Let Them Eat Meat

History of the American Dietetic Association’s Vegetarian Position Papers, Part Two: 1980

Wed, 16 May 2012 12:25:00 +0100

The attitude of dietetic professionals towards vegetarian diets has changed in recent years. Compared to the 1980 position statement of the American Dietetic Association (ADA) which raised doubts about the adequacy and benefit of vegetarian eating, the most recent ADA position paper on vegetarian diets, published in 2009, views vegetarian diets more positively.

— “The Contribution of Dietary Studies in Seventh-day Adventists to Vegetarian Nutrition,” Ella H. Haddad of Loma Linda University, Vegetarian Nutrition Dietary Practice Group Newsletter, Volume XIX, Number 4, 2011

1980 paper title: “Position Paper on the Vegetarian Approach to Eating”

Contributors: Lydia Sonnenberg (vegetarian Seventh-day Adventist) and most likely Kathleen Keen Zolber (vegetarian Seventh-day Adventist) and U.D. Register (vegetarian Seventh-day Adventist)

Position statement: “The American Dietetic Association affirms that a well planned diet, consisting of a variety of largely unrefined plant foods supplemented with some milk and eggs (lacto-ovo vegetarian diet) meets all known nutrient needs. Furthermore, a total plant dietary can be made adequate by careful planning, giving proper attention to specific nutrients which may be in a less available form or in lower concentration or absent in plant foods.”

In 1980, The American Dietetic Association published “Position Paper on the Vegetarian Approach to Eating.” However, according to a note in the most recent American Dietetic Association position paper on a vegetarian diet, published in 2009, the ADA’s true position on a well-planned vegetarian diet arrived seven years later, just before the second vegetarian position paper was published in 1988:

American Dietetic Association (ADA) position adopted by the House of Delegates Leadership Team on October 18, 1987, and reaffirmed on September 12, 1992; September 6, 1996; June 22, 2000; and June 11, 2006.

Perhaps the 1980 paper is mostly forgotten now because it didn’t endorse vegetarianism as whole-heartedly as it could have. That’s because it advocates “protein combining” –- making sure that you eat a combination of plant foods that provide all essential proteins at every meal –- and it said vegetarianism could be risky for babies and pregnant women.

Nevertheless, the 1980 paper was mostly positive about vegetarianism and even veganism, and it provided an important groundwork for the later ADA vegetarian position papers, which is why I thought it was worth investigating who authored it.

What others said about the 1980 paper

Here’s how the Chicago Sun-Times summarized the 1980 paper at the time:

A position paper in the current issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association asserts that a diet consisting of largely unrefined plant foods supplemented with milk and eggs “meets all known nutrient needs.” …

While the association did not attempt to rate the various types of vegetarian diets – some, for instance, permit dairy products, while others do not – it offered some tips. Among them: Reduce substantially all high-calorie, low-nutrient density foods; replace meat with protein from legumes, seeds and nuts; keep careful watch on the intake of non-fat and low-fat milk products; increase intake of whole grain breads and cereals, if needed, to meet energy requirements, and eat a variety of fruits and vegetables.

For a total vegetarian diet, the association advised: Increase the consumption of leavened breads, cereals, legumes, nuts and seeds to maintain energy intake, and vary the combinations for protein purposes; increase quantities of foods that supply nutrients ordinarily found in milk products; provide vitamin D through exposure to sunlight daily, and obtain other needed vitamins through supplements or fortified foods.

— “AMA [sic] supports vegetarian diet – with an ‘if’,” Chicago Suntimes, July 1980

The History of Miso quoted a section of the 1980 paper titled “Vegetarianism—Past and Present”:

The American Dietetic Association recognizes that most of mankind for much of human history has subsisted on near-vegetarian diets. The vast majority of the population of the world today continues to eat vegetarian or semi-vegetarian diets for economic, philosophical, religious, cultural, or other reasons. The matter of motivation is crucial, because it affects the diet adopted, adherence to it, and other characteristics of life style.

—History of Miso, Soybean Jiang (China), Jang (Korea) and Tauco/Taotjo (Indonesia) (200 BC – 2009): Extensively Annotated Bibliography and Sourcebook, p. 697

And after the 1988 paper came out, Vegetarian Times writer Drew DeSilver looked back with ambivalence at its predecessor:

In a 1975 Position paper on “food and nutrition information,” the [American Dietetic Association] stated that “the careful selection of foods for vegetarians can ensure adequate nutrition for adults.” The emphasis was on “careful” and “adults”: The ADA maintained that vegetarian adults should take pains to eat complementary proteins (that is, juggle grains, beans and other plant foods so that a meal’s amino acid makeup mimicked that of meat), but it did not endorse vegetarianism for children. In fact, the association said infants and children younger than age 5 probably would not get enough protein on a ‘pure vegetarian diet.’ Even with protein complementing, the ADA concluded, ‘the quality of vegetable protein is less than animal protein.’ Protein, you see, was quite a big deal in 1975, and the ADA’s message was clear: If you insisted on not eating meat, you could do so safely, but you’d better make sure you painstakingly planned your meals.

But even as the ADA position paper was landing in dietitians’ mailboxes, research was underway that would disprove it. For example, a 1976 nutritional review noted that several studies of British vegetarians and vegans had found no widespread nutritional deficiencies, except possibly a marginal deficiency of B12. A 1978 Swedish study of vegetarian women and a control group found no significant differences in nutrient intake. A 1979 study of vitamin B6 status among Seventh-day Adventist vegetarians and nonvegetarians also found no nutritional differences. (Vegetarians owe a lot to the Seventh-day Adventists, by the way. About 50 percent of the denomination are lacto-ovo-vegetarians, and over the years they’ve proven to be a dependable subject pool for researchers. Much of what we know about the health benefits of vegetarianism comes from Adventist studies.) It appeared that when vegetarians suffered from nutrient deficiencies, such ailments were usually the result of some unusual factor—a rice-only diet, for example, or lack of exposure to sunlight in the case of Vitamin D deficiency—rather than the vegetarian diet itself.

The good nutritional news continued in the 1980s, beginning with a new ADA position paper that was surprisingly supportive of vegetarianism (although it stuck to its protein-complementing line). The 1980 paper stated that “a growing body of scientific evidence supports a positive relationship between the consumption of a plant-based diet and the prevention of certain diseases,” including coronary heart disease, osteoporosis, and gastrointestinal and reproductive cancers.

— “Vegetarians Under the Microscope: Medical Research 1974-1990,” Drew DeSilver, Vegetarian Times, December 1990, p. 55-56

How do I know who wrote it?

There are no authors or reviewers listed on the 1980 paper, and records at the American Dietetic Association (now Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics) don’t stretch back that far, leaving the 1980 paper effectively anonymous. However, I found this through a search on Adventist Archives:

Lydia Sonnenberg, associate professor of nutrition in the [Loma Linda] School of Health, has been asked to chair a committee that will write a position paper on “The Vegetarian Approach to Eating” for the American Dietetics Association.

— “Adventist Review,” Aug. 2, 1979, p. 22

That’s the only reference I could find for anyone who was involved with the 1980 “Position Paper on the Vegetarian Approach to Eating.” However, I think Sonnenberg almost certainly picked Kathleen Keen Zolber and U.D. Register -– fellow vegetarian Adventist dietitians — to work with her on it. Here’s why:

* Starting in the early 1950s, Sonnenberg and Register were on the consulting staff of the Nutrition Research Laboratory together.

* In 1972, U.D. Register and Kathleen Zolber were responsible for an audio recording called Vegetarianism, created for the American Dietetic Association. For many American dietitians in the early 1970s, listening to this tape for their continuing education requirements constituted their first introduction to vegetarianism.

* Mainstream dietitians’ second official exposure to vegetarianism might have come in 1973. That’s when the American Dietetic Association published Food for Us All: The Vegetarian Diet, a book or pamphlet by Zolber and Sonnenberg that was intended to educate more dietitians about vegetarianism.

* The 1980 veg position paper advocated protein combining, to the later chagrin of vegetarians and vegans. A year before Sonnenberg was assigned control over this paper, Sonnenberg and Register collaborated on an article for Adventist publications called “Proteins: The Body Builders,” in which they advocated protein combining:

It’s the Combination That Counts

The quality or biological value of a single protein cell is only a part of the story. It is the combined nutritive value of all the proteins in a meal that is really important.

It is a well-known scientific fact that animal foods adequately supplement plant proteins. Thus the practice of adding milk to breakfast cereal is an example of an excellent combination. What is not so generally known is the very good supplementation that occurs among the various kinds of plant proteins.

In general, legumes and vegetables are low in sulphur amino acids, and cereals are low in lysine. But legumes and vegetables are generally good sources of lysine, so they will nicely supplement cereal proteins. ….

A great deal of investigation supports the relationship existing between proteins from various food sources. Simply speaking, a combination of proteins from two or more sources when eaten together is usually better than one of them alone.

— “Proteins: The Body Builders,” Lydia Sonnenberg and U.D. Register, Herald of Health, Aug. 1978, p. 9

* Sonnenberg, Zolber and Register collaborated on It’s Your World Vegetarian Cookbook, published in 1980, and Sonnenberg and Register worked on Everyday Nutrition for Your Family together.

* In 1980, Sonnenberg was listed as an author on only two scientific nutrition papers. One was called “The vegetarian diet. Scientific and practical considerations,” and was for the Journal of the American Dietetic Association in 1973. The other was “Safe vegetarian diets for children” for the Pediatric Clinics of North America in 1977. Register co-authored both of them with her.

* Zolber was “Member-at-Large” on the ADA’s Board of Directors in 1979 and 1980, the years when the position paper was researched and then published.

* Zolber was the only ADA official quoted in the newspaper articles covering the 1980 vegetarian position paper. The Chicago AP reported:

The American Dietetic Association has given its blessing to vegetarian diets, as long as they are planned cautiously to meet all nutritional needs.

A position paper in the July issue of the Journal of the American Dietetic Association says a person can get needed protein without meat, poultry or fish, providing their diet is planned well.

However, the paper says, a vegetarian diet may be risky for some, including infants, small children and pregnant women.

The paper, which expands on the association’s previous cautious approval of vegetarian diets, says dietitians have “neither the moral nor the ethical right to interfere with the food choices of their clients.”

The publishing of the paper, the association said, comes at a time when vegetarian diets and other alternative lifestyles are more popular than ever.

Some health professionals sometimes “see (the vegetarian diet) as more restrictive than a well-balanced diet,” said Kathleen Zolber, director of nutritional services at the medical center at California’s Loma Linda University.

Grains and legumes are considered the major sources of protein for vegetarians.

The dietetic association, which consists of 41,000 dietitians, also says that “a growing body of scientific evidence supports a positive relationship” between vegetarian diets and prevention of certain diseases.

The paper cites a study of Seventh-Day Adventists, who do not eat meat, fish or poultry, who had significantly lower death rates due to coronary heart disease. The journal recommends further study of the link of vegetarian diets and prevention of diseases.

— “Dietitians Give Blessing to Vegetarian Diet,” Chicago AP, Ocala Star-Banner, July 11, 7A, 1980

* Zolber and U.D. Register were both reviewers for the 1988 revision of this position paper.

* In 1981, the year after the position paper came out, The American Dietetic Association published The Vegetarian Diet: Food For Us All: Study Kit, which was written by the trio of Sonnenberg, Zolber and Register.

So I’m going to look at all three of them in this entry. Anyone who doubts that Zolber and Register were involved with this one can mentally transpose their sections from here to the 1988 entry, since they were listed as reviewers on the ADA’s 1988 paper.

LYDIA SONNENBERG: Leader of the ADA’s 1980 Vegetarian Position Paper Committee

Lydia Sonnenberg was one of the few Seventh-day Adventist dietitians who served as President of the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association more than once (in 1958 and 1962). She was a professor of nutrition at the Adventist-run College of Medical Evangelists/Loma Linda University, as well as the director of their School of Dietetics. Loma Linda University now awards a scholarship in her name: “The Lydia Sonnenberg Scholarship Award is presented annually to selected junior students. Selection is based on academic performance, as well as demonstrated skill and interest in publishing nutrition information for the public.”

Sonnenberg wrote It’s Your World Vegetarian Cookbook with Ferm Calkins and Ulma Doyle Register, published in 1980 by the Review and Herald Publication Association, and edited Everyday Nutrition for Your Family, published by the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association. In 1983, the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association gave Sonnenberg the Distinguished Service Award.

Like many Seventh-day Adventist dietitians, Sonnenberg saw Adventist prophet Ellen G. White — an advocate of vegetarianism — as a source of divine nutritional wisdom.

Lydia Sonnenberg on nutrition and the role of the Seventh-day Adventist dietitian

“To make plain natural law, and urge the obedience of it, is the work that accompanies the third angel’s message, to prepare a people for the coming of the Lord.” Vol. 3, p. 161. In these few words [Ellen G. White’s] the Spirit of Prophecy sets forth the principles and objectives of healthful living.

There is a special reason given for the place and purpose of this health program in the third angel’s message: “God’s people are not prepared for the loud cry of the third angel. They have a work to do for themselves which they should not leave for God to do for them. He has left this work for them to do… . In order to be fitted for translation, the people of God must know themselves. They must understand in regard to their own physical frames… .” [Ellen G. White’s] Counsels on Diet and Foods, pp. 32, 33. This indicates the necessity of a study of those subjects which would give a practical knowledge of how to live in order to secure the maximum in physical health, mental attainment and spiritual welfare. Nutrition is but one of the many environmental factors involved in the maintenance of health. It is, however, a basic one for human experience and scientific research have fully substantiated the fact that our daily diet has a powerful influence over the life we live.

Many years ago this concept was revealed to the servant of the Lord: “There are but few as yet who are aroused sufficiently to understand how much their habits of diet have to do with their health, their characters, their usefulness in this world, and their eternal destiny. I saw that it is the duty of those who have received light from Heaven, and have realized the benefit of walking in it, to manifest a greater interest for those who are still suffering for want of knowledge. Sabbath-keepers who are looking for the soon appearing of their Saviour should be the last to manifest a lack of interest in this great work of [health] reform.”—Testimonies, Vol. 1, pp. 488, 489.

The challenge comes first to us individually to live in harmony with all God’s physical laws governing our bodies. However, our obligation does not end with our individual response to this matter. “Wherever the truth is carried, the people should be given instruction in regard to the preparation of healthful foods… . Present before the people the need of resisting the temptations to indulge appetite. This is where many are failing. Explain how closely body and mind are related and show the need of keeping both in the very best condition.”—Medical Ministry, pp. 262, 263.

Is it not time that each of our churches becomes a small lighthouse from which the light of healthful living may be shed abroad in the church and in the community? As we all respond to this challenge, we shall see the earth lighted with our glorious message of healthful living, as it accompanies the proclamation of the third angel’s message. We will see this phase of our teaching open the way for our other doctrines.

The words from Holy Writ give serious import to this program of healthful living: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.” 1 Corinthians 3:16, 17.

—LYDIA M. SONNENBERG, Director,
School of Dietetics, College of Medical Evangelists.

— “Nutrition Education for Church and Community,” Lydia Sonnenberg, The Church Officers’ Gazette, May, 1950 p. 25-26

* * *

Three students of the School of Dietetics at the College of Medical Evangelists received scholarships totaling $325, according to a recent announcement by Miss Lydia Sonnenberg, school director. …

Scholarships were granted on the basis of scholarship, Christian character, evidence of leadership and adaptability to the profession.

“By granting scholarships,” stated Miss Sonnenberg, “the school aims to attract capable young men and women into the profession who will become thoroughly trained as dietitians. They will have important places to fill not only in the treatment of disease, but also in educating the public in the principles of good nutrition.

“The purpose of the School of Dietetics and its scholarship program is to give its students not only a scientific training in the field of nutrition and dietetics but also to teach them the principles of Christian living which will enable them to attain the best in life while serving mankind.”

— “School of Dietetics, C.M.E.” Pacific Union Recorder, May 29, 1950, p. 5-6

* * *

In his writings [the apostle] Paul has not left us without admonition regarding the care of these sacred temples [our bodies], for he writes, “Glorify God in your body, and in your spirit.” And again, “Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God.” If one were to search through all the annals of history, undoubtedly one would not find a nobler example of acknowledgment of this divine precept, and its attendant blessings, than is recorded concerning Daniel and his companions.

The story is well known: About six hundred years before the time of Christ the mighty armies of Nebuchadnezzar were besieging Jerusalem. When the city fell the king commanded that certain royal young men of the Hebrews should be chosen for training as courtiers in the magnificent palace of the great monarch. They were to receive a very special type of education and were to be given a daily portion of the king’s food and of the wine which he drank. Thus living a carefully prescribed life, it was presumed that after three years they would have the proper training to stand before the great ruler of Babylon.

A part of the regime did not please Daniel, and he “purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king’s meat.” But the prince of the eunuchs, who was charged to carry out the king’s program, objected saying, “I fear my lord the king.” Daniel, however, suggested a reasonable course of action: “Prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink. Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king’s meat.” This appealed to the eunuch, and so the experiment was begun, with the startling result that at the end of the ten days “their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king’s meat.” Consequently, they were given the simple, health-giving diet to which they were accustomed. At the end of their probationary period the king himself examined these four Hebrew boys, and they passed with a mark ten times better than all the magicians and astrologers in his kingdom.

Thus there was established in the long-ago the principles of healthful living, including careful attention to diet, which are now fully substantiated by science and human experience. It is not surprising that the specialized profession of dietetics, which has come into being in these modern days, should recognize the validity of the premises established centuries ago. Daniel and his companions, in effect, carried out one of our earliest nutritional experiments, and today the fact is basic that health of body, mind, and spirit is to a large extent dependent upon our daily diet.

Today, then, the Seventh-day Adventist dietitian has a wonderful heritage. She counts as her professional ancestry such worthies as Daniel, Florence Nightingale, and Ellen G. White, for they each recognized the place of a proper dietary in relation to man’s total well-being. She has in a very special and definite way inherited the concept that the dietitian not only ministers to the needs of a physically hungry world but must give of the bread of life to fill a vast inarticulate soul-hunger which she finds everywhere about her.

