improved health, a cleaner environment and a better world economy than for religious concerns. Even those whose vegetarianism is inspired by compassion are oftentimes driven more by a sense of conscience than by theological principle.
In this article we briefly explore the attitudes of eight world religions with regard to meat-eating and the treatment of animals. It may be said with some degree of certainty that followers of Eastern religions--like Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism--generally agree in their support of nonviolence and a meatless lifestyle. But such a collective stance among followers of Western religions--like Judaism, Christianity and Islam--may not be asserted with the same confidence. Many deeply religious souls in the West eat meat because it is sanctioned in their holy books. Others refrain for a variety of reasons, including their sense of conscience that it is just not right, regardless of what scriptures say. Certainly, many scriptural references to food and diet are ambiguous at best. The issue is complicated.
Good Jains are exceptional examples of nonviolence and vegetarianism. Jainism, a deeply ascetic religion mainly centered in India, mandates that adherents refrain from harming even the simplest of life forms. Jains even follow dietary codes regulating the types of plants they eat.
Over the ages and around the world, Hindus have followed a variety of diets predicated on geography and socio-economic status. Although vegetarianism has never been a requirement for Hindus and modern Hindus eat more meat than ever before, no follower of this oldest of world religions will ever deny that vegetarianism promotes spiritual life.
The dietary standards of Buddhists also vary in accordance with time and place. Although the cessation of suffering and an earnest commitment to nonviolence are central to Buddhist Dharma, most of the world's Buddhists are not vegetarian.
In Judaism, the oldest of the Abrahamic religions, there has long been a debate over whether meat should be eaten, with the view predominating that God allowed meat-eating as a concession to human weakness and need.
Muslim cultures are predominantly nonvegetarian, though abstaining from eating meat is generally permitted if the devotee acknowledges that such abstinence will not bring him closer to Allah.
Modern-day Christians may eat meat without restriction. Even though many Christians of the Middle Ages were vegetarian, a meat-eating interpretation of the Bible has slowly become the official position of the Christian Church.
Here follows a study of perspectives on vegetarianism and nonviolence in these eight world faiths.
Jainism
The virtuous compassion of the Jain lifestyle yields exemplary vegetarians
All good Jains are vegetarians, for they believe that no living entity should be harmed or killed, especially for food. According to one famous Jain motto: "All living creatures must help each other." From its inception 2,600 years ago, Jainism has remained faithful in its commitment to nonviolence and vegetarianism.
Because followers of this gentle religion make compassion the central focus of their lives, their understanding and practice of ahimsa exceeds even that of many of the followers of other Eastern religions. Jains believe that humans, animals and plants are all sacred and can feel pain. Hence, they are careful to avoid harming even plants.
The concept of ahimsa, noninjury, permeates all aspects of Jain life. Some ascetics of this faith will sweep insects from their path as they walk and wear a face mask to prevent inadvertently killing small organisms as they breathe. Traditionally, these kindly souls adhere to the ideals of nonviolence with regard to the jobs they take to make a living. Often, they will work as traders of commodities. Even here, they follow rules. They will never handle goods made with animal products, such as hides, horns, ivory and silk. Farming and defending one's nation are allowed as exceptions to the rule.
Jains classify the life-quality of all living entities according to the number of senses they possess. The lowest forms of life have only one sense: touch. This group includes plants. The highest life forms--including humans and most animals--have all five senses: touch, taste, smell, sight and hearing. The earthworm is an example of a life form with only two senses: touch and taste. Lice have three: touch, taste and smell. Mosquitoes have four: touch, taste, smell and sight. Jains consume only plants, because plants have just one sense.
Jains have extensive dietary rules regarding the choice and preparation of the plants they eat. Generally, vegetables that grow underground are prohibited, because harvesting them usually means pulling them up by their roots, which destroys the entire plant, as well as all the microorganisms living around its roots. When possible, fruits are plucked only when they are ripe and ready to fall to the ground. Ideally, these are harvested after they have fallen of their own accord.
Grains, such as wheat, rice and beans, are collected only when the pods are dry and dead. Very orthodox Jains will not eat certain fruits and vegetables that contain a lot of seeds--like eggplant and guava--because these so often contain worms. Cauliflower, broccoli and other vegetables with velvety surfaces are also avoided by orthodox Jains because tiny insects get stuck on their surfaces and cannot be removed. Mushrooms are not consumed because they may contain parasites. Leafy vegetables, like cabbage and spinach, are carefully washed and inspected for insects and worms. Dairy products are allowed.
Jains follow restrictions on the timing of food preparation and its consumption. Meals must be cooked and eaten only during daylight hours. This rule evolved because cooking food at night could cause the death of small flying creatures like gnats and mosquitoes that would be attracted to the light and warmth of a fire.
Jains perform several kinds of fasts, including during festivals and on the eighth and fourteenth day of the full moon cycle. While fasting, only foods prepared from grains are allowed, and no fruits or vegetables are consumed. Besides protection of other living beings, the primary purpose of the Jains' dietary codes is to control desire and purify mind and body. In addition, their practices provide health and environmental benefits and help to conserve world resources. At a world environmental congress recently held in England, a comparative study of religions proclaimed Jainism the most environmentally friendly religion on Earth.
The lifestyle of modern Jain monks and nuns is more austere than that of even the strictest lay Jains. In their respect for Mahavira, Jainism's founder, monks of the Digambar (sky-clad) sect wear no clothes, shave their heads and walk barefoot. They eat only once a day, and then only what is offered to them as a sacrament.
Today there are roughly five million Jains worldwide, with the most
orthodox residing in India. Although many modern Jains modify their dietary
restrictions for convenience, most are faithful vegetarians. Some have
entered non-traditional professions. A select few have migrated to foreign
countries and have become some of the wealthiest Indians in the world.
Hinduism
Hindus comprise the great majority of the world's vegetarians
The vast diversity of Hinduism's multifaceted culture shines like gold in the variety of its numerous foods--both vegetarian and not. Geography, occupation, class and economic status play a significant role in determining the diets of modern-day Hindus. So does dedicated religious commitment.
Hindus are unmatched in their development of the art of enjoyable eating for healthy living. Their vegetarian food preparations are among the most varied in the world, and their ability to create a well-rounded nutritional diet without forfeiting taste is legendary. Many Westerners, inspired to be vegetarian but thinking a meatless diet might be boring or nutritionally lacking, derive renewed encouragement and inspiration from the many time-tested vegetarian traditions of India. One source of such wholesome eating dates back thousands of years to the health-care system of ayurveda, the "science of long life, "which utilizes food both as medicine and sustenance.
India's cooking traditions vary greatly from North to South. One typical South Indian vegetarian meal might consist of an ample portion of rice centered on a banana-leaf plate, surrounded by small servings of vegetables prepared as curries, pickles and chutneys. This tasty assortment would be enhanced with soupy sambars and rasam, a few jaggery sweets on the side and a small portion of yogurt to balance the tastes and soothe digestion at the end of the entire meal.
Setting aside extenuating circumstances, most good Hindus would choose to follow a vegetarian way of life. All Hindu scriptures extol nonviolence and a meatless diet as being crucially important in the successful practice of worship and yoga. Most Hindu monastic orders are vegetarian. For centuries, Hindu temples and ashrams have served only vegetarian food. "Hindu dharma generally recommends vegetarianism, " notes Vedacharya Vamadeva Shastri, "but it is not a requirement to be a Hindu."
The earliest scriptural texts show that vegetarianism has always been common throughout India. In the Mahabharata, the great warrior Bhishma explains to Yudhisthira, eldest of the Pandava princes, that the meat of animals is like the flesh of one's own son, and that the foolish person who eats meat must be considered the vilest of human beings. The Manusmriti declares that one should "refrain from eating all kinds of meat " for such eating involves killing and leads to karmic bondage (bandha). The Yajur Veda states, "You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever." The Atharva Veda proclaims, "Those noble souls who practice meditation and other yogic ways, who are ever careful about all beings, who protect all animals, are commited to spiritual practices."
Over 2,000 years ago, Saint Tiruvalluvar wrote in the Tirukural (verse 251): "How can he practice true compassion who eats the flesh of an animal to fatten his own flesh?" and "Greater than a thousand ghee offerings consumed in sacrificial fires is to not sacrifice and consume any living creature." (verse 259)
Vegetarianism, called shakahara in Sanskrit, is an essential virtue in Hindu thought and practice. It is rooted in the spiritual aspiration to maintain a balanced state of mind and body. Hindus also believe that eating meat is not only detrimental to one's spiritual life, but also harmful to one's health and the environment.
Most Hindus strive to live in the consciousness that their choice of foods bears consequences, according to the law of karma. Even the word "meat, " mamsa, implies the karmic law of cause and effect. Mam means "me " and sa means "he, " intimating that the giver of pain will be the receiver of that same pain in equal measure.
Historically, while a large portion of ancient Hindu society lived predominantly on a vegetarian diet for religious reasons, certain communities, like kshatriyas (the Hindu warrior class), consumed at least some meat and fish. Hindu royalty also ate meat. Nomadic Hindus, who did not farm, had to rely on animal flesh for food, because nothing else was available. Agricultural communities were among the best examples of Hindu vegetarianism, for they were not inclined to kill and eat the animals they needed for labor.
All animals are sacred to Hindus, but one stands out among all the rest--the cow. According to an ancient Hindu story, the original cow, Mother Surabhi, was one of the treasures churned from the cosmic ocean. The five products of the cow (pancha-gavya)--milk, curd, ghee, urine and dung--are considered sacramental.
Although no temples have ever been constructed to honor the cow, she is respected as one of the seven mothers--alongside the Earth, one's natural mother, a midwife, the wife of a guru, the wife of a brahman and the wife of the king.
Some controversy exists with regard to the Vedic interpretation of meat-eating. The the earliest of the Vedas, the Rig Veda, mentioned the consumption of meat offered in sacrifice at the altar, but even such ceremonial meat-eating was an exception, rather than a rule. Vedic offerings primarily consisted of plant and dairy products, such as ghee, honey, soma (an intoxicating plant juice), milk, yogurt and grain.
According to Vedacharya Vamadeva Shastri in his book, Eating of Meat and Beef in the Hindu Tradition: "Animal sacrifice (pashu bandhu) is outlined in several Vedic texts as one of many different possible offerings, not as the main offering. Even so, the animal could only be killed while performing certain mantras and rituals."
Today, according to a recent survey, 31 percent of all Indians are vegetarian. Meat is not even sold or allowed in certain famous pilgrimage locations like Haridwar and Varanasi, and many non-vegetarian Hindus abstain from eating meat on holy days or during special religious practices. Most Indian states have a legal ban on the slaughter of cows, and beef is only available in non-Hindu stores and restaurants.
They who are ignorant, though wicked and haughty, kill animals without
feelings or remorse or fear of punishment. In their next lives, such sinful
persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed. Shrimad Bhagavatam,
(11.5.14),
Buddhism
Buddha condemned meat-eating, but advised his monks to accept the food
they were served
Like Jainism, Buddhism has earned well-deserved distinction for its ideals of nonviolence and compassion. Although animal sacrifice and meat-eating were common practices during Buddha's lifetime, the sage opposed animal slaughter and advised his followers to not eat meat under the following three conditions: if they saw the animal being killed; if they consented to its slaughter; or if they knew the animal was going to be killed for them.
As Buddhism spread around the world, many of its fundamental concepts were modified to fit changing times and different cultures. The concept of ahimsa acquired a less stringent interpretation, and meat-eating among Buddhists became more and more commonplace.
Today, the international Buddhist community is divided on the issue of vegetarianism. The Dalai Lama himself is not vegetarian. Many Buddhists feel that it is acceptable to eat meat if someone else does the killing. Those who believe in the vegetarian ideal assert that killing animals is avoidable and does not resonate with Buddhism's spirit of reverence for all life.
All Buddhist schools of thought agree that compassion and the cessation of suffering lies at the core of Buddha's teaching. But there are conflicting interpretations even regarding Buddha's own consumption of meat. While at least one tradition declares that Buddha died from eating tainted pork, a number of nineteenth-century scholars asserted that it was a poisonous mushroom that caused his death. Most Buddhists favor the latter explanation.
Buddha did not teach vegetarianism in a formal way. In one scriptural verse, he made it clear that a Buddhist monk should receive with gratitude any food that was put into his begging bowl, even if it were meat. It is almost certain, however, that most Buddhists giving food to a monk would know that offering meat would not be proper.
The Buddhist view of animals is best described in Jataka Tales--stories Buddha himself is said to have narrated. These anecdotes tell of his previous incarnations as animals and as humans. They convey the message that all creatures are divine, and that slaying an animal is as heinous as killing a human.
The two prominent Buddhist traditions today are the Hinayana and Mahayana sects. Those of the Hinayana sect, most of whom are renunciate monks, seek spiritual liberation through the attainment of Self-realization. The Mahayana sect, by far the largest school, is comprised mainly of family men and women who pursue spiritual advancement through service--helping themselves by helping others. The Indo-Tibetan and Zen traditions, which are of the Mahayana sect, have many texts that praise the vegetarian ideal.
A good example is found in the Lankavatara Sutras, a central Mahayana scripture said to consist of Buddha's own words. In support of vegetarianism, the sage states: "For the sake of love and purity, the bodhisattva should refrain from eating flesh, which is born of semen and blood. For fear of causing terror to living beings, let the bodhisattva, who disciplines himself to attain compassion, refrain from eating flesh. It is not true that meat is proper food and permissible to eat. Meat-eating in any form, in any manner and in any place is unconditionally and once and for all prohibited. I do not permit it. I will not permit it."
A Buddhist Bible, written by in Dwight Goddard in 1932, echoes this vegetarian sentiment. This book strongly influenced the growth of Buddhism in the English-speaking world during the 20th century. It is famous for its transformatory effect on beat writers such as Jack Kerouac. "The reason for practicing dhyana (meditation) and seeking to attain samadhi (mystic contemplation) is to escape from the suffering of life, " writes Goddard. "But in seeking to escape from suffering ourselves, why should we inflict it upon others? How can a bhikshu (seeker), who hopes to become a deliverer of others, himself be living on the flesh of other sentient beings?"
The vegetarian flavor of the faith found fertile fields when Buddhism spread to China and Japan, where a nonviolent, meat-free culture had long been an established way of life. According to The Encyclopaedia of Buddhism, "In China and Japan the eating of meat was looked upon as an evil and was ostracized. The eating of meat gradually ceased and this tended to become general. It became a matter of course not to use any kind of meat in the meals of temples and monasteries."
Buddhism entered China during the Han dynasty (206 bce--220 ce) when Confucianism and Taoism were already well established. The Chinese worshiped ancestral deities and followed strict dietary rules. Certain foods--pork, for example--were said to make the breath "obnoxious to the ancestors " and were frowned upon.
Ancient Japanese lived primarily on vegetables, rice and grains. When Buddhism began to gain a stronghold in Japan during the sixth century, the nation had already absorbed much of Chinese culture. Chinese Buddhism blended compatibly with the Shintoism of Japan, which was significantly vegetarian. According to Shinto tradition, no animal food is offered at a shrine, as it is taboo to shed blood in a sacred place. Today, the Buddhism of Japan constitutes a merge of Shintoism with Chinese Buddhism. Although eating meat, especially fish, is common in the Japanese Buddhist community, the deeply religious still consider it an inferior practice. No meat or fish is ever consumed in a Zen Buddhist monastery.
Today, most Buddhists are not vegetarian, though contemporary Buddhist movements, such as Buddhists Concerned for Animal Rights, are seeking to reestablish vegetarian ideals. One Buddhist denomination, called the Cao Dai sect, has two million vegetarian followers.
The greatest progress of righteousness among men comes from the exhortation
in favour of non-injury to life and abstention from killing. The Edicts
of Ashoka
Judaism
Jewish scholars believe God intended man to be vegetarian
Although ancient Hebrews ate meat, they did so sparingly. This restraint was not religiously or even ethically motivated. Meat was expensive and its consumption was a luxury. As an agrarian society, biblical Jews used animals mainly for labor and were largely vegetarian. They also consumed a great quantity of milk and milk products, mainly from sheep and goats.
Today most Jews live on a predominantly meat-based diet. A typical Jewish simcha (private celebration) consists of brisket, gefilte fish cakes, fish and chicken soup or chopped liver. Roberta Kalechofsky points out in Vegetarian Judaism--A Guide for Everyone that "Western Jews have historically eaten as much meat as the non-Jews; and due to their growing prosperity, European Jews have started to fully identify themselves with the meat-based diet."
Scholars of Judaism agree that God's intention was for man to be vegetarian. "God did not permit Adam and his wife to kill a creature and to eat its flesh,'' said Rashi, a highly respected, 12th-century, Jewish rabbi who wrote the first comprehensive commentaries on the Talmud and Tanakh. Ronald Isaacs states in Animals in Jewish Thought and Tradition that all Talmudic rabbis conclude that "the permission to eat meat [was granted to human kind] as a compromise, a divine concession to human weakness and human need." Rabbi Elijah Judah Schochet, in Animal Life in Jewish Tradition, notes that "scripture does not command the Israelite to eat meat, but permits this diet as a concession to lust."
Jewish dietary laws are unique in including a prohibition against mixing meat and milk: "You shall not seethe a kid in its mother's milk " (Exodus 23:19). This mandate of not boiling a young goat in the milk of its mother is an elaboration of the command against cruelty to animals. Also, because offering meat boiled in milk was a pagan form of hospitality, Jews saw ruling against the practice as a way of distancing themselves from pagan ways.
Judaism prohibits the consumption of blood: "Only flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you not eat " (Genesis 9:4). "You shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh; for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof " Leviticus 17:14). The rationale behind this injunction is that life belongs to God, and blood is life. "Blood is the life, and you shall not eat the life with the flesh " (Deuteronomy 12:23).
In Jewish tradition, only certain animals are suitable as food. According to Elijah Schochet in his book Animal Life in Jewish Tradition: "Only quadrupeds which chewed their cud and had parted hoofs, such as the cow, sheep, goat, gazelle and male deer, were fit for food, these being by and large the herbivorous ruminants. Animals possessing only one of the two required characteristics, however, such as the camel, the badger and the pig, were forbidden, as of course, were animals which neither had split hoofs nor chewed their cud. Animals which died of natural causes were prohibited, as were those torn by wild beasts. Only fish possessing both fins and scales were permitted, while the majority of insects were forbidden. All land creatures that crawled on their bellies or moved on many feet were prohibited. Numerous birds were outlawed, notably predatory fowl and wild waterfowl."
Jewish scholars cite three characteristics that distinguish animals as not suitable for slaughter as kosher meat: 1) that they are injurious to health, 2) that they are aesthetically repulsive and 3) that they serve as symbolic reminders to Jews of their status as holy people. Rabbinical authority states that these guidelines are to be obeyed in order that Israel should be "a holy people unto the Lord, " and "distinguished from other nations by the avoidance of unclean and abominable things that defile them."
The Bible does not provide direct support for the various Jewish dietary laws pertaining to the koshering process. Still, ritual slaughter (shechitah) is one of the central elements of kashrut (Jewish dietary laws). Kashrut decrees that an animal's throat must be cut with a single, swift, uninterrupted horizontal sweep of a perfectly smooth knife in such a way as to sever the trachea, esophagus, carotid arteries and jugular vein. The profuse loss of blood is supposed to render the animal unconscious quickly, thus minimizing suffering.
Cruelty can be measured by the length of time it takes for an animal to die. One study performed by the English Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals concluded that "there is often a time-lag of anything from seventeen seconds to six minutes from the moment the animal's throat is cut until it actually loses consciousness. Although the throat may be cut, the animal is by no means free from pain and can in some cases have a considerable awareness of what is happening." Clearly, Judaism's animal slaughter for food is difficult to reconcile with its pro-vegetarian interpretation of the Torah and its mandate to not inflict pain on any living being.
Jewish dietary laws apply only to animal foods. All fruits, vegetables, unprocessed grains--and anything that does not contain meat or milk products--are intrinsically kosher. Making meat kosher involves a complex process of removing all blood from the flesh. The butcher must remove veins, sacs and various membranes that collect blood, then soak, salt and rinse the meat to extract any remaining blood. Some authorities point out, however, that while koshering removes blood from the larger blood vessels, it does not extract it from the smallest vessels, such as the capillaries.
Today, the number of Jewish vegetarians is increasing. Advocates promote the Jewish teaching that "humans are partners with God in the preservation of life and health."
"The removal of blood [from meat] is one the most powerful means of
making us constantly aware of the concession and compromise which the whole
act of eating meat, in reality, is." The Jewish Dietary Law by Rabbi Samuel
Dresner
Islam
In a religion that praises the pleasures of meat, a few go vegetarian
In ancient times, meat-eating in Islamic countries was predicated on necessity. Pre-Islamic Arabs led a pastoral and nomadic existence in harsh desert climates where it would have been challenging, if not impossible, to survive on a vegetarian diet.
When Islamic civilization spread into Asia in the eighth century, meat-eating became an important symbol of difference, separating them from the predominantly vegetarian Buddhist and Hindu faiths and practices.
Muslims adhere to dietary regulations which are similar to those of Jews. Forbidden foods, referred to as haram, are blood, pork and those animals that have not been slaughtered by cutting the jugular vein with a very sharp knife while reciting a prayer pronouncing the name of Allah.
According to his earliest biographies, the Prophet Mohammed preferred vegetarian food, particularly favoring milk blended with yogurt, butter, nuts, cucumber, dates, pomegranates, grapes, figs and honey.
Mohammed was said to have been compassionate toward animals, and Islamic scriptures often command that all creatures be treated with care. According to Islamic tradition, no creature should be harmed in Mecca, the birthplace of Mohammed.
The Qur'an states that animals are like humans: "There is not an animal on earth, nor a bird that flies on its wings--but that they are communities like you. Nothing have We omitted from the Book, and they all shall be gathered to their Lord in the end."
Richard C. Foltz writes in Animals in Islamic Tradition and Muslim Cultures: "[Even though] in mainstream Islam there is a tendency to see animals in terms of how they serve human interests, animals are to be valued, cared for, protected and acknowledged as having certain rights, needs and desires of their own. Their case is like that of human slaves albeit lower in the hierarchical scheme of things."
Some customs of the Sufis, an offshoot of Islam, recommend abstention from meat-eating for bodily purification. Bawa Muhaiyaddeen, a teacher in a 20th century school of Sufism, referred to as the Sri Lankan Qadiri, taught that the consumption of meat stimulates the animal nature, while the consumption of plant and dairy products brings peace. Chishti Inayat Khan, who helped introduce Sufi principles to Europe and America in modern times, observed that vegetarianism not only promotes compassion toward living creatures, it provides an important aid in the purification of the body for spiritual practices.
Nearly all of today's 1.4 billion Muslims eat meat. The practice is justified by the logic that "one must not forbid something which Allah permitted." According to the Qur'an, meat eating is one of the delights of heaven.
Some Islamic legal scholars assert that vegetarianism is actually not allowed by Islam. According to Mawil Izzi Dien in The Environmental Dimensions of Islam, "In Islamic law, there are no grounds upon which one can argue that animals should not be killed for food. & Muslims are not only prohibited from eating certain foods, but also may not choose to prohibit themselves food that is allowed by Islam. Accordingly, vegetarianism is not permitted unless on grounds such as unavailability or medical necessity."
A few stalwart Muslim jurists insist that there should be no prohibition of vegetarianism in Islam and have actually issued legal rulings, known as fatwas, to this effect, asserting that Muslims may choose to be vegetarian, provided they realize and acknowledge that eating meat is allowed, and that vegetarianism will not bring them closer to Allah.
Iran has at least one vegetarian society. Turkey has several national vegetarian organizations. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) has, at the suggestion of its Muslim members, launched a web site on Islam and vegetarianism.
Muslims who choose to abstain from eating meat do so for a variety of reasons. Some argue that, especially in the West, truly halal meat does not and cannot exist--that making meat halal is impossible in today's industrialized world of factory farming. Even if the technical requirements of a halal slaughter are observed, the animals are not raised in humane and wholesome environments. They are physically abused and may be killed within view of other animals.
Some Muslims are choosing vegetarian lifestyles more for reasons of good health than upon religious principle. Dr. Shahid Athar of Indiana University School of Medicine asserts in www.IslamicConcern.com: "There is no doubt that a vegetarian diet is healthier."
Others are turning to vegetarianism because of the deleterious effect meat-eating has on the environment. Industrial meat production may render meat haram (Islamically unlawful), because it leads to environmental collapse and destruction. The Qur'an (7:56) states, "Waste not by excess, for Allah loves not the wasters, " and "Do not pollute the earth after it has been (so) wholesomely (set in order) &."
Muslims in the West face additional challenges in following dietary mandates of their faith. Halal meat is often not readily available. Restaurant and pre-packaged foods may contain forbidden ingredients. One option in the face of these challenges is a vegetarian meal, which avoids restricted ingredients. While some Muslims conclude that simply abstaining from eating meat is an obvious solution, others are adamant that following Islamic dietary law is far more complicated than just being vegetarian.
"In all that has been revealed unto me, I do not find anything forbidden
to eat, unless it be carrion, or blood poured forth, or the flesh of swine."
Qur'an 5:3, 2:173, 6:145
Christianity
Both vegetarians and meat-eaters find support in scriptures
Most modern Christians believe in the "dominion perspective, " an exclusively Christian theological stance asserting that human life has greater value than animal life and that all of nature exists for the sole purpose of serving the needs and interests of man. This perspective gained significant development and fortification from famous philosophers and theologians like Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas and Descartes. Descartes asserted that animals were "automata," souless entities with no capacity to experience suffering.
Unlike the Jewish Torah, the New Testament sets no moral guidelines for man in dealing with animals. Apostle Paul, commenting on the Torah's restriction of muzzling an ox that threshes corn, observed: "Does God care for oxen? Of course not. [Their purpose] is altogether for our sakes." (1 Corinthians. 9:9-10)
The Old Testament, known also as the Hebrew Bible, is the first part of the Christian Bible. Therefore, Jews and Christians share the concept that in the beginning, symbolized in the story of the Garden of Eden, mankind was nonviolent and vegetarian, later becoming corrupt, symbolized by the expulsion of Adam and Eve from Eden.
Genesis 9:1-3 is the most significant Biblical text supporting the Christian tradition of eating meat. This famous verse states that "God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: 'Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish in the sea; into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything.' "
If rabbinical literature interprets Genesis 9:3 as divine concession to human weakness and human need, Christians consider it clear and unconditional approval of the consumption of animal flesh.
It is clear from the teachings of the New Testament that Christian tradition came to interpret in the teachings of Christ an express authorization to freely eat meat: "Thus, he declared all foods clean." (Mark 7:19) This assessment is further rationalized with the argument that Jesus put much greater emphasis on man's deeds than on his diet. It has also been postulated that, as a radical reformer, Jesus wanted to distance himself from the formalism of the Jewish faith, and that moving away from Jewish dietary laws toward a more virtue-based ethic might highlight this shift.
There are varying opinions with regard to whether or not Jesus himself ate meat. According to the Bible, he at least ate fish: "And when he said this, he showed them his hands and his feet. While in their joy they were disbelieving and still wondering, he said to them, 'Have you anything here to eat?' They gave him a piece of broiled fish, and he took it and ate in their presence." (Luke 24:40-43).
Christians seeking further justification for their meat-based dietary preferences cite many examples in The New Testament where Jesus asks for meat. Some scholars deny the validity of these citations, asserting that a closer study of the original Greek text reveals that the words understood as "meat " would more accurately be translated as "food." Also, it has been asserted by some experts that fish in this context could also mean little bread rolls made from a submarine plant known as the "fish plant." These soft plants were dried in the sun, ground into flour and baked into rolls. Fish-plant rolls were a significant feature of the ancient Babylonian diet.
There is a strong opinion among some scholars that the original teachings of Jesus were altered by the Church, particularly by the "correctors " who were appointed by ecclesiastical authorities of Nicea in 325 ce. Those scholars believe that these "corrections " most blatantly misrepresented the teachings of Jesus with regard to violence and meat-eating. In his foreword to the translation of The Gospel of the Holy Twelve, Rev. G.J. Ousley writes: "What these correctors did was to cut out of the Gospels, with minute care, certain teachings of our Lord which they did not propose to follow namely, those against the eating of flesh and the taking of strong drink."
