Krishnas have beef with meat ad'
NZ Beef and Lamb suggest that arguments against meat eating are myths
Should we all be vegetarians - from TIME Mag
Five good reasons to be vegetarian
Health and Meatless Diet
Vegetarian Fact Sheet
Hidden Cost of Meat

Cattlemen running scared

Other links to support vegetarianism

RELATED VIDEO (01:43) (footage at the Hare Krishna temple in Auckland and interview with Jaya Sila dasa)

New Zealand Hare Krishna devotees are demanding a television advertisement for meat be taken off the air because they say it ridicules their religion.
They have made a formal complaint over the NZ Beef and Lamb Marketing Bureau advertisement, which features a group of butchers dancing, singing and chanting along a street.
The Hare Krishnas argue it is a clear imitation of their chants.
"Chanting is traditionally taken to public on the street and it is a serious activity not to be ridiculed," says Hare Krishna spokesperson Jaya Shila.
As vegetarians, the association with meat has angered them even more.
"The unnecessary killing of animals is against our basic belief," Shila says.
But NZ Beef and Lamb says the Krishnas will just have to get used to the campaign.
"The concept is butchers are jolly, happy characters, they're extroverted and here's a shot of them dancing down the street (with their knives, steels, pots and pans) singing the benefits of red meat," says spokesman Rod Slater.
"It's as simple as that.
"We're not pulling the ads, they're not meant to be offensive... there's more in the series to come and we can't wait for that to happen."
The Hare Krishnas have contacted lawyers and complained to the Advertising Standards Authority.
They will consider whether the advertisement causes serious or widespread offense, a decision that will take about a month.

It could well be that the butchers chanting and dancing days are numbered !!!

Published on Feb 20, 2003
------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: and now the ad' is in Australia too.

Butchers may be extroverted and even jolly persons, but to infer that it is not offensive, or mocking or attempting to belittle the Hare Krishna movement by the statement "The concept is butchers are jolly, happy characters, they're extroverted and here's a shot of them dancing down the street singing the benefits of red meat," (Rod Slater mailto:enquiries@nzbeeflamb.co.nz ) is a joke and an insult to human intelligence to even suggest that the two are non-related. The fact of the matter remains, and is a legal item that according to Broadcasting Standards Authority Principle 3 clearly says: "Advertisements should not portray people in a manner which, taking into account generally prevailing community standards, is reasonably likely to cause serious or widespread offense on the grounds of their gender: race: colour: ethnic or national origin; age; cultural religious, political or ethical belief..." and in section Principle 4 of the Code also adds: "...advertisements should not use stereotypes in the portrayal of the role, character and behaviour of groups of people in society, which taking into account generally prevailing community standards, is reasonably likely to cause serious or widespread offense, hostility, contempt, abuse or ridicule."

Why we might also ask should we have to get used to this kind of thing? It's blatantly against all principles of Human Rights Commission to mock another's religion, culture, life-style, etc, and against the broadcasting principles also, so why do WE have to tolerate it??? I humbly suggest the shoe is on the other foot, these companies who try to abuse-offend-ridicule-misrepresent and or portray us, and our well known, or even lesser known attributes will come to think twice before doing so.

As for the lame statement above regarding butchers:
Factually how does one normally see a butcher? dancing down the street in a procession, handing out flyers, hands up-raised, with the rhythmic chants in the background...... or in their slaughter house or butchers shop, carving pieces of raw flesh that another living being was reluctant to give up without having to be captured and herded, and forced to the meat-works.  Some of our arguments here

Send of for your copy of Meet Your Meat here for FREE, and get the REAL picture of what these poor animals have to undergo to have humans fill their plates and bellies full of flesh.

Some might rightly say that the Meat company wanting to use the Hare Krishna's could be seen as flattering, recognizing the powerful impact that Harinam sankirtan of taking the Lord's Holy name to the streets is having on the world. That would be okay, BUT to use that pure chanting to promote one of the primary principles that we are so against changes flattery to hard in your face insult - it is VERY offensive to associate the Hare Krishna's with meat eating and or animal slaughter.

Actually we are flattered that they recognize us as being such a threat to their industry, exposing the truths that they so carefully try to cover up of what happens to these poor animals to actually reach a meat eaters dinner plate. It points out just how much in-roads we have had in preaching that they consider us their greatest threat, which indeed we are. Hare Krishna is now a household word all over the world, everyone knows that we stand for no meat-eating, no intoxication, no gambling, and no illicit sex outside sacred marriage.

For the meat industry to target their biggest threat, try to ridicule in this way, and have to do so much research in order to imitate us on our street chanting says a lot for the tottering state of the meat industry, not just in NZ but world wide (see US statistic below).

Five Good Reasons to Be a Vegetarian
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2062/argu.HTML
In the past fifty years millions of meat-eaters have made the personal decision to stop eating the flesh of other creatures. There are five major motivations for such a decision.
1) The Dharmic/Scriptural Law reason
Ahimsa, the law of non injury, is the Hindu's first duty in fulfillment of his religious obligations to God and God's creation as defined by Vedic scripture.
2) The Karmic Consequences reason
All of our actions including our choice of food have karmic consequences. By involving oneself in the cycle of inflicting injury, pain and death, even indirectly by eating other creatures, one must in the future experience in equal measure the suffering caused.
3) The Spiritual Consciousness reason
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 consciousness, in peace and happiness 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 a terrible fear of death, all of which are locked into the flesh of butchered creatures. For these reasons, shakaharis live in higher consciousness and mansaharis abide in lower consciousness.
4) The Health reason
Medical studies prove that a vegetarian diet is easier to digest, provides a wider range of nutrients and imposes fewer burdens and impurities on the body. Vegetarians are less susceptible to all the major diseases that afflict contemporary humanity, and thus live longer, healthier, more productive lives. They have fewer physical complaints, less frequent visits to the doctor, fewer dental problems and smaller medical bills. Their immune system is stronger, their bodies are purer, more refined and skin more beautiful.
5) The Ecological reason
Planet earth is suffering. In large measure, the escalating loss of species, destruction of ancient rain forests to create pasture lands for livestock, loss of top soils and the consequent increase of water impurities and air pollution have all been traced to the single fact of meat in the human diet. No single decision that we can make as individuals or as a race can have such a dramatic effect on the improvement of our planetary ecology as the decision to not eat meat. Many seeking to save the planet for future generations have made this decision for this reason and this reason alone.

"Cattlemen" running scared
SOURCE: "As more teens go vegetarian, cattlemen saddle up,"
The Philadelphia Inquirer, http://www.philly.com/, By Kathy Boccella, February 7th 2003

The group that made real men want to eat beef now wants to convince young girls that it's cool for them, too.
With about one million kids nationwide forsaking meat and actually eating their vegetables, America's cattlemen are trying to round up the strays and bring them back to the meat-eating herd.

"We're just trying to bring home the point that all foods fit into a healthy diet and, yes, that includes beef," said Mary Young, nutrition director for the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.

Teenagers are the fastest-growing group of vegetarians, according to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA). And young girls are more than twice as likely to stop eating meat as boys are, market researchers say.

To reach them, the cattlemen's group launched a Web site (www.Cool-2b-real.com) in December that touts healthy living, offers lots of tasty beef recipes, and makes educational kits available to teachers who might want to include lessons on beef in their curriculums.
The cattlemen have cause to worry. One in four teenagers considers vegetarianism "cool," according to Teenage Research Unlimited in Illinois. Their reasons vary, but many cite concern for animals, weight loss, and health for giving up meat, nutritionists say.