The Seventh-day Adventist dietitian has a challenging responsibility. She has a glorious message of healthful living to proclaim. This third angel’s message must be skillfully woven into her activities, and it matters not the place—whether it be the patient’s bedside, the neighbor’s hearth, or the evangelist’s pulpit. To the dietitian has been entrusted the wonderful opportunity of bringing health and healing through the medium of God’s natural remedies—the fruits, grains, nuts, and other bounties supplied from the hand of our Creator. Divine inspiration has penned these words [by Ellen G. White]: “The one who understands the art of properly preparing food, and who uses this knowledge, is worthy of higher commendation than those engaged in any other line of work. This talent should be regarded as equal in value to ten talents; for its right use has much to do with keeping the human organism in health. Because so inseparably connected with life and health, it is the most valuable of all gifts.”

What a marvelous privilege the dietitian has—to use in the service of mankind and to the glory of God one of the most valuable of all gifts! What nobler task than to teach others how to care for God’s great masterpiece—the living temple in which He chooses to dwell. The need is great. Listen: “There are but few as yet who are aroused sufficiently to understand how much their habits of diet have to do with their health, their characters, their usefulness in this world, and their eternal destiny.”

— “Ye Are the Temple,” Lydia M. Sonnenberg, The Youth’s Instructor, May 29, 1951, p. 9 & 21-22

* * *

Food and diet are as old as man. When God placed Adam and Eve in the garden He said, “Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.” Gen. 1:29.

Man must eat to live, and what he eats will affect in a high degree his ability to keep well, to work, to be happy, and to live long. But the Christian has more than an interest in the maintenance of a high level of physical health merely for personal well-being. He recognizes the body as being the fleshly temple where the Holy Spirit dwells.

— “The Challenge of Better Nutrition,” Lydia Sonnenberg, Review and Herald, Mar. 19, 1953, p. 5

* * *

Dr. H. C. Sherman, an eminent nutrition authority, states:

“When grain products, vegetables, fruits and milk have all been given their full places in the diet, the result is a food supply and dietary of such excellence that the extent to which meats, fats and sweets are added is of relatively little consequence in normal nutrition.” —Essentials of Nutrition, p. 334.

How close the harmony between this statement and those of Ellen G. White. In writing of the proper dietary, Sister White stated:

“Fruits, grains, and vegetables, prepared in a simple way, free from spice and grease of all kinds, make, with milk or cream, the most healthful diet.”— Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 92.

“Grains, fruits, nuts, and vegetables constitute the diet chosen for us by our Creator. These foods, prepared in as simple and natural a manner as possible, are the most healthful and nourishing.” —Ibid., p. 81.

— “Conserving Our Minerals and Vitamins” by Lydia Sonnenberg, Review and Herald, July 2, 1953, p. 6-7

* * *

The new Nutrition Research Laboratory at La Sierra, California, is about to be opened to definite research work. Already a well-qualified group of technical experts on nutrition have been placed on the consultive staff of the laboratory. These include … Miss Lydia Sonnenberg, M.A.; Mervyn Hardinge, M.D., Ph.D.; U. D. Register, Ph.D.; …

We can always be sure that thorough scientific research will support and not contradict Inspiration. To research workers it is of the greatest encouragement to embark upon problems that Inspiration has foretold would be accomplished. The assurance that the Lord will give wisdom to those who study to find suitable substitutes for meat, eggs, and milk in the diet is a great stimulus. The Lord always has something better than that which He would have us discard.

— “The New Nutrition Research Laboratory” by Harry W. Miller, Review and Herald, Aug. 20, 1953, p. 18

* * *

The White Memorial Hospital cafeteria was the setting for the second semi-annual banquet for the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association, Tuesday evening, January 27. One hundred twenty members and friends gathered for the occasion. President Lydia Sonnenberg welcomed and introduced the guests and officers of the organization.

Elder W. R. Beach, vice-president of the General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, was the main speaker of the evening. He told the group of the attention being given to Seventh-day Adventists, and their health message, by prominent workers in the field of nutrition and research. He mentioned Dr. Clive McCay specifically, and his evaluation of the writings of Ellen G. White on food and health. …

President-elect, Paul Damazo, summarized what has been accomplished in the four years since the association was organized, and briefly surveyed the plans and projects scheduled for the near future. He mentioned specifically two pamphlets that have been prepared during the past year, “What About Meat?” and “What Shall We Drink?” He told how these pamphlets are being well received by the patients of the Glendale Sanitarium, and are answering a real need. The pamphlets, which will be used by other institutions, are prepared in such a way that they can be used for community nutrition classes and health talks given in connection with evangelistic meetings.

— “Dietetic Association Holds Meeting,” The Record, March 25, 1959, Vol. 58, No. 12, p. 3

* * *

[This book] is based upon the most up-to-date, scientific knowledge available at the present time. And yet as you read its pages you will see that the principles of diet and health given to the Church decades ago by Ellen G. White are still basic.

— Everyday Nutrition for Your Family, edited by Lydia Sonnenberg, published by the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association, 1961, Preface

* * *

It is rather common knowledge that Seventh-day Adventists are dedicated to the health principles which they profess. There is real conviction that those practices which are inimical to health, which contribute to disease, and which are known to shorten life do not glorify God. The Biblical admonition that the Christian glorify God in his body is fundamental in the health instructions and practices of Seventh-day Adventists. It is difficult to worship God or serve God in a body that is less than its optimum of health. We are told that the mind is the only avenue through which God can communicate His will to man. A healthy mind is dependent upon a healthy body. Thus we see the importance of a healthy body for a clear, keen intellect and a consistent and dynamic Christian life. Perhaps no single area of our health teachings is of greater significance than that of nutrition. For a consistent balance in our attitudes in matters of diet we draw from the counsel found in Ellen G. White’s highly esteemed volume, Ministry of Healing…

— Everyday Nutrition for Your Family, edited by Lydia Sonnenberg, published by the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association, 1961, p. 14

* * *

Among the many kinds of diets eaten by mankind, two basic types exist – vegetarian and non-vegetarian. Vegetarian diets are of two kinds, the ‘pure’ vegetarian in which only plant foods are used, and the lacto-ovo-vegtarian in which milk and eggs, natural foods of animal origin, are included. The non-vegetarian or omnivorous diet also uses the flesh of animals, never designed by nature for food. Contrary to Western opinion, vast populations of the earth have lived for centuries on diets generally considered vegetarian, containing little or no foods of animal origin. Indeed, the inspired record of man’s original diet shows it to have consisted entirely of the products of plants – seeds, fleshy fruits and nuts (Gen. 1:29).

— Everyday Nutrition for Your Family, edited by Lydia Sonnenberg, published by the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association, 1961, p. 130

* * *

[Ellen G. White’s] Counsels on Diet and Foods should be our textbook to obtain better health for our families.

— Everyday Nutrition for Your Family, edited by Lydia Sonnenberg, published by the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association, 1961, p. 141

* * *

The incoming president [of the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association], Lydia Sonnenberg, discussed plans and projects for the coming year. The convention closed on a note of thankfulness for the Lord’s guidance in the past, and a dedication to faithful service for Him during the months that lie ahead.

— “SDA Dietetic Association in Annual Convention,” Review and Herald, Dec. 13, 1962, p. 19.

Many years ago, Ellen G. White wrote: “Pure air, sunlight, abstemiousness, rest, exercise, proper diet, the use of water, trust in divine power— these are the true remedies.” —The Ministry of Healing, p. 127. These principles represent a way of life that modern scientific investigation is more and more establishing as a preventive program against this country’s leading cause of death.

— “What About Cholesterol? An instructor in the school of dietetics at Loma Linda University answers a major question of current interest,” Lydia Sonnenberg, Review and Herald, Feb. 7, 1963, p. 8

* * *

The laws governing the continual, rapid, and orderly formation of the hundreds of complex proteins in the body are indeed outstanding evidences of God’s sustaining control in our life processes. …

We marvel at the Creator’s handiwork when we realize that from such a limited assortment of amino acids, substances are made with such a multiplicity and diversity of functions!

— “Protein-That Vital Ingredient” by Lydia Sonnenberg, The Ministry, Sept. 1974, p. 39

KATHLEEN KEEN ZOLBER: Probable Contributor to the ADA’s 1980 Vegetarian Position Paper, and Reviewer for the ADA’s 1988 Vegetarian Position Paper

Kathleen Keen Zolber was a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association and contributed to at least one of their publications. She taught in the Loma Linda University School of Public Health’s dietetic internship program, was the first director of Loma Linda’s Coordinated Program in Dietetics and was director of Nutritional Services of the Loma Linda Medical Center. Loma Linda University offers “The Kathleen Keen Zolber Scholarship Award,” which goes to “selected juniors in recognition of scholarship and promise of outstanding professional achievement.”

At the American Dietetic Association, Zolber served on the Dietetic Internship Board, the Commission on Evaluation of Dietetic Education and the Board of Directors as Member at Large. She was also Commission Chairman for the Evaluation of Dietetic Education, Evaluator for Pilot Testing the Standards of Education and Site Visitor for the Accreditation Commission.

She was a member of the Committee to Advise Implementation of Study Commission Recommendations for ADA, the Publications Advisory Committee of the Journal of The American Dietetic Association, the Dietetic Internship Council and the Coordinating Cabinet. Zolber was the Area I Coordinator for the ADA Foundation from 1983 to 1988. She was on the local Legislation Committee and the Scholarship and Awards Committee for the California Dietetic Association, and Chairman of the Administration Committee for the Inland District Dietetic Association. She launched the ADA Foundation capital campaign to purchase a building and establish the National Center for Nutrition and Dietetics, which was a major reason the American Dietetic Association later gave her an award.

Zolber was elected president of the American Dietetic Association in 1982 — a major victory for Adventists who believed in the Holy nature of Ellen G. White’s visions:

The book [Health to the People: Stories of Public Health, Preventive and Lifestyle Medicine, and Medical Evangelism Training and Outreach, Loma Linda, California, 1905-2005] recounts many exciting ways God has blessed this first church operated School of Public Health. Founded in 1905, [Loma Linda University], initially called the College of Evangelists, began by developing health education training of medical evangelists. In 1922, the School of Nutrition and Dietetics was established and went through twenty years of disappointment in its many efforts to get approval of the American Dietetic Association (ADA). The ADA finally recognized the benefits of plant based diets and Loma Linda was fully vindicated when its vegetarian Professor of Nutrition, Katherine Zolber, was elected president of the ADA and was given the Cypher Award, ADA’s highest.

— “Dysinger’s Health to the People now available”

Along with most likely collaborating on the 1980 “Position Paper on the Vegetarian Approach to Eating,” Zolber was a reviewer for 1988’s “American Dietetic Association Position Paper on a Vegetarian Diet.” When she won Adventist Woman of the Year in 1985, The Association of Adventist Women wrote: “Kathleen exemplifies the kind of contribution a professional can make by being capable in her field and true to principle.”

And The Adventist Woman added:

As an educator, researcher, scholar, manager, and leader, Kathleen Zolber has influenced her profession and supported her church in a life-long career in nutrition and dietetics. … As a committed Seventh-day Adventist, Dr. Zolber finds time to work in her local church. She belongs to the 5,000-member Loma Linda University church where she chairs the Finance Committee. … Her faith and values as an Adventist Christian have permeated her professional life. Her professional expertise has enriched her service to her church.

— “1985 Women of the Year: Nutritionist, Bible worker, and missionary honored in New Orleans for lives of service.” The Adventist Woman, July/Aug., 1985, p. 5

Click for more on Kathleen Keen Zolber.

U.D. REGISTER: Probable Contributor to the ADA’s 1980 Vegetarian Position Paper, and Reviewer for the ADA’s 1988 Vegetarian Position Paper

U.D. Register was an Adventist biochemist who chaired the Department of Nutrition at Loma Linda University’s School of Public Health. His particular interest of study was testing the visions of Adventist Prophet Ellen G. White in order to prove them correct. One of these studies — which showed that coffee, spices and poor nutrition drove rats to alcoholism — was published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association in 1972.

Register often spoke about “Nutritional Prophetic Fulfillments,” referring to parallels between the findings of nutritional science and the teachings of Ellen White. Since White said God told her that a diet without animal flesh was the healthiest for humankind, Register helped with the first serious studies looking at the adequacy of protein on a vegetarian diet, and is credited with convincing the American Dietetic Association to accept vegetarianism. He was the California Nutrition Council’s third president, and in 1974, wrote the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council’s statement on vegetarian diets. Register was a member of the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association and worked on at least two of their publications.

U.D. Register on nutrition and the role of the Seventh-day Adventist dietitian

At the Loma Linda University School of Health we take Mrs. White’s counsels as leads, studying health problems in relation to her teachings. If you have this combination of science, the Scriptures and her writings you have a firm foundation on which to build good health physically, mentally, and spiritually.

— “Eat Right, Feel Right,” Interview with U.D. Register, Review and Herald, Aug. 29, 1974, p. 5

* * *

“By the way, my name is U. D. Register, from Madison, Wisconsin. This ‘Operations Telephone’ fits right into the program we’re following of ‘Operations Doorbell!’ We’re successfully using a ‘Public Opinion Religious Survey.’ … In the course of asking them ten questions we are able to find out their spiritual attitude. The questions lead very nicely into our introduction of the 20th Century Bible Course card and the radio log for the Voice of Prophecy. We have just returned from visiting fifty homes here in this city where we are having this youth’s congress, and we were cordially received. As a result, definite interests were found, and we signed up a number of folk for the Bible course. We also were able to have a word of prayer in the majority of the homes.”

— “The Badger State M.V.’s GO Places and DO Things” by J.F. Knipschild, Jr., The Youth’s Instructor, Jan. 17, 1950, p. 12

* * *

Two panels composed of both physicians and ministers centered attention on what the medical-evangelistic team can do to give impetus to the finishing of God’s work. … Physicians told of how they worked to win souls for Christ in their practice of medicine. They described their witness for God in the giving of Bible studies, personal counsel to patients, and prayer with and for those to whom they minister. They further described their use of gospel literature in medical evangelism. Local conference ministers complemented these panel reports, indicating how the pastor and the physician may and do work together to lead men to Christ. …

Outstanding assistance and counsel were given by Mervyn Hardinge, M.D., and U. D. Register, Ph.D., in the field of nutrition. …

“This is a forward step in advancing the work of God,” was the repeated comment as the meeting drew to a close. …

All felt that the meeting’s contribution to a better understanding between minister and physician, dentist, and nurse was obvious. We anticipate real teamwork between the spiritual leaders and the medical profession after so stimulating a period together.

— “Health Evangelism: A Medical Evangelism Experiment” by Raymond H. Libby, The Ministry, June, 1956, p. 37

* * *

The outstanding feature of the week will be three meetings at which Dr. U. D. Register, biochemist, from the College of Medical Evangelists, will be the guest speaker. Dr. Register’s reports of recent scientific research verifying Spirit of Prophecy counsel in the field of nutrition will be of interest to all who are trying to live healthfully for more efficient service.

Dr. Register will speak in Columbia Auditorium on the following dates:
Sabbath morning church service, 11 o’clock, November 10.
Sunday joint worship, 6:30 p.m.
Monday chapel period, 9:20 a.m.

“Health Week on WWC Campus,” Lucille Jones, North Pacific Union Gleaner, Nov. 5, 1956, p. 8

* * *

“The time will come when we may have to discard some of the articles of diet we now use, such as milk and cream and eggs; but my message is that you must not bring yourself to a time of trouble beforehand, and thus afflict yourself with death. Wait till the Lord prepares the way before you.”—[Ellen G. White’s] Counsels on Diet and Foods, p. 206, compare pp. 208, 210.

These counsels have been given concerning the possible danger of dispensing with milk in the diet, not because of the protein factor, but probably because of the lack of vitamin B12 in plant foods, which could be supplied by an average daily intake of one glass of milk or soybean milk containing vitamin B12.

To sum up the matter: today it can be scientifically demonstrated that the lacto-vegetarian diet is wholly adequate. In the light of this, the counsel given to us long ago takes on new force and value: “Fruits, grains, and vegetables, prepared in a simple way, free from spice and grease of all kinds, make, with milk or cream, the most healthful diet. They impart nourishment to the body, and give a power of endurance and vigor of intellect that are not produced by a stimulating diet.” — Counsels on Health, p. 115.

— “Are Nonflesh Proteins Adequate?” by U.D. Register, Review and Herald, Aug. 7, 1958, p. 19

* * *

Carolina Adventists will be privileged to attend a series of health lectures by Dr. U. D. Register, instructor in the department of biochemistry at the College of Medical Evangelists, at this year’s camp meeting. …

He will point out the fact that Seventh-day Adventists have been 50 years ahead of the advancement of nutritional science through the inspired instruction of Mrs. E. G. White on diet and foods. “Science has now verified statements in nutrition made over 50 years ago through the Spirit of Prophecy,” he said.

— “Carolina Camp Meeting,” George V. Yost, Southern Tidings, May 10, 1961, p. 5

* * *

Dr. U. D. Register, professor of biochemistry of Loma Linda University, will present a series of health messages at the Missouri Camp Meeting, June 27-30. … In his research, Dr. Register has made painstaking efforts to gather modern scientific proof that the health plan presented in the Spirit of Prophecy is the only safe one to follow. He also has made careful survey to discover the relationship between successful spiritual life and health habits.

In the summer of 1961 he read a series of papers at a world meeting of biochemists in Moscow.

We are sure that our people will find this portion of our camp meeting especially rewarding in its relationship to our overall spiritual needs.

— “Health Lectures at Camp Meeting,” H. C. Klement, Central Union Reaper, May 1, 1962, p. 6

* * *

Recent evidence that places improper diet as a cause of juvenile delinquency and supports an 1884 Ellen G. White statement will be presented at the School of Nutrition and Dietetics Alumni homecoming, April 14-16, states Ardis S. Beckner, president of the alumni association.

U. D. Register, PhD, associate professor of biochemistry, will discuss recent findings in this field as part of his hour of worship presentation at the University Church, April 15. His topic is “Nutritional Prophetic Fulfillments.”