Scholars tend to agree that many early Christians were vegetarians. St. John Chrysostom wrote: "We, the Christian leaders, practice abstinence from the flesh of animals to subdue our bodies." Some experts assert that Matthew and all the Apostles abstained from eating meat.
Prior to the Middle Ages, several monastic orders adhered to vegetarianism, including the Augustinian, Franciscan and Cistercian orders. With time, however, organized Christianity moved away from these vegetarian roots. Meat-eating was so much an accepted way of life during the time of the Roman Empire that vegetarian Christians had to follow their culinary choices in secrecy.
Before the end of the 18th century, John Wesley, the founder of the Methodist Church, was the only major Christian leader who was a vegetarian. In 1809, in Safford, England, Reverend William Cowherd started the Bible Christian Church, Europe's first vegetarian church in recent times. By 1817, Reverend Cowherd's nephew, Reverend William Metcalfe, established a branch of this church in Philadelphia, bringing vegetarianism onto American soil.
More recently, several notable personages have adopted and/or encouraged vegetarianism. after: These include Ellen G. White, one of the founders of the Seventh Day Adventists; Dr. Albert Schweitzer, Nobel Peace Prize winner, theologian, musician and philosopher; Dr. John H. Kellogg, creator of corn flakes; Reverend Fred Rogers, host of TV show "Mr. Roger's Neighborhood; " and Reverend Sylvester Graham, creator of graham crackers.
Reverend Sylvester Graham was a Presbyterian minister. He launched a modern food reform, campaigning to assure that essential nutrients were not removed from vegetarian foods. The Seventh day Adventists were the first official vegetarian Christians. Today, half of all Seven Day Adventists are vegetarian. The Trappist, Benedictine and Carthusian Orders of the Roman Catholic Church are also vegetarians.
A growing number of modern Christians not only perceive vegetarianism as being in consonance with core principles of Christianity, they also see it as at least a partial relief to problems like poor health, world hunger and global economy.
"Thou shalt not kill." Exodus 20:13
Sikhism
The first Sikh guru established vegetarian community kitchens
Scholars perceive Sikhism as a syncretic faith that combines elements of Hinduism and Islam. The Sikh religion began in the 16th century in northern India with the teachings of Guru Nanak and was continued by the nine gurus that followed him. Today most of the world's Sikh population live in the Indian state of Punjab. They are mostly meat-eaters, but a predilection for vegetarianism has been present from the faith's beginning.
According to Sikh scholar Swaran Singh Sanehi of the Academy of Namdhari Culture: "Sikh scriptures support vegetarianism fully. Sikhs living during the time of Guru Nanak had adopted the Hindu tradition and way of living in many ways. Their dislike for flesh-foods arose from that tradition. Guru Nanak considered meat-eating improper."
Nanak instituted a tradition of free community kitchens, lungar (still flourishing today) where anyone--regardless of race, religion, gender or caste--can enjoy a simple meal. This was inspired by a belief in the equality of all men and rejection of the Hindu caste system. Such kitchens serve vegetarian food twice a day, every day of the year. Being vegetarian, the meals are acceptable to to people from different religions and cultures. These lungars have been appreciated during times of disaster, such as following the 2005 tsunami and Hurricane Katrina.
In the Sikh scripture, Guru Granth Sahib, meat consumption is strongly condemned in passages like the following: "You kill living beings, and call it a righteous action. Tell me, brother, what would you call an unrighteous action?"
Sikhs rigorously denounce animal sacrifice as well. This includes ritual slaughter to sanctify meat for eating, as in the preparation of halal or kosher meat.
The Indian saint and mystic Kabir, a contemporary of Guru Nanak who some believe may have been Nanak's preceptor, wrote: "If you say that God resides in all, why do you kill a hen? & It is foolish to kill an animal by cruelty and call that dead animal sanctified food. & You keep fasts in order to become acceptable to God, but kill a living animal for your relish."
The ten Gurus of Sikhism neither condoned nor condemned meat-eating
in a formal way. Although they felt that it was unnecessary to kill animals
and birds for food, they did not believe vegetarianism should become dogma.
They emphasized controlling the contents of the mind more than controlling
the contents of the body. Guru Nanak apparently considered it futile to
argue about food. When pressed to comment on meat-eating, he said, "Only
the foolish quarrel over the desirability of eating flesh. They are oblivious
to true knowledge and meditation. What is flesh? What is vegetable? Which
is sin-infested? Who can say what is good food and that which leads to
sin?" Today, some Sikhs avoid beef and pork, observing the meat prohibitions
of both Islam and Hinduism. Other groups, such as the Namdharis and Yogi
Bhajan's 3HO Golden Temple Movement, are strictly vegetarian.
Zoroastrianism
Zoroaster inspired compassion through the practice of virtue
Zoroastrianism (sometimes called Magianism, Mazdaism or Parseeism) was founded in ancient Persia by the prophet Zoroaster, also known as Zarathushtra. Although estimates for the birth of Zoroaster vary greatly, it is popularly accepted that he lived in pastoral Iran around 600 bce and was an ardent advocate of vegetarianism when it was not customary to be so. According to Colin Spencer in The Heretic's Feast, Zoroaster was not only a vegetarian, he also disavowed animal sacrifice.
Zoroaster emphasized moderation. With regard to food, this meant not eating too much--such as in gluttony, or too little--such as in fasting. He also taught compassion through the kind treatment of all living entities.
Zoroastrians have always had a great respect for nature. Today, this benevolence is incorporated into a lifestyle that highlights striving to live with a sensitivity to the soul force vibrant in all things. Zoroastrian festivals celebrate six seasons of the year, which correspond to six periods of creation in nature: mid-spring, mid-summer, the season of corn, the season of flocks, winter solstice and the fire festival of sacrifices.
In the ninth century, the High Priest Atrupat-e Emetan recorded in Denkard, Book VI, his request for Zoroastrians to be vegetarians: "Be plant eaters, O you men, so that you may live long. Keep away from the body of the cattle, and deeply reckon that Ohrmazd, the Lord, has created plants in great number for helping cattle and men."
Zoroastrian scriptures assert that when the "final Savior of the world
" arrives, men will give up meat eating.
Jane Srivastava holds a bachelor's degree from Vilnius State University, Lithuania, and a degree from the Albany Law School, Albany, New York. She now lives in South Carolina.
By The Times of London
Sun. Dec 2 - 8:02 PM
Women can give their children a lifelong taste for healthy foods such as broccoli and brussels sprouts simply by eating them during pregnancy or while breastfeeding, researchers have found.
The discovery could help avoid the battles over food and diet which dominate the dinner tables of many young families as parents try to persuade children to eat their vegetables.
It suggests that mothers should adopt a stealth approach, indoctrinating their offspring’s taste buds with a liking for cabbage, broccoli and other healthy vegetables even before they are born, say the researchers.
"Flavours from the mother’s diet are transmitted through amniotic fluid and mother’s milk. A baby learns to like a food’s taste when the mother eats that food on a regular basis," said Julie Mennella of Monell Chemical Senses Center, a research institute in Philadelphia.
The technique can work for a variety of vegetables. In one experiment Mennella gave carrot juice to a group of pregnant women and to a separate group of breastfeeding women. Their babies were subsequently far keener on carrots than those born to women who had not been given carrot juice.
A similar experiment with fruit showed that babies whose mothers ate raw peaches while breastfeeding were far more willing to accept them in their own food.
Hinduism today
Posted by: "Vrndavan Parker"
Date: Fri Nov 2, 2007 1:14 am ((PDT))
Italian hotel firm to enter Indian hospitality mkt 31 Oct, 2007, 1625 hrs IST,Sudeshna Sen, EconomicTimes.com LONDON: Vedic Pasta anyone? The Italians want to bring an Italian flavour to the Indian hospitality business; with a tinge of Vedic wellness. The Milan-based Domina Hotel Group is planning a major expansion in India with a joint venture for 25 new hotels, with a total overall value of USD 600 mn. The project will be run by an equal joint venture with real estate firm Shristi Holding, quoted in the Indian National Stock Exchange and part of Kanoria Group with offices in India, Germany and Russia. Within 2012, the overall value of the hotel complex will amount approximately to $600.mn.
The operation foresees the establishment of a joint venture divided in equal parts amongst the two groups, with the Italian hotel company managing the hotels, and management, while the real estate development will be done by Shristi Corporation.
"We are proud to announce the new expansion of our Group in the Indian market" says Ernesto Preatoni, Domina Hotel Group's Chairman. "We are the first Italian operator of the hotel sector to enter the Indian market " he said. Domina Hotel Group's hotels are represented by 3 distinct brands: Domina Prestige, Domina Hotel and Domina Inn, linked by the "art of Italian hospitality," the company said. In India, the first hotels are already under construction and will be marketed with the new brand Vedic Domina Hotels & Resorts. There are now 4 planned under the Vedic Domina brand.
Founded in 2000, Domina has a record of venturing into new territories. "our pioneer component that has already made us invest in Egypt twenty years ago, in the Baltic Region in the '90s and recently in Russia," said François Droulers, Domina Hotel Group's Vice President Director of Development and Acquistions. Domina Hotel Group has a total turnover of Euro 46.mn for the 2006 financial year and anticipates that the 2007 financial year will be closed with revenues for Euro 60mn. Domina Hotel Group, the company said, is the only Italian chain to develop on the Red Sea, in the Baltic Region and in the Middle East.
The India project is based on the creation of 4 star, medium-large scale, 100-200 rooms hotels and resorts, located in the main cities or holiday resorts in India (including destinations such as New Delhi, Mumbay, Calcutta, Puri, Hyderabad, Bangalore and Udaipur).
The first 4 Vedic Domina hotels are expected to be constructed in the
next 5 years, and others will follow. The hotels will be constructed using
eco-sustainable parameters, and standard constructions "standard constructions
in the observance of holistic precepts and Indian tradition", the company
said. They will be equipped with all comforts, hi-technology, body treatments
and wellness services.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Italian_hotel_firm_to_enter_Indian_hospitality_mkt/articleshow/2505425.cms
By Rosslyn Beeby for Stock and Land on 9 Oct 2007
They've got loose pages, ghee-spattered covers and smidges of turmeric marking favourite recipes. One was published in 1973 but its vintage recipes still outperform many of those found in latter-day lavishly illustrated cookbooks. It has the best recipe for potato kachoris, and the gajja kheer (grated carrots simmered in milk, with sugar, almonds and cardamom) is a party-stopper. Far tastier, and healthier, than Nigella Lawson's famous deep-fried Mars bars.
Over the years, vegetarian cooking has had its share of fads. Remember Gail Duff's penchant for wheatgerm with just about everything or Rose "Not Just a Load of Old Lentils" Elliot's enthusiasm for hearty bean hotpots and grated cheese toppings? During her pre-French regional cuisine and wicked-puddings period, British glamour chef Annie Bell flirted with a minimalist cuisine minceur style of vegetarian cooking. I'm a fan of her sticky gingerbread, but her vegie cookbook failed to hit the mark and was dispatched to the local second-hand bookshop within weeks.
But for tasty, fragrantly spicy vegetarian food that hits the palate with a burst of flavour, you can't beat the Hare Krishna cookbooks, or the recipes of Krishna chef extraordinaire Kurma Dasa. After a couple of decades of vegetarian cooking, I wouldn't part with my dog-eared copies they're as reliable as a tennis ball-retrieving border collie and as inspirational as Emily-Lou Harris hitting those ethereal high notes.
In the early 1970s, conga-lines of chanting, drumming, cymbal-crashing Krishnas threaded their way through the inner streets of Melbourne during lunch hour, proffering cards inviting people to eat at Gopal's, their first-floor restaurant in Flinders Street. Word quickly spread among students and the city's arty set that this was the place to eat. Musicians Billy Thorpe and Lobby Lloyd were regulars, and artist Peter Booth still rates it as a favourite. Word also spread that the food at Gopal's was especially fantastic when the big bloke with the glasses was running the kitchen.
Unlike the usual stodge fried rice with frozen peas and cauliflower, baked beans or mashed potatoes served with diced carrots and limp green beans served up to vegetarians at university cafeterias, the food at Gopal's was fantastic. You could also snaffle a free recipe book, The Higher Taste, to try to recreate those tasty curries and desserts at home.
While Gail Duff was earnestly trying to convince readers of the virtues of wheatgerm as an all-purpose garnish, the Krishna cookbooks were way out in front in their cross-cultural culinary approach. Back in the '70s, they were explaining how to make calzone, enchiladas (without the supermarket packet mixes), vegetarian kofta, panir and Chinese tofu spring rolls spiced with ginger.
As a young journalist with a Melbourne newspaper, I took one of the city's notoriously picky food critics to Gopal's. We were catching a tram downtown for lunch, and he was shocked to hear my destination was, as he sniffily put it, "the Hare Krishna canteen". Was I so broke I couldn't afford a nice camembert and salad bagel in an upmarket sandwich bar? He offered to shout me lunch, obviously out of pity that my options had sunk so low, and I dared him to put his prejudices on hold and join me.
He'd expected a plonk-it-on-your-plate curry 'n rice joint, with a chewy pappadum on the side, washed down with weak, milky tea. Instead, he was contemplating a well-presented choice of spicy dhals, Indian breads, samosas, vegetables in yoghurt or tomato sauces and desserts flavoured with pistachio and powdered cardamom. Who on earth did the cooking, he asked. As usual, it was the big bloke with glasses. "Whoever he is, he's bloody good," was the critic's verdict, before ducking back into the lunch queue for seconds.
The big bloke with the glasses was, of course, Kurma Dasa now known to millions around the world for his books, Cooking with Kurma, Great Vegetarian Dishes and Vegetarian World Food, and his hugely successful television series that's been screened across the United States, Britain, the Middle East, Russia, Turkey, Malaysia and China. His first cookery book, published 14 years ago, is now in its seventh print run which makes him one of Australia's best-selling authors.
Earlier this month, Kurma was back in Melbourne helping to prepare 1000 gulab jamuns (milk balls in a rose-scented syrup) to mark the birthday of the founder of the Hare Krishna movement, Srila Prabhupada.
We were so lucky to have him running the Gopal's kitchen back in the days when many vegetarian cookbooks offered unremittingly dull fare. We might not have converted to Krishna consciousness (rising at 4am for devotional chanting could have been a factor there), but Kurma and the Krishnas did win millions of hearts and palates with joyously adventurous vegetarian cooking that was well ahead of its time.
For Kurma Dasa recipes go to http://www.kurma.net
By Brendan I. Koerner for Slate.com on 23 Oct 2007
"If we put [greenhouse gas] emissions above all else, then veganism beats lacto-ovo vegetarianism handily," says Gidon Eshel, a co-author of the University of Chicago study. "That much is clear and unequivocal."
As a longtime vegetarian, I've always been confident that my diet is better for the planet than that of your typical carnivore. But a vegan pal of mine says I could be doing a lot more, by rejecting all animal products—no eggs, no milk, not even the occasional bowl of mac 'n cheese. Is veganism really that much better for the environment?
Since few Americans have followed Alicia Silverstone's abstemious lead and renounced animal products altogether, there aren't many data available on the environmental consequences of veganism. Somewhere between 2 percent and 5 percent of the nation's eaters classify themselves as vegetarians; of that number, perhaps 5 percent are strict vegans. As a result, most research on meat-free diets has focused on lacto-ovo vegetarians, the milk-and-egg eaters who form the lion's share of the veggie demographic.
According to a 2005 University of Chicago study, a lacto-ovo vegetarian emits far less greenhouse gas than a counterpart adhering to the standard, meat-rich American diet—the difference is equivalent to around 1.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, assuming the same daily caloric intake. (The study's authors thus claim that going vegetarian has the same effect on carbon dioxide emissions as switching from a Chevrolet Suburban to a Toyota Camry.) The savings mostly come about because of the disparity between the fossil fuel required to produce a calorie's worth of grain vs. that needed to make a calorie's worth of beef; grain is nearly a dozen times more efficient in this regard. Cattle are also a huge source of methane, a particularly noxious greenhouse gas; it's estimated that bovines are responsible for roughly triple the methane emissions of the American coal industry.
Yet lacto-ovo vegetarians still derive about 14 percent of their calories from animal products. Bring that number down to zero, as strict vegans do, and you'll certainly ratchet down your carbon emissions by another several hundred pounds per year. "If we put [greenhouse gas] emissions above all else, then veganism beats lacto-ovo vegetarianism handily," says Gidon Eshel, a co-author of the University of Chicago study. "That much is clear and unequivocal."
But Eshel hastens to add—and The Lantern wholeheartedly agrees—that your vegan acquaintance isn't necessarily some environmental saint. That's because direct carbon dioxide emissions are only part of the story when it comes to food's eco-impact. You also have to look at the issue of land use—specifically how much and what sort of land is required to sustain an agricultural enterprise. In a region with poor-to-mediocre soil, for example, it may be more efficient to operate a well-managed egg farm than to try growing vegetables that can't flourish under such conditions. And animals are handy at consuming low-quality grain that isn't necessarily fit for human consumption. (Rather than going to waste, that grain can help create nutrient-rich dairy products.) In fact, a recent Cornell University study concluded that modest carnivorousness may actually be better for the environment than outright vegetarianism, since cattle can graze on inferior land not suitable for crops. Squeezing more calories out of the land means that less food needs be imported from elsewhere, thereby reducing the burning of fossil fuels.
That's music to the ears of The Lantern, a devoted meat-eater who weeps at the very thought of life without bacon cheeseburgers and curry goat. But there are important caveats to the Cornell study: First, its calculations assume that all meat is raised locally, rather than frozen and trucked cross-country; second, the study recommended that to optimize land use, residents of New York state (where the research was conducted) limit their meat and egg consumption to two cooked ounces per day—3.8 ounces less than the national average.
Though The Lantern admires the ascetic fortitude of vegetarians and vegans, it's pretty unrealistic to expect the majority of adult Americans to forgo steak for the benefit of the planet. At the same time, agriculture is responsible for between 17 percent and 20 percent of the nation's energy consumption. So instead of hectoring people to become vegetarians—a tactic that causes many Americans to roll their eyes—perhaps we should start by urging consumers to be more cognizant of exactly how much energy it takes to produce and transport an Extra-Long Bacon Cheddar Cheesesteak. And it wouldn't hurt if people got wise to the fact that meat needn't be the focus of every breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
That's going to be a serious challenge, however, considering that per capita meat consumption rose by 40 percent in the United States between 1961 and 2002. One hopes that the Chinese don't follow our gluttonous lead, but the news so far isn't encouraging: Meat consumption in China has already doubled over the past decade.
Five good reasons to be a vegetarian
There are more that a few Hindus today who guiltily abandoned the vegetarian ways of their own parents and grandparents when they decided to be "secular" and "modern." But our ancient seers had it right when they advocated living without killing animals for food. Today vegetarianism is a worldwide movement, with adherents among all religions, daily gaining converts through one or more of the five basic reasons to adhere to a meatless diet: dharma, karma, consciousness, health and environment. Each is explored in this insight section, which concludes with the famous essay, "How to win an argument with a meat-eater."
Just how widespread is this movement? In the UK, polls show more than 15 percent of teenagers are vegetarians, and six percent of the general population. In America, eight percent of teens and three percent of the general population declare themselves vegetarian. It is a movement with a broad base, for one can find advocates as diverse as philosophers Plato and Nietzsche, politicians Benjamin Franklin and Gandhi, Beatle Paul McCartney and Rastifarian singer Bob Marley, actresses Brooke Shields, Drew Barrymore, Alicia Silverstone, and actors David Duchovny, Richard Gere and Brad Pitt. It's also helped that a multitude of rigorous scientific studies have proven the health benefits of the vegetarian diet.
Vegetarianism, an Ancient Hindu Ethic
Vegetarianism was for thousands of years a principle of health and environmental ethics throughout India. Though Muslim and Christian colonization radically undermined and eroded this ideal, it remains to this day a cardinal ethic of Hindu thought and practice. A subtle sense of guilt persists among Hindus who eat meat, and even they will abstain at special times. For India's ancient thinkers, life is seen as the very stuff of the Divine, an emanation of the Source and part of a cosmic continuum. They further hold that each life form, even water and trees, possesses consciousness and energy. Nonviolence, ahimsa, the primary basis of vegetarianism, has long been central to the religious traditions of India—especially Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism. Religion in India has consistently upheld the sanctity of life, whether human or animal.
The Sanskrit word for vegetarianism is sakahara, and one following a vegetarian diet is a sakahari. Hindu vegetarians commonly consume milk products, but not eggs, which are definitely a meat product, containing cholesterol which is only present in animal flesh. The term for meat-eating is mansahara, and the meat-eater is called mansahari. Ahara means "to consume or eat," saka means "vegetable," and mansa means "meat or flesh." The very word mansa, "meat," conveys a deep appreciation of life's sacredness and an understanding of the law of karma by which the consequence of each action returns to the doer. As explained in the 2,000-year-old Manu Dharma Shastra, 5.55, "The learned declare that the meaning of mansa (flesh) is, 'he (sa) will eat me (mam) in the other world whose flesh I eat here.' " There developed early in India an unparalleled concern for harmony among life forms, and this led to a common ethos based on noninjuriousness and a minimal consumption of natural resources—in other words, to compassion and simplicity. If Homo sapiens is to survive his present predicament, he will have to rediscover these two primary ethical virtues.
Is Vegetarianism Integral to Noninjury?
In Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami's book, Dancing with Siva, this question is addressed as follows: "Hindus teach vegetarianism as a way to live with a minimum of hurt to other beings, for to consume meat, fish, fowl or eggs is to participate indirectly in acts of cruelty and violence against the animal kingdom. The abhorrence of injury and killing of any kind leads quite naturally to a vegetarian diet, sakahara. The meat-eater's desire for meat drives another to kill and provide that meat. The act of the butcher begins with the desire of the consumer. Meat-eating contributes to a mentality of violence, for with the chemically complex meat ingested, one absorbs the slaughtered creature's fear, pain and terror. These qualities are nourished within the meat-eater, perpetuating the cycle of cruelty and confusion. When the individual's consciousness lifts and expands, he will abhor violence and not be able to even digest the meat, fish, fowl and eggs he was formerly consuming. India's greatest saints have confirmed that one cannot eat meat and live a peaceful, harmonious life. Man's appetite for meat inflicts devastating harm on Earth itself, stripping its precious forests to make way for pastures. The Tirukural candidly states, 'How can he practice true compassion who eats the flesh of an animal to fatten his own flesh? Greater than a thousand ghee offerings consumed in sacrificial fires is not to sacrifice and consume any living creature.' "
Amazingly, some people define vegetarian as a diet which excludes the meat of animals but does permit fish and eggs. But what really is vegetarianism? Vegetarian foods include grains, fruits, vegetables, legumes and dairy products. Natural, fresh foods, locally grown without insecticides or chemical fertilizers are preferred. A vegetarian diet does not include meat, fish, fowl, shellfish or eggs. For good health, even certain vegetarian foods are minimized: frozen and canned foods, highly processed foods, such as white rice, white sugar and white flour; and "junk" foods and beverages—those with abundant chemical additives, such as artificial sweeteners, colorings, flavorings and preservatives.
According to Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, "In my forty years of ministry it has become quite evident that vegetarian families have far fewer problems than those who are not vegetarian. If children are raised as vegetarians, every day they are exposed to nonviolence as a principle of peace and compassion. Every day they are growing up they are remembering and being reminded to not kill. They won't even kill another creature to eat, to feed themselves. And if they won't kill another creature to feed themselves, they will be much less likely to do acts of violence against people."
Vegetarian Animals
Vegetarians come in all sizes and shapes, but the elephant is the largest of all, with a sophisticated social life, loving and affectionately caring for its own. Elephants live long, vigorous lives, have a very large brain and, of course, are renowned for their excellent memory. They do not suffer any weakness for not eating meat. In fact, so many muscular and the most intelligent animals the horse, the cow, giraffe, zebra, rhinoceros, the apes, and more—are lifelong vegetarians and friends of men. Lean animals, thin and wiry, who are feared by man and beasts alike, are all hunters and killers and eaters of flesh—tigers, sharks, hawks, wolves and the like. Similarly, no one fears a gentle vegetarian, but all have reason to fear the unpredictable meat-eater. Scriptures admonish that it is wise to fear what should be feared.
Food and Consciousness
Food is the source of the body's chemistry, and what we ingest affects our consciousness, emotions and experiential patterns. If one wants to live in higher consciousnes, in peace and happieness and love for all creatures, then he cannot eat meat, fish, shellfish, fowl or eggs. By ingesting the grosser chemistries of animal foods, one introduces into the body and mind anger, jealousy, fear, anxiety, suspicion and the terrible fear of death, all of which is locked into the flesh of butchered creatures. It is said that in ancient India meat would be fed to the soldiers during military campaigns, especially before combat, to bring them into lower consciousness so that they would forget thier religious values. They performed these deeds in fulfillment of a warrior's way—with not the least restraint of conscience. The inner law is ever so simple—not eating meat, fish, foul or eggs is essential to awaken consciousness into the seven higher chakras (the uttara-chakras), up to the crown. Nonkilling—and noneating of that which is killed—is a must to pass from realms below.
Dharma
How many there are who resent the very mention of becoming a vegetarian, being instinctively repulsed by the idea, for they intuit the road ahead. They sense that once the more sattvic diet of pure foods are taken in place of meats (and other dead foods, packaged, processed and cellophane-wrapped) they will feel a great guilt occasioned by their transgressions of dharma, as they have so well perfected over the years their adharmic ways. Adharma means all that stands against Indian spirituality, against the path of the good and the pure and the natural, against dharma in all of its intricate dimensions. None of the other dharmas—stri dharma, the duties of women; purusha dharma, the duties of men; ashrama dharma, the responsibility of one's stage of life; varna dharma, one's position in society; and svadharma, one's own perfect pattern—even when performed properly will have the same results without fulfilling this virtue. Even Rita dharma, cosmic order, is upset by man's insatiable, aggressive appetites expressed through flesh-consuming.
Hindus Were the First Vegetarians
The book, Food for the Spirit, Vegetarianism and the World Religions, observes: "Despite popular knowledge of meat-eating's adverse effects, the nonvegetarian diet became increasingly widespread among Hindus after the two major invasions by foreign powers, first the Muslims and later the British. With them came the desire to be 'civilized,' to eat as did the saheeb. Those actually trained in Vedic knowledge, however, never adopted a meat-oriented diet, and the pious Hindu still observes vegetarian principles as a matter of religious duty.
"That vegetarianism has always been widespread in India is clear from the earliest Vedic texts. This was observed by the ancient traveler Megasthenes and also by Fa-hsien, a Chinese Buddhist monk who, in the fifth century, traveled to India in order to obtain authentic copies of the scriptures. These scriptures unambiguously support the meatless way of life. In the Mahabharata, for instance, the great warrior Bhishma explains to Yudhishtira, eldest of the Pandava princes, that the meat of animals is like the flesh of one's own son, and that the foolish person who eats meat must be considered the vilest of human beings [Anu. 114.11]. The eating of 'dirty' food, it warns, is not as terrible as the eating of flesh [Shanti. 141.88] (it must be remembered that the Brahmins of ancient India exalted cleanliness to a divine principle).
"Similarly, the Manusmriti declares that one should 'refrain from eating all kinds of meat,' for such eating involves killing and leads to karmic bondage (bandha) [5.49]. Elsewhere in the Vedic literature, the last of the great Vedic kings, Maharaja Parikshit, is quoted as saying that 'only the animal-killer cannot relish the message of the Absolute Truth [Shrimad Bhagavatam 10.1.4].'"
Common Dietary Concerns
Those considering a vegetarian diet generally worry about getting enough nutrients, since the belief that meat is a necessary part of keeping strong and healthy is still extremely widespread. Recently a group of eminent doctors called the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), themselves members of the American Medical Association, have decided to change the US consciousness on human nutrition, particularly among the medical community. The PCRM is a nonprofit organization based in Washington, D.C., consisting of doctors and laypersons working together for compassionate and effective medical practice, research and health promotion. Founded in 1985, the PCRM is supported by over 3,000 physicians and 50,000 laypersons. PCRM president (and vegetarian) Neal D. Barnard, M.D., is a popular speaker and the author of The Power of Your Plate. Armed with decades of nutritional research data, PCRM addresses these dietary concerns head-on:
"The fact is, it is very easy to have a well-balanced diet with vegetarian foods. Vegetarian foods provide plenty of protein. Careful combining of foods is not necessary. Any normal variety of plant foods provides more than enough protein for the body's needs. Although there is somewhat less protein in a vegetarian diet than a meat-eater's diet, this is actually an advantage. Excess protein has been linked to kidney stones, osteoporosis, and possibly heart disease and some cancers. A diet focused on beans, whole grains and vegetables contains adequate amounts of protein without the 'overdose' most meat-eaters get."