Two percent of 13- to 17-year-olds ate no meat, poultry or fish in 2000, up from 1.4 percent from 1995, reported Vegetarian Resource Group, a Baltimore-based nonprofit organization. Five percent ate no beef or pork in 2000.

PETA says the trend is bigger on college campuses, where from 15 to 20 percent of students say they're vegetarians.
For the cattlemen, it makes sense to try to brand these youngsters with product loyalty: In not too many years, they will be parents, and feeding their own little calves.

Part of the group's pitch is to warn youngsters, and their parents, of the dangers of a meatless diet. The cattlemen cite university research suggesting that youths who don't eat beef are more prone to poor health, low self-esteem, eating disorders, and even suicidal thoughts.
"Hogwash," said Michele Shuker, a nutritionist at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Though she's a beef-eater, she said, "One does not need beef to live a healthy life."

With record numbers of children suffering from obesity, "kids need to get a grip on portion size and get more physical activity," not load up on beef, she said.

To teens devoted to the cause, meat is a four-letter word.
"That's ridiculous," Laura Humpal, 18, of Spring City, said of the cattlemen's campaign. "I'm in fine health. I never get sick, and I've been a vegetarian since I was 8 and vegan [someone who doesn't eat any animal products, including eggs and dairy] since I was 14."
She has never liked meat and would never consider eating it, she said.

To get all her vitamins and nutrients, she eats lots of green leafy vegetables and takes a Vitamin B-12 supplement.

Her friend Ashley Randolph, 17, of Phoenixville, loves meat but became a vegan three years ago and said she feels "lighter, cleaner, more energetic."

She doesn't think meat is necessary for a balanced diet: "You can definitely get by without it."

Such attitudes have the beef industry "running scared," said Bruce Friedrich, a PETA spokesman, "because kids are learning that if they're eating meat, they're promoting cruelty to animals and harming their own health."

With so many children forgoing meat, fish and fowl, 60 percent of the nation's schools offered vegetarian alternatives in 2001, up from 40 percent in 1999, according to the American School Food Service Association.

Students are asking for "fruits, vegetables and vegetarian items," said Erik Peterson, the group's director of media relations. "Teenage girls request salads."

The Lower Merion School District in Montgomery County offers a daily salad bar. And Kimberton Waldorf School in Chester County serves only vegetarian meals, for cost and food-safety reasons.

"I don't believe that meat is the be-all and end-all of nutrition," said Jennifer Keogh, co-director of Kimberton's lunch program. "There are kids eating hamburgers every night, but they're not having vegetables and fruit."

While experts say health concerns usually are only a minor factor in a teen's decision to stop eating meat, the result can be a more nutritious diet than the standard teen fare of burgers, fries and pizza.

A University of Minnesota study of 4,500 teenagers found that young vegetarians consumed more fruits and vegetables and less fast food, cholesterol and regular soda, and more folate, vitamin A, fiber and iron than their meat-eating peers did. However, they also consumed more diet soda and caffeine, and less Vitamin B-12 than non vegetarians.

"The vegetarian teens were doing significantly better on things like fat intake and vegetable intake, which are just two predictors of long-term health," said Cheryl Perry, a co-author of the study.

But the study also found that adolescent vegetarians were more likely to be dissatisfied with their bodies, to report dieting, and to have been told by a doctor that they had an eating disorder. They were also more likely to have contemplated or attempted suicide.
Other studies have suggested that low protein diets (associated with vegetarianism) reduce calcium absorption and may have a negative impact on skeletal health.

With many youngsters not eating meat for ethical reasons, such as concern for animals, telling them they have to eat meat to stay healthy "is appalling," said Reed Mangels, a nutritionist with the Vegetarian Resource Group.
The sides agree that the majority of teens, regardless of their vegetarian beliefs, have horrible diets. Young, the cattlemen's association nutrition director, says children who become vegetarians are worse off since they don't know what they're doing.
"To have a healthy vegetarian diet, you need to be pretty committed to getting the right nutrients. Most kids this age, meat eaters or vegetarians, are not that committed," she said.

Beef contains iron, zinc and B-12, which are necessary for growth and good health, she said. But those are available in plant based foods and supplements, too, other nutritionists point out.

And though lean beef has plenty of valuable nutrients in it, recipes on the Cool-2b-real Web site - such as taco beef dip, beef chili, and cheeseburger mac and cheese - "are not particularly healthful," Shuker said, noting that they are loaded with high-fat ingredients and short on fruits and vegetables.

Parents who are worried about their child's diet should consult a registered dietitian, Mangels advised.
Perhaps the cattlemen can learn something from Jessica Watson's parents.
The 23-year-old became a vegetarian when she was 12 because of her love of animals.

"My parents hated it," she said, and tried to force her to eat meat by telling her she would not grow and making her sit at the table until she cleaned her plate.

"Mom's been a vegetarian for three years now, and my dad's been a vegan for five years," said Watson. "It's very satisfying."

Courtesy of the Animal Spirit newsletter:
The Animal Spirit website is up and running again.
http://www.theanimalspirit.com

Should We All Be Vegetarians?

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020715/story.html

Would we be healthier? Would the planet? The risks and benefits of a meat-free life.

By RICHARD CORLISS

Posted Sunday, July 7, 2002; 10:31 a.m. EST

FIVE REASONS TO EAT MEAT:
1) It tastes good
2) It makes you feel good
3) It's a great American tradition
4) It supports the nation's farmers
5) Your parents did it

Oh, sorry ... those are five reasons to smoke cigarettes. Meat is more complicated. It's a food most Americans eat virtually every day: at the dinner table; in the cafeteria; on the barbecue patio; with mustard at a ballpark; or, a billion times a year, with special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame-seed bun. Beef is, the TV commercials say, "America's food"—the Stars and Stripes served up medium rare—and as entwined with the nation's notion of its robust frontier heritage as, well, the Marlboro Man.
But these days America's cowboys seem a bit small in the saddle. Those cattle they round up have become politically incorrect: for many, meat is an obscene cuisine. It's not just the additives and ailments connected with the consumption of beef, though a dish of hormones, E. coli bacteria or the scary specter of mad-cow disease might be effective enough as an appetite suppressant. It's that more and more Americans, particularly young Americans, have started engaging in a practice that would once have shocked their parents. They are eating their vegetables. Also their grains and sprouts. Some 10 million Americans today consider themselves to be practicing vegetarians, according to a Time poll of 10,000 adults; an additional 20 million have flirted with vegetarianism sometime in their past.
To get a taste of the cowboy's ancient pride, and current defensiveness, just click on South Dakota cattleman Jody Brown's website, www.ranchers.net, and read the new meat mantras: "Vegetarians don't live longer, they just look older"; and "If animals weren't meant to be eaten, then why are they made out of meat?" (One might ask the same of humans.) For Brown and his generation of unquestioning meat eaters, dinner is something the parents put on the table and the kids put in their bodies. Of his own kids, he says, "We expect them to eat a little of everything." So beef is served nearly every night at the Brown homestead, with nary a squawk from Jeff, 17, Luke, 13, and Hannah, 11. But Jody admits to at least one liberal sympathy. "If a vegetarian got a flat tire in my community," he says, "I'd come out and help him."
For the rancher who makes his living with meat or the vegetarian whose diet could someday drive all those breeder-slaughterers to bankruptcy, nothing is simple any more. Gone is the age of American innocence, or naiveté when such items as haircuts and handshakes, family names and school uniforms, farms and zoos, cowboys and ranchers, had no particular political meaning. Now everything is up for rancorous debate. And no aspect of our daily lives—our lives as food consumers—gets more heat than meat.
For millions of vegetarians, beef is a four-letter word; veal summons charnel visions of infanticide. Many children, raised on hit films like Babe and Chicken Run, recoil from eating their movie heroes and switch to what the meat defeaters like to call a "nonviolent diet." Vegetarianism resolves a conscientious person's inner turf war by providing an edible complex of good-deed-doing: to go veggie is to be more humane. Give up meat, and save lives!
Of course, one of the lives you could save or at least prolong is your own. For vegetarianism should be about more than not eating; it's also about smart eating. You needn't be a born-again foodist to think this. The American Dietetic Association, a pretty centrist group, has proclaimed that "appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, are nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases."
So, how about it? Should we all become vegetarians? Not just teens but also infants, oldsters, athletes—everyone? Will it help us live longer, healthier lives? Does it work for people of every age and level of work activity? Can we find the right vegetarian diet and stick to it? And if we can do it, will we?