— “Annual Nutrition and Dietetics Homecoming Slated April 14-16,” Scope, Mar. 15, 1967, p. 1

* * *

Using [Adventist prophet Ellen G. White’s] inspired writings as a basis, U.D. Register, Ph.D., associate professor of biochemistry of the School of Health of Loma Linda University, A Seventh-day Adventist institution near Redlands, California, and a team of co-workers conducted a series of fascinating experiments, aimed at finding scientific confirmation for Spirit of Prophecy statements. In the final analysis it proved that experimental rats which were fed meals common to many Americans developed an abnormal taste for alcohol when coffee and spices were added to their diet. Presenting the results of their research project at the fifty-first annual meeting of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in Chicago (1967), Dr. Register pointed out that ‘persons who drink a lot of coffee, live on nutritionally poor diets and use a lot of spices may be driving themselves to alcoholic drink. In the University laboratory, where rats were fed pellets of a popular U.S. diet consisting of doughnuts and coffee for breakfast, sweet rolls and coffee for the 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. breaks, hot dogs with mustard and relish, a soft drink with apple pie and coffee for lunch, spaghetti and meatballs, French bread, green beans, chopped salad, chocolate cake and coffee for dinner and were given a choice of water or a solution of ten percent alcohol to drink,” he explained, “the rats chose to drink about five times more alcohol than a group of rats on a milk-vegetable control diet.” …

Said Ellen White in 1905:

”By the use of rich, unhealthful food the digestive organs are weakened and a desire is created for food that is still more stimulating. Thus the appetite is educated to crave continually something stronger. The demand for stimulants becomes more frequent and more difficult to resist. The system becomes more or less filled with poison and the more debilitated it becomes, the greater is the desire for these things. One step in the wrong direction prepares the way for another. Many who would not be guilty of placing on their table wine or liquor of any kind will load their table with food which creates such a thirst for strong drink that to resist temptation is almost impossible. Wrong habits of eating and drinking destroy the health and prepare the way for drunkenness.”

It took science exactly sixty-two years to catch up.

— Ellen G. White, Prophet of Destiny, Rene Noorbergen, p. 102–104

* * *

Americans on their typically poor diet of coffee and lots of highly-spiced food are driving themselves to drink, Dr. U. D. Register told a group of scientists in Chicago recently.

At the fifty-first Annual Meeting of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology, attended by more than 20,000, Doctor Register, biochemist at Loma Linda University’s School of Medicine, presented the results of animal studies in progress under the auspices of the Pacific Union Conference, the Lassen Foundation, and Loma Linda Foods. …

The team of scientists conducting the study include U. D. Register, Sylvia R. Marsh, C. E. Thurston, M. D. Horning, J. E. Crowder, and M. G. Hardinge. Their interest in such a study was based on statements from [Ellen G. White’s] Counsels on Diet and Foods such as these:

“Many who would not be guilty of placing on their tables wine or liquor of any kind will load their tables with food which creates such a thirst for strong drink that to resist the temptation is almost impossible.”—p. 123. “By the use of tea and coffee, an appetite is formed for tobacco, and this encourages the appetite for liquors.”—p. 233. “The appetite for liquor is encouraged by the preparation of food with condiments and spices.”—p. 339 and 340.

Results thus far, based on animal studies, give scientific support to such statements.

— “Recent Animal Studies Support Spirit of Prophecy Statements,” Dr. Claude E. Thurston, Pacific Union Recorder, May 15, 1967, p. 1

* * *

Bolstering confidence in counsel given almost one hundred years ago through the Spirit of Prophecy, Loma Linda has been running experiments which substantiate this advice. Dr. Register told of the results of feeding rats on a diet of refined, highly spiced and flesh food as contrasted with a simple, highly-nutritious diet. Liquor was available to both groups of rats, but those on the poor diet consumed much larger quantities of it than those on the nutritious diet. This supports Ellen White’s statement that people are often made drunkards right at the dinner table, and the connection between total physical fitness and moral and mental vigor demonstrates the necessity for fitness in order to comprehend spiritual truths.

— “Angwin Physical Fitness,” Ruth McLin, Pacific Union Recorder, June 21, 1971, p. 8

* * *

Tuesday, November 30, our conference presidents joined me in a day at Loma Linda University as guests of the personnel of the School of Health, Drs. Merritt Horning and Mervyn Hardinge planned a most inspiring and exciting program for us. Those telling of their work were Drs. U. D. Register…and others. …

It is thrilling to note that their findings agree completely with the statements of Ellen G. White made many decades ago.

— “So You Will Know,” Pacific Union Recorder, Dec. 13, 1971, p. 1

* * *

The Seventh-day Adventists, an evangelical Protestant denomination founded in 1863 in Battle Creek, Mich., believe God gave Adam and Eve a diet of fruit, seeds, nuts and vegetables. …

All profits from the [Adventist] food companies go to the support of Seventh-day Adventist schools. In America there are 80 Adventist high schools, 12 colleges and two universities. Loma Linda University in Loma Linda is one of the denomination’s two universities. The other, Andrews University, is in Michigan. …

Working closely to perfect the nutritional content and palatability of Loma Linda Foods are members of the teaching and research staff at nearby Loma Linda University school of medicine.

Dr. Ulma Doyle Register, 51, chairman of the school’s department of nutrition, spends a good deal of his time in research for Loma Linda Foods.

“Vegetarians,” insists Dr. Register, “have fewer common colds, less flu.

“It is our contention vegetarians live longer by cutting down on cholesterol, by not clogging their arteries with animal fats.

“We have research programs under way to determine if cancer is transmitted, as many vegetarians believe, through flesh foods.”

— “Vegetarianism Gains Popularity on Campus,” Charles Hillinger for the Los Angeles Times, Gleaner, Jan. 17, 1972, p. 14-15

* * *

Mr. Bart: Why do you choose to omit meat from your diet?

Dr. Register: For health reasons a lot of Seventh-day Adventists do not use meat. Actually, their diet is something like that of the Jewish people; they can eat beef or lamb or fish with scales just as the Jewish people recommend. However, many do not use meat at all for health reasons, plus the fact that the original diet according to the Genesis record in the Scriptures was a diet without meat.

— “Some things you didn’t want to know about nutrition,”These Times, July 1, 1973, p. 7

* * *

Special guest for the weekend was Dr. U. D. Register, chairman of the School of Nutrition at Loma Linda University. Dr. Register spoke on the theme of diet and health, showing the close relationship between our salvation and our diet. He told how Loma Linda University has developed a scientific study group to investigate and subject to research statements found in the writings of E. G. White, relating to diet and foods. Faith is strengthened as we learn of the scientific reasoning which confirms her counsel and instruction. Sabbath afternoon Dr. Register conducted a question-and-answer hour on the subject.

— ”Successful Family Campout Held,” Wayne Easley, Southwestern Union Record, May 24, 1975, p. 14-15

* * *

Scientists in general, and biochemists in particular, are learning much about growth and life in the physical realm, but in 2 Peter 3:18 we learn of another important aspect of growth:

“Grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ.”

Growth implies life. There is no real life without Christ.

— “How the Physical Illumines the Spiritual,” U.D. Register, The Ministry, March, 1976, p. 37

Click for more on U.D. Register.

The next entry in this series will look at the authors and reviewers of the American Dietetic Association’s 1988 paper on a vegetarian diet.

David Cain on Vegan Alienation and Why the All-or-Nothing Mentality is Bad for Animals

Tue, 08 May 2012 11:30:00 +0100

David Cain is the author of a blog called Raptitude, “a street-level look at the human experience.” Last month, in an entry called “Giving up the V-Card,” he explained why he’d stopped calling himself vegan, even though he still doesn’t purchase animal products. The main reason was alienation; veganism had erected a psychological barrier between himself and meat eaters, and he wanted to tear down that wall.

Some meat eaters think that people are attracted to veganism because they want to be “morally superior.” I don’t think there is much truth to this. However, vegans with a deep concern for animals do often find themselves in the uncomfortable position of thinking that most of the people around them are doing something really terrible, and are maybe even morally deplorable.

A Christian once wrote to me that he felt sorry for vegans and the psychological torment they must feel from constantly having to witness the behavior they abhor. While he had a religious objection to homosexuality, his objection was that he felt gay people were doing spiritual harm to themselves, not that they were hurting others, so for him it was more a matter of being concerned rather than angered. Religious people with various objections to sex are often confronted with sexual images in the media, but at least people aren’t having sex next to them at restaurants. And pro-lifers can at least feel happy that almost no women regularly have abortions, and abortion doctors are a tiny minority of the population.

Vegans, however, see cruelty everywhere they go and know that most people regularly do what they oppose — exploit animals. Books with titles like Vegan Freak: Being Vegan in a Non-Vegan World, Living Among Meat Eaters: The Vegetarian’s Survival Handbook and Raising Children in a Non-Vegan World suggest that vegans do feel tormented from the animal product use that is all around them. It’s not surprising, then, that veganism sometimes inflames misanthropic tendencies. You wrote about this divide in “Giving up the V-card.” Is there something about veganism that makes it even more alienating than other strong beliefs?

The biggest revelation I had as a result of going vegan is that humans generally don’t act out of morality. We act of out of conditioning and emotions. We do what we’re used to doing and what we can get away with. Even if you believe you are against say, sweatshops, your conscience isn’t necessarily going to stop you from buying some new shoes without properly sourcing them. We can quite easily rationalize away guilt about certain behaviors. As long as the people around us do something freely, we feel pretty free to do it too.

Vegans, for the most part, are people who have challenged a certain aspect of their conditioning — that it’s okay to use animals for our purposes — in spite of what others do and in spite of what they were probably taught. They delve into the issues, learn what they’re creating with their dollars, and decide to change how they live. This is relatively rare. Very little of human behavior comes as a result of sitting down and thinking about what’s right, beyond our conditioning, what our parents or friends or churches say is right. Sitting down and analyzing something philosophically is boring and scary and few people will find any reason to do it. So we do what is normal, whether it’s eating products we suspect came from abused animals, or buying clothes we know may have been produced in a sweatshop. It’s normal, we don’t see many others stressing about it, our consciences don’t eat us alive over it, so we just do it and feel pretty much okay about it.

This is not morality, but it’s the way almost all of us live. I now see morality as something quite new to human beings, and for the most part, our conditioning and animal drives win out over rational thinking about what’s right. We have to acknowledge that if we want to know the best way to get others to move away from exploiting animals.

So to answer your question, I think you hit the main reason on the head: veganism is particularly alienating because vegans are an extremely small minority, and so as a vegan, if you feel any level of contempt for the other camp, you essentially feel it for humanity at large. Everyone around you not only disagrees with you but constantly, visibly, happily does exactly what you think is atrocious.

How does vegan alienation manifest itself?

For me it was a two-way sentiment — how I felt about non-vegans and how they appeared to feel about me. Calling yourself a vegan is taking that stance as a big part of your identity. Obviously it’s not all you are, but that aspect of your identity becomes conspicuous to you and to the people around you every time you sit down to eat with non-vegans. Just living in a world where nearly everyone is so casually doing precisely what you identify as “the thing you don’t do” is alienating in itself.

For me I also noticed feeling a touch of ambivalence toward people whose worldviews I used to wholly respect — because they weren’t vegan, I felt like they were missing something that every thoughtful person ought to realize.

Even worse, I felt a hint of disappointment or annoyance with people in my life who were inspired to go mostly vegan, yet would restrict it to diet alone, or would make the odd concession. I felt like they didn’t really get it and were a part of the problem. I encountered that mindset a lot in abolitionist blogs.

I think all this alienation has to do with the basic drive for self-defense. Just by living the way they live, both sides are presenting implicit threats to the integrity of the other, and it’s natural to feel a need to assert that your way of life is indeed defensible, and the only way to do that is to reject opposing worldviews and the people who advocate them.

How much of this alienation is on meat eaters? If meat eaters were totally accepting of vegans and didn’t harass them with the usual questions about protein and how vegans can give up something as delicious as steak, would this alienation mostly go away?

I think questions about protein intake and how one can give up steak are pretty natural questions to ask. There is a ton of misinformation about nutrition, as we all know, and people associate meat with protein, and no meat with no protein. They also epitomize steak as the delectible food, and their first thought is that veganism would mean no more steak. It’s annoying because so many people say the same things, but I don’t think they’re necessarily trying to alienate anyone.

People might just find it bizarre to give up something so normal as cheese over something they don’t really see as a issue. (Cows being milked too hard or something?) Humans often mistrust people who are different from them, people whose motives they don’t understand. It’s normal.

However, I think people take stabs at veganism primarily as a self-defense reaction. First and foremost, omnivores know that vegans are people who think the way they live is wrong. So the natural thing to do is try to dismantle the threat to their feeling of integrity, by taking pot shots, pointing out inconsistencies, berating with jokes or going on about how boring their food must be.

We attack things that make us feel bad. I know I have felt resentful to people driving expensive cars or wearing expensive clothes, even if I know nothing about them. The reason is that they make me feel bad because I don’t have as much money, or that I am not as successful. I feel like maybe I’ve been lazy or disorganized with my life, or that I’m not very talented. These thoughts are painful. So to defend myself from those bad feelings my brain comes up with thoughts like “Rich people don’t value anything but money,” or “Rich people cheat and walk all over others.” I have no evidence that the people driving by in the Lincoln are anything like that, but those thoughts make me feel a little better about myself.

Much of the alienation is due to the inevitable moral standoff between the two groups. If vegans were spared the jokes and obnoxious questions, one aspect of the alienation would go away, but it would mostly remain. And that’s because the definition of those groups alone is an implicit indictment of each other’s morals. Omnivores will always regard vegans as a group of people who thinks the way they live is morally wrong. Vegans will always regard omnivores as a group of people who are perpetuating mass abuse, no matter how they feel about them as individuals. The only way I was able to completely eliminate this was to refuse to identify with either group, and challenge any feelings I had that the person I was speaking to was on the “other side” of anything. We’re all human, all trying to figure out how to live.

Abolitionist vegans are often the most strident and dogmatic of vegans, probably since many of them seem to think the abolitionist argument against animal use (typified by Gary Francione’s writings) is airtight and only selfish fools or the ignorant wouldn’t agree with it. Do you think abolitionist veganism is a bad road to go down? Is it possible to be abolitionist without angrily obsessing about every once-vegan celebrity who goes back to eating eggs?

I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad road. It works for some, I guess. Of course it’s possible to be an abolitionist and not indulge in sniping, but I think it does lend itself to a “with us or against us” mentality. Francione’s refrain is that “veganism is the moral baseline,” which is clearly a line to be crossed or not crossed, a moral standard for being good or not. It implies that if you don’t reach the “baseline” you are a part of the problem.

Logically, the abolitionist argument makes sense. Certain products cannot be created without causing unnecessary harm. Causing unnecessary harm is wrong. Therefore, it is wrong to consume them. Therefore I should not consume them under any circumstances, and anybody who does is acting immorally, and the best thing I can do is live that way and try to convince others to do so.

But that doesn’t matter, even if it is philosophically airtight, because philosophical analysis is not what drives normal people in their lifestyles. It’s emotions and conditioning — mostly irrational thinking. Abolitionists don’t seem to realize how few people are ever going to see it their way and make a dramatic lifestyle change, and so they think the only progress to be made is to get people to plunge into strict veganism.

Veganism turns way more people off than on, I don’t know who can deny that, and once someone hates veganism or vegans, they find it far easier to rationalize all forms of animal exploitation, because they know which side of the dichotomy they aren’t on, and that’s the side with those obnoxious vegans who want to make ice cream extinct.

Why do you think labels and the all-or-nothing approach are so popular in veganism?

It’s intrinsic. It is a label. Veganism has a definition, and in vegan forums you’ll have it cited to you repeatedly. If you eat honey or buy bread with stearoyl-2-lactylate in it, you’re not a vegan, and that’s just a fact.

Now, I completely understand excluding the 98-percenters from appropriating the term “vegan.” Even if the only concession I make is to eat fish once a year, it’s inaccurate to call myself a vegan, and few vegans would want me to use that word to describe myself, because then outsiders think, “Oh, vegans eat fish sometimes.”

But that creates a problem: the protectiveness surrounding this label and the ideology behind it is what has kept the vegan population small. It can’t accept exceptions, because then the word loses its meaning. There are far fewer people willing to be 100-percenters than there are people willing 98- or 95-percenters. And a so if a vegan-curious person doesn’t reach the bar, the uncompromising nature of veganism often drives them back to unabashed, self-justified omnivorism, because from the perspective of many vegans they are still on the other side, still part of the problem. How many times have you heard someone say they tried the vegan thing but it was too hard? What if we encouraged them to hang out at 90% animal-free, instead of discouraging anything but veganism?

That’s why I say forget the word and remember what we’re after: a world without this insane amount of exploitation. The V-label stifles people from taking partway measures, and clearly at this time only a tiny proportion of the population is willing to go strictly vegan. The ideology of veganism poses an “all-or-nothing” ultimatum to the omnivore majority (which is the 99 out of 100 people whom they would like to change) — and invariably, the members of that majority respond, “Okay, it’ll be nothing then.”

Once vegans associate animal products with suffering, death and heart attacks, it’s often hard for them not to find animal products revolting. Why do you think this disgust is harmful for veganism, and how can vegans avoid becoming disgusted with non-vegan food?

Some degree of disgust can be positive, because it reminds you of the injustice involved in creating many of the products we buy. But when we are unable to get past harboring disgust for the food 99% of people eat, when we’re unable to admit that it is actually food, then the non-vegans (who we’re supposed to be trying to convince) inevitably feel like they are being judged morally, and that’s where anti-vegan sentiment begins. Anti-vegan (or anti-veganish) sentiment is bad for animals.

It is a moral issue, yes, but that doesn’t mean making implicit or explicit moral judgments is an effective way of changing people’s minds. People dig in when they feel judged, and if they know their food and their lifestyle disgusts you, there is no way they’re going to consider reducing their consumption. They will do anything but.

Creating a defensive reaction in someone makes it easy for them to dismiss your point of view, and it’s something I think all vegans should be extremely careful to avoid. Vegans often forget that by alienating someone to veganism, they are pushing people to justify their animal use, and seriously harming the chances that they will ever consider moving away from it.

It’s a lot more effective to avoid presenting yourself as being on a different side. Think about it — when someone is implying that you’re disgusting and immoral, what are the chances you’ll agree with them? The reasoning doesn’t matter, it’s all emotional self-defense at this level. Real communication and mind-changing can only happen when there are no defensive reactions going on. That bears repeating: real communication and mind-changing can only happen when there are no defensive reactions going on. That’s why we have to be so delicate in presenting animal-free notions to omnivores. As soon as we create that defensive reaction, we’ve lost them, maybe forever.

Vegans can temper their disgust by remembering that it is indeed food, that animals do eat other animals, even though it does create a moral conundrum for us humans. By refraining from judgment, it allows others to give up their defensive reaction and consider taking some partway measures, without their feeling like you resent anything but strict veganism. That represents a lot of animal suffering prevented.