Other concerns are allayed by the PCRM as follows:
1. Calcium is easy to find in a vegetarian diet. Many dark, green leafy vegetables and beans are loaded with calcium, and some orange juices and cereals are calcium-fortified. Iron is plentiful in whole grains, beans and fruits.
2. Vitamin B12: There is a misconception that without eating meat one cannot obtain sufficient vitamin B12, which is an essential nutrient. This is simply not true. The PCRM advises: "Although cases of B12 deficiency are very uncommon, it is important to make sure that one has a reliable source of the vitamin. Good sources include all common multiple vitamins (including vegetarian vitamins), fortified cereals and soy milk."
3. During pregnancy nutritional needs increase. The American Dietetic Association has found vegan diets adequate for fulfilling nutritional needs during pregnancy, but pregnant women and nursing mothers should supplement their diets with vitamins B12 and D.
4. Vegetarian children also have high nutritional needs, but these, too, are met with a vegetarian diet. A vegetarian menu is "life-extending." As children, vegetarians may grow more gradually, reach puberty somewhat later, and live substantially longer than meat-eaters. Be sure to include a reliable source of vitamin B12. Besides the fortified cereals and soy milk mentioned above, vitamin B12 is widely available in multiple vitamins, brewers yeast and other potent dietary supplements.
Those interested in supporting or learning more about the work of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine should visit: http://www.pcrm.org.
Converting to Vegetarianism
Making the transition from carnivore to herbivore is not as hard as you might think. According to the book, The New Vegetarians, by Sonia Partridge and Paul Amato, 73% of vegetarian converts stated that the transition was not difficult. It is easier for people who do some homework on the subject and have a bit of cooking skill. The time it takes for people to totally convert varies greatly. About 70% of people make the transition gradually, while 30% stop all at once. A year is the most transition time to stop with red meat, which is almost always the first flesh to go, followed more slowly by fowl and fish.
One recommended method for the transition is to set a series of goals for yourself. Start simply with getting through one day without meat. Then, try one weekend, then one week. Make a realistic timetable for reaching them. Two to three months might be reasonable for some people while six months to a year might be better for others. Rewards can also help. For a major accomplishment such as a week without meat, treat yourself to a nice vegetarian meal out.
One can also take a formal Hindu vow of vegetarianism, sakahara vrata, available on-line at http://www.hinduismtoday.com/in-depth_issues/veggie_vow/. The vow may be taken privately, before elders or parents or as part of a temple ceremony. It reads in part, "I accept the principle of sakahara as the method by which I may acknowledge my compassion, my karuna, for all living beings. As an act of dedication, I am resolved this day to begin (or continue) the regular practice of eating a strict vegetarian diet and not eating meat, fish, shellfish, fowl or eggs."
The most common problem with conversion is not knowing enough about vegetarian diet. Some people who decide to be vegetarian, have no idea what to eat and end up with soggy vegetables and undercooked brown rice for breakfast, lunch and dinner. They become discouraged and rightly wonder how they will survive. But decent vegetarian food isn't boring. A little reasearch with books and websites will put your mind at ease. Get a vegetarian cookbook. Ask restaurant waiters which menu items are vegetarian.
Vegetarians are often asked "Don't you miss eating meat?" For about half of beginning vegetarians the answer is yes, acording to The New Vegetarians. They miss the texture and flavor of meat in the early weeks and months. Almost everyone though, gets over this within six months to a year and for many it becomes nauseating even to think about eating meat. Eighty-two percent of fully adapted vegetarians say there is no way they would consider eating flesh again.
Conclusion
Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami writes, "Modern meats are killed by
chemical treatment of the animals, the hormones of fear and chemistry of
death before and during slaughter, killed again by refrigerating them,
killed again by grinding them, killed again by preserving them, killed
again by packaging them, killed again by freezing them, killed again by
storing and shipping them, and finally really killed by cooking them to
death. How can such so-called food nourish a human being? Why should we
ever think of eating meat, fish, foul, eggs, anything with eyes or, as
some say, with two or more senses. The cock-a-doodle-doo who wakes us up
in the morning is dinner on the table at night. How gruesome. How ruthless
to thus forever close the eyes of an animal, or have someone else do it
for them in order that they may buy the carcass, closing their eyes to
the fact, which is even worse, and keeping their own eyes closed to that
creature's suffering to consume it without conscience during jovial small
talk over the dinner table. How easy in turn for such a person to turn
and maim or kill a fellow human in the same way in times of stress as a
natural reaction, in 'justifiable righteousness.'As the Rig Veda (10.87.16)
proclaims: 'One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or of
another animal, and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, O King,
if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate
to cut off his head.'
A vegetarian banquet, right?
Wrong.
Find out...
Dalai Lama digs into veal, pheasant
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=605615
Nancy Stohs
It's a question most chefs never get the privilege of pondering:
What to serve the Dalai Lama?
In Milwaukee chef Sandy D'Amato's case, the answer was veal.
Veal?
Despite expectations that a vegetarian feast would be in order, the team of chefs assembled to cook for His Holiness on his recent visit to Madison was given no such instruction, said Catherine McKiernan, executive chef at the Madison Club, where the elaborate luncheon was held.
The Dalai Lama is, it turns out, a meat lover.
And so the five-course menu, served to about 60 people on May 3, including the guest of honor, his entourage and assorted citizens, included a stuffed pheasant breast, D'Amato's slow-cooked veal roast with scalded morels and escarole, and an asparagus soup with a chicken stock base.
A cured fish appetizer, mixed green salad, eggplant-and-chickpea entrée, and three full-size chocolate desserts completed the menu.
Created and coordinated by Jim Walsh, a Wisconsin native who attended UW-Madison, the luncheon cost $500 to $1,000a head and was a fund-raiser for the Deer Park Buddhist Center and Monastery near Madison.
Walsh is the founder and CEO of Hawaiian Vintage Chocolate, a premium chocolate whose trees were blessed by the Dalai Lama and whose chocolate was the first ever eaten by the spiritual leader.
Fittingly, his latest product, Intentional Chocolate, is a dark chocolate that's engineered to promote "an increased sense of energy, vigor and well-being" in those who consume it.
Walsh told D'Amato he picked him to be on the chef team after eating at Sanford Restaurant in Milwaukee.
He was looking for restaurants that had a zen-like feel, where the service and food and ambience "all made sense together."
Sanford measured up, as a place where "nothing seemed forced," and it seemed as though "everything was meant to be there."
D'Amato may not have put "zen" and "Sanford" in the same sentence before, but he was duly flattered.
The other chefs were Shawn McClain from Chicago's Spring Restaurant, Green Zebra and Custom House and John Gadau and Phillip Hurley, co-owners and chefs of Sardine and Marigold Kitchen restaurants in Madison.
They weren't operating completely in the dark about their honored guest.
They knew the Dalai Lama eats only breakfast and lunch, and that his vows prohibit him from eating anything after 1 p.m.
"Everything had to be seasonal and local and Wisconsin-themed, as it were," McKiernan said, noting the presence on the menu of pea shoots, pheasant and "a lot of asparagus."
D'Amato's veal came from Strauss Veal in Franklin.
For security reasons, the chefs didn't know exactly when the exiled leader would show up. They were told it could be 11:15 or 11:45 a.m., 12:15 or 12:30 p.m.
The chefs also had been briefed on Dalai Lama protocol: Never turn your back on him. Don't touch him. Don't speak to him unless he speaks to you.
Right around noon, D'Amato was heading downstairs to the kitchen, one level below the dining area, to check on his food.
Halfway down, he met His Holiness heading up the stairs.
"So I did kind of a little moonwalk backward all the way up and smiled," D'Amato said.
The chefs had hoped it would be possible to get a photograph with him but were not planning to press the issue.
When the Dalai Lama saw them all standing behind the table of food, the Dalai Lama said, "Oh, the cooks! Picture! Picture!" D'Amato recalled.
"He grabbed my hand and another other fellow's . . . " and the proof is printed in this newspaper.
And how did His Radiance like the food?
With all due respect, "he chowed down," D'Amato said.
In addition to the veal dish and a Warm Bittersweet Intentional Chocolate Tart with Coffee Ice Cream, D'Amato brought bread for the meal from his Harlequin Bakery.
"He ate nine pieces of bread," the chef said.
The Dalai Lama commented later that everything was really delicious, D'Amato said, asking how this dish and that were made. And, he noted approvingly, "it's good quantity."
Ashley Walsh of Los Angeles, Jim Walsh's daughter and co-coordinator of the luncheon, sat at the Dalai Lama's table.
"He pretty much lapped up every single plate that he had put in front of him," she recalled. "He loves food; he likes good food."
Before this, the biggest luminary D'Amato had cooked for was Julia Child, on her 80th birthday. For McKiernan, it was Al Gore.
By comparison, McKiernan said, "This was much more intense. It was nerve-wracking. There was more security here for the Dalai Lama than there was for Al Gore."
"This was the biggest thing I've ever been involved in," D'Amato echoed. "It was really exciting when he came in.
"You listen to him speak . . . he just transcends politics and religion. What he's saying is . . . all about compassion and love and getting rid of your anger. And everything that is bad in the world was created by man, so man can fix it all."
D'Amato had brought along a copy of the Dalai Lama's latest book, "How to See Yourself As You Really Are," hoping to get the author's signature.
The Dalai Lama obliged - but first he referenced the title and laughed.
"He has this real infectious giggle," D'Amato said. "He said, 'Look, there's no "self" in Buddhism, and this is my book.' "
Nevertheless, he signed it, addressing D'Amato and his wife, Angie, with a message in Tibetan. He translated it as: "I hope the two of you have wonderful success and wonderful happiness in all of your lifetimes."
Yes, that last word is plural.
D'Amato said he's always believed he'd come back in his next life as a food.
"Maybe a hot dog."
NEW YORK, NEW YORK, December 27, 2006: (HPI note: The following item is from the editorial page of the New York Times -- not the place you'd normally expect a anti-meat statement...)
When you think about the growth of human population over the last century or so, it is all too easy to imagine it merely as an increase in the number of humans. But as we multiply, so do all the things associated with us, including our livestock. At present, there are about 1.5 billion cattle and domestic buffalo and about 1.7 billion sheep and goats. With pigs and poultry, they form a critical part of our enormous biological footprint upon this planet. Just how enormous was not really apparent until the publication of a new report, called "Livestock's Long Shadow," by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Consider these numbers. Global livestock grazing and feed production use "30 percent of the land surface of the planet." Livestock -- which consume more food than they yield -- also compete directly with humans for water. And the drive to expand grazing land destroys more biologically sensitive terrain, rain forests especially, than anything else. But what is even more striking, and alarming, is that livestock are responsible for about 18 percent of the global warming effect, more than transportation's contribution. The culprits are methane -- the natural result of bovine digestion -- and the nitrogen emitted by manure. Deforestation of grazing land adds to the effect. There are no easy trade-offs when it comes to global warming -- such as cutting back on cattle to make room for cars. The human passion for meat is certainly not about to end anytime soon. As "Livestock's Long Shadow" makes clear, our health and the health of the planet depend on pushing livestock production in more sustainable direc tions.
courtesy of Hinduism Today http://www.hinduismtoday.com
WASHINGTON D.C., UNITED STATES, October 28, 2006: Each year in the United States, 10 billion land animals are raised and killed for meat, eggs, and milk (this works out to a staggering 1.14 million animals killed per hour, not counting fish, which are killed in equal number.) Statistically, farm animals comprise 98 percent of all animals in the country with whom we interact directly, and that staggering percentage does not even include the estimated 10 billion aquatic animals killed for human consumption. Indeed, the numbers of animals killed by trappers and hunters; in classrooms, research laboratories, and animal shelters; and on fur farms; and those animals raised as companions or used for entertainment by circuses and zoos, collectively make up only 2 percent of the animals in some established relationship with humans.
These farm animals -- sentient, complex, and capable of feeling pain and frustration, joy and excitement -- are viewed by industrialized agriculture as mere meat-, egg-, and milk-producing machines, and their welfare suffers immensely as factory farm profit outweighs their well-being. Yet, despite the routine abuses they endure, no federal law protects animals from cruelty on the farm, and the majority of states exempt customary agricultural practices -- no matter how abusive -- from the scope of their animal cruelty statutes. The welfare of farm animals often loses out to the economic interests of factory farmers who can make larger profits by intensively confining animals and breeding them for rapid growth with little regard for the amount of suffering the animals endure. Included are the many reference documents used in this report and related links where readers can learn more.
courtesy of Hinduism Today http://www.hinduismtoday.com
KAUAI, HAWAII, July 6, 2007: HPI reader Ranji Singh points out that, following the US$10 million judgment against McDonalds in 2005, Hinduism Today warned that:
"Hindu vegetarians around the world may wish to take note of the little-publicized fact that McDonald's made no changes in their fries, which are still beef-flavoring saturated. Sure, the oil is vegetable. But make no mistake about it. There is meat in those luscious Golden Arches french fries." (See URL above for complete report.)
"Today," laments Ranji, "this issue is forgotten. Every Hindu with whom I have spoken about this matter believes that McDonald's no longer use their beef flavoring since they lost the lawsuit."
So, consider yourself reminded, beef flavoring remains in the fries, and if you don't believe us, believe McDonalds: click here and scroll down to "Natural beef flavor" in the list of ingredients for "Small French Fries."
courtesy of Hinduism Today http://www.hinduismtoday.com
"It's well known that vitamin C enhances iron absorption and the majority of the iron that we absorb actually doesn't come from meat, it comes from other food sources such as cereal, grain, dairy food. When we are eating these foods it's really important that we have vitamin C to help absorb it."
LONDON, ENGLAND, April 19, 2007: American oil company ConocoPhillips and Tyson Foods, the world's biggest meat producer, have announced that they will produce diesel from pork fat. Cows and chickens will also be transformed to power motor vehicles. The companies say that this renewable source of energy will be cleaner than conventional diesel. It is hoped that it will be available at petrol stations by the end of the year. "It is chemically equivalent to diesel itself," said Geoff Webster, who is managing the scheme for Tyson Foods, in an interview with the BBC World Service. "It has lower carbon dioxide, it is zero sulphur, so many positive benefits for the environment." In two years, ConocoPhillips expects to produce in the region of 175 million gallons of animal diesel a year. That will add another 15,000 barrels of diesel a day, which amounts to about 3 percent of the company's total diesel output.
While animal diesel may be an environmentally friendly alternative, there are fears it may not be to everybody's tastes or ethics. Mr Webster admitted that they were yet to discuss this new product with vegetarian and religious groups. The diesel when produced will be pumped into a network and mixed with other types of diesel. It will not be possible to tell at petrol stations whether the diesel is made from animal fat or not.
In a statement, the animal rights group PETA expressed its dismay. "A recent report published by the United Nations concludes that the meat industry is responsible for more global warming emissions than all the cars, trucks and planes in the world combined." "Clearly, the answer to global warming isn't to fill gas guzzling cars with ground up remains of tortured animals, it is to go vegetarian, which is something every person can afford to do and should do for the sake of their own health, animals and the environment."
courtesy of Hinduism Today http://www.hinduismtoday.com
Pigs will now not only be for eating but powering cars too
A solution for the world's energy crisis may come in the form of a pig.
American oil company ConocoPhillips and Tyson Foods, the world's biggest meat producer, have announced that they will produce diesel from pork fat.
Cows and chickens will also be transformed to power motor vehicles.
The companies say that this renewable source of energy will be cleaner than conventional diesel. It is hoped that it will be available at petrol stations by the end of the year.
"It is chemically equivalent to diesel itself," said Geoff Webster, who is managing the scheme for Tyson Foods, in an interview with the BBC World Service.
"It has lower Carbon Dioxide, it is zero sulphur, so many positive benefits for the environment."
Animal power
In two years, ConocoPhillips expects to produce in the region of 175 million gallons of animal diesel a year. That will add another 15,000 barrels of diesel a day, which amounts to about 3 percent of the company's total diesel output.
It will receive pre-processed fat from a Tyson Foods rendering facility. Animal fat and other waxy waste is usually turned in to ingredients for soaps, cosmetics and pet food.
Animal diesel will be available at US pumps by end of 2007
The company expects to spend approximately 100 million dollars over several years on the project, and will probably enjoy tax breaks.
Since 2005, US oil companies can benefit from a dollar-per-gallon tax incentive for creating renewable fuel from animal carcasses and other food wastes.
While other car fuel replacement products already exist in the form of bio ethanol - made from grain, palm oil and sugar cane - Mr Webster said that animal diesel will not be made at a cost to food production.
"We won't be processing animals simply to get the fat to turn them in to fuel. We're taking a by-product and using that for fuel," Mr Webster said.
"We feel that it is a huge step forward as opposed to taking grains which are needed for food around the world and turning those in to fuel."
Vegetarian issue
Biofuels are seen as a way of reducing harmful emissions from burning fossil fuels.
While animal diesel may be an environmentally friendly alternative, there are fears it may not be to everybody's tastes or ethics.
Mr Webster admitted that they were yet to discuss this new product with vegetarian and religious groups.
The diesel when produced will be pumped into a network and mixed with other types of diesel. It will not be possible to tell at petrol stations whether the diesel is made from animal fat or not.
In a statement, the animal rights group PETA expressed its dismay.
"A recent report published by the United Nations concludes that the meat industry is responsible for more global warming emissions than all the cars, trucks and planes in the world combined."
"Clearly, the answer to global warming isn't to fill gas guzzling cars
with ground up remains of tortured animals, it is to go vegetarian, which
is something every person can afford to do and should do for the sake of
their own health, animals and the environment."
The other day, on the way back from a five day preaching engagement at a Rainbow gathering, we stopped at a gas station. There we witnessed a most abominable thing. As we were paying the gas we noticed that in front of the cashier there was a large shelf on which they were selling worms and insects for snacks. Yep, you heard it right, worms, insects, and even scorpions. They had fried worms and crickets, spiced in varieties of ways. You could clearly see crickets’ wings and hairy legs. They had bug suckers and even insects dipped in chocolate. The advertisement for worm suckers said “Genuine Worms - Sugar Free.”
My God (Krishna)!!! What has come over these people?! They have all
gone mad. Sense gratification knows no limits. For the pleasure of the
tongue people are ready to go as far as you can imagine, and then even
beyond that. Damn, damn, crazy materialists.
None of us could believe that people really eat that crap. We then asked the woman behind the register if people indeed eat that stuff. She said she her self tried the worms. Yuck!!!
We all looked at each others in utter disbelief. One of devotees then said, “This is Kali-yuga.”
Later, while continuing to drive back to our home temple in San Diego, I was reflecting on the whole thing. Eventually my thought process boiled down to the final realization:
Preaching Is So Important!
If one’s mind is constantly exposed to a certain information, that information will eventually penetrate one’s consciousness and make him act a certain way. The whole commercial world is based on this principle, and as we witness it daily, it is quite successful. Simply because something is being advertised, even though it may be utterly stupid or even disgusting, people will eventually believe in it or buy it ... or as in this case: EAT IT!!!
Similarly all devotees of God in this world should put hands together
and powerfully advertise God consciousness, otherwise this civilization
will get sidetracked so bad that even the most powerful minds will fail
to imagine such abominity. Well, now that I’ve said that I look around
and already can see such far out things that have become so normal that
I don’t dare to write about here in fear of public scorn.
Dear Sastra Dana members, please fix your mind on this most important work of distributing Krishna conscious literature. Let us all come together and see how can we fulfill the desire of Srila Prabhupada’s that billions of his books be distributed to the public in general. Srila Prabhupada wanted us to flood the society with his books. I hope this article helps you deepen the understanding how important our mission is.
Web site: http://www.sastradana.com
By Cidanandas
It has been said that if slaughterhouses had glass windows,many people would stop meat eating.It is now possible through video clips,sometimes secretly filmed at these horrible places,and available to all people around the world,who sometimes have ever seen a live cow or a chicken in their life.
The meat comes beautifully packaged in a plastic tray,with beautifully designed photographs for pre-cooked preps.The taste and look of the meat,after many manipulations,appeal to meat-eaters,who,due to false propaganda,believe it is absolutely necessary for proteins and vitamins,otherwise they’ll die of bad nutrition.
In order to see what these video clips are having as effect on the minds of people, I visited youtube and searched: massacre - animal-cows…and in a few secs, the horror place was there,ready to be watched. Anyone who has some feelings should be immediately conscious of the terrible injustice being carried out in such places,where the huge animals are forcibly driven to their end,by means of electric shocks,turned upside down,and have their throats slit by an employee,who repeats this act over and over again.The cow is then thrown,still conscious and moving to an area,where she tries to escape,but keeps slipping on the blood all over the concrete floor. Finally,death is here,and it’s the end of the sufferings.
The muslim way of taking life seems to be more efficient,as the bull is tied up by their feet and the throat is slit with a sharp knife,and after the oozing of blood,seconds after,it’s the end.
What impressed me were the comments given by viewers:about 50% say that they didn’t know about such sufferings…and are thinking about going vegetarian! Many curse the cruelty of the slaughterhouse’s employees,who don’t have any respect for the animals.
The killing of dogs and cats in the Far Eastern countries,for food,make them even wilder,as the torturers believe that the meat taste better when the animals experience fear.
Horse slaughter for export is met with incredibility:how humans have turned into such savages,that even in other countries,do not exist.In order to make maximum profits,the mechanisation of the meat industry has turned men into beasts of the worst kind,for the pleasure of growing population of meat eaters.
I don’t know what devotees think of such type of shock preaching,but
personally I think it’s a good way to awaken people from their illusory
world of refined eating,as the meat industry took great care to hide their
dark secrets from the public till now,with fenced walls and windowless
buildings.The crime now is readily available now,within seconds,thanks
to this marvellous invention,that can be put into Lord Krishna’s service.
A good downloadable video can be seen at peta.org.
from The Vegetarian November 1992
Angling is the poor relation in the fight against cruelty to animals because fish are seen as cold creatures feeling no pain. They are not appealing, fluffy or cuddly and most people cannot understand what all the fuss is about. Hilary Hannah takes a look at some of the cold hard facts of Britain's most popular pastime.
A report in a Liverpool newspaper told the story of a young man who was kicked in the face and head whilst fishing in a local park and subsequently had all of his fishing equipment stolen. The newspaper readers incensed that somebody taking part in such a peaceful pastime should be so beaten for the sake of his equipment, inundated the newspaper with offers of replacement tackle, umbrellas and other gear.
A heart-warming story of human kindness, for how could so-called civilised human beings contemplate inflicting such injuries upon a fellow creature? How indeed.
Angling is the most practised pastime in Britain with about four million participants. The popular image is of peaceful, wax-jacketed, pensive philosophers casting lines not to catch fish, but for the excuse to sit in solitude, in harmony with nature. The reality for many anglers - and the "angled" - is quite different.
Fish are not simply caught and conscientiously cast back; they often suffer a protracted and painful death by suffocation or, like the Liverpudlian angler, are clubbed into submission. They are often 'played' by the angler, sometimes for an hour or more until they tire and are easier to catch: they then usually spend several hours in a keepnet, particularly if they have been caught in match conditions.
Coarse fishing is the most popular form of angling. It involves the capture of largely inedible fish which are usually returned to the water. As the fish are returned to the water with the hooks removed, there is a widely held belief that no harm actually comes to them and the fact that the fish often 'return' to be caught again is said to display their 'enjoyment' of the 'sport'. In fact, fish return because they become accustomed to receiving food in that area.
Fish are caught using single, double or treble barbed and unbarbed hooks which lodge, theoretically, in the lip of the fish and are then removed by hand, with forceps or using a strange medieval-looking implement travelling under the rather gruesome title of a disgorger. Hooks are not always easily removed as they frequently lodge in the body of the fish, causing considerable suffering when the hook is removed.
Arguments rage between animal rights groups on the one hand and angling groups the other, as to the exact amount of harm caused to fish, wildlife and the environment of the waterways. Angling groups tend to see themselves as conservationists and protectors of the countryside whereas animal rights groups, such as the Campaign for the Abolition of Angling (CAA) [now called Pisces], see angling as a damaging activity and certainly not a sport. According to CAA the argument that anglers prevent rivers from turning into open sewers is simply a diversionary tactic to avoid addressing the issue that fish actually feel pain.
The Association of Co-operative Anglers (ACA) do undertake a considerable amount of work to clean waterways and to ensure that polluters of waterways are prosecuted, but the CAA say that these activities are essential to keeping the waterways open and clear to enable anglers to fish. If the waterways were of no benefit to the anglers then they would not be overly concerned with the rivers and streams. CAA argue that there is a wide range of organisations involved in practical concern for the countryside and not just the areas containing fish.
The National Rivers Authority (NRA) is obliged to maintain, develop and improve fisheries for the benefit of "everybody including anglers". They have to maintain stocks at a reasonable level and are the issuing body for anglers' licences which sell at a cost of £12.50 (with concessions for disabled and unwaged). The licence allows the angler to use two rods and line, but, in order to fish, they must then obtain a permit to fish along any given stretch of a river. Brian Briggs from the fisheries department at NRA's northwest office said that anglers, on the whole, are very helpful in assisting the NRA to carry out their duties, "they know when there is something wrong and they are very good at contacting us".
When questioned about the damage caused by discarded fishing materials, such as lines and weights, Brian Briggs seemed to think the problem was caused by a minority and thinks that the majority of anglers are conscientious about taking care of the waterways. The use of lead weights over one ounce is still permissible, but, according to Brian, weights under one ounce were banned two to three years ago by the national imposition of a bye-law.
Weights under one ounce were the cause of poisoning and choking of river birds and other small wildlife, but Brian says "it would have to be a big bird to swallow a one ounce lead weight". According to Rina Milsom at Swan Song - a group working to make anglers more aware of the injuries their pastime may inflict on swans and other waterside wildlife - 'dust-shot' is still used by anglers and is as harmful as any of the weights banned by the national bye-law. Dust shot are tiny lead weights which anglers tie together, "and they also still use the weights which have been banned, although I have to concede things have improved" says Rina.
Other items of fishing equipment cause considerable damage to wildlife and could not be covered by a bye law unless it outlawed angling as a pastime. In their book So You Want To Go Fishing, Len Baker and Rina Milsom explain with the use of numerous photographs the damage that is done to birds by discarded hooks and lines.
If a hook becomes embedded in a bird's throat it needs to be removed by a vet, otherwise the bird will develop septicaemia. If there is a line still attached to the hook, which apparently happens when an angler accidentally hooks a swan or other waterbird, panics and cuts the line, worse injuries can result. As the bird swallows the line the action of the gizzard muscle pulls the hook embedded in its throat. In effect the bird tears its own throat and dies.
Injury is not only caused by the hooks. The lines, which are made of non-biodegradable, strong nylon, can tie down waterbirds' tongues rendering them unable to eat and sever limbs as the birds struggle to escape lines caught in vegetation.
Suffering to birds is, according to animals rights organisations, only the tip of the iceberg because the suffering to fish has been underestimated for far too long. According to Ben Pontin at the Hunt Saboteurs Association, "angling is no different to any other blood sport. Just because fish are cold-blooded and live in the water does not change the fact that one creature is being killed or injured for another's sport." A spokesman for Animal Aid said "we are completely opposed to angling. It is the torturing of fish for pleasure", whilst a spokesman for the RSPCA said "fish feel pain and angling causes them to suffer trauma and disease as revealed in the Dutch report."
The Dutch report is a study carried out by Professor F J Verheijen and Dr R J A Buwalda at the State University of Utrecht in the Netherlands entitled 'Do pain and fear make a hooked carp in play suffer'. The study was initiated by the Dutch Society for the Protection of Animals (DSPA) and was financed by the Dutch government, various angling organisations and partly by the DSPA.
The experiments were designed to "find responses indicative of pain and fear, to differentiate responses indicative of pain from responses indicative of fear, and to investigate whether fish find pain or fear the more unpleasant." Another aim of the study was to estimate whether or not pain and/or fear make fish suffer according to "definitions of suffering (in mammals) where suffering is attributed exclusively to the highest levels of stress".