There are as many reasons to try vegetarianism as there are soft-eyed cows and soft-hearted kids. To impressionable young minds, vegetarianism can sound sensible, ethical and—as nearly 25% of adolescents polled by Teenage Research Unlimited said—"cool." College students think so too. A study conducted by Arizona State University psychology professors Richard Stein and Carol Nemeroff reported that, sight unseen, salad eaters were rated more moral, virtuous and considerate than steak eaters. "A century ago, a high-meat diet was thought to be health-favorable," says Paul Rozin of the University of Pennsylvania. "Kids today are the first generation to live in a culture where vegetarianism is common, where it is publicly promoted on health and ecological grounds." And kids, as any parent can tell you, spur the consumer economy; that explains in part the burgeoning sales of veggie burgers (soy, bulgur wheat, cooked rice, mushrooms, onions and flavorings in Big Mac drag) in supermarkets and fast-food chains.
Children, who are signing on to vegetarianism much faster than adults, may be educating their parents. Vegetarian food sales are savoring double-digit growth. Top restaurants have added more meatless dishes. Trendy "living foods" or "raw" restaurants are sprouting up, like Roxanne's in Larkspur, Calif., where no meat, fish, poultry or dairy items are served, and nothing is cooked to temperatures in excess of 118°F. "Going to my restaurant," says Roxanne Klein, "is like going to a really cool new country you haven't experienced before."

Like any country, vegetarianism has its hidden complexities. For one thing, vegetarians come in more than half a dozen flavors, from sproutarians to pesco-pollo-vegetarians. The most notorious are the vegan (rhymes with intriguin' or fatiguin') vegetarians. The Green Party of the movement, vegans decline to consume, use or wear any animal products. They also avoid honey, since its production demands the oppression of worker bees. TV's favorite vegetarian, the cartoon 8-year-old Lisa Simpson, once had a crush on a fellow who described himself as "a Level Five vegan—I don't eat anything that casts a shadow." Among vegan celebrities: the rock star Moby and Ohio Congressman Dennis Kucinich, who swore off steak for breakfast and insists he feels much better starting his day with miso soup, brown rice or oat groats.
To true believers—who refrain from meat as an A.A. member does from drink and do a spit-take if told that there's gelatin in their soup—a semi vegetarian is no vegetarian at all. A phrase like pesco-pollo-vegetarian, to them, is an oxymoron, like "lapsed Catholic" or "semivirgin." Vegetarian Times, the bible of this particular congregation, lays down the dogma: "For many people who are working to become vegetarians, chicken and fish may be transitional foods, but they are not vegetarian foods ... the word 'vegetarian' means someone who eats no meat, fish or chicken."
Clear enough? Not to many Americans. In a survey of 11,000 individuals, 37% of those who responded "Yes, I am a vegetarian" also reported that in the previous 24 hours they had eaten red meat; 60% had eaten meat, poultry or seafood. Perhaps those surveyed thought a vegetarian is someone who, from time to time, eats vegetables as a side dish—say, alongside a prime rib. If more than one-third of people in a large sample don't know the broadest definition of vegetarian, one wonders how they can be trusted with something much more difficult: the full-time care and picky-picky feeding of their bodies, whatever their dietary preferences.
We know that fruits, vegetables, grains, legumes and nuts are healthy. There are any number of studies that show that consuming more of these plant-based foods reduces the risk for a long list of chronic maladies (including coronary artery disease, obesity, diabetes and many cancers) and is a probable factor in increased longevity in the industrialized world. We know that on average we eat too few fruits and vegetables and too much saturated fat, of which meat and dairy are prime contributors. We also know that in the real world, real diets—vegetarian and nonvegetarian—as consumed by real people range from primly virtuous to pig-out voracious. There are meat eaters who eat more and better vegetables than vegetarians, and vegetarians who eat more artery-clogging fats than meat eaters.
The International Congress on Vegetarian Nutrition, a major conference on the subject, was held this spring at Loma Linda (Calif.) University. The research papers presented there included some encouraging if tentative findings: that a predominantly vegetarian diet may have beneficial effects for kidney and nerve function in diabetics, as well as for weight loss; that eating more fruits and vegetables can slow, and perhaps reverse, age-related declines in brain function and in cognitive and motor performance—at least in rats; that vegetarian seniors have a lower death rate and use less medication than meat-eating seniors; that vegetarians have a healthier total intake of fats and cholesterol but a less healthy intake of fatty acids (such as the heart-protecting omega-3 fatty acids found in fish oil).

But one paper suggested that low-protein diets (associated with vegetarians) reduce calcium absorption and may have a negative impact on skeletal health. And although several studies on Seventh-Day Adventists (typically vegetarians) indicated that they have a longer-than-average life expectancy, other studies found that prostate-cancer rates were high in Adventists, and one study found that Adventists were more likely to suffer hip fractures.
Can it be that vegetarianism is bad for your health? That's a complex issue. There's a big, beautiful plant kingdom out there; you ought to be able to dine healthily on this botanical bounty. With perfect knowledge, you can indeed eat like a king from the vegetable world. But ordinary people are not nutrition professionals. While some vegetarians have the full skinny on how to watch their riboflavin and vitamins D and B12, many more haven't a clue. This is one reason that vegetarians, in a study of overall nutrition, scored significantly lower than nonvegetarians on the USDA's Healthy Eating Index, which compares actual diet with USDA guidelines.