In “Giving up the V Card,” you offered suggestions for vegans who want to stop feeling alienated without going back to animal products, including abandoning the vegan label. Do you think contemplating flaws or limitations in vegan ideology is helpful for vegans who want to feel better about the world?

The way I see it, the biggest flaw in the general vegan mindset is that it doesn’t acknowledge that vast majority people are light years away from giving up animal products. Most people will never ever do it, because it is so, so different from what is normal to them.

But many, many people are very close to finding reasons to begin reducing animal product use. Other incentives besides ethics must help drive the movement away from animal exploitation — incentives like health, environmental concern, even trendiness. We have to appeal to people with the incentives that do drive their lives, which for most simply does not include an earnest reflection on ethics. We can make it normal to eat meals without meat, we’re really getting there, but setting the bar at “Go vegan or go home” is only going to stir up sentiment against the idea of animal-free alternatives.

What I’m trying to do is dismantle the vegan/non-vegan dichotomy, so that it ceases to be a for/against debate. So instead of trying to get the odd person to jump onto the vegan side, I’d rather encourage people en masse to move toward the animal-free end, by making animal-free meals and clothes something that you don’t have to be an “extremist” to try out.

When large numbers of people begin to incorporate animal-free alternatives into their lives, that’s when the markets really get behind it. When say, 3 out of 10 American moms prepare a vegan meal for their families at least once a week, producers will be tripping over themselves to market animal-free products to them. That’s a much bigger market force than all the vegans combined.

There are so many incentives for people to move away from animal use, even if they’re not related to morality or philosophy, and once economic momentum gets behind it, it will be unstoppable. That’s what global changes are going to look like — partway measures en masse, not a steady accumulation of strict abolitionists over time.

The market force exerted by non-vegans is over a hundred times the market force exerted by vegans. If we’re going to see animal-free products become a normal thing, it’s going to depend on how the omnivorous population perceives tempeh and pleather, not on how many vegans there are. Even if vegans doubled their proportion of the population, they’d still make up (at most) one fiftieth of the markets that drive what is normal to eat, wear and do for entertainment.

This is why it is so, so crucial that we don’t alienate omnivores to animal-free products by creating this us-and-them dichotomy. We have to encourage partway measures in the general population, because frankly it accomplishes more (in terms of animals spared and dollars averted from animal exploitation) than all of the all-the-way measures taken by the very small population of vegans.

Has your life noticeably changed since you stopped calling yourself “vegan”? Do the meat eaters you know see any difference?

Yes. I don’t feel like I’m a secret opponent of society anymore. I don’t have that mild contempt for regular people as an everyday part of my consciousness. I know now that aligning myself emotionally against omnivores wasn’t really changing their behavior, and I no longer feel like somebody else’s omnivore status is any kind of hindrance to respecting or loving them.

I can’t say for sure how others see me differently, but it seems like they do. I’ve noticed the awkwardness disappear, such as when someone accidentally raves about some non-vegan food and realizes mid-sentence that I “can’t” eat that. I no longer feel like I am a different category of person than my omnivore friends, and I feel like they no longer feel like I am.

People also seem to be more receptive to hear about why I don’t eat this or that, because I don’t let the V-word serve as an explanation. I found that before, once I said I was a vegan people would kind of tune out and nod politely until the topic changed, because they probably already feel like they know what that crowd is all about and they’ve already decided that it’s not for them. In other words, people seem more interested in hearing why I as an individual live the way I live, rather than why “we vegans” live the way we live. I also think people are more likely to make personal changes in their lives that make sense to them (like quitting dairy as a health experiment) than they are to adopt an established party line.

History of the American Dietetic Association’s Vegetarian Position Papers, Part One: Why Seventh-day Adventists Want to Prove That Vegetarianism is the Healthiest Diet, and How They Influenced the ADA/Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics

Thu, 03 May 2012 11:52:00 +0100

Editor’s note: Almost everything in this entry is a quote, because I wanted to let Adventists do all the explaining. The names that initially appear in bold, aside from those in headlines, are Adventists who would later review American Dietetic Association vegetarian position papers. (Though there are other Adventist reviewers and authors of ADA vegetarian position papers who are not mentioned in this entry.)

For more than 130 years Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs) have practiced a vegetarian dietary lifestyle because of their belief in the holistic nature of humankind. Whatever is done in eating or drinking should honor and glorify God and preserve the health of the body, mind and spirit.

— “The Seventh-day Adventist Position Statement on Vegetarian Diets,” Seventh-Day Adventist Dietetic Association

* * *

Ellen White [prophet of Seventh-day Adventism] received her first major health reform vision, June 6, 1863, in the home of Aaron Milliard, at Otsego, Michigan. In this vision, for the first time, God’s people were urged to abstain from flesh food in general and from swine’s flesh in particular. Ellen White characterized this vision as “great light from the Lord,” adding, “I did not seek this light; I did not study to obtain it; it was given to me by the Lord to give to others.”

— “Ellen G. White and Vegetarianism,” Ministry Magazine, Apr., 1986

* * *

God did not call upon this advent movement to do so unusual a thing as to build medical institutions as well as churches, and to train doctors and nurses as well as ministers and Bible instructors, just because He desired these doctors and nurses to care only for the bodies of men. Such care can be given in numerous hospitals in the land, and in some instances better care may be possible because of huge endowments and special equipment. But God called upon us to foster medical work because, rightly carried on, it can play a part in the divine plan for the salvation of men. The medical and ministerial are not two separate and distinct lines of activity. They are parts of one whole, and the link that connects them and provides the full justification for a medical side to this religious movement, is the fact that all physical woes and maladies are a by-product of our sinful state. The kind of service you render to the cause of God and to suffering humanity will help to reveal whether the goal of Adventist medical work is being maintained.

— “Blended Ministry for Body and Soul,” Francis D. Nichol, The Ministry, Page 29, Dec. 1945, Vol. 18, No. 13

* * *

The Lord has given to Seventh-day Adventists the message of health reform, not only for our benefit, but also that we might more effectively prepare the minds of our neighbors and friends to receive the seeds of his love! ‘When connected with other lines of gospel effort, the medical missionary work is a most effective instrument by which the ground is prepared for the sowing of the seeds of truth, and the instrument by which the harvest is reaped.’ MM204

Like the farmer’s plow, the message of health as it centers in Jesus love, will break up the hardened soil of the heart and prepare it to more willingly allow the Gospel message to grow in the hearts and lives of our neighbors and friends.

Today there has been a general hardening of attitudes toward religious thought and experience. Yet at the same time we are witnessing an unprecedented interest in health! This should spur us on to evangelistic methods that capitalize on this manner of preparing the ground. ‘Health reform will reach a class and has reached a class that otherwise would never have been reached by the truth.” CM 134

— “Is Health Ministry Important?” Fred Hardinge, DrPH, RD, Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association

* * *

The quote from Spirit of Prophecy which most clearly points out where [Adventist] health evangelism should be done and who should be doing it is: ’We have come to a time when every member of the church should take hold of medical missionary work. The world is a lazar house filled with victims of both physical and spiritual diseases. Everywhere people are perishing for lack of a knowledge of the truths that have been committed to us. The members of the church are in need of an awakening, that they may realize their responsibility to impart these truths.’ Welfare Ministry, p. 138.

— Handbook of Health Evangelism, by Elvin Adams MD, MPH, 2004, p. 3

* * *

Table of Contents

1. Seventh-day Adventism Prophet Ellen G. White on God’s Preferred Diet and Spreading Adventism Through Vegetarian Advocacy

2. John Burden and the Founding of the College of Medical Evangelists/Loma Linda University

3. John H.N. Tindall Pioneers “Gospel Medical Missionary Evangelism”

4. E.H. Risley and Harold M. Walton Bring Adventist Health Evangelism and Vegetarian Dietetics Together

5. Mervyn G. Hardinge Uses the Newly Formed Loma Linda Division of Public Health and Nutrition to Promote Vegetarianism

6. Loma Linda University’s U.D. Register “Proves” Ellen G. White’s Divine Nutritional Prophesies and Persuades the American Dietetic Association

7. Kathleen Zolber of Loma Linda University Becomes the First Adventist President of the American Dietetic Association, Thereby Enriching Her Service to Her Church

8. Recruiting More Adventist Dietitians

9. The Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association

1. SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTISM PROPHET ELLEN G. WHITE ON GOD’S PREFERRED DIET AND SPREADING ADVENTISM THROUGH VEGETARIAN ADVOCACY

Nearly forty years ago, the Lord opened up before us the principles of health reform. At that time I was very weak physically. Sometimes I would faint away two or three times a day, and I thought, as many today think, that flesh-meat was the only food that would keep up my strength.

But in mercy the Lord showed me that flesh-meat is not necessary to maintain strength, and that it is not the best food.

Since that time increased light upon health reform has been given. In grains, fruits, vegetables, and nuts, are to be found all the food elements that we need. If we will come to the Lord in simplicity of mind, He will teach us how to prepare wholesome food free from the taint of flesh-meat…

We should put forth greater efforts to teach the people the truths of health reform. At every camp-meeting an effort should be made to demonstrate what can be done in providing an appetizing, wholesome diet from grains, fruits, nuts, and vegetables. In every place where new companies are brought into the truth, instruction should be given in the science of preparing wholesome food. Workers should be chosen who can labor from house to house in an educational campaign.

— Ellen G. White in Testimony Studies on Diet and Foods, p. 20

* * *

Meat is not essential for health or strength, else the Lord made a mistake when He provided food for Adam and Eve before their fall. All the elements of nutrition are contained in the fruits, vegetables, and grains.

— Review and Herald, May 8, 1883, referenced in God’s Nutritionist

* * *

I have been instructed that flesh food has a tendency to animalize the nature, to rob men and women of that love and sympathy which they should feel for every one, and to give the lower passions control over the higher powers of the being. If meat-eating were ever healthful, it is not safe now. Cancers, tumors, and pulmonary diseases are largely caused by meat-eating.

— Ellen G. White in Testimony Studies on Diet and Foods, p. 80

* * *

When one changes from the stimulating diet of meat eating to the fruit-and-vegetable diet, there will always be at first a sense of weakness and a lack of vitality, and many urge this as an argument for the necessity of a meat diet. But this result is the very argument that should be used in discarding a meat diet.

— 1896 Letter by Ellen G. White, referenced in God’s Nutritionist

* * *

I have been instructed by my guide that not only should those who believe the truth practice health reform but they should also teach it diligently to others; for it will be an agency through which the truth can be presented to the attention of unbelievers. They will reason that if we have such sound ideas in regard to health and temperance, there must be something in our religious belief that is worth investigation.

— Letter 1, 1875, in Ev 514, by Ellen G. White

* * *

Again and again I have been shown that God is bringing His people back to His original design, that is, not to subsist upon the flesh of dead animals. He would have us teach people a better way … If meat is discarded, if the taste is not educated in that direction, if a liking for fruits and grains is encouraged, it will soon be as God in the beginning designed it should be. No meat will be used by His people.

— 1884 letter by Ellen G. White, referenced in “God’s Nutritionist”

* * *

Movements are at work to bring us to the front. And if our theories of truth can be picked to pieces by historians and the world’s greatest men, it will be done.

These positions of truth include the nutritional principles that we as a people have been given. The world’s great men will be brought into contact with our dietary principles. Already this has begun to take place. …

Satan is trying to unsettle our faith in the health principles which have been given to our people. In particular he is trying to do this in the field of nutrition, for if he can conquer us in this field on these little tests, as he conquered Adam on his little test, then he will have gained the victory.

As we near the close of time, we must rise higher and still higher upon the question of healthful living and reform in Christian temperance. The Lord expects it of us.

— Counsels to Parents and Teachers by Ellen G. White, 1913, p. 423

* * *

2. JOHN BURDEN AND THE FOUNDING OF THE COLLEGE OF MEDICAL EVANGELISTS/LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY

[T]hrough divine inspiration Ellen White predicted that there were properties and buildings in Southern California that would be used for the Adventist medical missionary work. These sanitariums would “be offered to us at much less than their original cost.”

“For months the Lord has given me instruction that He is preparing the way for our people to obtain possession, at little cost, of properties on which there are buildings that can be utilized for our work.” (Idem., Letter 157, 1902)

— “John Burden,” Today, Vol. 18, No. 4, Feb. 24, 2005, p. 3

* * *

Enter John Burden, a young Adventist minister. Believing in Mrs. White’s leadership and prophetic gift, he took her request to heart and actively began looking for property in the Southern California area that was aligned with what Mrs. White had seen in vision. In May of 1905, Pastor Burden reported to Mrs. White that he found a tract of 76 acres a few miles west of Redlands that appeared to match her description. The property was for sale at the seemingly unreachable price of $110,000. Through a series of miraculous events, the property was eventually purchased for $38,000.

In her dedicatory address of Loma Linda Sanitarium on April 15, 1906, Mrs. White stated that the institution was to make a major contribution to the work of the Seventh-day Adventist church by becoming a training center for students who would participate in the Church’s worldwide outreach.

— “Historical Background”

* * *

The program for the afternoon session featured four speakers, the last being Ellen White. She eloquently charged the audience to open a training center for ‘medical evangelism.’ …

Evangelism meant sharing the ‘good news’ of the gospel with others. Medical evangelism had to refer to telling the public that God wants to help humankind move towards restoration of his original perfect health. …

The Southern California Seventh-day Adventists based their project solidly on Scripture: God’s desire is for more than just spiritual health. ‘Beloved, I pray that you may prosper in all things and be in health, just as your soul prospers’ (3 John 2). God’s Word also proclaims that, ‘if anyone defiles the temple of God, God will destroy him. For the Temple of God is holy, which temple you are’ (1 Corinthians 10:31). This suggests God is interested in a total and very comprehensive definition of health and good health practices. …

As manager of the embryonic institution, John Burden faced the [burden] of creating an ‘evangelistic-medical course.’ The training, of course, would conform to Ellen White’s injunction: ‘Thousands of workers are to be qualified with all the ability of physicians to labor, not as physicians, but as medical-missionary evangelists.’ … Burden hoped that the training would appeal to ‘well-trained nurses.’ Hopefully, many of these would attain the ‘ability of physicians’ but still be willing to work as evangelists. …

Under the laws of the State of California, the school was chartered on December 9, 1909, as the “College of Medical Evangelists.” Loma Linda’s medical school evolved in 1910 with the addition of two clinical years to the existing three-year medical-evangelistic course. The administration limited enrollment only to those who wanted to do ‘the work of the Christian physician and medical missionary.’ ‘We have no time to devote to merely giving a medical education to those who wish to practice medicine,’ the faculty proclaimed. ‘This certainly is no time for Seventh-day Adventist young people to seek a training for the ordinary work of a doctor.’

— Health to the People: Stories of Public Health, Preventive and Lifestyle Medicine, and Medical Evangelism Training and Outreach, Loma Linda 1905-2005 by William Dysinger, p. 24 – 26

* * *

On December 9, 1909, Pastor Burden and other school leaders obtained a charter from the state of California to operate under the new name of College of Medical Evangelists (CME)—the name by which the institution would be known for more than half a century until 1961.

The College of Medical Evangelists was fully authorized to “establish and maintain, carry on and conduct literary, scientific, medical, dental, pharmaceutical, and medical missionary colleges or seminaries of learning.” It could grant degrees in liberal arts and sciences, dentistry, and medicine.

— “Historical Background”

* * *

1922—The School of Nutrition and Dietetics starts [at the College of Medical Evangelists].

— “Loma Linda University History Timeline”

* * *

3. JOHN H.N. TINDALL PIONEERS “GOSPEL MEDICAL MISSIONARY EVANGELISM”

It was while he was a law student that [John H.N. Tindall] was converted and became a Seventh-day Adventist. In 1908 he went to Loma Linda for additional study, being convinced early of the value of health reform both in the church and in evangelism. Elder Tindall brings out the fact that this was a year in which health reform was being actively brought to the fore in the church. It was in the same year that Ellen G. White wrote to Elder A.G. Daniells, President of the General Conference, regarding the need “in the year 1908” for circulating a pledge among the leaders reinforcing certain aspects of health reform, among which was abstinence from meat eating.

In 1910 a vision came to Mrs. White which has been referred to as the “Medical Evangelism Vision.” In it she stated that the Lord had presented to her a call for a change in methods of working the cities:

“During the night of February 27, 1910, a representation was given me in which the unworked cities were presented before me as a living reality, and I was plainly instructed that there should be a decided change from past methods of working. For months the situation has been impressed upon my mind, and I urge that companies be organized and diligently trained to labor in all important cities.”

In response to this call, Elder John Burden, business manager of the Medical School, came along with other leaders, to Elder Tindall and presented him with the challenge as outlined by Mrs. White. They asked him to set up a program of gospel medical evangelism with the first demonstration to be in San Bernardino, California.

Although San Bernardino had been a place of failure for previous evangelistic efforts, Elder Tindall accepted the challenge and, together with a male nurse and his wife who was a registered nurse, they held a six-week evangelistic effort in that city which included various health talks and demonstrations which were favorably received due to good public relations. After the campaign sixteen people were baptized, which fact demonstrated that these methods could definitely be of value. …

[A]t this time Elder Tindall was more convinced than ever that the blending of the gospel and the medical was the work that the Lord had directed him to do. When a call came from the Virginia Conference for a Gospel Medical Program to be set up, Elder Tindall, therefore, gladly accepted the call and moved his company there. …

As the result of his experiences in the early 1920’s, and especially because he had had opposition from some doctors in Oklahoma, some of whom advocated the necessity of meat eating, Elder Tindall felt that he should return to Loma Linda for further training and study from which he would gain additional authority. Accordingly, in 1923 he returned to Loma Linda and took further training in both organic and biochemistry, nutrition, and physical therapy, and in 1925 he graduated from the dietitian’s course. He felt that this training was invaluable in his later work, and with this background he developed an early diet-survey system which he called “The Diet Checkup System.” This was introduced along with his Pocket Dietitian and other dietary and nutritional aids which he developed and which were used in the dietetics course at Loma Linda and also by the medical students for several years thereafter.