The report concluded that although the sensation of pain for the fish is very real "the pain produced by impalement contributes less to the unpleasantness of the catching procedure than fear". Skilful 'handling' by anglers was found to cause the fish less distress, but often it is the case that the angler is young, inexperienced or both and the fish is caused undue distress.
If the fish is held in a keepnet "respiratory problems occur frequently". According to the experiment, "the custom of holding fish in keepnets has some of the characteristics of category D biomedical experiments (Category D is part of a five stage system which measures distress in animals and includes, for instance, 'induction of an anatomical or physiological situation that will result in pain or distress; prolonged periods, up to several hours or more, of physical restraint)."
So, despite assertions by the National Federation of Anglers - no other angling organisation contacted replied to questions asked - it would seem that fish do indeed feel pain and suffer fear. A defence of coarse fishing is presented merely by the mention of the 'Medway Report' (Report of the Panel of Enquiry into Shooting and Angling 1976-1979, chaired by Lord Medway), but it states that match fishermen see "fish as an expendable resource, placing an obligation on the riparian owner or water authority (now NRA) to make good the wastage." Further, the Medway report notes that "inconsiderate treatment of fish by match or other coarse fisherman is periodically anathematised in the angling press . (A perusal through a couple of the angling magazines revealed a monotonous display of men holding dead fish.)
According to the 1970 National Angling Survey, - as quoted in the Medway Report - 67 per cent of all anglers participate in coarse fishing and of them, 50 per cent fish as often as once a week during the season. The survey also revealed that 22 per cent of Britain's anglers practise game fishing - salmon, sea trout, brown trout and rainbow trout - at some time during the year. The game fishing angler apparently requires more skill and efficiency in landing his catch than the coarse fisherman. An apparent anomaly in the fishing statistics requiring a "special mention" in the Medway Report, is the eel. Although eels are apparently caught accidentally, they swallow baits so deeply that disgorgement is impossible without causing injury to the eel. Further complication is added by the 'writhings and lashings' of the eel when out of water. Eels are also caught for 'sport' and for eating.
Sea angling is another branch of the activity, practised by 47 per cent of anglers at some time during the year and involving such fish as pike, carp and larger fish like shark, tope and conger. The Medway Report did mention a report it had received about "callous, ill-treatment accorded to a captured shark on board a boat in waters off south-western England."
"How do you feel about actually killing, or catching and having to handle,
a sometimes large creature that is still living?" is a question which remains
unanswered by several angling organisations approached in the course of
researching this article, despite their members devoting so much time to
catching so many fish. We can only assume that the failure to answer is
based upon the fact that they have never thought about it before or, that
they are disinclined to answer: guilty conscience perhaps?
A Saboteur Speaks
The Manchester Animal Protection Group (MAPG) are running a campaign of non-violent sabotage of angling events, which involves wading or swimming in the water where angling matches are taking place or by making loud noise near match 'pegs'. Like other animal rights groups they believe that angling is another blood sport and should be treated as such.
MAPG activities include taking ghetto blasters along to matches so that fish will not approach the area where anglers are sitting. In June of this year MAPG staged a demonstration outside Trafford Angling Supplies in Stretford then took part in non-violent indirect action against some anglers on the Bridgewater Canal in Manchester.
MAPG intend to continue their action in two areas: non-violent action;
and action to convince local authorities to change their policy towards
angling. Initially, the object is to discover the policy of each local
authority and then attempt to obtain total or partial angling bans, and
restrictions on various aspects of angling by writing to Leisure and Recreation
Departments and Parks Departments.
National Federation of Anglers
Ken Watkins, chief administration officer at the National Federation of Anglers in Derby, provided, somewhat reluctantly, and far more aggressively than any other contact made for the production of this feature, information the sport of angling.
"What does The Vegetarian magazine know about angling ?" asked a sneering Ken Watkins when contacted to provide the angler's answers to allegations made by animal rights groups. "You don't know anything about angling" he continued, warming to his subject, "you've probably not been near a river in years". "Yes, but what do you say to the argument that fish feel pain, Mr Watkins?"
"What evidence do you have that fish feel pain?" retorted Ken, still managing to avoid answering a simple question, "There are some studies which say they feel pain and others that they don't. There was that study, years ago don't know what it was called, said they didn't feel pain." When faced with the fact that professors at the State University of Utrecht had in fact completed a study in 1988,which revealed that fish can experience pain near to a degree which can be compared with human reactions of that kind, Ken, rather puzzlingly, exclaimed "Do you know that the Germans kill fish?"
Explaining to Ken that Utrecht is in the Netherlands and not Germany, and further referring to the Medway Study of 1981 still did not elicit a response to the original question. Ken retorted that "the Germans do kill the fish anyway, at least we return them to the water". He then embarked upon a history lesson. "Fishing has been going for years, since the year dot. You can't sit there start saying that fish feel pain, fish don't feel pain, it's a well known fact that they're cold-blooded creatures. We are water watchdogs...you probably do not know the first thing about waterways, these are just your opinions, what would you know about waterways."
Ken added that hooks, even barbed hooks, "do not cause any injury to fish anyway. It would be like you getting a pinprick in your finger, you're implying it is something else."
When asked about the justification for using keepnets he insisted that "keepnets cause no harm or distress to fish, are you joking?" Ken was then informed of the widely held belief that it is actually considerably more cruel to keep the fish in keepnets for hours and then cast them back into the river than it is kill the fish immediately: "What?" Ken exploded somewhat over dramatically, causing, regrettably only temporary deafness to his interviewer. "That's a very strange thing to be coming from you." He continued, presumably rhetorically, "Is fishing legal?". That would to be a stranger question coming from the chief administration officer of one of the country's largest angling organisations. When asked for his thoughts and feelings on the sabotage of angling events Ken persisted with his barrage of personal comments and accusations and managed to avoid answering the question four times before being pinned down to admitting that he did "not understand sabotage at all, it is illegitimate interference with my enjoyment of the waterway. I don't like motor racing, but I don't stick bombs in the middle of the track. Don't you think it is wrong?". It has been impossible to find records of any sabotaging event involving the use of explosives and Ken was unable to furnish details himself.
The National Federation of Anglers may be well advised to employ a press
officer who would be better equipped to distinguish between simple questions,
implications and opinions. Fury, shouting and rudeness do little to present
a positive image of angling or anglers to the public or the press.
Campaign for the Abolition of Angling
[now called 'Pisces']
Coarse anglers pride themselves on the fact that, unlike sea and games anglers, they return fish to the water unharmed, but according to the Campaign for the Abolition of Angling (CAA) "they delude themselves. Coarse fishing is probably the cruellest branch of the 'sport', as the others involve the fish being 'despatched' almost immediately on leaving the water."
The CAA claim that "fish are very prone to stress upon a change in oxygen concentration, temperature, sudden noise, vibration and light intensity." Dr Phil Williams, a fish biologist and member of the National Association of Specialist Anglers, has admitted that "avoiding subjecting fish to some degree of stress when fishing is impossible".
"A fish is deceived into impaling itself onto a (usually) barbed hook, resulting in tissue damage and, in medical terms, the infliction of an injury. The angler may then 'play' the fish in order to tire it and allow it to be landed" according to the CAA.
CAA also say that because the fish cannot obtain oxygen from the air and because the fingers of the angler feel like red hod pokers to a fish, extreme stress is caused to the creature. During the handling process "a protective mucous covering which provides the creature's waterproofing and protects it from fungal and bacterial infections is damaged".
Despite assertions to the contrary from anglers, fish do sometimes swallow hooks making their retrieval very difficult; suffering is prolonged and it is likely to result in damage to the fish's gut and subsequent death.
Another stress-inducing part of the process, according to the CAA, is the use of the keepnet which is "an essential feature of match angling, but if the pleasure angler uses one, it is purely for the self-satisfaction of gloating over the catch at the end of the session." Stress for the fish is aggravated by "size of net and the type and number of fish caught and kept.
"Within the net metabolic waste products build up and physical damage
may occur to the imprisoned fish. Disease thrives in such an environment
and a subsequently 'liberated' fish will have undergone a traumatic and
disabling experience with perhaps fatal consequences."
Choking on their own Barbed Comments
How do you kill your first fish? Does it die quickly with one neat blow
or does it need repeated bashings until it resembles pate rather than trout.
Peter Cockwill, Angler's Mail, 19.3.88
I'd only just settled down when I heard a noise in the bush behind me.
There, tangled was a wren, it took only a few seconds to free it, but I
remember thinking as I released the bird "What stupid thoughtless bastard
left this line here?"It was only as I wound it all up and noticed the hook
that I realised that the stupid thoughtless bastard was me.
Tony Locke, Coarse Fishing, June 1988.
The fish I catch must feel pain and I do for the most part ignore this
fact when fishing. If I didn't I probably wouldn't fish. I certainly would
not stick hooks into mammals for example and get away without feeling extreme
disgust at myself.
Anonymous letter to the CAA, June 1988
Firstly, to say that fishing is a caring sport is ludicrous. Anglers
may participate in a caring manner, but it cannot be said that an element
of risk to the fish's welfare is not always present. No matter how careful
anglers may be, the fish population will always suffer.
C D Downes, Coarse Fisherman, August 1984.
This article was sourced from His Holiness Sivarama Swami's website. http://www.sivaramaswami.com/?p=1308
The phenomenon of something changing from material to spiritual is an extraordinary one, but it is something we as devotees are involved in daily—often several times a day. It happens when prasadam (unoffered food) becoming prasadam, or food sanctified by the Lord.
When I was a new devotee in Montreal, we arranged a program that was to be given on campus at McGill University. The leaflet advertising the program read, “See matter transformed into spirit before your very eyes.” That title certainly drew interest from a lot of people.
During the program, the temple president was giving the presentation, and he was leading up to this point. Finally he said, “OK, now it’s going to happen. You are going to see spirit manifest before your very eyes.”
The students were sitting on the edge of their seats. The plate of unoffered food, which was the feast for that day, was brought in and placed in front of a picture of Panca-tattva (Lord Chaitanya and His four main associates). A devotee then bowed down, rang the bell, and uttered some mantras.
Finally he stood and declared, “Here it is! We brought in ordinary food, and now it’s transformed into spiritual substance.”
And before anyone could challenge, he said, “The proof will be that you eat it now and see the effect that it has.”
As Krishna says, pratyakshavagamam dharmyam: “The principle of religion is understood by direct experience.” (Bhagavad-gita 9.2), or in this case, the proof is certainly in the tasting. Those who have tasted Krishna’s prasadam know that it has extraordinary potency, and eating it is a very different experience from eating food that isn’t offered to the Lord with love and devotion.
So when does prasadam become prasadam? When it is offered, certainly. But for an offering to be successful, it must be accepted. When Krishna accepts what we offer to Him, it becomes prasadam. The word prasadam means “mercy,” and in the Bhagavad-gita Lord Krishna says, prasade sarva-duhkhanam hanir asyopajayate: “Receiving the mercy of the Lord destroys all misery.” Therefore, when we eat (or, as we say, honor) prasadam, we feel elated. prasadam destroys the results of our past sinful activities. Rupa Goswami says it makes us feel “very auspicious.”
And what is it that is really being accepted? Is it the foods itself? Krishna says in the Bhagavad-gita (9.26),
patram pushpam phalam toyam
yo me bhaktya prayacchati
tad aham bhakty-upahritam
ashnami prayatatmanah
“If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit, or water, I will accept it.” He says, “I accept the bhakti.” You may offer a leaf, a flower, fruit, milk, or ghee-cooked preparations, but the devotion is what carries those preparations to Krishna, and that’s what makes Him inclined to accept it. Sri Ishopanishad (Mantra 5) tells us, tad dure tad v antike: although Krishna is very far away, He is also very close. So wherever we are when we offer something to Krishna, devotion brings Him right to us.
We should recognize, however, that not all offerings are on the same level; they depend on the nature of the devotee. Although there are many ways to categorize devotees, in this case we may consider three types: motivated, pure, and love-saturated devotees. Consequently, their offerings will fall into one of these three categories.
The Motivated Offering
A motivated offering is when something is offered to Krishna with the idea that some material benefit will come in return, such as liberation from material suffering: “If I give this to Krishna, I’ll be prosperous, I’ll be healthy, my children will find suitable spouses,” and so on. Or someone might desire to be free from suffering, or to recover from an illness—this is offering with motivation. But even that motivated offering can be done in two ways. If it is done through the guru-parampara, the succession of gurus, then Krishna will accept it, because pure devotees are very merciful, and to elevate motivated devotees they beseech Krishna to accept their meager offerings. In other words, it is the purity of the devotees in the guru-parampara that transforms the impure offering into a pure offering. If a motivated person just makes an offering whimsically, however, not through a guru-parampara, then the offering doesn’t become prasadam but remains prasadam. Yet still such offerings have value in the sense that the person is thinking, “At least I am offering this to Krishna.”
Of course, whatever way people think of Krishna is beneficial. Akama, sarva-kama, moksha-kama: without material desires, full of material desires, or desiring liberation. In each case they become gradually purified. But unless Krishna exercises some extraordinary mercy, He doesn’t accept food offered with ulterior motives. Yasyaprasadan na gatih kuto ‘pi: “Without the grace of the spiritual master, one cannot make any advancement.” (Gurvashtaka 8th verse) Krishna won’t accept something unless it comes through the guru-parampara.
An interesting question often arises regarding congregation members or new devotees who are not initiated but who are making offerings: Are the offerings prasadam or prasadam? In this case we should consider the potency of the disciplic succession. The disciplic succession is not restricted to initiated devotees. If someone receives an instruction from an authorized Vaishnava to offer food, then Krishna will accept their offering. Krishna won’t reject their sincere approach, because such persons are, in effect, accepting the guru-parampara even though they have not yet gone through the process of diksha.
The Pure Offering
The second type of offering is the pure offering, when a devotee offers something to Krishna to please Him. A devotee has no selfish motives; he only wants please the Lord. Therefore at home he offers food to a picture, to a deity, to a shalagrama-shila. And in the temple, pure-hearted pujaris try to please Gaura-Nitai and Radha-Krishna. But even in this category there are two types of offerings: regulated and spontaneous. Regulated offerings are done out of duty, following all the rules and regulations. The other also involves the devotee doing everything just right, but out of a spontaneous attachment to the Lord. Such a devotee has a certain degree of affection, and the dominant thought is not one of obligation—”I will do this because I’ve been instructed to by guru and shastra.” Yet by doing things according to guru and shastra, devotees awaken their natural attraction to Krishna and perform spontaneous acts of devotion out of affection. This affection is a little different from mature love, spiritual love, but it is genuine. Still, both these pure offerings have to be made through the guru-parampara.
The prasadam is also different in this category. When you offer something to Krishna out of duty, He accepts it out of duty. He feels duty-bound. In the Bhagavad-gita (3.24) Krishna says, “If I didn’t follow the rules and regulations, then other people would be misled.” Krishna is acting out of duty. But Krishna considers that of all the devotees who are surrendered to Him, the one who is offering things to Him with affection is most dear to Him. Consequently, Krishna reciprocates in kind: He responds with loving affection toward that devotee.
Naturally the question arises, Are there different kinds of prasadam? And the answer, then, is yes. Krishna says, ye yatha mam prapadyante tams tathaiva bhajamyaham: “As all surrender unto Me, I reward them accordingly.” (Bg. 4.11) According to the quality and quantity of devotion with which one makes an offering to Krishna, that offering proportionately becomes prasadam. It is interesting to note that a devotee’s ability to taste prasadam will also be in proportion to his or her ability to offer prasadam. In other words, devotees will taste the spiritual nature of prasadam in the same degree they are manifesting devotion in the offering.
The Offering in Pure Love
The third kind of offering is that which is done with pure love. When devotees come to the stage of loving devotion, Krishna directly accepts offerings from their hands, and He reciprocates with them in kind. Loving devotion is that which is exhibited by Krishna’s eternal associates in the spiritual world, where He is directly engaged in tasting all the types of love His devotees offer.
So what is it that’s different, and how is it that prasadam becomes spiritual? The food looks the same before and after the offering, but what actually happens is that Krishna reciprocates with the devotion of the devotee by manifesting His svarupa-shakti, or His daivi-prakriti, His internal spiritual potency, to the degree that the devotee allows. By “allows” I mean to the degree the devotee wants, or to the degree that he manifests a quality and quantity of devotional service. When Chaitanya Mahaprabhu was in Jagannatha Puri and tasted Jagannatha prasadam, He became overwhelmed by the ecstatic taste of the prasadam. He glorified the prasadam and could directly taste the saliva of Krishna’s lotus lips mixed in with the food. He went on to glorify the effect of the touch of Krishna’s lips.
This is what happens when someone in loving devotion tastes food that has been offered to the Lord. And in this case, no doubt, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu’s ability to taste the potency of the prasadam exceeds that of the brahmanas who offered it to Lord Jagannatha. But, still, that prasadam is Krishna’s internal potency. It is non-different from Krishna, and it is dynamic. A loving devotee may taste more of the spiritual potency present in prasadam than was originally manifest to the pujari who offered it.
We may also consider the examples of Prahlada Maharaja and Mirabai: Both were given poison to drink, but because of their great loving devotion, the poison was transformed into nectar and had no effect. Why is that? Because both poison and nutritious food are part of the relativity of this material world. But when we offer something with love to Krishna, then Krishna’s sac-cid-ananda potency manifests in that food. In this way, poison becomes as much prasadam as a pakora does.
Offering Our Lives
We shouldn’t think, however, that an “offering” is simply the prasadam or food we offer to Krishna. Devotees make their entire life an offering:
yat karoshi yad ashnasi
yaj juhoshi dadasi yat
yat tapasyasi kaunteya
tat kurushva mad-arpanam
Krishna is saying, “Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer or give away, and whatever austerities you perform—do that, O son of Kunti, as an offering to Me.” (Bg. 9.27) Ultimately every breath a devotee takes is an offering: when devotees sleep because they need to maintain their bodies for Krishna’s service, then that sleep becomes an offering to the Lord; their eating to maintain their bodies so they can remain healthy to serve Krishna is an offering to the Lord; when they receive anything—food, soap, money—all of these things are offered to Krishna. In New Vraja Dhama (the devotee farm community in Hungary) anything the devotees acquire or receive, they first offer to Radha-Syamasundara, the presiding deities, on a tray that sits before the altar. In this way the practice of offering everything to Krishna becomes natural.
We should learn how to offer everything. We rise early in the morning, and the first thing we do is offer prayers to the Lord. We chant Hare Krishna not as entertainment but as an offering to glorify Krishna. And when someone lives like that, then in one sense the act of making the offering becomes unnecessary (although devotees do it to set the example) because such devotees are always absorbed in doing everything for Krishna. Therefore, yo me bhaktya prayacchati—the bhakti is already there, and Krishna is very eager to receive it. In fact, Krishna follows behind devotees to accept their loving devotion every moment of the day, in every movement of their bodies, and in every thought they manifest in relation to their devotional service to Him.
Ultimately this is what we aspire for, and this is what loving devotees do: they live for Krishna, and thus everything they do becomes Krishna conscious—it becomes prasadam. The cowherd boys simply sit down with Krishna and eat from their lunch packs—they don’t make any offering to Krishna. When they offer something to Krishna, they take from their lunch packs and put it right in Krishna’s mouth. Or they may even bite off half a sweetball and then say, “Oh, Krishna, just see how wonderful this sweetball tastes!” and put the rest in Krishna’s mouth. Yo me bhaktya prayacchati: it’s just their love. The formality and technicality of offering is no longer relevant, because what Krishna really wants is the love and devotion. That’s all that actually interests Him. And whether Mother Yashoda offers her breast milk, the gopis offer their bodies, the cows offer their milk, the cowherd boys wrestle and jump on Krishna’s shoulders—everything becomes prasadam because everything is an offering of love.
Our business in Krishna consciousness, therefore, is to live in this world of prasadam and thereby become prasadam ourselves. This is what Krishna concludes in the Bhagavad-gita (4.24) when He says, brahmarpanam brahma havir brahmagnau brahmana hutam …: “A person who is fully absorbed in Krishna consciousness is sure to attain the spiritual kingdom because of his full contribution to spiritual activities.” If we’re thinking about offering everything to Krishna, if our physical acts are an offering to Krishna, if our words are an offering to Krishna, then ultimately we become an offering to Krishna. Then we become prasadam. And Krishna is always very eager to taste the wonderful mellows of our loving offerings to Him.
SOUTHHAMPTON, ENGLAND, December 14, 2006: Intelligent children are more likely to become vegetarians later in life, a study conducted by a Southampton University team. They found those who were vegetarian by 30 had recorded five IQ points more on average at the age of 10. Researchers said it could explain why people with higher IQ were healthier as a vegetarian diet was linked to lower heart disease and obesity rates.
The study of 8,179 was reported in the British Medical Journal. Twenty years after the IQ tests were carried out in 1970, 366 of the participants said they were vegetarian - although more than 100 reported eating either fish or chicken. Men who were vegetarian has an IQ score of 106, compared to non-vegetarians with 101, while female vegetarians averaged 104, compared to 99 for non-vegetarians. Dr Frankie Phillips, of the British Dietetic Association said, "It is like the chicken and the egg. Do people become vegetarian because they have a very high IQ or is it just that they tend to be more aware of health issues?"
courtesy of Hinduism Today http://www.hinduismtoday.com
Full Article HERE:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm
Posted On: Wed, 2007-03-14 05:37 by josh sitapati
The two most astonishing thing for the British who invaded India were.
1) The Indian gurukula system.
2) The Indian agriculture system.
The then Governor of British India Robert Clive made an extensive research on the agriculture system in India.
The outcome of the research was as follows:-
1) Cows were the basis of Indian agriculture and agriculture in India cannot be executed without the help of cow.
2) To break the Backbone of Indian agriculture cows had to be eliminated.
The first slaughterhouse in India was started in 1760, with a capacity to kill 30,000 (Thirty thousand only) per day, at least one crore cows were eliminated in an years time.
He estimated that the number of cows in Bengal outnumbered the number of men. Similar was the situation in the rest of India.
As a part of the Master plan to destabilize the India, cow slaughter was initiated.
Once the cows were slaughtered, then there was no manure and there is no insecticide like cow urine.
Robert Clive started a number of slaughter houses before he left India.
A hypothesis to understand the position of Indian agriculture without slaughter houses:-
In 1740 in the Arcot District of Tamil Nadu, 54 Quintals of rice was harvested from one acre of land using simple manure and pesticides like cow urine and cow dung.
As a result of the 350 slaughterhouses which worked day and night by 1910. India was practically bereft of cattle. India had to approach England’s doorstep for industrial manure. Thus industrial manure like urea and phosphate made way to India.
After India attained independence in the name of “Green Revolution” there was extensive use of industrial manure.
Before British left India. The daily news paper Guardian interviewed India.
To one of the questions Gandhiji answered, that the day India attains Independence, all the slaughter houses in India would be closed.
In 1929 Nehru in a public meeting stated that if he were to become the prime minister of India, the first thing he would do is to stop all the slaughterhouses.
The tragedy of the situation is since 1947 the number has increased from350 to 36,000(thirty six thousand) slaughter houses.
Today, the highly mechanized slaughterhouses Al-kabir and Devanar of Andhra Pradesh and Maharastra has the capacity to slaughter 10,000(ten thousand) cows at a time.
It’s a warning signal to one and all in India to rise to the occasion!!!
If you think that's a little bit conspiratorial, just read a little
about the history of British involvement in India. This page http://www.geocities.com/raqta24/bangla5.htm
gives an informative overview.
Slaying the Great Protein Myth
http://food.consumercide.com/proteinmyth.html
The number one question most vegetarians are asked is
"How do you get enough protein?", and the first question from people considering
a vegetarian diet is "How will I get enough protein?"
http://www.savvyvegetarian.com/articles/protein-veg-diet.php
PROTEIN AND VEGETARIAN DIETS
http://www.vnv.org.au/Nutrition/Protein.htm
MYTH: Vegetarians Get Little
Protein
Fact: Protein Combining is a
Craze
http://www.all-creatures.org/mfz/myths-vegprotein-craze.html
Dating - Friendship - Penpals
http://www.veggieconnection.com/home.asp
Non-Vegetarian Food Additives (Listed by E Numbers)
http://www.veggieglobal.com/nutrition/non-vegetarian-food-additives.htm
Cooking with Kurma
http://gouranga.tv/#video:64
Hare Krishna Food for Life & restaurants
http://gouranga.tv/#video:65
Eating broccoli and cauliflower regularly reduces the risk of deadly prostate cancer, say US researchers.
A study of 1,300 men found they were better than any other vegetable at protecting against aggressive tumours.
Writing in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, the researchers said broccoli and cauliflower were known to contain anti-cancer compounds.
Experts advised the best way to reduce cancer risk was to eat a balanced diet, including lots of fruit and vegetables.
Several studies have shown a link between eating vegetables and a reduced risk of prostate cancer, but results have not been consistent and many have not specifically looked at deadly forms of the disease.
Experts have proven that the best way to reduce your risk of many cancers is to eat a healthy balanced diet Dr Kat Arney, Cancer Research UK
A team from the US National Cancer Institute and Cancer Care Ontario in Toronto carried out food questionnaires in a group of patients diagnosed with prostate cancer in a large screening trial.
Overall, they found that eating fruits and vegetables was not associated with decreased prostate cancer risk.
But greater consumption of dark green and cruciferous vegetables, especially broccoli and cauliflower, was associated with a decreased risk of aggressive prostate cancer.
A weekly serving of cauliflower was associated with 52% decreased risk of aggressive disease and similar amounts of broccoli cut the risk by 45%.
Healthy diet
Spinach consumption also seemed to be associated with a reduced risk but the findings were not significant when the researchers looked at cancer which had spread beyond the prostate.
Study leader Dr Victoria Kirsch, Cancer Care Ontario, said: "Aggressive
prostate cancer is biologically virulent and associated with poor prognosis.
"If the association that we observed is ultimately found to be causal, a possible means to reduce the burden of this disease may be primary prevention through increased consumption of broccoli, cauliflower, and possibly spinach."
However, she pointed out that men eating a lot of broccoli and cauliflower may be more healthy in general.
Prostate cancer kills one man an hour in the UK and 32,000 are diagnosed every year with the disease.
Dr Kat Arney, Cancer Research UK's senior science information officer, said: "When it comes to food, there is no one particular 'super' fruit or vegetable that will protect you from cancer.
"Experts have proven that the best way to reduce your risk of many cancers is to eat a healthy balanced diet.
"This should include at least five portions a day of a variety of fruit and vegetables including broccoli and cauliflower."
Chris Hiley, head of policy and research at The Prostate Cancer Charity said: "Broccoli and cauliflower have appeared in other studies as being potentially important in defences against prostate cancer.
"Whilst waiting for definitive evidence it's clear that men should be eating at least five portions of fruit and vegetables a day."
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/6927359.stm
Published: 2007/08/02 10:57:43 GMT
(c) BBC MMVII
Producing 2.2lb of beef generates as much greenhouse gas as driving a car non-stop for three hours, it was claimed yesterday.
Japanese scientists used a range of data to calculate the environmental impact of a single purchase of beef.
Taking into account all the processes involved, they said, four average sized steaks generated greenhouse gases with a warming potential equivalent to 80.25lb of carbon dioxide.
This also consumed 169 megajoules of energy.
That means that 2.2lb of beef is responsible for greenhouse gas emissions which have the same effect as the carbon dioxide released by an ordinary car travelling at 50 miles per hour for 155 miles, a journey lasting three hours. The amount of energy consumed would light a 100-watt bulb for 20 days.
Most of the greenhouse gas emissions are in the form of methane released from the animals' digestive systems, New Scientist magazine reported.
But more than two thirds of the energy used goes towards producing and transporting cattle feed, said the study, which was led by Akifumi Ogino from the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Tsukuba, Japan.
Su Taylor, the press officer for the Vegetarian Society, told New Scientist:
"Everybody is trying to come up with different ways to reduce carbon footprints,
but one of the easiest things you can do is to stop eating meat."
By HH Sivarama Swami (from a recent podcast on http://www.sivaramaswami.com)
Question: Vegans claim that we are contributing to factory farming and calves being deprived of their mothers’ milk. How do we address this argument?