Another reason is that vegans skew the stats, because their strict avoidance of meat, eggs and dairy products can lead to deficiencies in iron, calcium and vitamin B12. "These nutrients are the problem," says Johanna Dwyer, a professor of nutrition and medicine at Tufts University. "At least among the vegans who are also philosophically opposed to fortified foods and/or vitamin and mineral supplements."
Debates about the efficacy of vegetarianism follow us from cradle to wheelchair. In 1998 child-care expert Dr. Benjamin Spock, who became a vegetarian late in life, stoked a stir by recommending that children over the age of 2 be raised as vegans, rejecting even milk and eggs. The American Dietetic Association says it is possible to raise kids as vegans but cautions that special care must be taken with nursing infants (who don't develop properly without the nutrients in mother's milk or fortified formula). Other researchers warn that infants breast-fed by vegans have lower levels of vitamin B12 and DHA (an omega-3 fatty acid), important to vision and growth.
And there is always the chance of vegetarian theory gone madly wrong in practice. A Queens, N.Y., couple were indicted last May for first-degree assault, charged with nearly starving their toddler to death on a strict diet of juices, ground nuts, herbal tea, beans, flaxseed and cod-liver oils. At 16 months, the girl weighed 10 lbs., less than half the normal weight of a child her age. Their lawyer's defense: "They felt that they have their own lifestyle. They're vegetarians." The couple declined to plea-bargain, and are still in jail awaiting trial.
Many children decide on their own to become vegetarians and are declaring their preference at ever more precocious ages; it's often their first act of domestic rebellion. But a youngster is at a disadvantage insisting on a rigorous cuisine before he or she can cook food—or buy it or even read—and when the one whose menu is challenged is the parent: nurturer, disciplinarian and executive chef. Alicia Hurtado of Oak Park, Ill., has been a vegetarian half her life—she's 8 now—and mother Cheryle mostly indulges her daughter's diet. Still, Mom occasionally sneaks a little chicken broth into Alicia's pasta dishes. "When she can read labels," Cheryle says, "I'll be out of luck."
By adolescence, kids can read the labels but often ignore the ingredients. Research shows that calcium intake is often insufficient in American teens. By contrast, lacto-ovo teens usually have abundant calcium intake. For vegans, however, consuming adequate amounts of calcium without the use of fortified foods or supplements is difficult without careful dietary planning. Among vegan youth who do not take supplements, there is reason for concern with respect to iron, calcium, vitamins D and B12, and perhaps also selenium and iodine.
For four years Christina Economos has run the Tufts longitudinal health study on young adults, a comprehensive survey of lifestyle habits among undergraduates. In general, she finds that "kids who were most influenced by family diet and health values are eating healthy vegetarian or low-meat diets. But there is a whole group of students who decide to become vegetarians and do it in a poor way. The ones who do it badly don't know how to navigate in the vegetarian world. They eat more bread, cheese and pastry products and load up on salad dressing. Their saturated-fat intake is no lower than red-meat eaters, and they are more likely to consume inadequate amounts of vitamin B12 and protein. They may think they are healthier because they are some sort of vegetarian and they don't eat red meat, but in fact they may be less healthy."

Jenny Woodson, 20, now a junior at Duke, has been a vegetarian from way back. At 6, on a trip to McDonald's, she ordered a tossed salad. When Jenny lived in a dorm at high school, she quickly realized that teens do not live on French fries and broccoli alone. "We ended up making vegetarian sandwiches with bagels and ingredients from the salad bar, cheese fries and stuffed baked potatoes with cottage cheese." Jenny and her friends were careful to avoid high-fat, calorie-laden fare at the salad bar, but for those who don't exercise restraint, salad-bar fixings can become vegetarian junk food.
Maggie Ellinger-Locke, 19, of the St. Louis, Mo., suburb of University City, has been a vegetarian for eight years and went vegan at 15. Since then she has not worn leather or wool products or slept under a down comforter. She has not used cups or utensils that have touched meat. "It felt like we were keeping kosher," says Maggie's mother Linda, who isn't Jewish. At high school Maggie was ridiculed, even shoved to the ground, by teen boys who apparently found her eating habits threatening. She found a happy ending, of sorts, enrolling at Antioch College, where she majors in ecofeminism. "Here," she says, "the people on the defensive are the ones who eat meat."

Maggie hit a few potholes on the road to perfection. Until recently, she smoked up to two packs of cigarettes a day (cigarettes, after all, are plants fortified with nicotine), quitting only because she didn't want to support the tobacco business. And she freely admits to an eating disorder: for the past year she has been bulimic, bingeing and vomiting sometimes as much as once a day to cope with stress. But she insists she is true to her beliefs: even when bingeing, she remains dedicated to vegan consumption.
The American Dietetic Association found that vegetarian diets are slightly more common among adolescents with eating problems but that "recent data suggest that adopting a vegetarian diet does not lead to eating disorders." It can be argued that most American teens already have an eating disorder—fast food, soft drinks and candy are a blueprint for obesity and heart trouble. Why should teens be expected to purge their bad habits just because they have gone veggie? Still, claims Simon Chaitowitz of the pro-vegetarian and animal-rights group Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, "Kids are better off being junk-food vegetarians than junk-food meat eaters."
Maybe. According to Dr. Joan Sabate, chairman of the Loma Linda nutrition conference, there are still concerns over vegetarian diets for growing kids or lactating women. When you are in what he calls "a state of high metabolic demand," any diet that excludes foods makes it harder to meet nutrient requirements. But he is quick to add that "for the average sedentary adult living in a Western society, a vegetarian diet meets dietary needs and prevents chronic diseases better than an omnivore diet."
Like kids and nursing moms, athletes need to be especially smart eaters. Their success depends on bursts of energy, sustained strength and muscle mass, factors that require nutrients more easily obtained from meat. For this reason, relatively few top athletes are vegetarians. Besides, says sports nutritionist Suzanne Girard Eberle, the author of Endurance Sports Nutrition, "lots of athletes have no idea how their bodies work. That's why fad diets and supplements are so attractive to them."
Eberle notes that vegetarian diets done correctly are high in fiber and low in fat. "But where are the calories?" she asks. "World-class endurance athletes need in excess of 5,000 or 6,000 calories a day. Competition can easily consume 10,000. You need to eat a lot of plant-based food to get those calories. Being a vegetarian athlete is hard, really hard to do right."
It's not that easy for the rest of America, either. Middle-aged to elderly adults can also develop deficiencies in a vegetarian diet (as they can, of course, with a poor diet that includes meat). Deficiencies in vitamins D and B12 and in iodine, which can lead to goiter, are common. The elderly tend to compensate by taking supplements, but that approach carries risks. Researchers have found cases in which vegetarian oldsters, who are susceptible to iodine deficiency, had dangerously high and potentially toxic levels of iodine in their bodies because they overdid the supplements.

Meat producers acknowledge that vegetarian diets can be healthy. They also have responded to the call for leaner food; the National Pork Board says that, compared with 20 years ago, pork is on average 31% lower in fat and 29% lower in saturated fat, and has 14% fewer calories and 10% less cholesterol. But the defenders of meat and dairy can also go on the offensive. They mention the need for B12. And then they ratchet up the fear factor. Kurt Graetzer, ceo of the Milk Processor Education Program, scans the drop in milk consumption (not only by vegans but by kids who prefer soda, Snapple and Fruitopia) and declares, "We are virtually developing a generation of osteoporotic children."
Dr. Michelle Warren, a professor of medicine at New York Presbyterian Medical Center in New York City—and a member of the Council for Women's Nutrition Solutions, which is sponsored by the National Cattlemen's Beef Association— expresses concern about calcium deficiency connected with a vegan diet: "The most serious consequences are low bone mass and osteoporosis. That is a permanent condition." Warren says that in her practice, she has seen young vegetarians with irregular periods and loss of hair. "And there's a peculiar color, a yellow tinge to the skin," that occurs in people who eat a lot of vegetables rich in beta carotene in combination with a low-calorie diet. "I think it's very unattractive." She also is troubled by the reasons some young vegetarians give for their choice of diet. One female patient, Warren says, wouldn't eat meat because she was told it was the reason her father had a heart attack.