To state that he had a universal understanding and the approval of the Brethren in regards to his course of study would, however, be an overstatement, as the following incident recorded in The Medical Evangelist of March 15, 1928 will attest:

“While at Loma Linda taking my [John Tindall’s] training in dietetics I had a very prominent man of our denomination say to me, ‘John, what are you doing here? What do you expect to do studying dietetics? Do you think it right to leave your great work as an evangelist, and come here and spend all this time studying dietetics?’ In reply to my good friend, I said, ‘Time will show the wisdom of the plan, my brother. Did you ever read in Vol. 9, page 112, ‘‘There are some who think that the question of diet is not of sufficient importance to be included in their evangelistic work, but such make a great mistake.’’? It seems to me, my brother, that some people do not see the value of dietetics in evangelism; but I am certain there is wisdom in this statement and I am certain that evangelism needs dietetics; but a great mistake is made by leaving it out and I am here to get the training that someday will aid me greatly in carrying forward that evangelism which will demonstrate God’s plan of soul-winning in the closing work.”

— “John H.N. Tindall: Fifty Years a Gospel-Medical Missionary Evangelist” by Calvin L. Thrash, MD, p. 3-6

* * *

4. E.H. RISLEY AND HAROLD M. WALTON BRING ADVENTIST HEALTH EVANGELISM AND VEGETARIAN DIETETICS TOGETHER

[The] American Dietetic Association (ADA) first came into existence [in 1917] with a charter membership of 58.

The Seventh-day Adventist Church, however, pre-dated these health interests by more than 50 years. Ellen White’s instructions in 1863 had been taken seriously, as exemplified in Dr. John Harvey Kellogg’s work and his teaching at the sanitarium in Battle Creek, Michigan.

Not surprisingly, from the first year of operation (1906), Loma Linda College of Evangelists inserted “domestic science” into the nursing course. “Medical dietetics” followed in the second year. …

In 1922 Dr. E. H. Risley (dean of the Loma Linda campus of [The College of Medical Evangelists]) delivered a thought-provoking discourse to the Adventist General Conference session, reviewing the latest science in nutrition. His paper on “The Newer Dietetics” paved the way for the beginning of nutrition education in September of that year in Loma Linda.

The two-year course would train dietitians for hospitals and other institutions, as well as promote both church and public lecture work. Surely, the time had come to formalize the education of the people who would implement the ideals that the Church had held for so many years.

Formerly a dietitian at St. Helena Sanitarium and the first male member of the American Dietetic Association, Harold M. Walton became the first dean of this new school at Loma Linda.

—Health to the People: Stories of Public Health, Preventive and Lifestyle Medicine, and Medical Evangelism Training and Outreach, Loma Linda 1905-2005, by William Dysinger, p. 34 – 35

* * *

First Session. Elder A. O. Tait addressed the body on “The Relation of the Medical and the Evangelical Worker.” His plea was for the unity of all forces to the one great end of spreading the Message. He advocated the publication of a popular medical journal at Loma Linda to carry a definite Gospel-filled message, and urged agitation on the matter. …

Discussion. Attention was called to the present-day need of careful study of the early testimonies regarding the health work. The instruction herein found, if followed, would place us on vantage ground. The importance of the spiritual side of the physician’s life was emphasized, the evangelistic value of the medical work being nil unless attended by spiritual power.

Attention was called to the fact that as the people of God, we have the thing for which the world is crying. The Devil is giving his substitutes for God’s truth. It is time we were stepping in and giving the world what God has given to us. It was advocated that the public press he utilized in bringing our health principles to the attention of the public, and that a new series of leaflets be prepared on health topics. …

Doctor Thomason, of White Memorial Hospital, presented a splendid paper on the subject, “What Can Physicians and Trained Nurses Do to Help In Our Tent Meetings and Public Efforts?” He effectually visualized Heaven’s plan in the relation of the physician to the minister—the one sustaining the work of the other in the one united aim of saving souls. The necessity of this relationship in building up staunch converts was emphasized. …

“The Training of Dietitians in Our Sanitariums, and the Handling of Dietetic Problems,” was ably presented by Doctor Risley and Mr. Walton. Our attention was called to the importance of dietetics as a therapeutic agent, and the necessity of thorough training for one joining the medical staff as a dietitian. A suggestive curriculum was outlined, and it was urged that definite steps be taken to provide a place and facilities for the training of such specialists.

— ”Report of the Medical Convention Held at Loma Linda Mar. 19-22, 1920.” Medical Evangelist Vol. 7, No. 1, June 1920, p. 22

* * *

In the world today the medical men are speaking of dietetics as a very important part of therapeutics. Many noted educators of this country are placing dietetics before drugs. That is a great thing for men of the world to do. There is no question in our minds where it should stand.

Dietetics is not a new subject, we have known about it for many years; but it has a new future. Today I do not believe there is any subject in medicine receiving more attention than diet. …

A knowledge of dietetics is of special importance to all of us. If we live right in our homes, we can be a light to all about us. …

Our denomination should stand for the very best in dietetics. We have had the light on this for many years, but we have failed to appreciate it: and today the world is advocating our principles. It is time for us to rise up and fill the place and do the work God gave us.

The world is making wonderful progress in this line. The journals of biological chemistry and others are filled with reports of experimental work that is being conducted, proving what we have known for years, but have not heeded. Dr. McCollum, after careful experimental studies, advocates the lacto-vegetarian diet as the ideal one for man. When such men come forward and advocate that type of dietary as ideal, why are we so slow ? Why are we so backward? Why do we not stand true on it? …

There is a great opportunity for dietitians today. To me it seems unfortunate that we as a people have not got down to business in training dietitians. We have now resolved to establish schools where such workers can be trained.

As physicians and other workers we should not idly wait for dietitians. Our doctors ought to become skilled in dietetic work. …

Most people have thought that in order to build the body tissues we must have the protein of flesh foods. But flesh is a secondhand food. The tissue of the animal was developed originally from the vegetable materials. Scientific men are recognizing the fact that we can get a properly balanced diet without the use of meat. Why should we be so slow in selecting our protein foods from vegetable sources? Dr. Taylor says, “There is no excuse for the use of meat.” We have every reason to believe this. …

The principles of proper diet are simple, and with reasonable care we can go forward to success in this great branch of our work. I believe it is time to work earnestly toward this end. We can then expect right results.

— “The Newer Dietetics” by Dr. E. H. Risley, 1922

* * *

Many will be glad to learn that the College of Medical Evangelists is inaugurating with the opening of the Medical School, September 10, 1922, a School of Dietetics. It is planned that it shall be a two-year course, and the college is in a position so far as faculty and equipment are concerned to give a strong course in this important subject. Dietetics is today taking its place among the thoroughly scientific subjects, and inasmuch as we as a people have had repeated instruction in regard to the importance of the subject and our duty to engage in educational work of this kind, we feel that the opening of this new school is timely and should have the earnest support of our people everywhere. It is designed to educate thoroughly trained dietitians both for institutional work in the denomination and for public work as lecturers and educators.

The help of Mr. Harold M. Walton, for several years dietitian at the St. Helena Sanitarium, has been secured to lead out in the course…

— “Training School for Dietitians—A New Course of Study at Loma Linda.” Medical Evangelist: Vol. 9, No. 1, p. 24-25, July-Aug., 1922

* * *

This volume has been prepared to be used as a textbook for the study of healthful diet and the instruction pertaining to foods as set forth in the writings of the Spirit of Prophecy. …

It will be observed that many selections have been taken from the older volumes of the Spirit of Prophecy that are not now generally available, and there is much instruction in these that the student of dietetics will highly prize. …

The health reform movement began early in the history of this denomination, and great benefit came to those who accepted the instruction and faithfully lived in accordance with it. … Scientific researchers have in recent years shown that these rules for healthful living are correct, and how thankful this people should be for such wonderful light so far in advance of what the world could offer and which has proved to be of such great help in the life both physically and spiritually. All should be inspired with full confidence in these rules for healthful living. …

It is our earnest hope that this volume will contribute something toward a more comprehensive knowledge of this phase of the health message, and that all who study these writings will become imbued with a love for them and will live in harmony with them and teach them until Jesus appears to receive unto himself all those who have made a covenant with Him.

—Testimony Studies on Diet and Foods, from preface by Harold M. Walton, Jan. 5, 1926

* * *

On Sabbath afternoon, May 15, members of the Loma Linda and Los Angeles faculties met in Paulson Hall, White Memorial Hospital, for the purpose of considering the means by which the College of Medical Evangelists [now Loma Linda University] can increase its functions in promoting greater activities in the field of health by its students and graduates.

It is recognized that this school exists for the purpose of educating men and women in the medical field so that they may be qualified to carry the message of health and of salvation to the world fields.

Dr. Harold M. Walton, medical secretary of the General Conference, presented skeleton plans which, when put into operation, will create a greater interest in health evangelism than has ever existed in the denomination. …

Members of the faculty in attendance were most enthusiastic over the whole plan, and pledged their support in helping to extend such functions within the school. It is the purpose of the school to demonstrate acceptable leadership and co-operation with the denomination in making the health program an active and important part of the message for the world today.

— “Definite Health Evangelism,” The Ministry, Vol. 16, No. 8, Aug., 1943

* * *

From overseas and from several states, alumni of the School of Nutrition and Dietetics gathered for their annual homecoming week-end April 14 to 16. These Alumni are serving in many capacities in dietetics and in nutrition in America and in other lands.

The School of Nutrition and Dietetics was organized forty-five years ago in 1922. Harold M. Walton, MD, University Health Service, was its first dean. He was also the first male member of the American Dietetic Association. …

It progressed from a two-year to a three-year undergraduate certificate course to a bachelor’s degree program. Two hundred and forty certificates and bachelor’s degrees were awarded in the 32 years from 1922 to 1954. There were additional certificates given for an unaccredited internship conducted between 1938 and 1951, for which there are insufficient records.

In August, 1956, the School offered a graduate program with an internship accredited by the American Dietetic Association, and in 1957, the master’s degree program with majors in dietetics and in nutrition. In the ten years from 1957 to 1967, there were 141 who received intern certificates and master’s degrees. …

Through the years all but one of the intern graduates have accepted dietetic positions upon graduation or have continued their graduate education.

—“Nutrition—Dietetics Story” By Ruth Little, Scope Vol. 4, No. 9, Apr. 29, 1967

* * *

5. MERVYN G. HARDINGE – AUTHOR OF A PHYSICIAN EXPLAINS ELLEN WHITE’S COUNSEL ON DRUGS, HERBS, AND NATURAL REMEDIES AND CONTRIBUTOR TO EVERYDAY NUTRITION FOR YOUR FAMILY – USES THE NEWLY FORMED LOMA LINDA DIVISION OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND NUTRITION TO PROMOTE VEGETARIANISM

The University Trustees this week voted to establish a new academic unit effective September 1.

The Division of Public Health and Nutrition, created by the Trustees Tuesday, will ultimately bring together in one teaching area programs now administered separately by the Division of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, the School of Medicine and the School of Nutrition and Dietetics.

Named to head the new division effective September 1 is Mervyn G. Hardinge…

— “Trustees Create New Public Health Unit,” Scope Vol. 2, No. 3, Aug. 28, 1964, P. 1

* * *

Several pioneers of vegetarianism received awards at the congress. By helping the scientific community maintain open minds to the value of a vegetarian diet, these researchers made great advances in the study of good nutrition.

One of the recipients, Mervyn Hardinge, was a doctoral student in public health in the 1940s when he chose to investigate the health status of vegetarians for his doctoral dissertation. The dean of the Loma Linda University School of Medicine at that time feared the church would be embarrassed if the vegetarian diet was found deficient, and demanded that Hardinge select another topic. Hardinge refused, defying the administration, and continued his research. …

When his findings were published in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association, they drew national attention. Hardinge later went on to become dean of the school of public health at Loma Linda University, and director of the health department of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

— “The Vegetarian Diet Comes of Age” by Rosemary Clandos, Spectrum Magazine, Vol. 26, No. 3, p. 46, Sept. 1997

* * *

Seventh-day Adventists have been inordinately privileged to have available to them divinely inspired counsels regarding healthful living, conveyed through the many writings of Ellen G. White. Scientific research has continually confirmed and supported many of their inspired concepts and principles. Some of this data has come from Seventh-day Adventists themselves as they have received significant health benefits from following the lifestyle Mrs. White recommended. …

I first became interested in the subject of what Ellen White had to say about drugs and other remedies when I took a class in my freshman year of medical school (1937). As an assignment the teacher, Dr. E. H. Risley, required us to read two books, The Ministry of Healing and Medical Ministry. I bought and went through both books twice. To say the least, they intrigued me.

At the time I accepted Ellen White not as an inspired writer but only as a religious writer. Later as I checked statements she made about varying aspects of health with the scientific literature, I became convinced that without divine assistance she could not have written what she did or when she did. At the time of her writing such information simply was not readily available.

I would like to make it clear that throughout this work, whenever I state that “Ellen White said” something I am meaning that she was attempting to state that which she believed God had revealed to her.

— A Physician Explains Ellen White’s Counsel on Drugs, Herbs, and Natural Remedies by Dr. Mervyn Hardinge, p. 10-11 & 16

* * *

[I]n my opinion, because of our great ignorance, it is better to rely on food in as unrefined a condition as possible, and to the ranges of nutrients the Creator put into the variety of foods we eat.

— “Vitamins, Minerals and Airlines: More complicated than airline schedules, the interrelationships of vitamins, minerals, and hormones caution against the taking of supplements. An interview with Mervyn G. Hardinge, M.D., Dr.P.H., Ph.D.”Your Life and Health, Sept. 1983, p. 11

* * *

So it appeared that people who did not use animal products would have a vitamin B12 deficiency if they did not take a supplement. And this was the situation for many years.

Then about fifteen years ago I hit on an idea. Perhaps the microorganisms in our mouths were producing B12. So we set up a laboratory to analyze for the presence of BI2. A year later we had shown that the vitamin was indeed being produced by microorganisms in the mouth. It is not secreted in the saliva, but is produced on the teeth and in the lymphoid tissue (tonsils) of the pharynx …

Another interesting discovery was made by Dr. U. D. Register, chairman of the Department of Nutrition at the School of Health, Loma Linda University. In the course of his studies on B12 he did some analyzing of water from streams, wells, and lakes. He found that most water, uncontaminated by animal or human excreta, has significant amounts of that vitamin. …

If one eats a very limited amount of refined foods, such as sugar and refined oil, and uses fruits, whole grains, vegetables, and nuts, and eats sufficient to meet his caloric needs, the diet will contain adequate protein. If he does not push his protein intake, no B12 problems should result.

— “Vegetarians and Vitamin B12: An interview with Mervyn G. Hardinge, M.D., Dr.P.H., Ph.D.” Your Life and Health, Jan. 1983, p. 14-15

* * *

For the more than 350 attending the health retreat held September 29 to October 1 at Seven Springs, Pennsylvania, the weekend provided what its leaders hope will be a clearer understanding of the role between mental and spiritual health. It was sponsored by the Columbia Union Conference and Eastern States Adventist Health Services, Incorporated. An outstanding faculty guided the participants through the weekend. Dr. Mervyn C. Hardinge was keynote speaker at the Friday-evening session. … At the opening session, Dr. Hardinge discussed “the battle for the brain,” outlining the many factors in our lives that “make Satan’s work all too easy.” Fatigue, lack of exercise, drugs, food, television—all contribute, he said, to an unhealthy condition in which Satan can step in and take command.

— Columbia Union Visitor, Dec. 14, 1978, Page 12L

* * *

Neal C. Wilson, president of the General Conference, and Mervyn Hardinge, MD, health director, along with the well-known musician, Charles D. Brooks, conducted a health-evangelism crusade in Panama City February 11 to March 3. … The saving Gospel of Jesus and the health instruction were interwoven. Each evening Dr. Hardinge mentioned the benefits of trust in divine providence. … Pastors and laymen throughout Inter-America would do well to use the straight-forward method of preaching used in Panama by Pastor Wilson and Dr. Hardinge.

— “GC President and Health Director Conduct Crusade In Panama City,” Inter-American News Flashes No. 335, Apr. 1984

* * *

Mervyn G. Hardinge, MD, PhD, professor and chairman of the University School of Medicine department of pharmacology, recently was elected to membership in three societies, the American Institute of Nutrition, the council on arteriosclerosis of the American Heart Association and the American College of Clinical Pharmacology and Chemotherapy. … One of the objectives of the [latter] organization, according to a spokesman, is “to provide a means of communication between the clinical investigators, the pharmaceutical industry and the Food and Drug Administration for the purpose of promoting the science and practice of therapeutics so the safety and best interests of the public will be maintained at all times.”

— Scope, Vol. 1, No. 36, May 15, 1964, p. 1

* * *

Drs. Hardinge and [U.D.] Register initiated studies on nonflesh diets. They compared the diets of vegetarians with those of nonvegetarians. Their impact was gradual. The American Dietetic Association, once hostile to the concept of nonflesh diets, accepted papers on vegetarian studies beginning in the mid-1960s. In 1988 they published, with the help of Drs. Register and [Kathleen] Zolber, a position paper accepting that vegetarian diets were adequate and wholesome. Today in the Western world nonflesh diets, once ridiculed, then tolerated, now eulogized, have increasing acceptance. Growing numbers of people have adopted them.

— A Physician Explains Ellen White’s Counsel on Drugs, Herbs, and Natural Remedies by Mervyn G. Hardinge, p. 203

* * *

The reputation of vegetarian diets and those who eat them has a checkered history. It was not so long ago that the American Dietetic Association (ADA) recorded serious doubts about their nutritional adequacy, but recent recommendations have been much more positive. Probably, the first serious scientific investigations of these diets were performed by Mervyn Hardinge…

— “Vegetarian diets: what do we know of their effects on common chronic diseases?” by Adventist Dr. Gary E. Fraser

* * *

Evidently God who created our bodies knew what kind of food would keep them operating best. When He created human beings, He said, “I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food… And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Genesis 1:29-31, RSV).

Isn’t it interesting that scientists have now discovered that the original diet given to man by God is the best diet to prevent heart attacks and other disorders?

— “Natural Diet” by Mervyn G. Hardinge, Herald of Health, Oct. 1977, p. 12

* * *

6. LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY’S U.D. REGISTER — REVIEWER FOR THE ADA’S 1988 VEGETARIAN POSITION PAPER, AND CONTRIBUTOR TO EVERYDAY NUTRITION FOR YOUR FAMILY — “PROVES” ELLEN G. WHITE’S DIVINE NUTRITIONAL PROPHESIES AND PERSUADES THE AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION

Church researches including Mervyn Hardinge, former editor of Life & Health and dean of Loma Linda University School of Health; and U. D. Register, chairman of the Nutrition Department, Loma Linda University School of Health and others will bring scientific and inspired data for consideration. Drs. Hardinge and Register have done more than any others to make the world aware of the soundness of vegetarianism and the superior health practices of Seventh-day Adventists.