Answer: There are two points here, first that a cow gives more milk than a calf can drink, so it’s not necessarily that they’re being deprived. However a calf should be able to drink its mothers milk, and that happens when they’re being taken care of in a natural way in a gosala. The calves drink their mothers’ milk and the cow gives more milk. Also, if you just let a calf drink as much as they wanted, they’d get sick.
However, the modern system of simply farming cows, inseminating them so they’re constantly milking rather than allowing it to take place in a scheduled way — which is good for the overall health of the cow, so it’s not always giving milk, and it’s not always inseminated — that is certainly violent, and the answer to that is not to become a vegan, or to stop drinking milk. The answer is to drink milk procured only by the proper means. Reason being is Krishna drinks milk, it is part of our diet, and go brahmanya hitaya ca — a whole culture is based on drinking milk. It’s not something we are willing to sacrifice. Therefore, we need to have farming communities as Srila Prabhupada established, where cow protection is a priority. For this reason Srila Prabhupada said to keep as many cows as possible, which is a tall order.
But if we do keep as many cows as possible, and if we have cow protection, and if devotees and congregation members are actually protecting those cows and maintaining them, then we can have enough milk to provide temples and congregation members and everyone with milk.
Then you’re above this kind of criticism. You don’t need to say, “Oh welll, I’m a Hare Krishna, I’ve offered it to Krishna, and therefore I’m free from the reaction.” It is questionable if you’re free from the reaction. Why? Srila Prabhupada has made it clear that our duty is cow protection. Krishna set the personal example of cow protection. Therefore, just because we are devotees, just because we offered some milk then we think we’re free from the reaction for the violence that’s involved in procuring that milkand remember that the cow, the bull, and the calf are later all slaughtered, and that’s something you’re also involved in when you’re drinking milkthen you have a very hard argument to try to defeat. In fact, it’s not an argument you can defeat.
Therefore Srila Prabhupada gave us a very simple formula to defeat that argument, so that we don’t have to fall back on strawman tactics and arguments: he gave us cow protection, which is a completely friendly, non-violent, and inoffensive way to provide milk.
So therefore, I ask again: what are you doing about cow protection?
By Brendan I. Koerner for Slate.com on 23 Oct 2007
"If we put [greenhouse gas] emissions above all else, then veganism beats lacto-ovo vegetarianism handily," says Gidon Eshel, a co-author of the University of Chicago study. "That much is clear and unequivocal."
As a longtime vegetarian, I've always been confident that my diet is better for the planet than that of your typical carnivore. But a vegan pal of mine says I could be doing a lot more, by rejecting all animal products—no eggs, no milk, not even the occasional bowl of mac 'n cheese. Is veganism really that much better for the environment?
Since few Americans have followed Alicia Silverstone's abstemious lead and renounced animal products altogether, there aren't many data available on the environmental consequences of veganism. Somewhere between 2 percent and 5 percent of the nation's eaters classify themselves as vegetarians; of that number, perhaps 5 percent are strict vegans. As a result, most research on meat-free diets has focused on lacto-ovo vegetarians, the milk-and-egg eaters who form the lion's share of the veggie demographic.
According to a 2005 University of Chicago study, a lacto-ovo vegetarian emits far less greenhouse gas than a counterpart adhering to the standard, meat-rich American diet—the difference is equivalent to around 1.5 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year, assuming the same daily caloric intake. (The study's authors thus claim that going vegetarian has the same effect on carbon dioxide emissions as switching from a Chevrolet Suburban to a Toyota Camry.) The savings mostly come about because of the disparity between the fossil fuel required to produce a calorie's worth of grain vs. that needed to make a calorie's worth of beef; grain is nearly a dozen times more efficient in this regard. Cattle are also a huge source of methane, a particularly noxious greenhouse gas; it's estimated that bovines are responsible for roughly triple the methane emissions of the American coal industry.
Yet lacto-ovo vegetarians still derive about 14 percent of their calories from animal products. Bring that number down to zero, as strict vegans do, and you'll certainly ratchet down your carbon emissions by another several hundred pounds per year. "If we put [greenhouse gas] emissions above all else, then veganism beats lacto-ovo vegetarianism handily," says Gidon Eshel, a co-author of the University of Chicago study. "That much is clear and unequivocal."
But Eshel hastens to add—and The Lantern wholeheartedly agrees—that your vegan acquaintance isn't necessarily some environmental saint. That's because direct carbon dioxide emissions are only part of the story when it comes to food's eco-impact. You also have to look at the issue of land use—specifically how much and what sort of land is required to sustain an agricultural enterprise. In a region with poor-to-mediocre soil, for example, it may be more efficient to operate a well-managed egg farm than to try growing vegetables that can't flourish under such conditions. And animals are handy at consuming low-quality grain that isn't necessarily fit for human consumption. (Rather than going to waste, that grain can help create nutrient-rich dairy products.) In fact, a recent Cornell University study concluded that modest carnivorousness may actually be better for the environment than outright vegetarianism, since cattle can graze on inferior land not suitable for crops. Squeezing more calories out of the land means that less food needs be imported from elsewhere, thereby reducing the burning of fossil fuels.
That's music to the ears of The Lantern, a devoted meat-eater who weeps at the very thought of life without bacon cheeseburgers and curry goat. But there are important caveats to the Cornell study: First, its calculations assume that all meat is raised locally, rather than frozen and trucked cross-country; second, the study recommended that to optimize land use, residents of New York state (where the research was conducted) limit their meat and egg consumption to two cooked ounces per day—3.8 ounces less than the national average.
Though The Lantern admires the ascetic fortitude of vegetarians and vegans, it's pretty unrealistic to expect the majority of adult Americans to forgo steak for the benefit of the planet. At the same time, agriculture is responsible for between 17 percent and 20 percent of the nation's energy consumption. So instead of hectoring people to become vegetarians—a tactic that causes many Americans to roll their eyes—perhaps we should start by urging consumers to be more cognizant of exactly how much energy it takes to produce and transport an Extra-Long Bacon Cheddar Cheesesteak. And it wouldn't hurt if people got wise to the fact that meat needn't be the focus of every breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
That's going to be a serious challenge, however, considering that per capita meat consumption rose by 40 percent in the United States between 1961 and 2002. One hopes that the Chinese don't follow our gluttonous lead, but the news so far isn't encouraging: Meat consumption in China has already doubled over the past decade.
By Rosslyn Beeby for Stock and Land on 9 Oct 2007
They've got loose pages, ghee-spattered covers and smidges of turmeric marking favourite recipes. One was published in 1973 but its vintage recipes still outperform many of those found in latter-day lavishly illustrated cookbooks. It has the best recipe for potato kachoris, and the gajja kheer (grated carrots simmered in milk, with sugar, almonds and cardamom) is a party-stopper. Far tastier, and healthier, than Nigella Lawson's famous deep-fried Mars bars.
Over the years, vegetarian cooking has had its share of fads. Remember Gail Duff's penchant for wheatgerm with just about everything or Rose "Not Just a Load of Old Lentils" Elliot's enthusiasm for hearty bean hotpots and grated cheese toppings? During her pre-French regional cuisine and wicked-puddings period, British glamour chef Annie Bell flirted with a minimalist cuisine minceur style of vegetarian cooking. I'm a fan of her sticky gingerbread, but her vegie cookbook failed to hit the mark and was dispatched to the local second-hand bookshop within weeks.
But for tasty, fragrantly spicy vegetarian food that hits the palate with a burst of flavour, you can't beat the Hare Krishna cookbooks, or the recipes of Krishna chef extraordinaire Kurma Dasa. After a couple of decades of vegetarian cooking, I wouldn't part with my dog-eared copies they're as reliable as a tennis ball-retrieving border collie and as inspirational as Emily-Lou Harris hitting those ethereal high notes.
In the early 1970s, conga-lines of chanting, drumming, cymbal-crashing Krishnas threaded their way through the inner streets of Melbourne during lunch hour, proffering cards inviting people to eat at Gopal's, their first-floor restaurant in Flinders Street. Word quickly spread among students and the city's arty set that this was the place to eat. Musicians Billy Thorpe and Lobby Lloyd were regulars, and artist Peter Booth still rates it as a favourite. Word also spread that the food at Gopal's was especially fantastic when the big bloke with the glasses was running the kitchen.
Unlike the usual stodge fried rice with frozen peas and cauliflower, baked beans or mashed potatoes served with diced carrots and limp green beans served up to vegetarians at university cafeterias, the food at Gopal's was fantastic. You could also snaffle a free recipe book, The Higher Taste, to try to recreate those tasty curries and desserts at home.
While Gail Duff was earnestly trying to convince readers of the virtues of wheatgerm as an all-purpose garnish, the Krishna cookbooks were way out in front in their cross-cultural culinary approach. Back in the '70s, they were explaining how to make calzone, enchiladas (without the supermarket packet mixes), vegetarian kofta, panir and Chinese tofu spring rolls spiced with ginger.
As a young journalist with a Melbourne newspaper, I took one of the city's notoriously picky food critics to Gopal's. We were catching a tram downtown for lunch, and he was shocked to hear my destination was, as he sniffily put it, "the Hare Krishna canteen". Was I so broke I couldn't afford a nice camembert and salad bagel in an upmarket sandwich bar? He offered to shout me lunch, obviously out of pity that my options had sunk so low, and I dared him to put his prejudices on hold and join me.
He'd expected a plonk-it-on-your-plate curry 'n rice joint, with a chewy pappadum on the side, washed down with weak, milky tea. Instead, he was contemplating a well-presented choice of spicy dhals, Indian breads, samosas, vegetables in yoghurt or tomato sauces and desserts flavoured with pistachio and powdered cardamom. Who on earth did the cooking, he asked. As usual, it was the big bloke with glasses. "Whoever he is, he's bloody good," was the critic's verdict, before ducking back into the lunch queue for seconds.
The big bloke with the glasses was, of course, Kurma Dasa now known to millions around the world for his books, Cooking with Kurma, Great Vegetarian Dishes and Vegetarian World Food, and his hugely successful television series that's been screened across the United States, Britain, the Middle East, Russia, Turkey, Malaysia and China. His first cookery book, published 14 years ago, is now in its seventh print run which makes him one of Australia's best-selling authors.
Earlier this month, Kurma was back in Melbourne helping to prepare 1000 gulab jamuns (milk balls in a rose-scented syrup) to mark the birthday of the founder of the Hare Krishna movement, Srila Prabhupada.
We were so lucky to have him running the Gopal's kitchen back in the days when many vegetarian cookbooks offered unremittingly dull fare. We might not have converted to Krishna consciousness (rising at 4am for devotional chanting could have been a factor there), but Kurma and the Krishnas did win millions of hearts and palates with joyously adventurous vegetarian cooking that was well ahead of its time.
For Kurma Dasa recipes go to http://www.kurma.net
9/30/2003 -- A non-human, cellular molecule is absorbed into human tissues as a result of eating red meat and milk products, according to a study by researchers at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD) School of Medicine, published online the week of September 29, 2003 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers also showed that the same foreign molecule generates an immune response that could potentially lead to inflammation in human tissues.
Several previous studies have linked ingestion of red meat to cancer and heart disease, and possibly to some disorders involving inflammation. However, that research has primarily focused on the role of red-meat saturated fats and on products that arise from cooking. The UCSD study is the first to investigate human dietary absorption of a cell-surface molecular sugar called N-glycolylneuraminic acid (Neu5Gc), which is found in non-human mammals. Not produced in humans, Neu5Gc occurs naturally in lamb, pork and beef, the so-called "red meats". Levels are very low or undetectable in fruits, vegetables, hen's eggs, poultry and fish.
Conducting laboratory studies with human tissue, followed by tests in three adult subjects, the UCSD team provided the first proof that people who ingest Neu5Gc absorb some of it into their tissues. In addition, they demonstrated that many humans generate an immune response against the molecule, which the body sees as a foreign invader.
The study's senior author, Ajit Varki, M.D., UCSD professor of medicine and cellular and molecular medicine, and co-director of the UCSD Glycobiology Research and Training Center, said that although it is unlikely that the ingestion of Neu5Gc alone would be primarily responsible for any specific disease, "it is conceivable that gradual Neu5Gc incorporation into the cells of the body over a lifetime, with subsequent binding of the circulating antibodies against Neu5Gc (the immune response), could contribute to the inflammatory processes involved in various diseases."
He added that another potential medical barrier related to Neu5Gc might occur in organ transplantation.
"Over the past decade, the number of patients waiting for organ
transplantation has more than tripled, with little increase in the
number of donor organs. This has led to an exploration of using animal
organs for transplantation into humans, a process called xenotransplantation,"
Varki said. "However, the leading donor candidate is the pig, an animal
in which Neu5Gc happens to be very common. The current study raises the
possibility that human antibodies against Neu5Gc might recognize the Neu5Gc
in the pig organ and facilitate its rejection."
In describing the research approach taken by his team, Varki explained that humans do not produce Neu5Gc because they lack the gene responsible for its production. And yet, other researchers have reported small amounts of Neu5Gc in human cancer tissues.
To verify the existence of Neu5Gc in human cancers, Varki's collaborator, Elaine Muchmore, M.D., UCSD professor of medicine and associate chief of staff for education at the San Diego VA Healthcare System, developed an antibody that would be attracted by, and bind to Neu5Gc on tissue samples. The antibody was purified by Pam Tangvoranuntakul, B.S., the study's first author and a Ph.D. student in Varki's lab.
Working with Nissi Varki, M.D., UCSD professor of pathology and medicine, Tangvoranuntakul found that the antibody stained not only human cancers, but also some healthy human tissues. They found that small amounts of Neu5Gc were present in blood vessels and secretory cells, such as the mucous membranes. A further chemical analysis by Sandra Diaz, a Varki research associate, confirmed the presence of Neu5Gc in human tissue.
Meanwhile, an analysis of healthy human tissue by postdoctoral fellow Pascal Gagneux, Ph.D., and Tangvoranuntakul determined that most people had circulating antibodies in the blood that recognized Neu5Gc, and thus could potentially initiate an inflammatory immune response.
In the absence of any known molecular mechanism that would produce Neu5Gc in humans, the group reasoned that the small amounts of Neu5Gc found in human tissue could arise from human ingestion of Neu5Gc in dietary sources. Postdoctoral fellow Muriel Bardor, Ph.D., showed that when human cells in culture were exposed to Neu5Gc, they easily absorbed and incorporated it onto their own surfaces.
However, to study the possibility of dietary absorption, it was necessary to carry out an ingestion study in healthy people. Because the researchers were hesitant to give a potentially harmful substance to humans, Ajit Varki volunteered to be the first subject, followed by Muchmore and Gagneux.
When the three volunteers drank Neu5Gc purified from pork sources and dissolved in water, there were no immediate ill effects. An analysis of the volunteers' urine, blood, serum (the clear liquid that can be separated from clotted blood), hair and saliva, both before ingestion and regularly for several days after, determined that the human body eliminates most of the Neu5Gc, but retains and metabolically absorbs small amounts of the foreign sugar. At approximately two days following ingestion, the Neu5Gc levels were two to three times the baseline level prior to ingestion. By four to eight days following ingestion, the levels had dropped nearly to baseline.
The authors cautioned that a causal relationship between Neu5Gc expression in human tissues with any human disease would be premature and scientifically speculative at best. Instead, they said their findings point to the need for population-level analyses of the presence of Neu5Gc in human tissues in relationship to disease incidence, and the mechanisms of human incorporation and antibody response against this sugar.
The study was supported by grants to Varki from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the G. Harold and Leila Y. Mathers Charitable Foundation. Some human studies were done in the UCSD General Clinical Research Center, which is also supported by the NIH.
14 November 2006
CHICAGO: Younger women who eat more red meat may be at higher risk of a certain kind of breast cancer, perhaps because of hormonal residues in beef cattle and other factors, according to a published study.
Data from a multiyear study involving the health histories of more than 90,000 US nurses show that "in this population of relatively young, premenopausal women, red meat intake was associated with a higher risk of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer," said the study from Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Hormone receptor-positive tumors are those that carry certain proteins to which hormones, in this case estrogen and progesterone, bind, helping them grow. Those kinds of tumors have been on the increase in the United States, especially among middle-aged women.
"Given that most of the risk factors for breast cancer are not easily modifiable, these findings have potential public health implications in preventing breast cancer and should be evaluated further," concluded the report published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
The researchers said they had found that women who ate more than one and one-half servings of red meat per day had almost double the risk of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer compared with those who ate three or fewer servings per week.
The study began in 1989 when the women were surveyed on eating and other habits. Those in the red meat study were followed from 1991 through 2003. Only women who had not gone through menopause and were cancer-free were included in the analysis.
There are known to be cancer-causing compounds in cooked or processed red meat that increase breast tumors in laboratory animals and have been suspected of causing breast cancer in humans, the report said.
In addition "hormone treatment of beef cattle for growth promotion, which is banned in European countries but not in the United States, has been of concern," the report said.
"Although long-term health effects of hormone residues in beef have not been investigated, theoretically they may preferentially affect hormone receptor-positive tumors," it added.
Other potential factors involved with red meat include animal fat in
general and a form of iron in meat which has been shown to play a role
in the development of such tumors.
NEW YORK, NEW YORK, December 27, 2006: (HPI note: The following item is from the editorial page of the New York Times -- not the place you'd normally expect a anti-meat statement...)
When you think about the growth of human population over the last century or so, it is all too easy to imagine it merely as an increase in the number of humans. But as we multiply, so do all the things associated with us, including our livestock. At present, there are about 1.5 billion cattle and domestic buffalo and about 1.7 billion sheep and goats. With pigs and poultry, they form a critical part of our enormous biological footprint upon this planet. Just how enormous was not really apparent until the publication of a new report, called "Livestock's Long Shadow," by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Consider these numbers. Global livestock grazing and feed production use "30 percent of the land surface of the planet." Livestock -- which consume more food than they yield -- also compete directly with humans for water. And the drive to expand grazing land destroys more biologically sensitive terrain, rain forests especially, than anything else. But what is even more striking, and alarming, is that livestock are responsible for about 18 percent of the global warming effect, more than transportation's contribution. The culprits are methane -- the natural result of bovine digestion -- and the nitrogen emitted by manure. Deforestation of grazing land adds to the effect. There are no easy trade-offs when it comes to global warming -- such as cutting back on cattle to make room for cars. The human passion for meat is certainly not about to end anytime soon. As "Livestock's Long Shadow" makes clear, our health and the health of the planet depend on pushing livestock production in more sustainable direc tions.
courtesy of Hinduism Today http://www.hinduismtoday.com
By: Steve Connor
When an engine is about to blow, you'll get some kind of warning. When a system is straining against itself, on the verge of collapse, pushed too far, cracks will start to show.
And so it is with our planet. New afflictions arrive to dwarf the old ones, and we discover that instead of everlasting life and happiness, our technological advances seem merely to have brought us cancers, contaminants and heart disease. Transformed from elaborate ecosystems into shadowy husks our oceans and forests have been laid waste as we bravely exploit where no 'man' has exploited before. We ditch our waste into the rivers and then wonder why we have to shell out on water filters. We blow some holes in the sky and seem surprised that we need sunblock, year-round.
Some of the damage cannot be undone. The extinction of 50 different species of plants and animals a day in a tropical rainforest is pretty much irrevocable, but changes can be made now to ensure that the future is sustainable. This article is about what you can do.
A fair amount of environmental destruction can be linked to the way we pattern our lives. From car use to energy consumption there are ways of living which place more or less of a burden on this poor old planet of ours.
A vegetarian diet is well known for its health benefits. Radically lower heart disease and cancer levels have been discovered in vegetarians, and 95 per cent of food poisoning cases occur in animal foods. Studies have shown that cutting back on the meat in your diet can cut premature mortality by up to 20 per cent and that a vegetarian diet can fight osteoporosis and diabetes. The fact that a vegetarian diet may be a safer bet for our environmental future may, however, have escaped you until now.
The livestock industry is one of the biggest. In the UK alone we have 12 million cows, 44 million sheep and 7.4 million pigs. In battery cages and broiler sheds we also have several hundred million chickens and turkeys. 77 per cent of our land is used for agriculture, of which up to 85 per cent is used to produce meat. Where we don't graze livestock, we grow crops to feed to livestock. Agriculture is big business and yet this land-hungry industry contributes only 1.5 per cent of our gross domestic product.
These huge crowds of animals do more than occupy the land - they pollute it too. Manure, slurry and sewage sludge, full of the heavy metals added to feed, is spread upon the land every day. In the Netherlands they have found themselves with too much shit for too little land, and have declared the country a 'manure surplus region'. The muck they can spread gives off ammonia - a major cause of acid rain - while the remainder is shipped off and dumped on the developing world. Here in the UK things are almost as bad. The accumulation of heavy metals in the soil is reaching serious proportions, and every year between 2,000 and 4,000 serious water pollution incidents can be linked directly to industrial farming.
The unwitting farm animals pollute the air too. Muck spreading and slurry storage cause a good deal of discomfort for those caught 'down wind' from Old MacDonald's factory farm. Over 3,500 complaints are received every year about 'farm smells'.
After carbon dioxide, methane is the second most common greenhouse gas, and increasing levels of this gas in the atmosphere are worrying experts as it has 11 times the global warming capacity of carbon dioxide. Cows belch and burp and incredible 60 litres of methane every day, and when added to the flatulent excesses of other farm animals, they represent the single largest source of methane in the UK, belching and farting a massive 26 per cent of all emissions.
Meat production is a smelly, polluting business, but it doesn't end there. More land needed for more cattle means the continued destruction of otherwise valuable wildlife habitats. Though we've long since lost most of our forest here in Britain, we still have our hedgerows, yet over 52,000km of hedgerow have been lost since 1984 through agricultural expansion. Beyond our shores, an area of tropical rainforest the size of England is destroyed every year, in regions like South America the majority is cleared for cattle ranching, even though the soil is virtually useless once the forests have gone. For the four or five short years that the soil will sustain pasture, the ranchers will only manage to stock their range with one head of cattle per hectare.
The meat or fish on our plates is doing more than just damaging our land and forests. With nets large enough to capture 12 Boeing 747 jets and radar planes to track shoals of fish, huge factory trawlers are decimating the last few remaining stocks of fish. Of the world's 22 major fisheries all but two have reached their limits and 7 are in serious decline. In the North Sea we take out half of all the fish stocks every year, dragging thousands of dolphins, whales and sea birds with them.
In our rivers and estuaries, fish producers have adopted the techniques of the factory farm, and are caging tens of thousands of salmon and trout in hideously cramped conditions. Packed in together, the fish are an ideal breeding ground for disease and so pesticides and antibiotics have to be added to the water, some of which have been linked to cancer in humans.
These large, static fish populations have more than just cages in common with the factory farm. Pollution from sewage is just as worrying on fish farms, a single ton of trout can create a pollution load equivalent to the untreated sewage of 100-200 people.
There is, of course, an alternative. A vegetarian diet is not just better for you and the 900 animals you would normally eat during the course of your lifetime. Vegetarians can exist on around 30 per cent of the agricultural land used to produce meat. Feeding perfectly good crops to animals is an inefficient and short sighted way of producing protein - 10kg of vegetable protein to produce just one kg of meat! Using less land, more sensibly could mean fewer pesticides and fertilisers and more land available for wildlife. The developing world could stop shipping us valuable grain for our livestock, and wouldn't have to deal with the shit they produce.
A vegetarian diet will cut out the antibiotics, growth promoters and
chemicals found in meat, and would go a long way to reducing the pollutants
in our drinking water. You'll be healthier almost immediately, and you'll
be making sure that your little piece of the planet stretches just that
little bit further.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm
SOUTHHAMPTON, ENGLAND, December 14, 2006: Intelligent children are more likely to become vegetarians later in life, a study conducted by a Southampton University team. They found those who were vegetarian by 30 had recorded five IQ points more on average at the age of 10. Researchers said it could explain why people with higher IQ were healthier as a vegetarian diet was linked to lower heart disease and obesity rates.
The study of 8,179 was reported in the British Medical Journal. Twenty years after the IQ tests were carried out in 1970, 366 of the participants said they were vegetarian - although more than 100 reported eating either fish or chicken. Men who were vegetarian has an IQ score of 106, compared to non-vegetarians with 101, while female vegetarians averaged 104, compared to 99 for non-vegetarians. Dr Frankie Phillips, of the British Dietetic Association said, "It is like the chicken and the egg. Do people become vegetarian because they have a very high IQ or is it just that they tend to be more aware of health issues?"
courtesy of Hinduism Today http://www.hinduismtoday.com
Full Article HERE:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6180753.stm
14 November 2006
CHICAGO: Younger women who eat more red meat may be at higher risk of a certain kind of breast cancer, perhaps because of hormonal residues in beef cattle and other factors, according to a published study.
Data from a multiyear study involving the health histories of more than 90,000 US nurses show that "in this population of relatively young, premenopausal women, red meat intake was associated with a higher risk of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer," said the study from Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Hormone receptor-positive tumors are those that carry certain proteins to which hormones, in this case estrogen and progesterone, bind, helping them grow. Those kinds of tumors have been on the increase in the United States, especially among middle-aged women.
"Given that most of the risk factors for breast cancer are not easily modifiable, these findings have potential public health implications in preventing breast cancer and should be evaluated further," concluded the report published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
The researchers said they had found that women who ate more than one and one-half servings of red meat per day had almost double the risk of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer compared with those who ate three or fewer servings per week.
The study began in 1989 when the women were surveyed on eating and other habits. Those in the red meat study were followed from 1991 through 2003. Only women who had not gone through menopause and were cancer-free were included in the analysis.
There are known to be cancer-causing compounds in cooked or processed red meat that increase breast tumors in laboratory animals and have been suspected of causing breast cancer in humans, the report said.
In addition "hormone treatment of beef cattle for growth promotion, which is banned in European countries but not in the United States, has been of concern," the report said.
"Although long-term health effects of hormone residues in beef have not been investigated, theoretically they may preferentially affect hormone receptor-positive tumors," it added.
Other potential factors involved with red meat include animal fat in
general and a form of iron in meat which has been shown to play a role
in the development of such tumors.
Photos just arrived from Bhaktivedanta Manor, England. Look at these exquisite cakes made for Radharani on Her birthday! What love, devotion and expertise went into making these - and no eggs . . .
Wonderful pictures http://www.prabhupada.org/rama/?p=3079
Eggless Cake Cookbook Download http://www.hknet.org.nz/great100.zip
Some vegetarian writers/thinkers and some related quotes by writers, artists and others
"To my mind, the life of a lamb is no less precious than that of a human being."
--Gandhi
"It is only by softening and disguising dead flesh by culinary preparation, that it is rendered susceptible of mastication or digestion; and that the sight of its bloody juices and raw horror does not excite intolerable loathing and disgust."
--Percy Bysshe Shelley
"I look my age; and I am my age. It is the other people who look older than they are. What can you expect from people who eat corpses and drink spirits?"
--George Bernard Shaw
"Since visiting the abatoirs of S. France I have stopped eating meat."
--Vincent Van Gogh
"You have just dined, and however scrupulously the slaughterhouse is concealed in the graceful distance of miles, there is complicity."
--Ralph Waldo Emerson
"The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for white, or women created for men."
--Alice Walker
"When a man wants to murder a tiger he calls it sport; when the tiger wants to murder him he calls it ferocity."
--George Bernard Shaw
"Fur used to turn heads, now it turns stomachs."
--Rue McClanahan
"You ask people why they have deer heads on the wall. They always say, Because it's such a beautiful animal. There you go. I think my mother's attractive, but I have photographs of her."
--Ellen DeGeneres
"Men hunt I think maybe because they have something wrong with their own equipment and they need something else to shoot."
--Pamela Anderson
"I despise and abhor the pleas on behalf of that infamous practice, vivisection. .. I would rather submit to the worst of deaths, so far as pain goes, than have a single dog or cat tortured to death on the pretense of sparing me a twinge or two."
--Robert Browning
"Atrocities are not less atrocities when they occur in laboratories and are called medical research."
--George Bernard Shaw
"The squirrel that you kill in jest, dies in earnest."
--Henry David Thoreau
"Certainly as far as the wild animals and all the other inhabitants of the wide-open spaces are concerned, including birds, I have reached one unshakable and funereal conclusion: we have brought them nothing but despair."
--Colette
Einstein's prediction.....