Michael Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, sees most of the meat and dairy lobby's arguments as desperate, disingenuous scare stories. "It unmasks the industry's self-interest," he says, "when it voices concern about B12 while hundreds of thousands of people are dying prematurely because of too much saturated fat from meat and dairy products." Indeed, according to David Pimentel, a Cornell ecologist, the average American consumes 112 grams of protein a day, twice the amount recommended by the National Academy of Sciences. "This has implications for cancer risks and stress on the urinary system," says Pimentel. "And with this protein comes a lot of fat. Fully 40% of our calories—and heavy cardiovascular risks—come from fat."
Pimentel argues that vegetarianism is much more environment-friendly than diets revolving around meat. "In terms of caloric content, the grain consumed by American livestock could feed 800 million people—and, if exported, would boost the U.S. trade balance by $80 billion a year." Grain-fed livestock consume 100,000 liters of water for every kilogram of food they produce, compared with 2,000 liters for soybeans. Animal protein also demands tremendous expenditures of fossil-fuel energy—eight times as much as for a comparable amount of plant protein. Put another way, says Pimentel, the average omnivore diet burns the equivalent of a gallon of gas per day—twice what it takes to produce a vegan diet. And the U.S. livestock population—cattle, chickens, turkeys, lambs, pigs and the rest—consumes five times as much grain as the U.S. human population. But then there are 7 billion of them; they outnumber us 25 to 1.
In the spirit of fair play to cowboy Jody Brown and his endangered breed, let's entertain two arguments in favor of eating meat. One is that it made us human. "We would never have evolved as large, socially active hominids if we hadn't turned to meat," says Katharine Milton, an anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley. The vegetarian primates (orangutans and gorillas) are less social than the more omnivorous chimpanzees, possibly because collecting and consuming all that forage takes so darned much time. The early hominids took a bold leap: 2.5 million years ago, they were cracking animal bones to eat the marrow. They ate the protein-rich muscle tissue, says Milton, "but also the rest of the animal—liver, marrow, brains—with their high concentrations of other nutrients. Evolving humans ate it all."
Just as important, they knew why they were eating it. In Milton's elegant phrase, "Solving dietary problems with your head is the trajectory of the primate order." Hominids grew big on meat, and smart on that lovely brain-feeder, glucose, which they got from fruit, roots and tubers. This diet of meat and glucose gave early man energy to burn—or rather, energy to play house, to sing and socialize, to make culture, art, war. And finally, about 10,000 years ago, to master agriculture and trade—which provided the sophisticated system that modern humans can use to go vegetarian.
The other reason for beef eating is, hold on, ethical—a matter of animal rights. The familiar argument for vegetarianism, articulated by Tom Regan, a philosophical founder of the modern animal-rights movement, is that it would save Babe the pig and Chicken Run's Ginger from execution. But what about Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse? asks Steven Davis, professor of animal science at Oregon State University, pointing to the number of field animals inadvertently killed during crop production and harvest. One study showed that simply mowing an alfalfa field caused a 50% reduction in the gray-tailed vole population. Mortality rates increase with each pass of the tractor to plow, plant and harvest. Rabbits, mice and pheasants, he says, are the indiscriminate "collateral damage" of row crops and the grain industry.
By contrast, grazing (not grain-fed) ruminants such as cattle produce food and require fewer entries into the fields with tractors and other equipment. Applying (and upending) Regan's least-harm theory, Davis proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production, which would replace poultry and pork production with beef, lamb and dairy products. According to his calculations, such a model would result in the deaths of 300 million fewer animals annually (counting both field animals and cattle) than would a completely vegan model. When asked about Davis' arguments, Regan, however, still sees a distinction: "The real question is whether to support production systems whose very reason for existence is to kill animals. Meat eaters do. Ethical vegetarians do not."
The moral: there is no free lunch, not even if it's vegetarian. For now, man is perched at the top of the food chain and must live with his choice to feed on the living things further down. But even to raise the question of a harvester Hiroshima is to show how far we have come in considering the humane treatment of that which is not human. And we still have a way to go. "It may take a while," says actress and vegetarian Mary Tyler Moore, "but there will probably come a time when we look back and say, 'Good Lord, do you believe that in the 20th century and early part of the 21st, people were still eating animals?'"
It may take a very long while. For most people, meat still does taste good. And can "America's food" ever be tofu?

—Reported by Melissa August and Matthew Cooper/Washington, David Bjerklie and Lisa McLaughlin/New York, Wendy Cole/Chicago and Jeffrey Ressner/ Los Angeles

An interesting book worth reading; Vegetarianism:Movement or Moment?

Here's a couple of sample letters if you can't think of anything to write. Obviously our lawyers will have a stronger impact on removing this nasty cheap exploitive ad'. Still we are VERY much appreciative of public support and thank you for your help and well wishes. Maybe if these obviously insensitive people, who adamantly think there's no harm done, receive enough letters of support and demanding removal of the advertisement the penny will drop, and or they might even think next time. Still not as funny as the ad' they had to remove a while back; they were saying that feeding babies meat would make them into a genius like Einstein - duh, they didn't even know that Einstein was a famous vegetarian............... the ad' said it all for the value of meat !!!!!

Sample letter:

19 February 2003

To the Broadcasting Standards Authority
2nd Floor NZ Lotteries Commission Building
54-56 Cambridge Terrace
PO Box 9213, Wellington

and to the Advertising Standards Complaints Board
PO Box 10 675, Wellington.
Telephone 09 472 7852.
Email asa@asa.co.nz.

Dear Sir

I would like to make a formal complaint regarding the use, in the current advertising campaign of the New Zealand Beef and Lamb Marketing Bureau, of the Hare Krishna religion's well known style of street chanting of the Holy names of God in order to promote the meat industry.

The following points need to be clearly understood:
·       The Hare Krishna religion is strictly vegetarian and as such it is very offensive to ridicule them by this cheap advertising gimmick;
·       The cow is sacred to all Hindus, of which the Hare Krishna movement is a part; if this lack of safeguard for discrimination and victimization were to be against the disabled, or women, or gays, or the Maori there would be a great outcry.

This advertisement is against the New Zealand Human Rights Act; it is not fair to allow such a presentation that influences the public opinion toward a section of society such as the Hare Krishna's as this ad does.  It is particularly important to avoid being insensitive to various cultural and religious groups given recent world events and the subsequent outpouring of (overwhelmingly negative) racial and cultural profiling and stereotyping.

In the New Zealand Human Rights Act, Section 5 refers to Discrimination Based on Race, Sex, Religion, Disability, Language, or Social Status.  The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of these factors, and the Government effectively enforces it. The 1993 Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex, marital status, religious belief, ethical belief, colour, race, ethnic or national origins, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, and family status. Similarly the NZ Bill of Rights Act sections 13 through to 20 uphold the same (http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/nz01000_.html#S015_).

Given all this, WHY might I ask are these people being sanctioned by you, the Broadcasting Standards Authority, to propagate such religious derision and mockery when the law says "including the right to adopt and hold opinions without interference"???.  This is clearly interfering with the Hare Krishna's freedom to express their religion with the respect and integrity that a modern multi-cultural New Zealand offers us all.

As a NZ born Hindu, I would be extremely grateful if you could take steps to remove this distasteful ad from air immediately.

Thank you for your co-operation and cultural-religious sensitivity on this issue.