—“L.L.U. Hosts Seminar on Fats,” Canadian Adventist Messenger, Aug. 2, 1979, p. 12

* * *

Just four short months after the Third International Congress on Vegetarian Nutrition [in 1997] recognized him for his contributions to the promulgation of information about vegetarian diets, UD Register died as a result of an accident in his home. …

Ulma Doyle Register was born in West Monroe, LA, on February 4, 1920. He was attracted to chemistry early on and received a BS degree in that area from the Madison College, Madison, TN, in 1942. At Madison, he worked for a company that manufactured meat alternatives, and it was there that he adopted a vegetarian diet, a practice he followed enthusiastically for the remainder of his life. [Note: Register became a Seventh-day Adventist in 1938, according to this interview with him, and became a food chemist for Madison Foods in 1941, after he was already an Adventist. Madison Foods was an Adventist company, founded by Ellen G. White, creating soy-based products.]

He received his doctorate in 1950 and, after a year of postdoctoral work at Tulane University setting up their vitamin B-12 laboratory, he accepted an invitation to join the School of Medicine at Loma Linda University as an instructor in biochemistry. …

In 1967, Register became the chair of the Department of Nutrition in the newly organized School of Public Health. At that time, graduates from the department’s dietetics program were not recognized by the American Dietetic Association primarily because of its negative attitudes toward the program’s emphasis on vegetarian diets. He was determined to change that perception and he did.

The acceptance of vegetarian diets and those advocating them became apparent when the California Nutrition Council elected Register to become their third president. His expertise became widely known and he was invited to participate in the 1969 White House Conference on Food, Nutrition, and Health. Register was invited to speak about vegetarian diets at the 55th annual meeting of the American Dietetic Association in 1972. Later, at their request, he coauthored a continuing education manual for dietitians on vegetarian diets. In 1974, he was invited by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research Council to write their statement on vegetarian diets.

Early in his career, Register realized that sharing research results with the general public was at least as important as the research itself. He traveled across the nation and around the world, sharing his knowledge of vegetarian nutrition.

— “Dedication to UD Register, 1920-1997” by Patricia K. Johnston

* * *

Walla Walla College held its second Health Week, November 11 to 17. Guest speaker Dr. U. D. Register, of the College of Medical Evangelists staff, emphasized the close relationship between the counsel found in the Spirit of Prophecy writings and findings of modern-day science.

— Review and Herald, Vol. 134, No. 4, “Health Week at Walla Walla College” by Joyce Wilson, p. 25, Jan. 24, 1957

* * *

Using [Adventist prophet Ellen G. White’s] inspired writings as a basis, U.D. Register, Ph.D., associate professor of biochemistry of the School of Health of Loma Linda University, a Seventh-day Adventist institution near Redlands, California, and a team of co-workers conducted a series of fascinating experiments, aimed at finding scientific confirmation for Spirit of Prophecy statements.

Presenting the results of their research project at the fifty-first annual meeting of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in Chicago (1967), Dr. Register pointed out that “persons who drink a lot of coffee, live on nutritionally poor diets and use a lot of spices may be driving themselves to alcoholic drink.”

— Ellen G. White: Prophet of Destiny by Rene Noorbergen, p. 102

* * *

U. D. Register, Ph. D., associate professor of biochemistry, will speak at the 10:55 a.m. University Church service Saturday morning. His topic will be “Nutritional Prophetic Fulfillments.” He will present recent scientific evidence supporting Ellen G. White’s 1884 statement that faulty diet is a cause of juvenile delinquency.

Vegetarianism versus a diet which includes meat and other animal products will be considered in group discussion at 3 p.m.

— Northern Union Outlook, Vol. 30, No. 46, Mar. 24, 1967

* * *

Mr. Bart: Your sermon topic for tonight is “Nutritional Prophetic Fulfillments.” I wonder if you could briefly tell me what that means.

Dr. Register: We have a person in our church, Ellen White, whom we believe was inspired. She wrote many principles of nutrition even before there was scientific evidence for these principles. But they are being verified by science in a remarkable way today.

— These Times, July 1, 1973, p. 10

* * *

For approximately fifty years Mrs. Ellen G. White wrote extensively in the field of health and nutrition. She advocated many principles of health for which there was no available scientific evidence. Although written at a time when health fallacies were prevalent, the principles have been verified by science in a remarkable way. … The foregoing and other nutritional prophetic fulfillments give me increased confidence in the messages given to God’s people for today. … The insights God gave to Mrs. White have proved to be a boon to millions who have taken her counsels seriously.

— From a speech by U.D. Register

* * *

[Bruce Wilcox:] What facts in Ellen White’s writings have been verified while you have been in the nutrition field?

[U.D. Register:] When I first went into nutrition back in 1941 as a food chemist for Madison Foods, the Dietetic Association felt that one had to have meat in his or her diet to have good health, and a large percentage of other organizations believed similarly. We tried to have an internship at the White Memorial Hospital approved by the American Dietetic Association. The ADA wouldn’t give approval primarily because we didn’t recommend the use of meat in the diet.

There was a definite feeling among the nutrition scientists of the day that a meatless diet was not adequate. Of course, we were given this counsel in Counsels on Diet and Foods, page 92: “Fruits, grains, and vegetables, prepared in a simple way, free from spice and grease of all kinds, make, with milk or cream, the most healthful diet. They impart nourishment to the body, and give a power of endurance and a vigor of intellect that are not produced by a stimulating diet.”

When I first came to Loma Linda in 1951, Dr. Hardinge was conducting his studies in California on nonvegetarians, lactovegetarians, and total vegetarians. He found that with the exception of B12, even the total vegetarians were getting an adequate quantity of protein in their diet, as well as other nutrients, and when amino acid analyses were done, they were obtaining more than the recommended allowance of essential amino acids. …

[Bruce Wilcox:] At that time, what areas did you feel needed exploring?

[U.D. Register:] Number one was a study on the distribution of vitamin B12 in foods. Our studies at Wisconsin indicated that B12 was not found in vegetarian foods we tested. When I came to Loma Linda we analyzed more than 100 vegetarian foods and could not find a trace of vitamin B12 in any of them.

In Counsels on Diet and Foods, page 206, caution was given on the premature dispensing of milk from the diet, as death may result—suggesting the lack of a nutrient, vitamin B12, in a total vegetarian diet, but present in milk. “The time will come when we may have to discard some of the articles of diet we now use, such as milk and cream and eggs; but my message is that you must not bring yourself to a time of trouble beforehand, and thus afflict yourself with death. Wait till the Lord prepares the way before you.” …

Publishing these studies [on protein in vegetarian diets] aided in completely changing the attitude of the American Dietetic Association. An incident of interest that probably spearheaded this whole program of acceptance by the ADA was a request from the State public health nutritionists. They said, “We have a group of pregnant ‘hippie’ women around San Francisco, and we don’t know how to recommend to them an adequate diet. Can you come to our State meeting and tell us how?”

I gave a two-hour discussion on all our research at Loma Linda University and gave them a vegetarian packet to study. We were deluged by requests for those packets. … [We] have sent out more than 50,000 vegetarian packets. …

[Bruce Wilcox:] Did anything further develop from this acceptance by the American Dietetic Association of a lactovegetarian diet?

[U.D. Register:] Yes, as a result of this meeting we were asked to give a talk at the Michigan, California, Massachusetts, and American Dietetic Associations. … Interest in vegetarian diets spread like wildfire. … The ADA asked us to prepare a study guide for dietitians, to provide continuing education credit. Later they asked us to prepare some guidelines for the vegetarian diet that has been published in the ADA journal.

[Bruce Wilcox:] What concluding statement would you like to make?

[U.D. Register:] Certainly the statement in Counsels to Parents and Teachers, page 426, is appropriate for us today: “God is the author of science. Scientific research opens to the mind vast fields of thought and information, enabling us to see God in His created works… . Rightly understood, science and the written word agree, and each sheds light on the other. Together they lead us to God, by teaching us something of the wise and beneficent laws through which He works.”

— “Adventists push the scientific frontiers of nutrition,” Interview by R. Bruce Wilcox with U. D. Register; Adventist Review, Sept. 20, 1984, p. 15-18

* * *

7. KATHLEEN ZOLBER OF LOMA LINDA UNIVERSITY BECOMES THE FIRST ADVENTIST PRESIDENT OF THE AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOCIATION, THEREBY ENRICHING HER SERVICE TO HER CHURCH

The Department of Home Economics at Walla Walla College is privileged to make its facilities available for the Lay-Nutrition Instructor Course to be held September 9-12 [1963]. Announcement was made in last week’s GLEANER that Dr. Mervyn Hardinge of Loma Linda University will be guest lecturer in nutrition. …

It is designed that the program [called “Nutrition in Action”] will provide an informative course in the principles of nutrition and give each participant many worthwhile suggestions for conducting schools in the local churches and communities. Time has been allotted for practical experience in food demonstration techniques. There has probably never been a time when so much interest has been shown in physical fitness and nutrition as there is today in both our church and among the general public. Certainly each church is to become a training center for classes in the art and science of healthful cooking.

We urge you to consider this opportunity to prepare for this important work of serving others. …

Kathleen Zolber
Associate Professor, Foods and Nutrition

— North Pacific Union Gleaner, Aug. 12, 1963, Vol. 58, No. 31, p. 3

* * *

Mrs. Kathleen Zolber, associate professor in the School of Nutrition and Dietetics, Loma Linda University, is the recipient of the Mead Johnson Award for Graduate Education in Dietetics. The award is administered by the American Dietetic Association. Only two such awards may be granted in a year.

Mrs. Zolber has been connected with the denomination’s educational program for many years, having been first food service director and later associate professor in the home economics department at Walla Walla College.

— Review and Herald, article by Ruth Little, Aug. 26, 1965, p. 18

* * *

Cooking and nutrition classes are frequently conducted by ladies at our church facilities, but recently a pastor headed such a series. …

At the request of the dental student auxiliary at Loma Linda, Elder William Loveless, pastor of the University Church, was invited to direct a class which would equip them to present cooking classes themselves in surrounding communities. Using a variety of resource personnel he coordinated a series of weekly classes in the church’s fellowship and kitchen area. Among the sneakers were Dr. Albert Sanchez, Dr. and Mrs. U. D. Register, and Dr. Kathleen Zolber. These four were also available to the women for their subsequent schools. …

The classes focused on not only basic cooking and nutrition but how nutrition can help bring a balance to the physical, moral, and mental phases of living.

— “University Church Pastor Heads Nutrition Classes,” by C. Elwyn Platner, Pacific Union Recorder, Apr. 19, 1971, p. 3

* * *

The [Loma Linda University] School of Health’s Kathleen Zolber, associate professor of nutrition, has been authorized to prepare a one-hour tape on vegetarian diet by the Continuing Education committee of the American Dietetic Association. … The tape will be the first of a series of three tapes for continuing education for the association’s 20,000 members. Registered dietitians are now required to complete 75 units of continuing education during each five-year period. Dr. U.D. Register will collaborate with Dr. Zolber in preparing the question-and-answer format. Printed materials, including study outlines, a bibliography, and vegetarian menus will be used with the tape.

— “Pace,” Scope Vol. 10, No.1, Jan.-Feb. 1973, p. 4

* * *

It’s Your World Vegetarian Cookbook is not just another collection of recipes! ….

Based on recommendations from [Ellen G. White’s] Counsels on Diet and Foods and recent findings in nutrition, emphasis is placed on plant foods in as natural a form as possible as preferable to refined or processed foods; good-quality protein combined in tasty, attractive and healthful dishes; simple, easy-to-follow, low-cost recipes; low in cholesterol, sugar, saturated fat; and not more than l/6th part of nuts—see CDF, p. 273. …

The guidance committee included several staff members from the department of nutrition, School of Health, Loma Linda University; namely: Dr. U. D. Register, chairman; Helen Register; Lydia Sonnenberg and Dr. Kathleen Zolber. …

“The Lord will give His people wisdom to prepare from that which the earth yields, food that will take the place of flesh meat. Simple combinations of nuts and grains and fruits, manufactured with taste and skill commend themselves to unbelievers.” CDF, p. 269.

— “It’s Your World Vegetarian Cookbook Presents the Healthful Way of Living,” Pacific Union Recorder, Aug. 6, 1973, p. 6

* * *

Kathleen Zolber, director of dietetics and professor of nutrition, has been appointed chairman of the Dietetic Internship Board of the American Dietetic Association.

— Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, R&H, Dec. 18, 1975, p. 27

* * *

Kathleen Zolber has been named Alumnae of the Year for Walla Walla College and was honored for her contribution to her profession and the church during WWC’s Alumni Homecoming Weekend, Apr. 21 to 24. …

Active in both professional and church activities, Mrs. Zolber has served on the health advisory committee of the General Conference, the publications committee for the SDA Dietetic Association and she is currently chairman of the commission on evaluation of dietetic education and a member of the coordinating cabinet of the American Dietetic Association.

— Gleaner, May 2, 1977, p. 21- 22

* * *

Kathleen K. Zolber, professor of nutrition and co-chairman of the department of dietetics in the School of Allied Health Professions, presented the annual Distinguished Faculty Lecture May 3. Dr. Zolber, a graduate of Walla Walla College and the University of Wisconsin, has written numerous articles for Adventist and professional publications. She is currently a member of the American Dietetic Association’s board of directors.

— Adventist Review, May 24, 1979, p. 29

* * *

Kathleen Zolber, chairman of the Department of Dietetics in the School of Allied Health Professions, [was elected] president of the American Dietetic Association in September [of 1981]. The Association represents 42,000 professional dietitians and nutritionists. … This is the first time a Seventh-day Adventist has been elected to a national office of the American Dietetic Association.

— Adventist Review, Nov. 19, 1981

* * *

The twenty-seventh annual meeting of the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association was held September 18-20, in Hackettstown, New Jersey, just prior to the national meeting of the American Dietetic Association in Philadelphia. … The dietitians present conducted the Sabbath services for the Hackettstown church. …

At the annual banquet, held in Philadelphia, Distinguished Service awards were presented to Kathleen Zolber, director of the coordinated undergraduate program in dietetics at Loma Linda University and president-elect of the American Dietetic Association, and Alice Marsh, professor emeritus of home economics at Andrews.

— “Dietitians meet for three days,” Adventist Review, Nov. 19, 1981, p. 23

* * *

For Seventh-day Adventist dietitians the American Dietetic Association convention held September 11-15 in Anaheim, California, was special. For the first time since its founding in 1917, an Adventist—Kathleen Zolber, a professor of nutrition at Loma Linda University—was the association’s president. Dr. Zolber presided over the convention—which drew about 10,000 dietitians—at the opening and during other special sessions. …

The largest group of Adventist dietitians ever to attend (more than 200) met for the annual dinner of the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association (SDADA) at the Jolly Roger Inn on Tuesday evening, September 13. … On that occasion Lydia Sonnenberg—who has contributed to both the growth of SDADA and the dietetic profession as an outstanding administrator, teacher, and writer—was given the Distinguished Service Award. …

Special thanks are extended to Loma Linda Foods and Worthington Foods for their many courtesies to the Adventist dietitians, for their support through scholarships for worthy students, and for their support of administrative workshops in the field.

— “SDA presides over dietitians’ convention” by Irma B. Vyhmeister, Adventist Review, Dec. 22, 1983, p. 18

* * *

Irma B Vyhmeister reported on the convention of the American Dietetic Association held in Anaheim, California, recently.

Kathleen Zolber, a Seventh-day Adventist, is president of the Association. She received two standing ovations. Attendance reached 10,000, approximately 200 were Seventh-day Adventists. Lydia Sonenberg who was connected with Loma Linda University for many years, received the distinguished service award. Topics were varied and included a discussion of caffeine. Serious researchers agree with the writings of E [G] White on this subject.

— General Conference Committee minutes for Sept., 1983

* * *

The book [Health to the People: Stories of Public Health, Preventive and Lifestyle Medicine, and Medical Evangelism Training and Outreach, Loma Linda, California, 1905-2005] recounts many exciting ways God has blessed this first church operated School of Public Health. Founded in 1905, [Loma Linda University], initially called the College of Evangelists, began by developing health education training of medical evangelists. In 1922, the School of Nutrition and Dietetics was established and went through twenty years of disappointment in its many efforts to get approval of the American Dietetic Association (ADA). The ADA finally recognized the benefits of plant based diets and Loma Linda was fully vindicated when its vegetarian Professor of Nutrition, Katherine Zolber, was elected president of the ADA and was given the Cypher Award, ADA’s highest.

— “Dysinger’s Health to the People Now Available”

* * *

Kathleen Zolber, PhD, professor of nutrition, received an “Outstanding Service Award” from the American Dietetic Association Foundation. She was cited for dedicated service as a member of ADA’s capital campaign in its efforts to raise $8 million for the National Center for Nutrition and Dietetics.

— Today, Wednesday, Dec. 13, 1989, Vol. 2, No. 21

* * *

A successful teacher, educational administrator, and fund-raiser, Kathleen Zolber has, for many years, served her church capably and well in the area of dietetics and nutrition. … Kathleen exemplifies the kind of contribution a professional can make by being capable in her field and true to principle.

— Association of Adventist Women, 1985

* * *

As an educator, researcher, scholar, manager, and leader, Kathleen Zolber has influenced her profession and supported her church in a life-long career in nutrition and dietetics. A highlight of her life of achievement and service came when she was elected by the 50,000 members of the American Dietetic Association to be their president in 1982-1983. … As a committed Seventh-day Adventist, Dr. Zolber finds time to work in her local church. She belongs to the 5,000-member Loma Linda University church where she chairs the Finance Committee. … Her faith and values as an Adventist Christian have permeated her professional life. Her professional expertise has enriched her service to her church.

— “1985 Women of the Year: Nutritionist, Bible worker, and missionary honored in New Orleans for lives of service.” The Adventist Woman, July/Aug., 1985, p. 5

* * *

8. RECRUITING MORE ADVENTIST DIETITIANS

Seventh-day Adventist Dietitians have a solution to the hungering need of the world today. Not only do we have answers to the prevention and treatment for many chronic diseases of the body, we also have answers to the hunger of the soul.