*"Nothing will benefit human health and increase the chances for
survival of life on Earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian
diet." -- Albert Einstein*
Almost all the talk of global climate change ignores the most
fundamental issue of all; inappropriate dietary preferences, which are
the greatest contributor to this challenge, and are the easiest to
redress.... organic cropping is part of the equation, however the consumer
choices of excessive meat, dairy and other luxury items like coffee;
most of which consume 000's litres water per kilo produced, are responsible
for the primary triggers in this scenario....and most well meaning
environmentalists ignore this simple evidential science...
Joseph Dillard Writes:
While I am happy to see the rising number of articles on Global Warming at many news sites that are awakening people to the reality of imminent catastrophic change that is upon us, too few articles are making the connection between diet and global warming. Gore doesn't address it in "An Inconvenient Truth." I just read a great call to energy self-sufficiency on Kos and it has nothing on the impact of nutritional decisions on global warming. This is surprising, since the consumption of cows, lambs, chickens, pigs, fish, shrimp, and shellfish is the largest personal contributor to global warming and the one easiest to change, since diet is totally a matter of personal choice.
I think the lack of emphasis on diet has to do with how deeply entrenched eating habits are culturally, socially, and personally, in terms of personal sense of well-being and self-worth. Nevertheless, this is probably going to be the Next Big Awakening. People pretty much are buying the need to change to florescent bulbs and make their next car purchase the most fuel efficient one they can find. They are not yet ready to embrace the idea that they can do without meat and not only do well, but do better than they are doing right now.
Consequently, there needs to be a major educational push addressing this correlation. PETA has some excellent materials to this end to help people envision a happy, healthy vegetarian life:
http://goveg.com/vegetarian101.asp <http://goveg.com/vegetarian101.asp>
We are going to witness a revolution in consciousness away from eating animals well before we see man abandon warfare, looking at it in the same way that we presently view those who advocated slavery.
------------
RELATED NHNE NEWS LIST ARTICLES:
COWS THE WORLD'S TOP DESTROYER OF THE ENVIRONMENT (12/10/2006):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/12230
THE EXTRAORDINARY HARM CAUSED BY EATING MEAT (8/24/2006):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/11732
ANIMAL AGRICULTURE GREATEST SOURCE OF GLOBAL WARMING (8/30/2005):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/9833
CUT GLOBAL WARMING BY BECOMING VEGETARIAN (7/19/2005):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/9591
NUMBER OF LAND-BASED ANIMALS KILLED FOR FOOD IN U.S. (2/3/2005):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/8807
WORLD 'MUST EAT LESS MEAT' (8/16/2004):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/7738
MORE ON THE DARK SIDE OF STRICT VEGGIE DIETS (7/14/2002):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/3413
SHOULD WE ALL BE VEGETARIANS? (7/10/2002):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/3392
SO YOU'RE AN ENVIRONMENTALIST; WHY ARE YOU STILL EATING MEAT? (1/5/2002):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/nhnenews/message/2475
Uh-oh, there's trouble in the laboratory. Those starched lily-white lab coats may project a prime and proper picture of scientists, but those bad boys are all fight on the inside. They rumble big time.
Milk is the latest hot topic. What's at stake? Our money and our health, in that order, are two things that come quickly to mind.
The March issue of the premier medical journal Pediatrics features a study conducted by researchers of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine that debunks the idea that regularly drinking milk helps growing children develop stronger bones. "Under scientific scrutiny, the support for the milk myth crumbles," (read - don't waste your money) said Amy Joy Lanou, the group's nutrition director.
The National Diary Council immediately retorted by calling the study an "opinion piece" (read - not science), and here is where it gets nasty, written by "an animal rights organisation that has only 5 percent physician membership" (read - they're radicals).
This is advancement of civilisation? Human beings were profitably drinking milk long before Louis Pasteur started scientifically heating up with milk in the 1860s. Now, nearly 150 years later these vanguards of modern civilisation are still fighting over spilt milk.
Well, perhaps I'm too harsh. After all, modern civilisation is primarily focused on corporeal and corporate profits, and the scientists are leading where we want to go, right? So why not let them duel, best scientist wins? Unfortunately, neither side can promise us that this body, healthy or unhealthy, will live forever, or that we will have enough money to satisfy our bodily demands.
"Something old, something new," this old saying provides much needed guidance. Taking something from the profitable use of milk in ancient civilisations perhaps we can mold something that holds the promise for our future that modern scientists cannot guarantee.
Vedic civilisation focused on spiritual advancement as the purpose of human life. Their life-style was centered on God consciousness, as opposed to materialism, and is captured in the phrase, simple living and high thinking.
How did milk aid that civilisation achieve its objectives? Milk was useful as a bridge between our bodily existence and spiritual consciousness.
Robert E. Svoboda, a chemistry graduate from the University of Oklahoma, and the first Westerner ever to graduate from a college of Ayurveda (the Vedic science of medicine) and be licensed to practice Ayurveda in India, writes, “Milk helps to integrate the consciousness. Other animal protein is derived from flesh and drags the consciousness down into the flesh, discouraging that breaking free of early restraints which is required for spiritual advancement. Plant protein is sometimes insufficient to ground the consciousness firmly enough in the physical body. Milk is the one food that combines the uplifting essences of plants with the firm groundedness of animals.”
According to the Ayurveda, all foods have medicinal benefits. Milk is particularly noted for its anabolic or tissue building properties, both in terms of new and rejuvenative tissue growth.
The Founder of the Hare Krishna Movement, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada writes, "If we really want to cultivate the human spirit in society we must have first-class intelligent men to guide the society, and to develop the finer tissues of our brains we must assimilate vitamin values from milk. Devotees worship Lord Sri Krishna by addressing Him as the well-wisher of the brahmanas and the cows. The most intelligent class of men, who have perfectly attained knowledge in spiritual values, are called the brahmanas. No society can improve in transcendental knowledge without the guidance of such first-class men, and no brain can assimilate the subtle form of knowledge without fine brain tissues. For such important brain tissues we require a sufficient quantity of milk and milk preparations. Ultimately, we need to protect the cow to derive the highest benefit from this important animal. The protection of cows, therefore, is not merely a religious sentiment but a means to secure the highest benefit for human society."
This is advancement of civilisation.
Niika Quistgard of Inside Ayurveda Journal has written a very comprehensive article entitled "Milk: To Drink or Not to Drink." I highly recommend it. Her article contains two sections I specifically recommend to the scientists at the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine and the National Dairy Council:
1. An Experiment
Drinking milk cold is not advisable, as milk is already cool and heavy in nature. Before drinking, boil milk briefly in a non-aluminum vessel until it produces a foamy head, then cool to warm or room temperature. It is best to do this over a heat source, not in the microwave oven.
2. Some Advice
Milk is effective in calming you when intensity and aggression call out to be soothed.
So, come on fellas, get together over a nice cup of hot milk and work
out your differences in a civilised manner.
Prabhupada: …giving to the vultures. Let the flesh-eaters take it. He did not like this idea much. (laughs)
Yogesvara: It would ruin the economy.
Prabhupada: Economy? What is that economy?
Yogesvara: Because there’s so much business that depends on the slaughter and the sale of animal flesh. Just like in India now, there is such a low economy that in some of the communist states, they’ve decided to export meat because it’s good…
Prabhupada: You can export after death. What is the wrong? You can export. Immediately, you take the cows after death, take the skin and take the meat also, skin and flesh, and put it into refrigerator and make export. We simply say that until the death of the cow, don’t kill. Let us take the milk. That is our appeal only. What is the wrong there?
Pusta-krsna: Also, the other day, Srila Prabhupada, you were telling us in Geneva that in India it was, at least until the present day forbidden to eat cows, and that those who would eat animals, they would eat dogs or goats, like this. Prabhupada: Yes. We recommend the meat-eaters who eat dogs, as Korea, they’re eating dogs, so you can eat also dog. But don’t… You eat it. After death. We don’t say don’t eat. You are so much fond of eating. All right. You eat. Because after the death, we have to give somebody, some living entity. So generally, it is given to the vultures. So why to the vultures? Take the civilized men, who are as good as vultures. (laughter) The so-called civilized men. Yes. What is the difference between the vultures and these rascals? The vultures also enjoy a dead body. And they also kill, make it dead and enjoy. They’re vultures.
Yogesvara: Sakuni.
Prabhupada: Yes. Sakuni, yes. They’re vultures, and their civilization
is vulture-eater. The animal-eaters, they’re like jackals, vultures, dogs.
They’re similar to these animals, the animal-eaters. It is not human food.
Here is human food. Here is civilized food, human food. Let them learn
it. Uncivilized, rudes, vultures, rakshasas, and they’re leaders. Therefore,
I say all fourth-class men, they are leaders. Therefore the whole world
is in chaotic condition. We require first-class men to lead. We are first-class
men. Take our advice, and then everything will be all right. We are creating
first-class men. What is the use of fourth-class men leading? All fourth-class
men. If I say so frankly, people will be very angry. All fourth-class men.
Basically, they’re all fourth-class men. Now, these first, second, third-class
men are described. So at the present moment, no one belongs to this qualification.
Even they are not to the third-class men. Krshi-go-rakshya-vanijyam [Bg.
18.44]. Who is, who is protecting the cows? That is the third-class man’s
business. So therefore everyone is fourth-class. So the fourth-class men,
they are electing their representative to govern. They are also on the
big fourth-class men. That is stated in the Bhagavata, sva-via-varahoshthra-kharaih
samstutah purushah pasuh [SB 2.3.19]. Where is that verse? Find out. All
fourth-class men. Not fourth-class, less than fourth-class. Fourth-class
has got also some regulative duty. But at the present moment, no regulative
duty. Anyone can do whatever he likes, whatever he thinks. All fifth-class,
sixth-class men. No regulative principle. The human life is meant for regulative
principles. Just like we are insisting our students only for regulative
principles just to make them real human life. No regulative principle means
animal life.
By Caitanya Nitai dasa (Auckland)
Dear Maharajas and Prabhus,
Please accept my respectful obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada and to all his faithful servants.
As I regularly see on the health conference questions regarding grains or beans prepared in factories and sold in shops, I feel so surprised that devotees eat these things. The question whether these may be good for your physical health or not is not very relevant. The actual problem is that any food prepared by karmis is bad for your spiritual health, as it affects your consciousness, especially grains and beans. Offering these things to Krishna may not solve the problem, as Krishna is a person, not just a machine meant for accepting anything we put before Him.
In 1966 in New York Srila Prabhupada posted on the Temple’s door the famous basic principles of spiritual life that all of us have read many times. One of these is: “All initiated devotees … Should not eat foodstuffs cooked by non-devotees.” Sometimes devotees feel that these are austere instructions for strict & advanced devotees, but remember that Srila Prabhupada gave these instructions in 1966 to very new devotees.
Once in Mayapura Srila Prabhupada emphatically said, “No one may buy
anything from the market. If they eat these things they will fall down!
No one should eat anything not offered to the Deity.”” (Transcendental
Diary
1-9: Sri Dhama Mayapur)
Another time in Germany Srila Prabhupada said that, “Under no circumstances should we eat grains prepared by non-devotees” (SPDG 14: Prabhupada at Schloss Rettershof)
In ISKCON’s official Deity worship manual, Pancaratra Pradipa, is the
following quotation from Hari-Bhakti-Vilasa: “Food (especially grains)
which is cooked by non-Vaisnavas or by sinful people, or which has not
been offered to Visnu, is the same as dog meat.”
(1.13: Gathering Items for Worship (upadana))
There are many other things that Srila Prabhupada said on this subject, but to end this list, I would like to tell you an instructive event that happened where I live, in New Zealand. Recently some people studying the working conditions in New Zealand factories set a few hidden video-cameras in some food-factories. They were surprised and horrified to see some workers spitting or blowing their noses into the preparations, some even passing urine into the cooking pots. This was shown on television.
Similarly, regarding jam, tomato paste, etc. Do you think they bother to carefully wash the hundreds of tons of fruits and veggies, sort the rotten ones … How many worms, rotten fruits, dirt, etc … are there in jam or tomato paste? Of course once it is processed we cannot see anything, it is an advantage for the manufacturer …
The whole point of our movement is to try to maintain and increase our consciousness of Krishna, and simultaneously avoid anything that may decrease it. His consciousness of Krishna is by far the most precious asset of a devotee, and he / she should be constantly vigilant not to loose it.
Thank you.
Your servant,
Caitanya Nitai dasa
A recent survey found that India is not as vegetarian as many people think, although still holding by far the largest vegetarian population in the world.
The study carried out by the Hyderabad-based National Institute of Nutrition (NIN) questioned a random sample of 20,719 households drawn across India's 28 states.
It found that 64.4 per cent of families consume non-vegetarian food, with the highest reported in southern states (92.2 per cent) and the least in north (40.4 per cent).
If we take the assumption that most of India's Muslims and Christians are meat-eaters, who collectively make up approximately 17% of the population, it can be estimated that just over half of all Hindus are vegetarian.
As well as the prevalence of vegetarianism, the survey also looked into general attitudes, beliefs and practices of Indians with regards to food and medicines.
The report was released by the Union minister of state for health and family welfare, Panabaka Lakshmi, in Hyderabad on October 16.
"They're made out of meat."
"Meat?"
"Meat. They're made out of meat."
"Meat?"
"There's no doubt about it. We picked up several from different parts of the planet, took them aboard our recon vessels, and probed them all the way through. They're completely meat."
"That's impossible. What about the radio signals? The messages to the stars?"
"They use the radio waves to talk, but the signals don't come from them. The signals come from machines."
"So who made the machines? That's who we want to contact."
"They made the machines. That's what I'm trying to tell you. Meat made the machines."
"That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."
"I'm not asking you, I'm telling you. These creatures are the only sentient race in that sector and they're made out of meat."
"Maybe they're like the orfolei. You know, a carbon-based intelligence that goes through a meat stage."
"Nope. They're born meat and they die meat. We studied them for several of their life spans, which didn't take long. Do you have any idea what's the life span of meat?"
"Spare me. Okay, maybe they're only part meat. You know, like the weddilei. A meat head with an electron plasma brain inside."
"Nope. We thought of that, since they do have meat heads, like the weddilei. But I told you, we probed them. They're meat all the way through."
"No brain?"
"Oh, there's a brain all right. It's just that the brain is made out of meat! That's what I've been trying to tell you."
"So ... what does the thinking?"
"You're not understanding, are you? You're refusing to deal with what I'm telling you. The brain does the thinking. The meat."
"Thinking meat! You're asking me to believe in thinking meat!"
"Yes, thinking meat! Conscious meat! Loving meat. Dreaming meat. The meat is the whole deal! Are you beginning to get the picture or do I have to start all over?"
"Omigod. You're serious then. They're made out of meat."
"Thank you. Finally. Yes. They are indeed made out of meat. And they've been trying to get in touch with us for almost a hundred of their years."
"Omigod. So what does this meat have in mind?"
"First it wants to talk to us. Then I imagine it wants to explore the Universe, contact other sentiences, swap ideas and information. The usual."
"We're supposed to talk to meat."
"That's the idea. That's the message they're sending out by radio. 'Hello. Anyone out there. Anybody home.' That sort of thing."
"They actually do talk, then. They use words, ideas, concepts?"
"Oh, yes. Except they do it with meat."
"I thought you just told me they used radio."
"They do, but what do you think is on the radio? Meat sounds. You know how when you slap or flap meat, it makes a noise? They talk by flapping their meat at each other. They can even sing by squirting air through their meat."
"Omigod. Singing meat. This is altogether too much. So what do you advise?"
"Officially or unofficially?"
"Both."
"Officially, we are required to contact, welcome and log in any and all sentient races or multibeings in this quadrant of the Universe, without prejudice, fear or favor. Unofficially, I advise that we erase the records and forget the whole thing."
"I was hoping you would say that."
"It seems harsh, but there is a limit. Do we really want to make contact with meat?"
"I agree one hundred percent. What's there to say? 'Hello, meat. How's it going?' But will this work? How many planets are we dealing with here?"
"Just one. They can travel to other planets in special meat containers, but they can't live on them. And being meat, they can only travel through C space. Which limits them to the speed of light and makes the possibility of their ever making contact pretty slim. Infinitesimal, in fact."
"So we just pretend there's no one home in the Universe."
"That's it."
"Cruel. But you said it yourself, who wants to meet meat? And the ones who have been aboard our vessels, the ones you probed? You're sure they won't remember?"
"They'll be considered crackpots if they do. We went into their heads and smoothed out their meat so that we're just a dream to them."
"A dream to meat! How strangely appropriate, that we should be meat's dream."
"And we marked the entire sector unoccupied."
"Good. Agreed, officially and unofficially. Case closed. Any others? Anyone interesting on that side of the galaxy?"
"Yes, a rather shy but sweet hydrogen core cluster intelligence in a class nine star in G445 zone. Was in contact two galactic rotations ago, wants to be friendly again."
"They always come around."
"And why not? Imagine how unbearably, how unutterably cold the Universe
would be if one were all alone
~His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
-Fiji, 30.April.1976
- Neal D. Barnard, M.D., President, Physicians Comittee for Responsible Medicine, Washington, D.C.
I came across some wonderful couplets in Tirukkural, that could be used
in preaching to Tamils. It speaks on "pulal marutthal" - "No meat
eating" in ISKCON terms. Tamils can't refute Tirukkural :) It was posted
on the discussion forum www.audarya-fellowship.com . I have also
attached the relevant Tamil text and a poetic translation that I found
on another website.
I am intrigued why these kurals are not included in Tamil text books
in schools??
Y/s,
Guru Chaitanya dasa - Chennai.
The Tirukural, Preeminent Ethical Scripture:
Perhaps nowhere is the principle of nonmeat-eating so fully and eloquently expressed as in the Tirukural, written in the Tamil language by a simple weaver saint in a village near Madras over 2,000 years ago. Considered the world's greatest ethical scripture, it is sworn on in South Indian courts of law. It is the principle of the pure in heart never to injure others, even when they themselves have been hatefully injured. What is virtuous conduct? It is never destroying life, for killing leads to every other sin.
312; 321, TW
Harming others, even enemies who harmed you unprovoked, assures incessant
sorrow. The supreme principle is this: never knowingly harm any one at
any time in any way.
313; 317, TW
What is the good way? It is the path that reflects on how it may avoid
killing any living creature. Refrain from taking precious life from any
living being, even to save your own life.
324; 327, TW
How can he practice true compassion Who eats the flesh of an animal
to fatten his own flesh?
TK 251, TW
Riches cannot be found in the hands of the thriftless. Nor can compassion
be found in the hearts of those who eat meat.
TK 252, TW
Goodness is never one with the minds of these two: one who wields a
weapon and one who feasts on a creature's flesh.
TK 253, TW
If you ask, "What is kindness and what is unkind?" it is not killing
and killing. Thus, eating flesh is never virtuous.
TK 254, TW
Life is perpetuated by not eating meat.The clenched jaws of hell hold
those who do.
TK 255, TW
If the world did not purchase and consume meat, there would be none
to slaughter and offer meat for sale.
TK 256, TW
When a man realizes that meat is the butchered flesh of another creature,
he must abstain from eating it.
TK 257, TW
Perceptive souls who have abandoned passion will not feed on flesh abandoned
by life.
TK 258, TW
Greater than a thousand ghee offerings consumed in sacrificial fires
is to not sacrifice and consume any living creature.
TK 259, TW
All that lives will press palms together in prayerful adoration of those
who refuse to slaughter and savor meat.
TK 260, TW
14 November 2006
CHICAGO: Younger women who eat more red meat may be at higher risk of a certain kind of breast cancer, perhaps because of hormonal residues in beef cattle and other factors, according to a published study.
Data from a multiyear study involving the health histories of more than 90,000 US nurses show that "in this population of relatively young, premenopausal women, red meat intake was associated with a higher risk of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer," said the study from Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Hormone receptor-positive tumors are those that carry certain proteins to which hormones, in this case estrogen and progesterone, bind, helping them grow. Those kinds of tumors have been on the increase in the United States, especially among middle-aged women.
"Given that most of the risk factors for breast cancer are not easily modifiable, these findings have potential public health implications in preventing breast cancer and should be evaluated further," concluded the report published in the Archives of Internal Medicine.
The researchers said they had found that women who ate more than one and one-half servings of red meat per day had almost double the risk of hormone receptor-positive breast cancer compared with those who ate three or fewer servings per week.
The study began in 1989 when the women were surveyed on eating and other habits. Those in the red meat study were followed from 1991 through 2003. Only women who had not gone through menopause and were cancer-free were included in the analysis.
There are known to be cancer-causing compounds in cooked or processed red meat that increase breast tumors in laboratory animals and have been suspected of causing breast cancer in humans, the report said.
In addition "hormone treatment of beef cattle for growth promotion, which is banned in European countries but not in the United States, has been of concern," the report said.
"Although long-term health effects of hormone residues in beef have not been investigated, theoretically they may preferentially affect hormone receptor-positive tumors," it added.
Other potential factors involved with red meat include animal fat in general and a form of iron in meat which has been shown to play a role in the development of such tumors.
SRILA PRABHUPADA'S DAILY QUOTES
You cannot expect peace and you go on killing animals. That is not possible.
If you want peace, then you must think for others also. That is Krishna consciousness.
That is God consciousness. How you can kill another animal? He is also as good a child of God.
(6th January 1969. Bhagavad Gita 4:7-10 lecture. Los Angeles. )
You Mean That's in the Bible - expose on meat eating:
http://www.textfiles.com/occult/CHRISTIAN/ymtitb.txt
Vegetarian food leaves a deep impression on our nature. If the whole
world adopts vegetarianism, it can change the destiny of humankind."
Albert Einstein
"There is just no reason why animals should be slaughtered to serve
as human diet when there are so many substitutes. Man can live without
meat."
The Dalai Lama
"If man wants freedom why keep birds and animals in cages? Truly man
is the king of beasts, for his brutality exceeds them. We live by the death
of others. We are burial places! I have since an early age abjured the
use of meat."
Leonardo-da-Vinci
"I do feel that spiritual progress does demand at some stage that we
should cease to kill our fellow creatures for the satisfaction of our bodily
wants."
Gandhi
"Flesh eating is unprovoked murder."
Benjamin Franklin
"Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and shall call his
name Immanuel. He shall eat butter and honey, so that he may know the evil
from the good."
Isaiah 7:14-15
"The eating of meat extinguishes the seed of great compassion"
Mahaparinirvana (Mahayana Version)
The 13th Century Zen Master Doyen, while visiting China, asked this
question: "What must the mental attitude and daily activities of a student
be when he is engaged in Buddhist meditation and practice? Ju-Ching answered
that one of the
things he should avoid is eating meat.
"The salvation of birds and beasts, oneself included - this is the object of Shakyamuni's religious austerities." Zen Master Ikkyu
"...Behold I have given you every herb bearing seed which is upon the
face of all the earth and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree yielding
seed; to you it shall be for meat..."
Genesis 1:29
"Thou shalt not kill."
Exodus 20:13
"One should treat animals such as deer, camels, asses, monkeys, mice,
snakes, birds and flies exactly like one's own son. How little difference
there actually is between children and these innocent animals."
Srimad Bhagavatam 7.14.9
"Every act of irreverence for life, every act which neglects life, which
is indifferent to and wastes life, is a step towards the love of death.
This choice man must make at every minute. Never were the consequences
of the wrong choice as total and as irreversible as they are today. Never
was the warning of the Bible so urgent: "I have put before you life and
death, blessing and curse. Choose life, that you and your children may
live." (Deuteronomy 30:19)
Erich Fromm
"Cruelty to animals is as if man did not love God."
Cardinal John H. Newman
"Plant life instead of animal food is the keystone of regeneration.
Jesus used bread instead of flesh and wine in place of blood at the Lord's
Supper."
German Composer Richard Wagner (1813)
"Man did not weave the web of life: he is merely a strand in it. Whatever
he does to the web, he does to himself. To harm the earth is to heap contempt
on its creator."
Red Indian Chief (1854)
"We pray on Sundays that we may have light/To guide our footsteps on
the path we tread;/We are sick of war, we don't want to fight,/And yet
we gorge ourselves upon the dead."
George Bernard Shaw
"If you have men who will exclude any of God's creatures from the shelter
of compassion and pity, you will have men who will deal likewise with their
fellow men."
St. Francis of Assisi
"Killing is a denial of love. To kill or to eat what another has killed
is to rejoice in cruelty. And cruelty hardens our hearts and blinds our
vision, and we are unable to see that they whom we kill are our fellow
brothers and sisters in the One Family of Creation."
G.L. Rudd, author of Why Kill For Food?
"Vegetarianism is a way of life that we should
all move toward for economic survival, physical well-being and spiritual
integrity."
Father Thomas Berry, Fordham University, New York
"The earth affords a lavish supply of riches, of innocent foods, and
offers you banquets that involve no bloodshed or slaughter; only beasts
satisfy their hunger with flesh, and not even all of those, because horses,
cattle, and sheep live on grass. As long as men massacre animals, they
will kill each other. Indeed, he who sows the seeds of murder and pain
cannot reap joy and love."
Pythagoras
"One who, while seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other living
beings who also desire happinesss, will not find happiness hereafter."
Lord Buddha, Dhammapada, 131
"He who has renounced all violence towards all living beings, weak or
strong, who neither kills nor causes others to kill - him I do call a holy
man."
Lord Buddha, Dhammapada, 405
"Anyone familiar with the numerous accounts of the Buddha's extraordinary
compassion and reverence for living beings - for example his insistence
that his monks strain the water they drink lest they inadvertently cause
the death of any micro-organisms - could never believe that he would be
indifferent to the sufferings of domestic animals caused by their slaughter
of food"
Roshi Philip Kapleau, 'To Cherish All Life'
"The inhabitants are numerous and happy... Throuhout the country the
people do not kill any living creature, nor drink intoxicating liquor,
they do not keep pigs and fowl, and do not sell live cattle; in the markets
there are no butcher shops and no dealers in intoxicating drink... Only
the Chandalas (lowest cast) are fisherman and hunters and sell flesh meat."
Famous 4th century Chinese Buddhist traveller Fa-hsien, travelling
in India
"I have enforced the laws against killing certain animals and many others.
But the greatest progress of Righteousness among men comes from the exhortation
in favour of non-injury to life and abstention from killing living things.
"
Pillar Edict of King Ashoka (268-233 BC)
"To be non-violent to human beings and to be a killer or enemy of poor
animals is Satan's philosophy. In this age there is always enmity against
animals, and therefore the poor creatures are always anxious. The reaction
of the poor animals is being forced on human society, and therefore there
is always the strain of cold or hot war between men, individually, collectively
or nationally..."
His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
"For my part I rather wonder both by what accident and in what state of mind the first man touched his mouth to gore and brought his lips to the flesh of a dead creature, set forth tables of dead, stale bodies, and ventured to call food and nourishment the parts that had a little before bellowed and cried, moved and lived. How could his eyes endure the slaughter when throats were slit and hides flayed and limbs torn from limb? How could his nose endure the stench?
How was it that the pollution did not turn away his taste, which made
contact with sores of others and sucked juices and serums from mortal wounds?
It is certainly not lions or wolves that we eat out of self-defense; on
the contrary, we ignore these and slaughter harmless, tame creatures without
stings or teeth to harm us. For the sake of a little flesh we deprive them
of sun, of light, of the duration of life to which they are entitled by
birth and being."
Plutarch in his essay 'On Eating Flesh'
"If you declare that you are naturally designed for such a diet, then
first kill for yourself what you want to eat. Do it, however, only through
your own resources, unaided by cleaver or cudgel or any kind of ax."
Plutarch
"The steam of meat darkens the light of the spirit...One hardly can
have virtue when one enjoys meat meals and feasts..."
St. Basil (AD 320 - 79)
"I am full of the burnt offering of rams and the fat of fed beasts.
I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of goats...Bring
no more vain offerings... When you spread forth your hands, I will hide
mine eyes though you make many prayers, and I will not hear you. For your
hands are full of blood..."
Isaiah 1:11-15
"...Therefore the Lord will give you meat and you shall eat. You shall
not eat one day or two days, or ten days or twenty days, but till it comes
out at your nostrils and becomes loathsome to you, because you have rejected
the Lord..."