Yours sincerely

Your name and address =>:-))
 
 

Sample letter

To the Broadcasting Standards Authority
2nd Floor NZ Lotteries Commission Building
54-56 Cambridge Terrace
PO Box 9213, Wellington

and to the Advertising Standards Complaints Board
PO Box 10 675, Wellington.
Telephone 09 472 7852.
Email asa@asa.co.nz.

Dear Sirs,

Hare Krishna.  Please accept our best wishes.

I am writing to add my personal complaint to that of many others whom I know have already expressed their concern over an advertisement currently being shown on national television.

I am a member of ISKCON, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, (otherwise known as the Hare Krishna movement).  I serve full-time, on a voluntary basis, in ISKCON’s Auckland temple as a secretary / treasurer.

The advertisement is from the New Zealand Beef and Lamb Marketing Bureau.  It advertises meat, and uses scenes of persons dressed as butchers dancing and chanting in the street in a similar fashion to the Hare Krishna harinama sankirtan chanting.

I consider that this comic portrayal of the traditional religious street chanting which is regularly carried out by Vaisnava devotees, i.e. worshippers of Visnu or Krishna, to be extremely offensive and derogatory.  When devotees chant the holy names of God in public they are carrying out a serious mission to give everyone an opportunity to come closer to the Lord.  It is not an activity to be ridiculed.

Moreover, to associate our movement with the eating of meat is very offensive.  We are well known to be vegetarians, and the avoidance of meat-eating is a religious principle.  The advertisement is also incorrect in suggesting that one needs “red meat” to derive protein, iron or certain vitamins etc.  Medical evidence can prove that lacto-vegetarians who follow a balanced diet do not lack any necessary ingredients for health.

The most shocking effect of this advertisement is that it ridicules an established religious movement.  Even the words used in the butchers’ “chanting” are too similar to the holy names of God, - Hare Hare.   It is quite obvious that for a cheap effort to raise a few laughs, the advertisers have offensively caricatured the devotees of the Hare Krishna movement, without any respect or consideration for their basic beliefs and principles.

I ask that you immediately remove this advertisement, and censor those who presented it.

Yours faithfully,
 
 
 

Madri Hardwick-Smith
(Mrs M Hardwick-Smith), ISKCON, AUCKLAND

While you're fired up, please send a message HERE too !!!!!

We need your help in a special way as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "ROLE OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS" Mary Howlett  - Information Officer, Human Rights Commission  mailto:maryh@hrc.co.nz
You might like to send us a copy too, if you don't mind Thanx

We must not fail to perform sacrifices to the celestials, offer libations to our fathers and perform sraddha. In the past, apart from these, our ancestors did puja to the gods, fed guests and performed vaisvadeva which rite is meant for all creatures. You must have some idea of these rites even if you do not perform them. I will speak to you about vaisvadeva.

To sustain ourselves, we cause hurt to so many creatures, don't we? We take pride in keeping our house clean but we forget that every household is a butchery. According to dharmasastras it is not one butchery but five butcheries together. What are these five?

Pancasuna grhasthasya vartante harahah sada

Khandani pesani culli jalkumbha upaskarah

Khandani is used to cut vegetables- it stands for one type of butchery. Vegetables also do have life. The second butchery is represented by the grinding our pounding stone. We mercilessly grind corn, pulses, etc, in it.

Here an answer must be given to objections raised by meat-eaters about vegetarian food. They tell us: "Like the goats, cows and fowl that we eat, vegetables and cereals also have life. "True. Though there is no difference in kind between them, there is a difference in the degree of violence done to vegetables and animals. Plants have life and feelings like humans but they do not have the sensation of pain to the same degree as animals and birds have. This has been scientifically established. Also, but for certain leafy vegetables which we uproot to be prepared as food, most other vegetables are obtained from plants without killing them: it is like removing our nails or hair. The plant suffers only a little pain. Pain even to this degree will not be caused if we eat the fruits of these plants after they drop ripe. As for the cereals they are harvested only after the crop is ripe and dry.

There is one more argument in favour of vegetarianism. Now only certain types of meat like beef are eaten. Horsemeat is not usually eaten. During World War I or II, when the question arose as to whether the soldiers could be fed horsemeat, the non vegetarians themselves opposed the idea. People who think it civilized to eat birds and animals condemn tribes in some remote land who eat human flesh as barbarous and call them cannibals. We must tell meat-eaters who remind us that vegetables also have life. "Yes, but when it comes to violence, are all creatures the same? Why do you make a difference between animal flesh and human flesh? Similarly, we make a distinction between plants and animals. Vegetarianism also promotes sattvic qualities. "Unavoidably, for the sake of existence, we have to keep at home instruments of butchery like the khandani, pesani, etc.

The third butchery is represented by the culli or the kitchen fire. Many insects perish in the cooking fire. An ant crawls about the oven or fireplace and is burnt. Sometimes when we keep a pot on the floor or the shelf an insect or two get crushed. In the summer insects come seeking wet places, places for example where vessels are kept. The water-pot is also included among the objects of butchery. Then there is the upaskara, the broomstick. Aren't many tiny insects killed as we sweep the floor? Thus there are five instruments or objects of butchery in our home.

We must not cause harm even to those creatures that hurt us. But what do we do? We cause pain to, or kill, even harmless creatures. It is sad to think that to live, to sustain ourselves, we have to keep hurting so many living things. But it all seems unavoidable. We do not kill deliberately. There is 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. Vaisvadeva is meant for the excommunicated and for all creatures of earth like dogs, crows, insects, all. This rite absolves us of many a sin.

The pancha-mahayajnas were conducted for eons by the sages, by the children of Brahma. All performed them from the hoary past until the time of our grandfathers. The five great sacrifices are to be performed uninterruptedly until the deluge. But we have had the "good fortune" of having broken this tradition. Worse, we have deprived future generations of the benefits to be derived from them.

I have dealt with a variety of rites. Perform at least those you can without prejudice to your office or professional work. If you fail to do so you must be regretful and make amends for the same.

I am writing to you out of great concern for the future of our status as people allowed to live according to our culture without being discriminated against. We need your help.

You may have seen that presently the TVNZ is carrying an advertisement by the New Zealand Beef and Lamb Marketing Bureau that mimics in a manner of ridicule the Hare Krishna's in their sacred street chanting and dancing. The NZB&L says there ad' is a celebration of meat and is not in anyway offensive - maybe to them, but that is not how we see it, we are offended. Imagine the uproar if a ritual that another group takes seriously were parodied in such a way, ie the Maori Haka or the Anglican Eucharist?

See the URL here to see our complaint that was featured on TV ONE news www.hknet.org.nz/vege-NZbeef-mock.html  (top of this page)

I am bringing this to your attention as you are well known for upholding culture in your own right. According to Broadcasting Standards Authority, and the Advertising Standards Authority; Principle 3 clearly says: "Advertisements should not portray people in a manner which, taking into account generally prevailing community standards, is reasonably likely to cause serious or widespread offense on the grounds of their gender: race: colour: ethnic or national origin; age; cultural religious, political or ethical belief..." and in section Principle 4 of the Code also adds: "...advertisements should not use stereotypes in the portrayal of the role, character and behaviour of groups of people in society, which taking into account generally prevailing community standards, is reasonably likely to cause serious or widespread offense, hostility, contempt, abuse or ridicule."