Did God call you to your profession? Do you still have a passion to make a difference? You have been placed in your corner of the world for a reason. God has placed you where you are right now to make a difference. As we network together, Seventh-day Adventist Dietitians can have a stronger voice.

Our “right arm” needs some exercise and you are just the one we need to do it. We need to rally together to meet the needs of our church, our community, our country and our world. …

— “A Message from the President,” SDADA News, Summer 2004

* * *

There is an urgent need for the services of many more Seventh-day Adventist dietitians who are especially qualified and trained for educational work along nutritional lines in the field, in our schools, and in our other institutions. Recognizing this need the Loma Linda Food Company, a conference owned institution [which makes fake meat products], has devised a plan in conjunction with the College of Medical Evangelists whereby scholarships will be awarded pre-dietetics students.

Twelve scholarships of $100 each payable in tuition are being offered pre-dietetics students in Seventh-day Adventist junior and senior colleges upon their entering the Loma Linda School of Dietetics. These scholarships will be awarded on the basis of grade average, an aptitude for public speaking, proficiency in the art of cooking, and certain other specified requirements including the preparation of a theme pertaining to the nutritional program of the Seventh-day Adventist church.

— “Scholarships in Dietetics”, The Record, Vol. XLIII, No. 50, Dec. 20, 1944, p. 2

* * *

To Seventh-day Adventists, in a very special way, the services of trained personnel in nutrition and dietetics are necessary. Special emphasis on a health-promoting dietary is one of the distinguishing characteristics of our medical program and a field in which we as a denomination should be foremost.

More qualified dietitians are needed to serve in the capacity of food administrators and clinical dietitians in our hospitals and sanitariums. The dietitian’s sphere in our colleges and academies should be enlarged. The nutritionist and dietitian are to play an important role in the field of preventive medicine as teachers in the community of sound principles of healthful living.

Upon completion of thirty years of service to the denomination, the School of Nutrition of the College of Medical Evangelists looks forward to larger and more effective contributions to the needs of our church around the world.

— “School of Nutrition Celebrates Thirtieth Anniversary,” Lydia M. Sonnenberg, Director, School of Nutrition, College of Medical Evangelists, Review and Herald, Dec. 25, 1952, p. 14-15

* * *

The Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association has just released a new thirty-minute film. Entitled “A Service of Love,” it is a 16 mm. sound motion picture in color, portraying the fascinating and beneficial work of the dietitian. It tells the story of a dietitian’s dedication to her profession, and how she lives out that dedication. Realizing the importance of dietetics and nutrition as a part of our faith, and aware of the extreme shortage of dietitians within our denomination, the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association undertook the production of this film. Its main objectives are to recruit young men and women who are in search of a satisfying and worthwhile career, and to acquaint our members with the role of the dietitian. Already the association has received much recognition by educators, career guidance leaders, officers of the American Dietetic Association, and many others, for this outstanding contribution to the profession of dietetics.

— “Dietetic Association Film,” Paul S. Damazo, Review and Herald, Vol. 134, No. 4, Jan. 24 1957, P. 23

* * *

The thirteenth annual SDA Dietetics Association meeting was held at Andrews University August 9-13, preceding the fiftieth annual American Dietetics Association convention in Chicago. Fifty-two Adventist dietitians were present.

The program included tours of Battle Creek Health Center and Hinsdale Sanitarium as well as the library, the Ellen G. White vault, and the academy home economics facilities at Andrews University. Uppermost among business items were matters pertaining to the recruiting and training of more Adventist dietitians.

— “SDA Dietitians Convene,” Rose Budd, Review and Herald, Sept. 21, 1967, p. 22

* * *

A dietetics curriculum leading to a bachelor of science degree will be offered by the School of Health Related Professions beginning September, 1971, according to Ivor C. Woodward, PhD, dean of the school.

Chairman of the department of nutrition in the School of Health Related Professions will be U. D. Register, PhD, professor of nutrition. Coordinator for dietetics education is Kathleen Zolber, PhD. …

At the completion of the academic course work and the clinical experience, and on recommendation of the faculty, the student will be eligible to write the registration examination and to apply for membership in the American Dietetic Association.

Under most current programs, a student must attend college for four years and spend a fifth year as a dietetic intern before he is eligible for membership in the American Dietetic Association. The four-year curriculum will accelerate the dietetics education program by combining the clinical experience with regular under graduate studies. …

Dietetic programs are not new at Loma Linda University. The first class hygienic cooking and baking course began in 1908. The course evolved into a dietitians’ training course in 1922 and continued until 1928 when the name was changed to the School of Dietetics. The internship program was accredited by the American Dietetic Association in 1956.

The School of Nutrition and Dietetics was incorporated into the School of Health in 1967 as the department of nutrition.

— “Dietetics program to be offered by SHRP beginning in 1972,” Scope, Mar.-Apr., 1971, p. 38

* * *

Ruth Little Carey, DI’33, recently contributed funds to provide an award of $500 a year to a dietetic student who is enrolled in the junior year of the baccalaureate program in the school of Allied Health Professions. This award is established for a five-year period. In addition to the dietetics student award, Dr. Carey also gave $1,000 a year for a two-year period to the dietetics research program. Dr. Carey was director of the School of Nutrition and Dietetics at Loma Linda University from 1954-1967. She is co-author of the recently published Vegetarian Cookery and one of the authors of Common Sense Nutrition, published by Pacific Press Publishing Association. For information on the award, write to Dr. Kathleen Zolber, Coordinator for Dietetics, School of Allied Health Professions, Loma Linda University, Loma Linda CA 92354.

— “Allied Health,”Scope, Vol. 9, No. 2, May-June 1972, p. 36

* * *

A $10,000 grant has been awarded Andrews University by [Adventist fake meat producer] Worthington Foods to aid in setting up a new coordinated undergraduate program (CUP) in dietetics. The program, which shortens the time required for students to finish their professional study, will begin next month for persons at the freshman, sophomore, and junior levels.

“A unique feature of this new coordinated program will be the educational emphasis it places on the use of non-meat proteins,” said Dr. Patricia B. Mutch, program director and assistant professor of home economics at A.U. “With the rapidly increasing demand for vegetable protein foods, Worthington Foods readily agreed to support such an educational venture.”

A coordinated undergraduate program in dietetics has also been set up at Loma Linda University… A.U. and L.L.U. are among only 25 schools in the United States where the CUP in dietetics has been approved by the American Dietetic Association.

The coordinated undergraduate program allows students to complete the professional bachelor of science degree in dietetics within four years and at the same time attain eligibility for membership in the American Dietectic Association. Such membership is generally necessary for a dietitian to practice professionally, said Dr. Mutch.

The traditional route to such membership has been a four-year college degree in foods, nutrition, or a similar curriculum, followed by an internship of six to twelve months. Adventist students often took internships at L.L.U., but with the start of the new coordinated programs, the internship plan there has been discontinued. Students still wanting to take the traditional five-year program may, of course, apply for internships at non-Adventist schools.

Dr. Mutch noted that there is a need for more professional dietitians in Seventh-day Adventist institutions having food service facilities, as well as for nutrition educators and consultants. … “Considerable emphasis will also be placed on vegetable protein research in order to reinforce and expand the nutritionist’s knowledge in this area,” said Dr. Mutch.

— “Worthington Foods Awards $10,000 Grant Toward New Dietetics Program,” Lake Union Herald, Aug. 27, 1974, p. 3 & 6

* * *

The Baccalaureate degree program in dietetics at Loma Linda University was recently given a five-year approval by the American Dietetic Association, according to Kathleen Zolber, co-chairman of the department of dietetics.

In this new shortened program, the student is eligible for membership in the American Dietetic Association upon completion of the Baccalaureate degree requirements and may write the ADA to qualify for registered dietitian status. This replaces the traditional four-year academic program plus 12-month internship training period.

— “Dietetics Program Wins Five-Year Approval,” Jerre K. Iversen, Adventist Review, Aug. 1, 1974, p. 24

* * *

Dr. Mutch noted that with both [Loma Linda and Andrews] universities now having A.D.A. approval for the new [coordinated undergraduate program], any Adventist young person wanting a career in dietetics will be able to receive the necessary general or specialized education within the context of the church’s educational system.

— “A New Program in Dietetics,” Lake Union Herald, July 2, 1974, p. 8-9

* * *

Nutritional Services has periodic openings for Registered Dietitians, Masters preferred. Wish to have names on file of those interested in being considered for positions when they become available. Send resume to Kathleen Zolber, Nutritional Services, LLUMC, Loma Linda, CA 92354.

— Gleaner, Feb. 18, 1980, p. 34

* * *

About six years ago the American Dietetic Association introduced the dietetic technician program nationwide because registered dietitans needed trained support personnel to help them putt out of the sandtrap of administrative duties. …

According to the home economics department, which coordinates the dietetic technician program at [Walla Walla College], dietetic technicians are in demand across the country at both Adventist and non-Adventist hospitals. Furthermore, dietetic technicians can play an important role in community nutrition educational programs.

Certainly Americans have never been more aware of or concerned about the foods they eat. The newest dietary guidelines recommended by the U.S. departments of agriculture and health and social services support the counsels of Ellen G. White written nearly a century ago in books like The Ministry of Healing…

In the past few years vegetarian restaurants have sprouted up everywhere like dandelions on a summer lawn, and vitamins, minerals, carbohydrates, proteins and fats have been making headlines on cereal boxes.

The dietetic technician course seems to be tailor-made for Adventist young adults who want to help out in the nutritional aspect of the health ministry. … As a registered dietetian there are even greater opportunities for service and achievement. Kathleen K. Zolber, a [Walla Walla College] graduate who currently heads the dietary department at Loma Linda University Medical Center, was recently named president-elect of the American Dietetic Association. This is the first time an Adventist has achieved that honor.

Technicians are also eligible for membership in the ADA, the professional organization that leads the field of nutrition today.

— “New Field in Dietetics Offers Job Opportunities for Graduates,” James L. Fly, The North Pacific Union Gleaner, Aug. 17, 1981, Vol. 76, No. 16, p. 10

* * *

If someone wished to know about Seventh-day Adventists, he might go first to a place like Loma Linda University, saying to himself: “If you want to know what a people are really like, you must go to see how they train their young people, to discover what things they think most important, to capture a taste of the distinctive atmosphere their campuses reveal. … He might ask Dr. A. Graham Maxwell, director of the Division of Religion, why he feels prospective doctors and nurses need to take religion courses at all levels of their study, and hear him respond that “all the ultimate questions of healing are openly Biblical.” …

If our visitor walked up the hill to the School of Health, he would see a group of young men and women receive their specially prepared meals, part of the on-going nutritional studies that have made Loma Linda, according to Dr. U. D. Register, the place where ” the whole world looks … for leadership in research into…vegetable protein.” …

Isn’t it time for us to give some thought to the important role Loma Linda University plays in the over-all outreach in which we all share as Adventists? When the Loma Linda University Offering is taken in your church Sabbath, April 19, remember, the university came to be because people like you had a vision of the role of medical evangelism in reaching the world. Only people like you can continue that vision, and see its completion when Jesus comes.”

—“A Vision to Reach the World,” The Atlantic Union Gleaner, April 18, 1975, p. 5-6

* * *

Do I have to take religion classes at Loma Linda University?

Students in the bachelor’s degree program take 8 units of religion. These courses include a historical class “Adventist Heritage of Religion and Health,” an ethics class, “Christian Ethics in Health Care,” and an elective course, perhaps in the area of relationships such as marriage and family. … Classes in religion are part of the core curriculum in each of the University’s schools and programs. All students who choose to attend Loma Linda University make a commitment to conduct their lives in a manner that reflects their sense of responsibility for the honor and integrity of the University and themselves as members of its community.

Will I need to attend chapel as a student of Loma Linda University?

Weekly chapels represent a critical dimension of the educational experience at Loma Linda University. By devoting one hour each week to a chapel program, the University is emphasizing the value it places on spiritual development, corporate worship, and community. In addition, the chapel programs provide a variety of opportunities for the entire University community to benefit from teaching that integrates faith and learning and to confront current issues and the implementation of faith in secular life.

— “Nutrition and Dietetics: Frequently Asked Questions,” Loma Linda University

* * *

9. THE SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST DIETETIC ASSOCIATION (SDADA)

At a recent meeting of Seventh-day Adventist dietitians to organize the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association the following officers were chosen: President, Dr. Ruth Little, College of Medical Evangelists; secretary and treasurer, Avis Dixon, B.S., St. Helena Sanitarium; public relations officer, Paul S. Damazo, M.S., La Sierra College; associate public relations officer, Mrs. Alice Marsh, M.S., Emmanuel Missionary College.

The officers and the charter members of the association voted to accept the following as immediate objectives of the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association: 1. To uphold by precept and example the principles of healthful living given to the denomination by the Spirit of Prophecy. …

The first national meeting of the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association convened at the College of Medical Evangelists, Loma Linda Division, on Tuesday, December 28.

— “S.D.A. Dietetic Association Organized,” Paul S. Damazo, Northern Union Outlook, Vol. 18, No. 32, Jan. 4, 1955, p. 4

* * *

[This book] is based upon the most up-to-date, scientific knowledge available at the present time. And yet as you read its pages you will see that the principles of diet and health given to the Church decades ago by Ellen G. White are still basic.

— Everyday Nutrition for Your Family, edited by Lydia Sonnenberg, published by the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association, 1961, Preface

***

It is rather common knowledge that Seventh-day Adventists are dedicated to the health principles which they profess. There is real conviction that those practices which are inimical to health, which contribute to disease, and which are known to shorten life do not glorify God. The Biblical admonition that the Christian glorify God in his body is fundamental in the health instructions and practices of Seventh-day Adventists. It is difficult to worship God or serve God in a body that is less than its optimum of health. We are told that the mind is the only avenue through which God can communicate His will to man. A healthy mind is dependent upon a healthy body. Thus we see the importance of a healthy body for a clear, keen intellect and a consistent and dynamic Christian life. Perhaps no single area of our health teachings is of greater significance than that of nutrition. For a consistent balance in our attitudes in matters of diet we draw from the counsel found in Ellen G. White’s highly esteemed volume, Ministry of Healing…

— Everyday Nutrition for Your Family, edited by Lydia Sonnenberg, published by the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association, 1961, p. 14

* * *

Among the many kinds of diets eaten by mankind, two basic types exist – vegetarian and non-vegetarian. Vegetarian diets are of two kinds, the ‘pure’ vegetarian in which only plant foods are used, and the lacto-ovo-vegtarian in which milk and eggs, natural foods of animal origin, are included. The non-vegetarian or omnivorous diet also uses the flesh of animals, never designed by nature for food. Contrary to Western opinion, vast populations of the earth have lived for centuries on diets generally considered vegetarian, containing little or no foods of animal origin. Indeed, the inspired record of man’s original diet shows it to have consisted entirely of the products of plants – seeds, fleshy fruits and nuts (Gen. 1:29). After man’s disobedience the diet was modified by the addition of vegetables, the ‘herb’ (Gen. 3:18) or plant itself. A still later modification permitted the use of flesh as food when all plant life had been destroyed by the flood (Gen. 9:3, 4).

— Everyday Nutrition for Your Family, edited by Lydia Sonnenberg, published by the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association, 1961, p. 130

* * *

[Ellen G. White’s] Counsels on Diet and Foods should be our textbook to obtain better health for our families.

— Everyday Nutrition for Your Family, edited by Lydia Sonnenberg, published by the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association, 1961, p. 141

* * *

The Seventh-day Adventist dietitians are willing to assist as much as possible with health evangelism throughout the United States. Nine dietitians have agreed to serve as resource dietitians — one dietitian from each union in the United States. The General Conference, local unions, and home nutrition instructors have been informed of these appointments. … Those individuals planning health evangelism programs or other church health activities will want to work closely with the resource dietitians.

In the book Testimonies to the Church, vol. 9, p. 112, Ellen G. White makes this statement: “Cooking schools are to be held. The people are to be taught how to prepare wholesome food. They are to be shown the need of discarding unhealthful foods… . The work of teaching the people how to prepare a dietary that is at once wholesome and appetizing is of the utmost importance.”

The officers of the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association feel it is the responsibility of professionally qualified Adventist dietitians to accept and respond to this challenge. Therefore, they have made definite plans to meet the following five objectives, which they list as their commitment to health evangelism action:

1. Organize a group of resource dietitians, one in each union, to assist in the coordinating of cooking schools and to serve as a consultant to home nutrition instructors, physicians, dietitians, and laymen.

2. Make available nutrition education materials of all kinds for use in evangelistic campaigns.

3. Establish workshops for dietitians in the methods of conducting home nutrition instructors’ training schools.

4. Provide support and encouragement to the home nutrition instructors and serve as consultants to them.

5. Present a positive Christian witness in healthful living in our own lives and characters.

— “Adventist Dietitians Organize for More Effective Service,” Southwestern Union Record, Aug. 23, 1975, p. 7-8

* * *

The SDA position on lipids, vegetarian diets for infants, children and teens, meat analogs, fellowship dinners, beverages (caffeinated and non-caffeinated, herb and soft drinks) was discussed during the second annual North American Division Nutrition Council, held February 22 to 24, 1989, in Loma Linda.

Comprised primarly of nutrition specialists, the Council reviews scientific literature, nutrition education programs, and examines current trends and issues in nutrition. The Council evaluates this information in order to provide practical guidance in harmony with the special counsel available to the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

At the February meeting, Patricia Johnston, DrPH, MS, RD, explains that “our primary objective at this meeting was to finalize the development of a position paper on lipids. We also discussed other position papers that will be developed in the future, and other topics such as … state laws and their impact on dissemination of nutrition information.”

The Council will meet again in October, 1989, in conjunction with the American Dietetic Association and the SDA Dietetic Association meetings.

Delegates from Loma Linda University Schools of Public Health and Allied health Professions, the General Conference of SDA, meat analog manufacturers, and nutrition educators from other SDA academies and colleges attended the February meetings.