Numbers 11:18-20
"...He who gives permission, he who kills the animal, he who sells the
slaughtered animal, he who cooks the animal, he who administers the distribution
of the flesh, and at last he who eats the flesh are all murderers and all
of them are punishable under the law of karma."
The Laws of Manu (5:55)
"Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and
injury to sentient beings is detrimental to the attainment of heavenly
bliss; let him therefore shun the use of meat."
The Laws of Manu
"Having well considered the disgusting origin of flesh and the cruelty
of fettering and slaying of corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain
from eating flesh."
The Laws of Manu
"Those who never harm others by (physical deeds), by thought and speech,
in whatever condition they may be, do not go to Yama's abode. Men who harm
other creatures do not go to heaven, in spite of their reciting Vedas,
giving gifts, practicing austerities or performing sacrifices. Harmlessness
is a great form of piety. Harmlessness alone is a great penance. Harmlessness
is a great gift. This what the sages say."
Padma Purana III 31-25-28
"...Ethics has not only to do with mankind but with the animal creation
as well. This is witnessed in the purpose of St. Francis of Assisi. Thus
we shall arrive that ethics is reverence for all life. This is the ethic
of love widened universally. It is the ethic of Jesus now recognized as
a necessity of thought...Only a universal ethic which embraces every living
creature can put us in touch with the universe and the will which is there
manifest..."
Albert Schweitzer
"There is not an animal on the earth, nor a flying creature flying on
two
wings, but they are peoples like unto you."
Koran, surah 6 verse 38
"Flesh eating is simply immoral, as it involves the performance of an
act which is contrary to moral feeling: killing. By killing, man suppresses
in himself, unnecessarily, the highest spiritual capacity, that of sympathy
and pity towards living creatures like himself, and by violating his own
feelings becomes cruel."
Leo Tolstoy
"For the sake of love of purity, let the Bodhisattva refrain from eating
flesh, which is born of semen, blood etc. To avoid causing terror to living
beings, let the disciple, who is disciplining himself to attain compassion,
refrain from eating meat...It is not true that meat is proper food and
permissible when the animal was not killed by himself, when he did not
order to kill it, when it was not especially meant for him. There may be
some people in the future who, being under the influence of taste for meat
will string together in various ways sophisticated arguments to defend
meat eating. But meat eating in any form, in any manner and in any place
is unconditionally and once and for all prohibited. "Meat eating I have
not permitted to anyone, I do not permit and will not permit..."
Lord Buddha (Lanka vatara Sutra)
"The reason for practicing dhyana and seeking to attain samadhi is to escape from the suffering of life, but in seeking to escape from suffering ourselves why should we inflict it upon others? Unless you can so control your minds that even the thought of brutal unkindness and killing is abhorred, you will never be able to escape from the bondage of the world's life...
After my paranirvana in the last kalpa different ghosts will be encountered
everywhere deceiving people and teaching them that they can eat meat and
still attain enlightenment...How can a bhikshu, who hopes to become a deliverer
of others, himself be living on the flesh of other sentient beings?"
Lord Buddha (Surangama Sutra)
"The devotees of the Lord are released from all kinds of sins because they
eat food which is offered first for sacrifice. Others, who prepare food
for personal sense enjoyment, verily eat only sin."
Bhagavad Gita 3:13
"One who loves Krishna will give Him whatever He wants, and he avoids
offering anything which is undesirable or unasked for. Thus, meat, fish
and eggs should not be offered to Krishna...Vegetables, grains, fruits,
milk and water are the proper foods for human beings and are prescribed
by Lord Krishna Himself. Whatever else you eat, can not be offered to Him,
since He will not accept it."
His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
"All tremble at Violence; all fear death. Putting oneself in the place
of another, one should not kill or cause another to kill."
Dhammapada 130
"He who has renounced all Violence towards all living beings, weak or
strong, who neither kills nor causes other to kill - him do I call a holy
man"
Dhammapada 405
"It is said about Lord Buddha sadaya-hrdaya darsita-pasu-ghatam. He
saw the whole human race going to hell by this animal killing. So he appeared
to teach ahimsa, nonviolence, being compassionate on the animals and human
beings. In the Christian religion also, it is clearly stated, 'Thou shall
not kill'. So everywhere animal killing is restricted. In no religion the
unnecessary killing of animals is allowed. But nobody is caring. The killing
process is increasing, and so are the reactions. Every ten years you will
find a war. These are the reactions."
His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
"We cannot separate ourselves from those whom we call the 'lower' animals.
They are lower in the scale of evolution, but they, like us, are members
of the One Family. We must not take away the life of any creature. Indeed,
we must never take away that which we cannot give. And as we cannot restore
a dead creature to life, we have no right to take away its' life."
J.P. Vaswani , Why Kill For Food?
"Therewith He causes crops to grow for you, and the olive and the date-palm
and grapes and all kinds of fruit. Lo! Herein is indeed a portent for people
who reflect."
Koran, surah 16, verse 11
"A token unto them is the dead earth. We revive it, and we bring forth
from it grain so that they will eat thereof. And we have placed therein
gardens of the date-palm and grapes, and We have placed therein. That they
may eat of the fruit thereof, and their hands created it not. Will they
not, then, give thanks?"
Koran, surah 36, verses 33-35
"Maim not the brute beasts...Whoever is kind to the lesser creatures
is kind to himself...He who takes pity (even) on a sparrow and spares its
life. Allah will be merciful on him on the day of judgement."
Prophet Mohammed
Once someone asked George Bernard Shaw how it was that he looked so youthful. "I don't," Shaw retorted. "I look my age. It is the other people who look older than they are. What can you expect from people who eat corpses?"
See more about the wise words of God, Religions, the wise HERE:
http://www.newstarget.com/007237.html
A new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows a doubling of the risk of colon cancer for people who are heavy consumers of red meat. More specifically, it shows that the risk doubles compared to those who consume smaller quantities of red meat. But how does this compare to people who consume no red meat at all?
This is conjecture, but I'm willing to bet that heavy consumers of red meat probably have quadruple the risk (or more) of colon cancer compared to vegetarians or people who consume no red meat. By the way, you don't have to be a vegetarian to boycott red meat. You can still be a consumer of other sources of animal protein (fish, seafood, etc.) while avoiding red meat.
There are plenty of health reasons to avoid eating red meat, and a higher risk of colon cancer is just one of them. The saturated animal fat found in red meat products contributes to heart disease and atherosclerosis. In addition, red meat can contain contaminants such as heavy metals, pesticides and undesirable environmental pollutants that tend to collect in the fat tissues of cows, which are absorbed into your body when you eat cow fat. And you can't eat red meat without getting some animal fat.
Then, of course, there's what I call the vibration of red meat, which concerns the homeopathy of the meat, or the environment in which the cow was raised. Was it a natural environment? Did the cow have access to open fields, sunlight and clean water? Or was this a cow raised as part of a slaughterhouse operation, produced for the sole purpose of generating profits? If you eat cows' meat that has undergone that kind of experience, you are consuming a product that is tainted with the negative experience of the animal from which it came.
There are a lot of negative effects associated with the consumption of red meat, and this is why more and more people are now giving up red meat and moving to healthier foods like fish, free-range chicken, or better yet, plant-based proteins like spirulina or soy products like soy milk and tofu. This is where you'll get your best protective effect and disease prevention, and you will be helping protect the environment at the same time. After all, it's far less stressful on the environment to produce food as plants than as animals.
It takes 10 acres to produce the same amount of red meat protein as it does to produce one acre of soy beans. And producing spirulina yields a tenfold increase over the production of soybeans. So think about it: one acre of farmland used to produce spirulina can produce 100 times as much protein as beef and red meat. That will be very important to realize as our world population grows and it becomes increasingly difficult to produce the protein required by the population.
How to make the transition away from red meat
These are all reasons to avoid an animal-based diet and pursue a plant-based
diet. Many people reading this are already following a plant-based diet,
but some of you who might be considering making the change probably aren't
sure exactly how to do it.
Perhaps you want to merely reduce your consumption of red meat but not give it up completely yet, which is fine, since that's the way all of us ex-meat-eaters got into plant-based diets to begin with. Few people ate more meat than I did because I grew up in an environment where we had all the red meat we wanted at no charge (my grandfather was a cattle rancher). We had a freezer full of red meat at all times, and we could have as much hamburger, steak or other cuts of meat as we wanted. I consumed large quantities of red meat for nearly 30 years.
I found the transition away from red meat to be difficult at first. I started consuming less of it and eating other meat alternatives, and pretty soon I began to view red meat in a different way, because if you eat less of it, you eventually start to lose your appetite for it. And within less than a year, any time I would see red meat at the grocery store, it would gross me out. I look at it and I realize what it is: a chunk of flesh sliced off the carcass of a living creature that has been ground up and stuffed into a box. Usually there's some blood running around in the container as well. Every time I would look at that I would get grossed out and think to myself, "Gee, is this really what I want to eat for the rest of my life? This sliced up chunk of a dead cow?" And the answer was, "No." So it didn't take very long before I didn't want any red meat, and now I can't imagine eating it.
Read full article here
http://www.newstarget.com/007237.html
By: Steve Connor
When an engine is about to blow, you'll get some kind of warning. When a system is straining against itself, on the verge of collapse, pushed too far, cracks will start to show.
And so it is with our planet. New afflictions arrive to dwarf the old ones, and we discover that instead of everlasting life and happiness, our technological advances seem merely to have brought us cancers, contaminants and heart disease. Transformed from elaborate ecosystems into shadowy husks our oceans and forests have been laid waste as we bravely exploit where no 'man' has exploited before. We ditch our waste into the rivers and then wonder why we have to shell out on water filters. We blow some holes in the sky and seem surprised that we need sunblock, year-round.
Some of the damage cannot be undone. The extinction of 50 different species of plants and animals a day in a tropical rainforest is pretty much irrevocable, but changes can be made now to ensure that the future is sustainable. This article is about what you can do.
A fair amount of environmental destruction can be linked to the way we pattern our lives. From car use to energy consumption there are ways of living which place more or less of a burden on this poor old planet of ours.
A vegetarian diet is well known for its health benefits. Radically lower heart disease and cancer levels have been discovered in vegetarians, and 95 per cent of food poisoning cases occur in animal foods. Studies have shown that cutting back on the meat in your diet can cut premature mortality by up to 20 per cent and that a vegetarian diet can fight osteoporosis and diabetes. The fact that a vegetarian diet may be a safer bet for our environmental future may, however, have escaped you until now.
The livestock industry is one of the biggest. In the UK alone we have 12 million cows, 44 million sheep and 7.4 million pigs. In battery cages and broiler sheds we also have several hundred million chickens and turkeys. 77 per cent of our land is used for agriculture, of which up to 85 per cent is used to produce meat. Where we don't graze livestock, we grow crops to feed to livestock. Agriculture is big business and yet this land-hungry industry contributes only 1.5 per cent of our gross domestic product.
These huge crowds of animals do more than occupy the land - they pollute it too. Manure, slurry and sewage sludge, full of the heavy metals added to feed, is spread upon the land every day. In the Netherlands they have found themselves with too much shit for too little land, and have declared the country a 'manure surplus region'. The muck they can spread gives off ammonia - a major cause of acid rain - while the remainder is shipped off and dumped on the developing world. Here in the UK things are almost as bad. The accumulation of heavy metals in the soil is reaching serious proportions, and every year between 2,000 and 4,000 serious water pollution incidents can be linked directly to industrial farming.
The unwitting farm animals pollute the air too. Muck spreading and slurry storage cause a good deal of discomfort for those caught 'down wind' from Old MacDonald's factory farm. Over 3,500 complaints are received every year about 'farm smells'.
After carbon dioxide, methane is the second most common greenhouse gas, and increasing levels of this gas in the atmosphere are worrying experts as it has 11 times the global warming capacity of carbon dioxide. Cows belch and burp and incredible 60 litres of methane every day, and when added to the flatulent excesses of other farm animals, they represent the single largest source of methane in the UK, belching and farting a massive 26 per cent of all emissions.
Meat production is a smelly, polluting business, but it doesn't end there. More land needed for more cattle means the continued destruction of otherwise valuable wildlife habitats. Though we've long since lost most of our forest here in Britain, we still have our hedgerows, yet over 52,000km of hedgerow have been lost since 1984 through agricultural expansion. Beyond our shores, an area of tropical rainforest the size of England is destroyed every year, in regions like South America the majority is cleared for cattle ranching, even though the soil is virtually useless once the forests have gone. For the four or five short years that the soil will sustain pasture, the ranchers will only manage to stock their range with one head of cattle per hectare.
The meat or fish on our plates is doing more than just damaging our land and forests. With nets large enough to capture 12 Boeing 747 jets and radar planes to track shoals of fish, huge factory trawlers are decimating the last few remaining stocks of fish. Of the world's 22 major fisheries all but two have reached their limits and 7 are in serious decline. In the North Sea we take out half of all the fish stocks every year, dragging thousands of dolphins, whales and sea birds with them.
In our rivers and estuaries, fish producers have adopted the techniques of the factory farm, and are caging tens of thousands of salmon and trout in hideously cramped conditions. Packed in together, the fish are an ideal breeding ground for disease and so pesticides and antibiotics have to be added to the water, some of which have been linked to cancer in humans.
These large, static fish populations have more than just cages in common with the factory farm. Pollution from sewage is just as worrying on fish farms, a single ton of trout can create a pollution load equivalent to the untreated sewage of 100-200 people.
There is, of course, an alternative. A vegetarian diet is not just better for you and the 900 animals you would normally eat during the course of your lifetime. Vegetarians can exist on around 30 per cent of the agricultural land used to produce meat. Feeding perfectly good crops to animals is an inefficient and short sighted way of producing protein - 10kg of vegetable protein to produce just one kg of meat! Using less land, more sensibly could mean fewer pesticides and fertilisers and more land available for wildlife. The developing world could stop shipping us valuable grain for our livestock, and wouldn't have to deal with the shit they produce.
A vegetarian diet will cut out the antibiotics, growth promoters and
chemicals found in meat, and would go a long way to reducing the pollutants
in our drinking water. You'll be healthier almost immediately, and you'll
be making sure that your little piece of the planet stretches just that
little bit further.
Discover the facts the meat industry would like to hide.
"An alien observing earth might conclude that cattle is the dominant
animal species in our biosphere."
-David Hamilton Wright, Biologist
Water pollution and global warming, rainforest destruction and collapsing oceans, these are just some of the environmental perils which threaten our children and which rip through the raw beauty of the natural world. Read on, and you will discover that meat carries much of the blame. Our Devour the Earth campaign will feed you the facts the meat industry has tried to hide. It will expose the damage and the suffering which can be linked to livestock farming, it will offer you a healthy sustainable vegetarian alternative.
It takes 10 kilos of vegetable protein to produce just 1 kilo of meat - the most wasteful form of food production ever devised. As 38 per cent of the world's grain is fed to animals, 15 million children die of hunger every year in the developing world. Many of the reasons for this hunger are political but to waste valuable land to feed animals and not people has to be madness.
As the animals eat, nature takes its course and as a result, billions of tons of slurry and gas are produced. Two hundred times more polluting than human waste, slurry is responsible for several thousand serious water pollution incidents in the UK every year. The Netherlands has so many slurry-producing animals that they have been declared a 'manure surplus region' and have actually started shipping their waste to the developing world for disposal. In this crazy system, the poor feed our animals with their grain and then have to dispose of the faeces as we eat the meat.
Ruminant livestock like sheep and cows also damage the atmosphere. Their flatulence results in the release of 80 million tons of methane every year. In the UK the single largest source of this powerful global warming gas is livestock.
Clearing forests for cattle also adds to the greenhouse effect. In Latin America, an area of rainforests the size of Britain is destroyed every year, mostly for cattle. As the ranchers slash and burn the trees they release huge amounts of carbon dioxide - some of their smoke cloude have been visible from space! Since 1970, the cattlemen have destroyed 20 million hectares of rainforest and produced 1.4 billion tons of carbon dioxide. Every day 50 species of tropical fauna or flora become extinct as the destruction continues.
Our terror has spread to the oceans, where huge trawlers smash through the oceans' eco-systems. Overfishing has sent nine of the world's 17 fisheries into collapse as the other fisheries strain under the relentless onslaught of a fishing industry which doesn't even pay its way - the world spends US$124 billion every year to catch just US$70 billion of fish.
It doesn't have to be this way.
The land is saturated with pesticides and fertilisers to produce feed for animals, not people, and yet a country like Britain would use just 30 per cent of its agricultural land if we were all vegetarian. By becoming vegetarian, you can join millions of others who have had enough of the pollution, the cruelty and the destruction. Vegetarian food is healthier, safer and less costly to our small, blue world. It is also much kinder to animals.
Becoming a vegetarian and supporting the work of organizations such as The Vegetarian Society could make a real difference for the environment - you have the choice.
"Devour the Earth" is a video narrated by Paul McCartney. It can be
ordered from The Vegetarian Society.
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/veg/Orgs/VegSocUK/
Source: The Vegetarian Society of the UK
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/veg/Orgs/VegSocUK/
To mark World Vegetarian Day this year the Sanitarium
Nutrition Education Service researched* New Zealanders' attitudes to vegetarian
meals and our non-meat eating habits. Some of the results are highlighted
below:
Compared to 5 years ago about a quarter of New Zealanders (25%) eat
more meals without meat (red meat, poultry and fish), and just over half
(55%) are eating the same amount.
Around a quarter (25%) of New Zealanders eat meals both with and without
meat on an equal basis.
It appears that singles like their meatless meals, as a quarter of
this group often or only ever eat meals without meat (compared to the 17%
population average)
The myth that vegetarian food is boring was refuted by New Zealand
consumers, 46% said they totally disagree with this statement.
Around 1/5th of New Zealanders expressed a preference for eating meals
without meat (21%); with females more likely to express a preference for
meatless meals (this includes those who currently include meat in their
diet)
Nearly 50% of meat-eating New Zealanders had between one and three
meals which excluded red meat, poultry or fish in the last seven days (before
the survey)
Amongst those who eat meat, 15% actually prefer meals without red meat,
poultry or fish. A further 7% of meat eaters also prefer meatless meals,
but do include poultry and/or fish in their diet.
Top New Zealand chefs agree that the demand for vegetarian dishes has
quadrupled over the last five years.
This trend is confirmed by research undertaken by ACNielsen* which
indicates that, compared to five years ago, over a quarter of New Zealanders
(26%) aged 15 years and over eat more meals without meat.
Head Chef at MJs in Auckland, Michael James, has seen a marked increase
in the number of vegetarian meal requests.
"Over the last five years vegetarian requests have tripled and to match
that we have increased the vegetarian options available on our menu", he
says. "I think people are choosing vegetables over meat as they see the
vegetarian option as a health conscious move."
Chefs throughout the country were questioned regarding their changing
menus, including Michael James of MJs in Auckland, Adrian Woodhouse of
Braisserie Flip in Wellington, Jason Robinson of Annies Wine Bar in Christchurch
and Michael Coughlin of Bell Pepper Blue Restaurant in Dunedin.
The research also indicated that 17% of the 15 years plus population
often eats, or only ever eats meals without meat. Of those surveyed, 46%
stated that meals without meat are not boring.
Kim Stirling, Sanitarium's Nutrition Education Service Manager, says
that this research suggests New Zealanders are becoming more conscious
of their health and well being. "There is plenty of evidence that eating
more plant food can offer significant health benefits," she says.
A balanced, healthy diet based on a variety of plant foods such as
whole grains, nuts and seeds, fruits and vegetables and legumes is important
for everyone following a vegetarian diet.
*Research was conducted by ACNeilsen between September 5 and 11, 2001
Vijay Ashar <bhakta711@yahoo.com> wrote: Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2006
16:16:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: Vijay Ashar <bhakta711@yahoo.com>
Rejoice fellow vegetarian Brothers and Sisters for being smarter,
more empathetic and more foresighted than your carnivore brothers. If any
of you are part of any group with a common purpose, please circulate
this revelation amongst your friends. It is also important to remember
the express msg of Bhagavad Gita (Chap. 17) how the type of food (aahaara)
we eat determines the three-fold qualities of our mind (Sattwa, Rajas and
Tamas).
vijay
========================================================
Food for Thought on Whether Human Beings Should
be Carnivores
http://www.washingtonpost.com
WASHINGTON, May 28, 2006: Writer William Saleton has given readers food
for thought on the practice of eating meat. He mentioned the ability of
a person to munch away on a burger and then pet the household dog. Psychiatrists
call this behavior "cognitive dissonance." Saleton questions whether we
really have the right to ignore the habit of eating meat in view of all
the evidence that shows animals may be our fellow creatures. He explains,
"The case for eating meat is like the case for other traditions: It's natural,
it's necessary, and there's nothing wrong with it. But sometimes, we're
mistaken. We used to think we were the only creatures that could manipulate
grammar, make sophisticated plans or recognize names out of context. In
the past month, we've discovered the same skills in birds and dolphins.
In recent years, we've learned that crows fashion leaves and metal into
tools. Pigeons deceive each other. Rats run mazes in their dreams. Dolphins
teach their young to use
sponges as protection. Chimps can pick locks. Parrots can work
with numbers. Dogs can learn words from context. We thought animals weren't
smart enough to deserve protection. It turns out we weren't smart enough
to realize they do."
Scientists seem to agree that at one time meat was necessary in the diet for human beings to survive but that was thousands of years ago. Now we know that we can get all the nutrition we need to sustain a healthy body from a vegetarian diet. So Saleton questions why we keep eating meat. He adds, "If we were just beasts, that would end the discussion. But we're not. Evolution didn't stop with our lusts; it started there. Food gave us brainpower. Technology lifted us above survival and gave us time to think. We began to understand the operation of living things, even ourselves. We saw what we were, and we saw what we could be. That's the paradox of humanity: Our aspirations transcend our nature, but they have to respect it. To become what we must become, we have to work with what we are."
In the very same way present society now condemns animal sacrifice, human sacrifice, slavery and the subjugation of women. Saleton points out that at one time this was the norm and that 300 years from now, when our descendants look back at slaughterhouses the way we look back at slavery, they won't remember the benefits to us but they'll want to know whether we saw the moral calling of our age.
Contact:
Michael McGraw 757-622-7382
Norfolk, Va. ” Some beauty-pageant winners use their position to promote world peace, but Miss Black USA Elizabeth Muto is promoting whirled peas‚”and carrots, and tofu‚”as part of her pro-vegetarian platform. To make sure that her PETA platform is clear at all the promotional appearances that she'll be making, Muto posed in a bikini made of lettuce for photos that she'll sign, "Turn over a new leaf‚”try vegetarian."
Why does Muto want people to eat their veggies? The standard American
diet of meat, dairy products, and eggs‚”all of which are packed with cholesterol
and saturated fat‚”has Americans packing on the pounds and clogging up
their arteries at an alarming rate. High-fat meat-based diets are causing
alarming increases in many diseases, including diabetes, hypertension,
heart disease, and cancer, among
African-American women, and cardiovascular disease ranks as the number-one
killer of African-Americans.
Animals are also casualties of a meat-based diet. The billions of animals raised every year on factory farms suffer from crowded, filthy housing and painful debeaking, dehorning, branding, and castration‚”all without anesthetics‚”and are beaten and prodded to their deaths at slaughterhouses.
"America's meat addiction is responsible for immense animal suffering as well as poor human health," says Muto. "It's time for people to lighten up on animals and lighten themselves up, too."
Muto, an ethical vegetarian, is following in the footsteps of Pamela
Anderson, who traded in her trademark red Baywatch swimsuit for a green
lettuce-leaf bikini in a 34-foot-tall PETA billboard that debuted in Times
Square last spring.(spring 2002)
USA, Aug 23 (VNN) - A couple of years ago, Indian Airlines, the domestic air-carrier of India had issued instructions to its suppliers to supply sweet without silverfoil called VARAKH. Do you know why?
Silver is widely used for various purposes in the market today. Silver is considered precious and its utility is enormous. The reason behind this is that silver reflects back 95% of the light energy that falls on it. The silver foils used for edible purposes is called VARAKH So what's so special about VARAKH?
This is what I would like to bring to your notice.
If you keenly observe this VARAKH under a microscope don't be perturbed
if you happen to see traces of blood, stools and saliva of a cattle or
ox.
VARAKH is a silver foil and we have no second questions on this, but
to prepare this VARAKH important parts of the CATTLE/OX is made use of.
Intestines of Cattle/OX are obtained from the slaughterhouse. This
is obtained after butchering to death the cattle/ox for beef and the part,
which cannot be consumed: the intestines are pulled out of the animal and
handed over to the manufacturers of VARAKH. Before handing over the intestines,
they are washed in the slaughterhouse to get rid of the blood and other
remains on these intestines in the limited facility that is present in
the slaughterhouse. We are not sure how neatly this job is carried out.
Intestines are cut into small pieces and then are bound together as pages
in a notebook.
A silver block is placed in the middle of these bound intestines, and the whole thing is placed in a leather bag and sealed. Experts, who know how to make VARAKH, pound the bag with wooden sticks, till the entire bag flattens out. The silver block would by this time be turned into silver foil. This Silver foil would now be separated from the intestine pack and will be placed on paper.
This is VARAKH, which reaches the market ready for use. Even staunch
vegetarians, who shy away from egg, unknowingly consume this as a part
of sweet, pan and arecanut. Some unknowingly consume this because of the
additional taste that VARAKH provides.
Now the question is "Why the intestines of the cattle/ox? Why not something
else?" The reason behind using the intestines of the cattle/ox for preparing
the VARAKH is because of the elasticity of the intestines.
They do not get cut even after a severe pounding.
This aspect is brought out in the magazine "Beauty without cruelty" and the Television show of Maneka Gandhi, "Heads and Tails". In India, on an average an estimate indicates that 2,75,000 kilos of "VARAKH" is consumed. Can you estimate how many cattle/ox are sacrificed for just a bit of taste?
If you are surprised as I am, after reading this article please inform as many as possible so as to ensure that we unknowingly don't consume beef.
Regards
Mahesh Heda
kindly send in by Indu Prasad
ABC News
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS, April 19, 2006: Your personal impact on global warming may be influenced as much by what you eat as by what you drive. That conclusion comes from a couple of scientists who have taken an unusual look at the production of greenhouse gases from an angle that not many people have thought about. Gidon Eshel and Pamela Martin, assistant professors of geophysics at the University of Chicago, and both vegetarians, have found that our consumption of red meat may be as bad for the planet as it is for our bodies. If you want to help lower greenhouse gas emissions, they conclude in a report to be published in the journal Earth Interactions, become a vegetarian. Eshel and Martin collected data from a wide range of sources, and they examined the amount of fossil-fuel energy--and thus the level of production of greenhouse gasses--required for five different diets. The vegetarian diet turned out to be the most energy efficient, followed by poultry, and what they call the "mean American diet," which consists of a little bit of everything. In terms of energy required for harvesting and processing, fish and red meat ended up in a tie for last place, but that's just in terms of energy consumed. When you add in all the those other factors, such as bovine flatulence and gas released by manure, red meat comes in dead last. Fish remains in fourth place, some distance behind poultry and the mean American diet, chiefly because the type of fish preferred by Americans requires a lot of energy to catch.
courtesy of Hinduism Today http://www.hinduismtoday.com
USA, March 9, 2006: Pardip Kumar of Malaysia sent us the following material which comes from the Kellog's website at "source." The information reveals that several of the popular snack products that appear to be vegetarian are actually not.
Gelatin is used to help the texture of the product and is derived from either beef or pork. Kellogg's(R) Frosted Mini-Wheats(R) and Kellogg's(R) Rice Krispies Treats(R) cereals contain type B gelatin, which is derived from beef.
Whenever marshmallow ingredients are present in a Kellogg's(R)cereal brand, the marshmallow contains type A gelatin, which is derived from pork. Kellogg's(R) Krave(TM) Snack Bars also contain type A gelatin derived from pork sources.
Type B gelatin is derived from beef sources and is found in the frosting of all varieties of Kellogg's(R) Frosted Pop-Tarts(R), Kellogg's(R) Frosted Pop-Tarts(R) Snak-Stix(TM), all varieties of Kellogg's(R) Pop-Tarts(R)Pastry Swirls, and Kellogg's(R) Nutri-Grain(R) Minis with Yogurt Icing.
Plain (unfrosted) Kellogg's(R) Pop-Tarts(R) do not contain gelatin. None of the equipment that comes in contact with the gelatin in Kellogg's(R)Frosted Pop-Tarts(R) is used in the production of the other pastries.