Similarly the New Zealand Human Rights, Section 5 Discrimination Based on Race, Sex, Religion, Disability, Language, or Social Status. The law prohibits discrimination on the basis of these factors, and the Government effectively enforces it. The 1993 Human Rights Act prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex, marital status, religious belief, ethical belief, color, race, ethnic or national origins, disability, age, political opinion, employment status, and family status. Similarly the NZ Bill of Rights Act sections 13 through to 20 upholds the same please view this page ( http://www.oefre.unibe.ch/law/icl/nz01000_.html#S015_ ) - then why we might ask are these people being sanctioned by you to propagate such religious derision and mockery when the law says "including the right to adopt and hold opinions without interference"???.

See my page on notes in conjunction with Human Rights Commission of the UN www.hknet.org.nz/vege-HRCnotes.html ........ so many points are there. We believe that we are being mistreated, victimized and greatly played down. ( PROVISIONS FOR THE PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS BELONGING TO MINORITIES http://193.194.138.190/html/menu6/2/fs18.htm )

"Discrimination has been prohibited in a number of international instruments that deal with most, if not all, situations in which minority groups and their individual members may be denied equality of treatment. Discrimination is prohibited on the grounds of, inter alia, race, language, religion, national or social origin, and birth or other status. Important safeguards from which individual members of minorities stand to benefit include recognition as a person before the law, equality before the courts, equality before the law, and equal protection of the law, in addition to the important rights of freedom of religion, expression and association."

Article 27:
The Declaration grants to persons belonging to minorities:
- Protection, by States, of their existence and their national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identify (art. 1);
- the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion and to use their own language in private and in public (art. 2.1);
- the right to participate in cultural, religious, social, economic and public life (art. 2.2);
- the right to participate in decisions which affect them on the national and regional levels (art. 2.3);
- the right to establish and maintain their own associations (art. 2.4);
- the right to establish and maintain peaceful contacts with other members of their group and with persons belonging to other minorities, both within their own country and across state borders (art. 2.5); and
- the freedom to exercise their rights, individually as well as in community with other members of their group, without discrimination (art. 3).
States are to protect and promote the rights of persons belonging to minorities by taking measures:
- to create favourable conditions to enable them to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs (art. 4.2);
- to allow them adequate opportunities to learn their mother tongue or to have instruction in their mother tongue (art. 4.3);
- to encourage knowledge of the history, traditions, language and culture of minorities existing within their territory and ensure that members of such minorities have adequate opportunities to gain knowledge of the society as a whole (art. 4.4);
- to allow their participation in economic progress and development (art. 4.5);

In the Saturday NZ Herald newspaper (page 2) they tried to suggest that there are only 363 Hare Krishna supporters out of 38,000 Hindus in New Zealand. Absolute nonsense. Our Auckland temple mailing list has over 3000 addresses on it, and the Hamilton temple list around 1000, then what to speak of Wellington, and Christchurch centers all with established congregations. ( www.hknet.org.nz/NZKiwi-yatra.html ) (The Commission on Human Rights - [half way down the page] Defining a minority http://193.194.138.190/html/menu6/2/fs18.htm  The most commonly used description of a minority in a given State can be summed up as a non-dominant group of individuals who share certain national, ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics which are different from those of the majority population. )

Still we are a minority, and a bona-fide registered religion and United Nations Charter of 1945 (arts. 1 and 55), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 (art. 2) and the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966 (art. 2). Such provisions also appear in a number of specialized international instruments, including: ILO Convention concerning Discrimination in Respect of Employment and Occupation No. 111 of 1958 (art. 1); International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination of 1965 (art. 1); UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education of 1960 (art. 1); UNESCO Declaration on Race and Racial Prejudice of 1978 (arts. 1, 2 and 3); Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination based on Religion or Belief of 1981 (art. 2); and the Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989 (art. 2).

Their mood is that it is okay to mistreat, demean, ridicule or discriminate against minorities, and that is not right by any standard. New Zealand is after all a Multi-cultural country and should not carry these cultural, religious, and ethnic insensitivity's.

We consider these to cause serious offense and with you joining with us to complain it can be accepted by any sane person as widespread offense - presently only 100 or so have written in to complain that we know of, and frankly they don't take that seriously.

Our lawyers have also approached the ASA and BSA but we need your support too.

Please send in your Formal letter of complaint on your official letterhead if you have to the following:

We need your help in a special way as defined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights "ROLE OF NON-GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS" Mary Howlett  - Information Officer, Human Rights Commission  mailto:maryh@hrc.co.nz

To the Broadcasting Standards Authority
2nd Floor NZ Lotteries Commission Building
54-56 Cambridge Terrace
PO Box 9213, Wellington

and to the Advertising Standards Complaints Board
PO Box 10 675, Wellington.
Telephone 09 472 7852.

and to E mailto:asa@asa.co.nz

Sorry for all the extra work, culturally, ethnically, and religiously it will be worth it in the long run.

Rt. Rev. John Marshall  (a.k.a. JTCd)
<cut>
Bay of Plenty

Dear Complainant,

NZ Beef and Lamb Television Advertisement - Complaint 2003 / 20

I am writing to advise that the Complaints Board considered the above complaint at its meeting. After carefully considering the information received from all parties the Board decided that the complaint be Upheld as there had been a breach of relevant code.

In accordance with self-regulatory principles all parties have been requested to voluntarily withdraw the advertisement in its present form and to ensure that advertisements containing the material complained of do not appear in the future.

In due course a copy of the Decision will be forwarded to you. If you require urgent clarification of the offending material or other information please do not hesitate to contact me.

We request that you do not communicate the result to the media. Our usual procedure is to send the formal Decision to the media after we have forwarded it to you.

Yours sincerely

Heather McKenzie
Deputy Secretary
 

Let's answer these supposed refutational claims, their "Myth Busting"

Feel Good Meals

    Firstly we would like to point out the single selfishness of these people. They are highly concerned about "Feel Good Meals" but what they put other living entities through for the satisfaction of their lusty tongues and bellies is an outrage to any humane soul. The nature of one who is willing to slaughter another living being and eat their body shows symptoms of dire lack of mercy and compassion, and tolerance for mutual coexistence. If you'd like to FEEL GOOD try understanding the suffering that these poor creatures endure at a slaughterhouse or chicken farm, take a serious and objective look at how the dead body before you that looks so juicy and succulent and see who was living in it recently. Yes, it's true, and you cannot avoid it if you are an honest person, there was a living being with all the same feelings, desires, relationships as you and I inside that flesh and blood that was taken forcibly from them. Have you ever seen a young calf when he or she is separated from its mother, have you ever heard the cries of anguish and pain as the animals are involuntarily shot or prodded with stun guns, tears flowing from their eyes, sometimes trying to escape right up to the last minute of their life being taken from them to fill your plate...........!!!!
    Do you think that FEELS GOOD ????

If one want to be at least considered as a human, from whence the word humane is derived as being one of our qualities, then at least try to be a little sensitive.

There's no need to kill animals for food, there are thousands of acres of land laying idle, and thousands of people unemployed.

Actually , there is an abundance of food all over the world, if it is stored and distributed properly. There need be no starving persons in the world if the food stuffs are properly distributed, if crops are grown according to the nature of the land, and if some careful planning is done by persons who pose themselves as leaders of society. If you can't do it, then turn the job over to us we will do it !!!