Kellogg's(R) Rice Krispies Treats(R) Squares contain type A gelatin in the marshmallow, which is derived from pork sources.
http://www.kelloggnutrition.com/FAQ.html#AL6
courtesy of Hinduism Today http://www.hinduismtoday.com
Further Details Explained:
ubject: [vkcrafts] Gelatin (pork / beef) In Kellogg's products
-----Original Message-----
From: Vasudeva SRS [mailto:Vasudeva.SRS@pamho.net]
Sent: Thursday, March 23, 2006 3:17 PM
To: (NA) TP Forum
Subject: Do you eat Kellogs....?
I received this info from the UK,perhaps Kellogs is using the same
ingredients over here. Ys Vd
From: Rita Vadera
Sent: 23 March 2006 09:25
To: Viri Patel; Mina Vadera; Ian Holding; Sunil Ghelani; Kish Patel;
Sam
Subject: Do you eat Kellogs....?
Subject: Gelatin (pork / beef) In Kellogg's products
Thank you for contacting Kellogg Company about the gelatin we add to some of our products. We are happy to provide you with this information. Gelatin is used to help the texture of the product and is derived from either beef or pork.
Kellogg's(R) Frosted Mini-Wheats(R) and Kellogg's(R) Rice Krispies Treats(R) cereals contain type B gelatin, which is derived from beef. Whenever marshmallow ingredients are present in a Kellogg's(R) cereal brand, the marshmallow contains type A gelatin, which is derived from pork.
Kellogg's(R) Krave(TM) Snack Bars also contain type A gelatin derived from pork sources. Type B gelatin is derived from beef sources and is found in the frosting of all varieties of Kellogg's(R) Frosted Pop-Tarts(R), Kellogg's(R) Frosted
Pop-Tarts(R) Snak-Stix(TM), all varieties of Kellogg's(R) Pop-Tarts(R)
Pastry Swirls, and Kellogg's(R) Nutri-Grain(R) Minis with Yogurt Icing.
Plain (unfrosted) Kellogg's(R) Pop-Tarts(R) do not contain gelatin.
None of the equipment that comes in contact with the gelatin in Kellogg's(R)
Frosted Pop-Tarts(R) is used in the production of the other pastries.
Kellogg's(R) Rice Krispies Treats(R) Squares contain type A gelatin in the marshmallow, which is derived from pork sources.
The pregelatinized wheat starch contained in some of our toaster pastries is derived from wheat and does not contain any gelatin. Vegetable shortening only is used to produce plain or frosted Kellogg's(R) Pop-Tarts(R). No animal shortening is used.
We appreciate your patronage of our products and hope that this provides you with the information you need to make food choices appropriate for your family.
Sincerely,
Ana Lara Consumer Affairs Department
HR in the NHS 25 to 27 April 2006, Birmingham
Monday December 26, 2005 - 08.11.05 1.00pm
By Kent Atkinson
Eating hamburgers more than once a week nearly doubles the risk of asthma attacks and wheezing in children, according to research carried out on 1300 New Zealand school pupils.
Other takeaway food and fizzy drinks also increase the chances of getting asthma, doctors found.
Youngsters who eat at least one hamburger a week are 75 per cent more likely to have asthma and almost 100 per cent more likely to suffer wheezing problems, according a study published yesterday in the international scientific journal Allergy.
The investigation of the extent to which fast foods are a risk factor for asthma was led by Dr Kristen Wickens of the Wellington Asthma Research Group, based at the Wellington Medical School.
The group -- investigating the role played by lifestyle changes over the past 30 years in a large increase in allergic disease -- linked the consumption of fast food to the prevalence of asthma and allergy.
They used 1321 children in Hastings, aged between 10 and 12 years, and recorded their diet, as well as checking asthma and asthma symptoms as part of an international study of asthma and allergies in childhood known as ISAAC.
After adjusting for lifestyle factors, including other foods and how fat the children were in comparison with children who never ate hamburgers, they found frequent consumption of hamburgers was linked to asthma symptoms.
The higher the consumption of hamburgers, the higher the incidence of asthma.
Dr Wickens said diets containing junk foods which are high in salt could be contributing to the problem.
"The high salt content in hamburgers may increase the risk of wheezy illness," she said.
Asthma is worst in developed countries, which tend to have about 6 per cent of their population affected. New Zealand has the highest incidence in developed countries at 20 per cent.
A greater proportion of teenagers in New Zealand than in other countries suffer from asthmatic symptoms, such as wheezing, breathlessness and tight-chestedness.
Some theories have blamed Western diets, higher standard of living, falling levels of exercise rates, and increased dustmites and pollution.
But Tokyo, with higher pollution than Wellington has only one fifth of the asthma incidence, while the Scottish island of Skye has the highest incidence of asthma in Britain and almost no pollution.
by Dwarakadhisa-devi Dasi:
Consider for one moment the plight of the carnivorous beast. Skulking about the forest brush, sniffing and listening with intense concentration, hunger gnawing at his belly and burning his eyes, he searches for prey. His meditation is single-pointed in hopes of a kill. But, his task is difficult: to find his prey inattentive and unwary. He must be ready - for whenever the opportunity comes- and his attack must be swift, fearless and lethal. And at last it does come - the kill: the fearful eyes of the victim, the screams of pain and terror, and the stench of fresh blood. For us this would certainly be a repulsive task simply for the business of eating. And this sort of act - this barbarity, this furtive slaughter - marks the difference between civilized and bestial existence.
For animals, however, this gross violence is acceptable, without any consideration of right or wrong. The anguish and suffering of hepless prey is hardly the concern of predators in the animal kingdom. And, of course, the killer incurs no sin. For us human beings, however, even to witness such brutal killing is painful, because we are endowed with the quality of compassion. If necessity suddenly forced us to prowl the jungle for creatures to leap on, kill, and devour, most of us would starve. Our bodies, when pitted against the prowess of the animal kingdom, are frail. Our intelligence facilitates devising other means of nourishment, and our philosophical vision and capacity for empathy lead us to regard the feelings of others.
Nevertheless, so-called civilized society promotes the slaughter of animals as a necessary element of modern living. We may not have to see the brutality behind those neatly wrapped and ordered packages of red meat displayed under lights in our local supermarkets, but the savage slaughter was there, just as surely as it was in the jungle. Although our modern approach to getting food may appear civilized, in essence, it is inhuman. Thanks to our superior intelligence, our approach is more sophisticated and controlled, and we feel sufficiently removed from the ghastly carnage by the intervention of industry and commerce. Most of us will never see the throngs of cows herded into the slaughterhouse, or hear their pitiful cries, or witness their anguish.
Indeed, what we often see of the meatpacking industry is cartoons of smiling cows, chickens, and pigs dancing across the TV screen, inviting us to relish their tasty flesh. Our language buffers us from suspicions about the origin of our prized sirloin steak, as we regularly eye slabs of rotting carcasses and refer to them as "cuts of meat", or "tender, aged beef". Mothers encourage their little one to eat their hotdogs, which are stuffed with toxins and intestinal wastes, and smiling waitresses serve hamburger patties comprised of the most repulsive organs of the cow and often containing such substances as earthworms and decayed rodents. Yet, most of us are convinced that our daily quota of meat is not only safe, but necessary for our nutritional well-being, a conviction we maintain even when confronted with the most gruesome details of animal slaughter and meat-eating.
Recent investigations into the practices of a meatpacking plant in the western USA provide a strong challenge to such false security regarding the sanctity or red-blooded American diet. Its owner is now facing charges for alleged discrepancies in the cleanliness and purity standards at his plant. The company was a big supplier of meat to the US Defense Department, fast-food restaurants, and local supermarkets. Larry Andrews, a former employee, testifies: " He told us not to throw away anything, to use every bit and piece, even the blood clots." The company was accused of regularly bringing in already dead animals and even animals known to be diseased to mix in with the ground meat products. In defense, the lawyers acknowledged: " Yes, these things happened - like they do at every other plant in the USA."
Certainly, these statements suggest a nasty business full of cheating at the expense of the customer, and you may find yourself viewing your next hamburger with a new wariness. But, even without these horrid details, if we think about it objectively, where is the consideration of any real cleanliness or purity when dealing with carcasses? The meat that people are purchasing for their family's dinners is nothing more glorious than contaminated slices of flesh, slashed from animals ruthlessly killed after their brief, miserable, diseased-ridden existence, which ended in violence and terror. To ignore the suffering of the animal from whose very body your steak or cutlet has been obtained, and to romanticize the business of animal slaughter as healthy, sanitary, and necessary, is a kind of madness. What you're getting is simply a package of decaying flesh, toxins, and wastes, and in exchange, you implicate yourself in the most horrible kind of violence imaginable.
Human beings possess a higher intelligence, and a finer sensitivity that allows for moral judgments. To witness the death of an animal such as a cow, therefore, would be painful for us. That's our natural, human compassion. And yet we eat the flesh of the cow without any qualms of conscience. The heinous act of slaughter may be out of sight and out of mind, but, by eating the flesh, we become implicated in sin.
According to the strict laws of karma, every human being is responsible for his actions. These actions create reactions, which propel each of us into particular circumstances of happiness or distress. In the case of animal slaughter, a grievously sinful act for one with human discretionary resources, the reaction is that the offender is forced to accept an animal body in his next birth, and to suffer the same horrible life and death.
Our meat eating isn't as bloody as that of the animal hunting in the forest, but in light of our superior understanding suffering and death, it's far more horrible. We don't need to eat the flesh of animals to survive, and to remove this violence from our lives would create immediate improvements in consciousness. Being vegetarian may not be the perfection of human life, but it is one of the first steps on the path of perfection.
A vegetarian diet has been advocated by everyone from philosophers, such as Plato and Nietzsche, to statesmen, such as Benjamin Franklin, to modern pop icons such as Paul McCartney and Bob Marley. Science is also on the side of vegetarian foods. A multitude of studies have proven the health benefits of a vegetarian diet to be remarkable.
"Vegetarian" is defined as avoiding all animal flesh, including fish and poultry. Vegetarians who avoid flesh, but do eat animal products such as cheese, milk, and eggs are ovo-lacto-vegetarians (ovo = egg; lacto = milk, cheese, etc.). The ranks of those who eschew all animal products are rapidly growing; these people are referred to as pure vegetarians or vegans (vee' guns). Scientific research shows that ovo-lacto-vegetarians are healthier than meat-eaters,and vegans are healthier than ovo-lacto- vegetarians.
Preventing Cancer
A vegetarian diet helps to prevent cancer. Numerous epidemiological and clinical studies have shown that vegetarians are nearly fifty percent less likely to die from cancer than non-vegetarians.1 Similarly, breast cancer rates are dramatically lower in nations, such as China, that follow plant- based diets. Interestingly, Japanese women who follow Western-style, meat- based diets are eight times more likely to develop breast cancer than women who follow a more traditional plant-based diet.2 Vegetarians also have lower rates of colon cancer than meat-eaters.3 Animal products are usually high in fat and always devoid of fiber. Meat and dairy products contribute to many forms of cancer, including cancer of the colon, breast, prostate, and other organs. Colon cancer has been directly linked to meat consumption. High-fat diets also encourage the body's production of estrogens, in particular, estradiol. Increased levels of this sex hormone have been linked to breast cancer. One recent study linked dairy products to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. The process of breaking down the lactose (milk sugar) into galactose evidently damages the ovaries.4
Vegetarians avoid the animal fat that is linked to cancer and get abundant fiber and vitamins that help to prevent cancer. In addition, blood analysis of vegetarians reveals a higher level of Natural Killer Cells, specialized white blood cells that attack cancer cells.5
Beating Heart Disease
Vegetarian diets also help prevent heart disease.Animal products are the main source of saturated fat and the only source of cholesterol in the diet. Vegetarians avoid these risky products. Additionally, fiber helps reduce cholesterol levels6, and animal products contain no fiber. One study even demonstrated that a low-fat, high-fiber, plant-based diet combined with stress reduction techniques, smoking cessation, and exercise could actually reverse atherosclerosis~hardening of the arteries.7 Heart diets that include animal products are much less effective, usually only slowing the process of atherosclerosis.
Lowering Blood Pressure
Back in the early 1900's, nutritionists noted that people who ate no meat had lower blood pressure.8 It was also discovered that vegetarian diets could, within two weeks, significantly reduce a person's blood pressure.9 These results were evident regardless of the sodium levels in the vegetarian diets.
Preventing and Reversing Diabetes
Non-insulin-dependent (adult-onset) diabetes can be better controlled and sometimes even eliminated through a low-fat, vegetarian diet along with regular exercise. Because such a diet is low in fat and high in fiber and complex carbohydrates, it allows insulin to work more effectively. The diabetic person can more easily regulate glucose levels. While a vegetarian diet cannot eliminate the need for insulin in people with insulin-dependent (childhood-onset) diabetes, it can often reduce the amounts of insulin used. Some scientists believe that insulin dependent diabetes may be caused by an auto-immune reaction to dairy proteins.
Gallstones, Kidney Stones, and Osteoporosis
Vegetarian diets have been shown to reduce one's chances of forming kidney stones and gallstones. Diets that are high in protein, especially animal protein, tend to cause the body to excrete more calcium, oxalate, and uric acid. These three substances are the main components of urinary tract stones. British researchers have advised that persons with a tendency to form kidney stones should follow a vegetarian diet.10 Similarly, high-cholesterol, high-fat diets~the typical meat-based diet~are implicated in the formation of gallstones.
For many of the same reasons, vegetarians are at a lower risk for osteoporosis. Since animal products force calcium out of the body, eating meat can promote bone loss. In nations with mainly vegetable diets (and without dairy product consumption), osteoporosis is less common than in the U.S.~even when calcium intake is also less than in the U.S.11
Asthma
A 1985 Swedish study demonstrated that asthmatics who practice a vegan diet for a full year have a marked decrease in their need for medications, and in their frequency and severity of asthma attacks.
Twenty-two of the twenty-four subjects reported improvement by the end of the year.12 Dairy allergies may be part of the reason.
Further Reading
For more information on vegetarian diets, PCRM recommends:
The Power of Your Plate, by Neal Barnard, MD The McDougall Plan, by John McDougall, MD Dr. Dean Ornish's Program for Reversing Heart Disease, by Dean Ornish, MD.
References:
1. Phillips RL. Role of lifestyle and dietary habits in risk of cancer among Seventh-Day Adventists. Cancer Res (Supple) 1975;35:3513-22.
2. Trichhopoulos D, Yen S, et al. The effect of Westernization on urine estrogens, frequency of ovulation, and breast cancer risks: a study in ethnic Chinese women in the Orient and in the U.S.A. Cancer 1984;53:187-92.
3. Phillips RL, 1975.
4. Cramer DW, Willett WC, et al. Galactose consumption and metabolism in relation to the risk of ovarian cancer. The Lancet 1989;2:66-71.
5. Malter M, Schriever G, Eilber U. Natural killer cells, vitamins, and other blood components of vegetarian and omnivorous men. Nutrition and Cancer 1989;12:271-278.
6. Sacks FM, et al. Plasma lipids and lipoproteins in vegetarians and controls. New Engl J Med 1975;292:1148-52.
7. Ornish D, Brown SE, et al. Can lifestyle changes reverse coronary heart disease? The Lancet 1990;336:129-33.
8. Salie F. Influence of vegetarian food on blood pressure. Med Klin 1930;26:929-931.
9. Donaldson AN. The relation of protein foods to hypertension. Calif West Med 1926;24:328-331.
10. Robertson WG, Peacock M, et al. Should recurrent calcium oxalate stone formers become vegetarians? British J Urology 1979;51:427-431.
11. Hegsted DM. Calcium and osteoporosis. J Nutr 1986;116:2316-2319.
12. Lindahl O, Lindwall L, et al. Vegan regimen with reduced medication in the treatment of bronchial asthma. J Asthma 1985;22:45-55.
13. Hergenrather J, Hlady G, et al. Pollutants in breast milk of vegetarians (letter). New Engl J Med 1981;304:792.
14. Allergies in infants are linked to mother's diets. New York Times, 30 August 1990.
Visit the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine for excellent food recommendations: http://www.pcrm.org
kindly sent in by Venkata RAghavan
Posted Friday, June 23rd, 2006 at 11:32 AM under Commentary
From a recent news story:
PEOPLE who eat chicken, minced beef, pork chops and lettuce may develop an immunity to the drugs used to treat potentially fatal conditions such as meningitis and pneumonia.
Seven years after a landmark report by the Joint Expert Technical Advisory Committee on Antibiotic Resistance warned of drug immunity being passed through the food chain from animals to humans, an investigation is to be launched to measure the risk to consumers.
Scientists have long warned that the overuse of antibiotics, such as growth promoters in chicken, cattle and pigs, can breed drug-resistant bugs that may impede antibiotic treatments of diseases in humans.
The inquiry, due to be completed next May, will estimate the amount of antibiotic-resistant bacteria existing in food. Chicken, minced beef, pork-shoulder chops and iceberg lettuce heads will be the initial focus of the study, after overseas research identified them as containing common antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Canberra Hospital Infectious Diseases Unit director Peter Collignon welcomed the research, saying people had the right to know what they were eating.
“This is an issue and we need this data,” Professor Collignon said. “It is beyond doubt that whenever you use antibiotics, you get resistance. But the animal industry seems to be denying this is happening.
“In Australia we use 250,000kg of antibiotics in people every year. In animals we use 500,000kg…
(source: news.com.au)
Guys - this is why we don’t use iceberg lettuce at Atma Yoga.
With profit-driven farming, farmers are forced to maximize their profit in order to stay competitive. If they don’t use growth hormones to boost the production of meat they will be driven out of business. Using growth hormones accelerates the metabolism of the animal. The stress of accelerated metabolism combined with the conditions of factory farms make animals more susceptible to disease. In order to counteract this animals are routinely given massive amounts of antibiotics.
People then eat the bodies of these animals and in this way ingest large amounts of antibiotics and potentially antibiotic resistant bacteria.
This is what happens when you have meat eating and a profit driven economy.
The solution to this is a simple principle at a fundamental level - stop eating meat.
Swallowing a spider to catch the fly, and a bird to catch the spider,
and then a cat to catch the bird, is not the right way to address these
complex issues. Don’t swallow the fly in the first place!
UNITED STATES, June 25, 2006: This month Whole Foods announced that it would no longer sell live lobsters, saying that keeping them in crammed tanks for long periods doesn't demonstrate a proper concern for animal welfare. The Chicago City Council recently outlawed the sale of foie gras to protest the force-feeding of the ducks and geese that yield it. California passed a similar law, which doesn't take effect until 2012, and other states and cities are considering such measures. All of these developments dovetail with a heightened awareness in these food-obsessed times of what we eat: where it came from, what it was fed, how it was penned, and how it perished, says this insightful and informative article. If the success of best sellers like "Fast Food Nation" and "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and stores like Whole Foods is any indication, more Americans are spending more time mulling the nutritional, environmental and ethical implications of their diets. They prefer that their beef carry the tag "grass fed," which evokes a verdant pasture rather than a squalid feed lot, and that their poultry knew the glories of a "free range."
But the concerns are riddled with intellectual inconsistencies and prompt infinite questions. Are the calls for fundamental changes in the mass production of food simply elitist, the privilege of people wealthy enough to pay more at the checkout counter? Does fretting about ducks give people a pass on chicken? "Foie gras and lobster are not at the heart of the real tough issues of animal welfare, which are feed lots and pigs and cattle and chickens and how billions of animals are treated," said Michael Pollan author of "The Omnivore's Dilemma," which traces the messy back story of our meals. "On the other hand, the fact that we're having this conversation at all--that we're talking about ethics in relation to what we're eating every day--strikes me as a very healthy thing," he said last week.
courtesy of Hinduism Today http://www.hinduismtoday.com
I recently learned a lesson the hard way - painfully. My lower back pain became severe sciatica; I could barely walk. I tried everything: more rest, exercise, stretching, diet, herbs, adjustments, etc. The problem turned out to be: dehydration! Yes, a bulging disc caused by simply not drinking enough water.
If the muscles don't get enough water, lactic acid collects so they become stiff and sore and pull bones out of place, such as vertebrae causing the disc to bulge and irritate the sciatic nerve. It's very unpleasant. The big surprise is that dehydration can be chronic and it takes at least a month, more often two or three, to get rehydrated.
And if you are dehydrated you cannot really expect to be healthy. Since the body is mostly water, it just doesn't work right without adequate water. Immediately you have excess Vata (dryness) and Pitta (heat), but most seriously impurities collect in the body, causing all kinds of problems.
Over 90% of illnesses can be related to dehydration. Joints and muscles,
digestion, skin, energy, allergies, weight control, mental and emotional
problems, insomnia and blood disorders are just a few areas quickly affected
by water intake. Ask those who have been on the Water Diet; they feel great.
I now regard water as a holistic health elixir. Information on Dr. B's
original Water Cure
Consider these water facts, thanks to The Raj Spa/Hotel:
Our daily water intake should be half our body weight in ounces. (128
pounds = 64 ounces per day, a half gallon)
Not drinking enough water is as harmful to your heart as smoking.
A 2% drop in body water can trigger fuzzy short-term memory, trouble
with basic math and difficulty focusing.
A 5% reduction in body water results in a 20 to 30% decline in work
performance.
Adequate hydration can reduce risk of colon cancer by 45%, risk of
breast cancer by 79%, risk of bladder cancer by 50%, and can ease back
pain and joint pain for up to 80% of sufferers.
Even mild dehydration will slow one's metabolism as much as 3%.
Lack of water is the number one trigger for daytime fatigue.
One glass of water shuts down midnight hunger pangs for most dieters.
The thirst mechanism of 37% of Americans is so weak it is often mistaken
for hunger.
Distilled and reverse osmosis water, being devoid of minerals, are not so healthy, but easily remedied by adding one pinch per half gallon of mineral salt, which is pinkish in color. It's inexpensively available in bulk, or as the RealSalt brand. Mineral water is best.
Measure actual water, not milk or juice, etc., which have to be digested. The Vedic herbal water recipes may be an exception. If in doubt drink more. Safety first. If you are exercising, sweating, fatigued, stressed or ill, drink more. That half your weight number is a minimum maintenance amount. Thanks to myotherapist Michael Fleischman for relaying knowledge from Vaidja Dr. Raju , Vedic doctor who emphasizes the importance of water.
I hope this is a helpful and significant health tip for you. - David Haworth
In the world there is nothing more submissive and weak than water. Yet for attacking that which is hard and strong nothing can surpass it. - Lao-Tzu BC 600-?, Chinese Philosopher, Founder of Taoism, Author of the 'Tao Te Ching'
JTCd's note: "O son of Kunti, Arjuna, I am the taste of water, the light of the sun and moon, the syllable om in the Vedic mantras. I am the sound in ether and ability in man." Bhagavad Gita 7:8., As It Is by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada
http://preaching.krishna.org/Articles/2005/02/Taste_of_Water.html
http://www.youngindianvegetarians.co.uk.
ENGLAND, May 11, 2006: Nitin Mehta of Young Indian Vegetarians writes HPI that they have a web site, URL above, and are a "campaigning vegetarian group."
Their home page states their mission: "We hereby pledge to bring about a 21st century in which the human race will finally make peace with the animal kingdom. Human beings will no longer kill, maim, torture or exploit fellow beings for food or other purposes. Animals will have fundamental rights which will be internationally recognized. It is clear beyond any doubt that the survival of the human race depends upon the survival of the forests and other natural resources and of the animals with whom we share this planet. We pledge to protect all of them. We oppose the introduction of animal genes into human beings and the genetic manipulation of animals and plants. The human race will reach the pinnacle of civilization when it extends the hand of friendship and compassion to the animal kingdom and returns to the healthy plant-based diet best suited to the moral and physical needs of our species, thus avoiding the related evils of animal exploitation, human starvation and environmental destruction. At the close of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, let us make a tryst with destiny to create a world free of violence towards all living beings who are dependent on our love and compassion. Together let us embark on that long journey which will bring about a world in which all animals are treated with compassion and mercy and accorded rights that human beings take for granted."
courtesy of Hinduism Today http://www.hinduismtoday.com
See how school meals have changed from their humble beginnings, through well-funded years of freshly cooked, nutritious meals, to today's burger-and-chips disaster
http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/J/jamies_school_dinners/index.html
recently we saw a thing on TV a documentary on a chef called Jamie Oliver ("the Naked Chef" - means raw or exposed not actually naked), he's been inflitrating school kitchens in UK to get healthy meals served. Sure he's a meat eater, but what he exposed the abundance of ignorange toward food, that the children didn't even know how to identifiy veges or fruits. They lived on junk food.
When they finally stopped rebelling and followed his more veges, more fruits and whole grains diet (and some unmentionables) with less sugar, less high in fats fried and processed foods, all klinds of good things began to happen. Behaviour paterns became almost human, violence in the playgound lessened, kids attention span improved, their attitudes to teachers improved, so many good things - then what to speak of vegetarian meals or even prasadam.
check out his short Flash movie http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/J/jamies_school_dinners/fowl/fowl.html
and remember to click on the items radiating as you run the mouse over
them and see what nutritional value they have, and what harm they cause.
According to Hinduism, food is verily an aspect of Brahman (annam parabrahma swaroopam). Because it is a gift from God, it should be treated with great respect. The gross physical body is termed annamayakosh or the food body, because it is nourished by food and grows by absorbing the energies from the food.
It seems the five forms of 'butchery' that I mentioned in my earlier posting are unavoidable. After all, we have to eat in order to survive in this world. We do not kill deliberately. There is a 'pariharam'-an expiation for the sin committed unwittingly. It is the prayascitta of the "vaisvadeva". We perform this function to ask the Lord to forgive us our sin of having caused the destruction of various creatures and to pray for their happiness in afterlife. This rite absolves us of many a sin. I do not know the modalities of this rite.
However, I do know the practice of "Naivedyam" -the practice of placing the food before God and offering it with love to the Almighty before eating. "Naivedyam" is an announcement to God on the food that will be consumed.
It may not be out of place for me to provide an example of Kannappa Nayanar.
The Nayanmars of South India were sincere and ardent devotees of Lord Siva. Amongst the 63 Nayanmars, there was a Kannappa who was a tribal hunter. The story goes that he offered meat with love to Lord Shiva. His bhakti was so great that eventually he attained Mukti. There are many such stories of great devotees in Hinduism - people from the humblest of professions like potters, fishermen, and butchers.
On one my trips to Bangkok, I visited the Brahma Temple near Hyatt hotel on Rajadamri Road. I noticed various kinds of food offerings to the God there including a bottle of scotch!
The underlying belief is that food must be offered to the Almighty with unwavering bhakti before it is consumed. I guess that is one easy way to remove papa from food.
The Taittriya Upanishad provides commentry on the importance of food. It makes interesting reading. It highlights that one should never condemn food, or waste it. You may like to go through it sometime.
S. Subramanian
Vrndavan Parker <vrnparker@yahoo.com> wrote: I know the moderator requested the diet topic to be dropped but I think this is a different angle.
First I want to say I dont really know the answer to the question of removing papa from food.
My understanading is that most eatables are tainted with sin. Thus we are given advice from the Vedas on which foods can be cleansed eaisier than others.
I quoted the gita earlier: Patram Pushpam Phalam toyam...becasue my understanding is that Lord Krishna is giving us a clue as to what things he will accept when offered with love.
Does this mean the offered items are then cleansed of their sin?
Also the idea that human sacrifice could be offered with love seems untenable because there is no love for the victim.
Anyway, I dont say I know the answer. A recent post mentioned, I think,
7 types of violence that take place in the kitchen. Is there any more info
on what one is to do to balance that violence with the need to survive
and be healthy?
So without the veg/nonveg issue being involved, what is one to do,
according to the sastra, to eat and not develop a karmic debt to the consumed
life?
Also wanted to point out that its interesting to see such a divisive
point being discussed, yet evryone here seems to have the same appreciation
and loyalties towards Hindu civilization. I think thats a crucial point.
Recognizing our common goals of promoting the Glories of Hindu culture
despite our diffenrences.
To change your subscription options go to this URL..
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/IndianCivilization/join?referer=1
---------------------------------
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
Visit your group "IndianCivilization" on the web.
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
IndianCivilization-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
Terms of Service.