Persons who are in the lower modes of nature may just think that to cause harm to others is a source of making them FEEL GOOD, and we accept that. In the same way as persons in the mixed modes of nature may exploit other beings and eventually allow them some mutual benefit in the revenue or produce for a price or certain commitment to a cause. However, those who are at least in the modes of goodness tale REAL pleasure in knowing that what we do actually brings quality foodstuffs to persons at a good price, that helps the environment, that helps the natural ecology of the planet, that provides a good and sustainable economic basis for every person and moreover supplies quality nutrition for those who partake of it that gives good health, strong bodies  for working, and a genuine and real and tangible claim to the little term FEEL GOOD MEALS.

Obviously we don't expect members of the meat industry to accept this, they have their financial investments dictating to them - symptoms of those lower modes that we mentioned earlier as defined in Bhagavad Gita.

They pose the question;
Does meat take longer to digest?

    Then they answer it in such a way as to make it look like they have credibility from a medical point of view, which from the following article you will clearly see is untrue. In the article Health and the meatless diet it is clearly stated that meat does in fact take longer to digest, and with the length of the human intestinal tract shows that our bodies are in fact not designed to indulge in carnivorous acts. Some carnivorous scientists have named our nut cracking and fruit-flesh tearing teeth as canine, but as I say, the persons who named them as such had an agenda to maintain.

You don't have to be a scientist to understand that either, just look at the elements that you/we are talking of in the above article Health and the meatless diet.

Beef is what is rotting in your colon!
Red Meat Diet Raises Colon Cancer Risk.

Can red meat be included in a cholesterol lowering diet?

    We may instead ask the question why, if one is trying to lower their cholesterol would one only go and do half a job in selecting a healthy diet? Why select meat that has had the fat cut off, when it is still packed with so many toxins/poisons and negative fatty acids that immediately compromise the ideal of healthy diet. The whole thing is a nonsense.

It's as crazy as suggesting that someone only use small amounts of poison on a regular basis - but oh my God these are the same people that do say that. They encourage alcohol consumption, and the reason being it helps to digest the rotting meat. Our page on Intoxication reveals further aspects of why the use of various intoxicants are allowed to be consumed in a recreational manner by the multi-national corporations who effectively have so much say in the policy making in most countries.

Is red meat ok in weight loss diets?

    Their last few lines contradict their first question's answer where they ask if meat takes a long time to digest. Their answer here is that; "High protein foods like red meat are very filling, so you feel satisfied for longer and don't need to eat as much."
    So why are they around longer in the body, because they are still being digested !!! It is not that they are filling, it is that they are heavy to digest. Their argument was that vegetables are filling - or you need to eat more - these questions and answers are absolute nonsense, and foolishness.

    As far as weight loss diets go, this is another one of those areas where industry tries to exploit the people. Also heavily influenced by the fashion industry who provide megga business for manufacturers and retailers who prompt the emotions of the easily manipulated masses into thinking they need a particular product. Then next week have their favourite and heavily sponsored movie star or football player parade around in that product to attract the minds of these innocent people. Often these "famous persons" would never purchase such a product, but wear it or eat it after receiving thousands if not millions of dollars for doing so. Vegetarianism has more integrity, the people who follow it have made considerable life-style decisions and live by what they do, see this small list.

    Again looking at this question, it is total selfishness, with only thought of their own situation, and no-one else. Everything is here for their exploitation, and or consumption, where in fact it is not necessarily. Our stance is even supported in the Bible, which over the years has been promoted by the meat-eaters to support their ideas.

Some try to use arguments based on density against volume, i.e., that it may require a few ounces of vegetable matter to compare with a similar amount of the nutrient found in a piece of dead meat. Such arguments actually get no-where more that what came first the chicken or the egg - which of course must have been the egg to define what the resultant chicken would be, otherwise there would be some confused idea like that of Mr Darwin who seems to think that species evolve into other species, which in any case is a good recommendation for a new species i.e. the chicken !!!

In conclusion:
Please take a moment to view what the Harvard Researchers, and the Cancer Society, the Heart Foundation all suggest to lay off the Red Meat.

Eating a lot of red meats, refined grains, french fries, and other typically Western foods will increase your risk of developing diabetes as an adult by more than half, according to a new study by Harvard School of Public Health researchers.

TIME Magazine also carried the story - Red Alert on Red Meat

"Harvard School of Public Health have linked a diet high in consumption of red meat, processed meat, high-fat dairy products and refined grains, combined with obesity and inactivity, with a high risk for type 2 diabetes in men."

The Harvard University's very own Vegetarian Nutrition and Health Letter (From the November/December issue) poses the question and powerfully provides the answer to the question Do You Need Meat?

So many of these misconceptions still linger on from the Colonial exploitation days of the last few centuries, where in the crowded cities of Europe, after the peasants had been driven from the land by lucrative offers to the land-owning squires to change from small wholistic/holisitc ways of social interaction and mutual dependency known as the Feudal system, to what became known as the Industrial Revolution. Promises of "streets paved with gold" directed the now homeless, landless peasants from their rural heritage into the work-houses of the newly expanding modern cities. Cities we may add that needed supporting with vegetables and grain etc. Alas, those same former grain and vegetable producers were the new influx into the cities, so production went dramatically down, and out of necessity crime rate, prostitution and many social and health problems rocketed.
    The answer stared the ruling classes in the face, they needed to expand their domain to develop new lands to provide for the rapidly growing cities and also find a way to deposit some of the unwanted population in remote places so as to relieve pressure in the homelands.
    As a result the colonies were developed, lands were stolen from indigenous peoples, wars were waged and the new claimed blood-tainted lands were settled by desperadoes looking for a new start (of course we know some, the criminals who were shipped out had no choice). Lands like the Americas, Australia, New Zealand etc., became and pretty much remain the mass exporters for the meat industry to the colonialist's motherlands.
    Therefore when we get these kind of supposed "facts" from the meat industry we have to understand what or who is talking, and how much multinational money is tied up in their dirty business. We cannot expect much less than the motivated answers and select questions they poise, but for those of us who know the truth, who can see beyond the propaganda machine of modern advertising, we are not part of their waning game.

Yes, the fact is that their business is waning, the facade is being seen through, the information age allows people to make informed choices based on real facts, and not mere doctored so-called facts, although still a lot of these are getting through. We hope that readers find these pages useful in arming themselves against the propaganda of persons who frankly do not have the people's interest at heart, they have their financial fulfillment foremost in their minds, and secondary....well maybe how they can spend it.......! The consumer is somewhere way down the track. We can take the expose of the Cigarette industry, and many other industries who have been exposed for their total disregard for the end of the line consumer, as long as they pay the money, or purchase their product, that sadly is all they are interested in.

For a really good example search for information on Erin Brockovich (I'll leave you to find out what I mean, you will be shocked, excited, blown away, and will understand what I'm saying)

To see similar meat-eaters arguments and gain insights into the proper understanding please go to the following page. A Vegetarian's Guide

To see an interesting article on the relation between meat and alcohol, and how it appears that alcohol maintains a lower body cholesterol in meat eaters reveals what happens when one stops drinking alcohol - the cholesterol again shoots up - so either a meat eater with low cholesterol due to being laden with alcohol or high cholesterol without alcohol. It's a lot less complicated and less harmful to be a vegetarian.

Harvard study questions USDA's food pyramid

The NEW Harvard food pyramid

Harvard is still somewhat biased, and very conservative

---