— Today, Mar. 22, 1989, Vol. 2, No. 6, p. 5

* * *

The SDADA has been in practice for 49 years. During this time many changes have occurred in the field of dietetics and nutrition. Attitudes toward vegetarianism have changed from the negative to the positive. … Nutrition has always been important, especially for us as Adventists. Since 1860 we have known of the importance of a well-balanced diet, nutritious food and healthy lifestyles. But today, the world community is not only listening, but also putting into practice what we have been trying to say for 150 years. There is still a big challenge for us as SDA Dietitians because our churches are reaching out to their communities and need our support and direction to do so. … In closing, I will say like the President of the United States always says when he closes the state of the union address: ‘May God bless each of you and may God bless’ the SDADA.

— SDADA News, Winter 2003, Vol. 30, Issue 4

* * *

SDADA is 55 years old and it appears many Seventh-day Adventist (SDA) dietitians to take it for granted. Hasn’t it always been there? Won’t it always be? There was a time when SDADA did not exist, but it was greatly needed. The large profession looked askance at SDA dietitians for their “substandard” vegetarian diet emphasis.

Since the Bible records that the original diet God provided for humans was vegetarian, SDA dietitians had the fortitude to maintain their position when the larger profession did not see the importance. In this climate, SDA dietitians felt the need to organize their efforts to get out the good nutrition word and to encourage SDA students to enter the dietetics profession.

Early in 1954, SDA dietitians, centered around the College of Medical Evangelists (CME)/ Loma Linda University and Glendale, CA, acted to meet this need. They were able to convince the president of CME to write to the General Conference (GC) medical director requesting that dietitians be invited to attend the GC Medical Department pre-meetings before the San Francisco GC session. The invitation did come, and in May, nine dietitians gathered at Glendale Sanitarium and Hospital to lay plans, forming recommendations to further the cause of nutrition and dietetics.

Following the General Conference Session, the International Nutrition Research Foundation of the Loma Linda Food Company at La Sierra sponsored a Nutrition and Food Service Convention (June 7-10, 1954) and invited people from the world field to attend. Room and board were free to attendees. Each day dietitians from hospitals and schools met in what little time periods they could find between the scheduled meetings to discuss their mutual interest in promoting vegetarian nutrition and influencing SDA students to make dietetics their career choice. These 15 dietetics leaders saw the need for an organized approach and voted the new organization into existence with officers (Clinton Wall as president, Ruth Little, Avis Dixson, Paul Damazo, Alice Marsh) and a committee to prepare a constitution and by-laws. …

To be a member in SDADA, you first had to hold membership with the ADA by paying yearly dues of $5.00. ADA was relatively simple: no RD or KD category, no specialty DPGs. There was a real need for a professional group to champion the vegetarian cause, and SDADA dietitians took on the challenge which required funding. Paul Damazo and Clinton Wall did such things as put up their own (old) cars as collateral for loans to get some of the fledgling organization’s plans off the ground.

Everyone involved worked and the five committees — Administration, Community Education, Diet Therapy, Professional Education, Publications — produced. In the first three years they published many educational materials including pamphlets, manuals, recruitment slides and scripts, posters, and articles in denomination periodicals. They began the Dietitian’s Digest (SDADA official organ) and furnished the materials for the Food Service Director’s Bulletin which the Medical Department of the GC published. Vegetarian recipes went public. They produced the first ever color motion picture (30 minutes) on ADA dietetics as a career, “Service of Love.” The American Dietetic Association showed this film twice during the national convention in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. It went on to many universities and state association meetings, not to mention SDA colleges and academies. This motion picture had a major positive influence on the dietetic profession in favor of SDA dietitians.

In the next three years the SDADA’s book Everyday Nutrition appeared on the market, followed later with About Nutrition. The SDADA Diet Manual was published. Many more educational pamphlets, nutrition correspondence lessons, lecture visual aides, career guidance material and articles were produced. SDADA shared the GC Medical Department booth at the Atlantic City Youth Congress and distributed 8,000 items. …

Today a plant based diet is “open territory” for professional advancement. We are on the verge of tremendous new strides as research proves the efficacy of the vegetarian diet. But with the world of dietetics moving to our way of living, let us not think that our work is done. Because of our background and experience, SDA dietitians are uniquely equipped to lead the move toward a plant based diet. We must share our advantage.

As in the early years, our organization’s need for loyal, supportive dietitians is as great as ever. Individually, we should become involved in SDADA to give it strength. Then SDADA can be a more effective corporate voice and in turn can enhance our individual efforts. This is the time to stand tall and stand together as we concentrate our energies to promote the dietary message we have always proclaimed.

— “Our History,” Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association

* * *

Today Americans sit down to breakfast on dry cereals and various meatless frozen or canned entrees developed directly from grain and soy sources, thus bypassing the need for eating flesh foods. These foods were first developed in Adventist healthcare institutions and food factories.

Health conscious people of today and those entering the new millennium are demanding a greater understanding of the health and hygienic principles, many of which were either first taught by Seventh-day Adventists or gleaned from the great variety of teachings that have emerged from the past two centuries.

Even in the United States Dietary Guidelines 2005, greater use of whole grains, soybeans, and other legumes are recommended for protein, and the greatest emphasis is placed on plant based foods. … The uniqueness of the Seventh-day Adventist health principles is they were far ahead of their times.

— “The Seventh-day Adventist Health Message”

* * *

In recent years public perceptions of vegetarianism have shifted, and the Adventist Church has been at the forefront of this. Dr Mervyn Hardinge, at the third International Congress on Vegetarian Nutrition, in 1997, summarised this metamorphosis as, first, ridicule; second, tolerance; third, acceptance; and, finally, acclaim.

— “The Adventist Health Impact,” Record, Apr. 29, 2000, p. 10

* * *

The rest of this series will look at those who have authored and reviewed the American Dietetic Association position papers on a vegetarian diet.

Is Veganism Good for Everyone?

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 12:00:00 +0100

Is Veganism Good for Everyone?:

The New York Times had me contribute to yesterday’s “Room for Debate” about whether everyone can thrive on a vegan diet. In my post I mention that six out of seven of the authors of the American Dietetic Association/Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics position papers on a vegetarian diet since 1988 have been vegetarian and vegan (for ethical and religious reasons). I started a few entries about that two years ago but got bogged down in research because I wanted to cover all of the reviewers of those papers too, since — also with one exception — they were all ethical and religious vegetarians and vegans until the 2003 and 2009 papers.

Since many of these authors and reviewers are Seventh-day Adventists, were involved with the Seventh-day Adventist Dietetic Association (the Adventist answer to the American Dietetic Association), or just worked for Adventist universities, I wanted to detail the history of Seventh-day Adventists’ interest in dietetics and spreading their gospel through vegetarian advocacy, which could fill a series of posts on its own.

But I think I’ve figured out a way to simplify all this and make it at least somewhat readable, so I plan to start posting entries about this soon. Maybe I’ll write something more detailed later.

James McWilliams Asks Us to Dream of Vegan Utopias, Not Pastured Meat Utopias

Sat, 14 Apr 2012 23:45:00 +0100

James McWilliams Asks Us to Dream of Vegan Utopias, Not Pastured Meat Utopias:

Time to dissect another James McWilliams piece. Like the rest of McWilliams’ repertoire, this one is about how McWilliams doesn’t like any kind of animal product consumption whatsoever.

In “The Myth of Sustainable Meat,” he writes:

“Grass-grazing cows emit considerably more methane than grain-fed cows.”

Okay, now that’s a fair start. Some research suggests that the opposite is true, but most research currently supports McWilliams, I think. What McWilliams doesn’t mention is that grass-fed cows are less carbon- and nitrogen-intensive than grain-fed because growing that grain releases greenhouse gases, even if the cows don’t release as much during digestion. And pasture – unlike feedlots – can serve as a carbon sink.

As for methane, scientists are working on ways to reduce the methane that cows and other ruminants release. For instance, feeding ruminants flax, oregano oil, cashew shell oil and high-sugar rye grasses, or changing cows’ intestinal bacteria could all help reduce animal methane emissions.

And hey, if methane is the problem and methane-emitting animals are the villains, why isn’t McWilliams declaring open season on all methane-emitting wild animals? We should be hunting those methane-emitting menaces to extinction.

McWilliams continues:

“Pastured organic chickens have a 20 percent greater impact on global warming.”

This statistic could also be correct, but organic and pastured aren’t inextricably linked. Makenna Goodman wrote an article arguing that the disadvantages of organic pastured chickens make non-organic pastured chickens a better option for humans and chickens.

Could McWilliams’ statistic apply to pastured non-organic chicken? It’s hard to say without knowing where he got it.

McWilliams persists:

It requires 2 to 20 acres to raise a cow on grass. If we raised all the cows in the United States on grass (all 100 million of them), cattle would require (using the figure of 10 acres per cow) almost half the country’s land (and this figure excludes space needed for pastured chicken and pigs).

If that’s true, then the US wouldn’t raise so many cows. As grass-fed cows gobbled up more and more real estate, land and meat costs would become prohibitively expensive and would put a stop to cows’ manifest destiny schemes.

Enough commenters posted similar points on McWilliams’ article that he tried to refute them on his blog Eatingplantsdotorg.wordpress.com (one of the weirdest URLs I’ve ever seen). There he writes:

The premise that higher priced meat would lead to reduced consumption is, as far as it goes, accurate. In fact, that’s the only way we’re going to achieve sustained reduced consumption–make animal products radically more expensive. The problem, however, is that no matter how many boutique operations emerge, we’re never going to see the price of animal products collectively rise to the point that it mitigates consumption.

The reason is skyrocketing global demand. Normally, increased demand would lead to increased price–and that may happen, but nowhere near to the extent that it would reduce consumption. Here’s why: this demand virtually dictates that no matter how many expensive options arise, industrial operations, by virtue of their efficiency, will always dominate as the leading form of production–a form of production geared to lower the price of animal products.

This is pure equivocation. Commenters on his article said that if the US switched over to grass-fed-cows only, as in McWilliams’ hypothetical, cows wouldn’t overrun the country (despite taking up more land) because they would be too expensive and so people would eat less cow. To address this, McWilliams substitutes a new hypothetical in which intensively raised cattle are now part of the equation. Sure, that’s more a plausible future, but proposing a new hypothetical doesn’t address whether or not his original hypothetical made sense.

Later in the Eatingplantsdotorg.wordpress.com entry, he says:

I’ll concede that to argue that small scale animal farming would “work” if we all just ate less meat makes sense in theory. But the reality–the entrenched nature and growing demand for affordable animal products globally–suggests that we’d be better off fighting to end the production of animals altogether.

If the world is too selfish, thoughtless and greedy to go for grass-fed cows and eating less meat, how are you going to convince the world to go vegan? Pasture-raised animals wouldn’t satisfy the world’s current demand for meat, true, but a purely vegan agriculture is even worse at satisfying that demand.

McWilliams is behind the times on this one. Partially inspired by Jonathan Safran Foer’s Eating Animals, many other vegans are accepting that getting omnivores to eat less meat is a more realistic strategy than convincing everyone to go vegan.

Back to the New York Times entry:

Advocates of small-scale, nonindustrial alternatives say their choice is at least more natural. Again, this is a dubious claim. Many farmers who raise chickens on pasture use industrial breeds that have been bred to do one thing well: fatten quickly in confinement. As a result, they can suffer painful leg injuries after several weeks of living a ‘natural’ life pecking around a large pasture. Free-range pigs are routinely affixed with nose rings to prevent them from rooting, which is one of their most basic instincts. In essence, what we see as natural doesn’t necessarily conform to what is natural from the animals’ perspectives.

This is a trifling point, but I agree with it. It’s difficult to define what natural means and it’s suspect to defend a practice just by slapping that label on it. As vegan haters of “the naturalistic fallacy” say, “natural” isn’t automatically desirable. If it were, everyone would be anti-civilization primitivists. Many people do see certain benefits in whatever might be deemed “natural.” If pasture-raised meats have some of those benefits, it’s more effective to list those benefits rather than say we gotta love it because “it’s natural.”

McWilliams goes on:

The economics of alternative animal systems are similarly problematic. Subsidies notwithstanding, the unfortunate reality of commodifying animals is that confinement pays. If the production of meat and dairy was somehow decentralized into small free-range operations, common economic sense suggests that it wouldn’t last. These businesses — no matter how virtuous in intention — would gradually seek a larger market share, cutting corners, increasing stocking density and aiming to fatten animals faster than competitors could. Barring the strictest regulations, it wouldn’t take long for production systems to scale back up to where they started.

This is quite likely true, but I don’t see his point. We shouldn’t buy meat from farms that treat their animals better because a world where that is the only type of farm is unlikely? Should we not buy vegan take-out because a world with only vegan restaurants is unlikely? If there were somehow a vegan world for a second, pretty soon some people would get a hankering for animal products, would hunt and fish them, and raise them for food again (assuming domesticated animals hadn’t yet been extinguished). Does this mean no one should ever go vegan?

McWilliams says:

All this said, committed advocates of alternative systems make one undeniably important point about the practice called “rotational grazing” or “holistic farming”: the soil absorbs the nutrients from the animals’ manure, allowing grass and other crops to grow without the addition of synthetic fertilizer. As Michael Pollan writes, “It is doubtful you can build a genuinely sustainable agriculture without animals to cycle nutrients.” In other words, raising animals is not only sustainable, but required.

But rotational grazing works better in theory than in practice. Consider Joel Salatin, the guru of nutrient cycling, who employs chickens to enrich his cows’ grazing lands with nutrients. His plan appears to be impressively eco-correct, until we learn that he feeds his chickens with tens of thousands of pounds a year of imported corn and soy feed. This common practice is an economic necessity. Still, if a farmer isn’t growing his own feed, the nutrients going into the soil have been purloined from another, most likely industrial, farm, thereby undermining the benefits of nutrient cycling.

This is true of every form of agriculture that relies on fertility imported from elsewhere, including the agriculture that supplies McWilliams’ vegan food. (Or does McWilliams buy only veganic-organically grown products?)

Still, to the extent that omnivores say that animal farms are always closed, self-sustaining systems whereas vegan agriculture must always import fertility, McWilliams is right to point out that this isn’t true. However, it’s disingenuous of him to reference Joel Salatin as “the guru of nutrient cycling,” with Salatin’s “Polyface” implied as the omnivore’s ideal, when a previous comment discussion on McWilliams’ blog pointed out that not all omnivores see Polyface as an ideal. As Adam Merberg notes, in Meat: A Benign Extravagance, small-scale animal farming advocate Simon Fairlie is skeptical of Polyface. In fact, Fairlie’s skepticism entirely concurs with McWilliams’ own:

Of all the carbon added to Salatin’s pastures over the years, some will have come directly from the atmosphere; but a proportion will have come, directly or indirectly, from another farm in the form of soy, corn or whatever feed Salatin buys in.

However productive Polyface may be, it is in a sense only half a farm, and it doesn’t help to analyse the carbon sequestration on one half, without knowing what is happening on the other. In the case of Polyface if the feed is bought from a responsible organic grower, it may well be that the carbon sequestration on the two farms added together is positive. But in another situation it could well be different. There are plenty of stock farmers who bump up the productivity and (perhaps unwittingly) the organic matter on their farm by buying in feed from a chemical grain farmer who has stripped the carbon content of his fields close to the bottom threshold. (208)

Where Fairlie would disagree with McWilliams is over McWilliams’ implication that Polyface represents the best animal farms can do, and that if Polyface imports fertility, then all aspiring sustainable animal farms must do the same.

McWilliams writes:

Finally, there is no avoiding the fact that the nutrient cycle is interrupted every time a farmer steps in and slaughters a perfectly healthy manure-generating animal, something that is done before animals live a quarter of their natural lives.

As Melissa McEwen points out, this isn’t a problem since new animals are bred, so there are living manure-generators waiting in the wings.

McWilliams continues:

When consumers break the nutrient cycle to eat animals, nutrients leave the system of rotationally grazed plots of land (though of course this happens with plant-based systems as well). They land in sewer systems and septic tanks (in the form of human waste) and in landfills and rendering plants (in the form of animal carcasses).

McWilliams loves to bash animal agriculture with arguments that are just as effective against vegan agriculture. At least this time he admits that’s what he’s doing.

The overarching point of this article seems to be that we shouldn’t support pastured animal agriculture because it impacts the environment and will never realistically supplant factory farming. But then why support vegan agriculture, which also impacts the environment and will never realistically supplant factory farming?

Obviously this is because James McWilliams prefers a theoretical vegan utopia than a theoretical pastured meat utopia.

QuasiVegan's Christina Arasmo Beymer Discusses Her Thoughts on Healthier Vegan Living

Wed, 11 Apr 2012 19:48:00 +0100

Christina Arasmo Beymer ate eggs just so she could identify as an ex-vegan for this interview. “I figure if I eat eggs a couple times a year, I’m less pure and therefore I’m a better person, my ego is diminished and I can join the ex-vegan club, where the cool kids hang out,” she explained. But I’m going to give Christina the benefit of the doubt and assume the eggs were from a rescue hen who nudged the eggs toward Christina with her beak and clucked with approval as Christina hesitantly reached for them. For all intents and purposes, Christina is still vegan. Or at least, quasi-vegan.

Christina created the blog QuasiVegan in late 2010 because of the shock she experienced upon learning that ex-vegans exist and that the vegan diet is not the “one diet to rule them all”. Though she doesn’t post as often now due to a shortage of time, QuasiVegan was and is about Christina’s exploration of nutrition within the boundaries of a plant-based diet. She is not an expert, but she reads the good ones and uses their insights to figure out how vegans can live more healthfully.

Who, what, where, when, why?

I exist the way I am now, because you exist, Rhys. In the fall of 2010, I read the Vegan Outreach newsletter. In the back, I believe, was your interview with Jack Norris. The first thing I noticed was the word “ex-vegan”.

‘What, the one-diet-to-rule-them-all has failed someone?’

Actually, this shouldn’t have been so surprising for me. Years before, my vegetarian mother had dropped eggs from her diet and within a week she said she felt foggy; she felt better once she started eating eggs again.

I became a vegetarian — no animals with eyes — in 1986 because I read in the St. Petersburg Times that Haitians were eating cats in the city. Cats are my all-time favorite animal. Instead of judging the Haitians, I judged myself as a hypocrite and quit eating animals immediately. My health didn’t suffer or get better.

My vegetarianism wasn’t based on ethics. It was based on my personal sense of hypocrisy.

In 1978, my family and I briefly lived on a strict vegetarian hippie commune in Tennessee. No one ever explained to my 12-year-old self why they didn’t eat animals, dairy or eggs. We went to McDonalds on the way out of town.

In mid 2004, a thought came to me as I reached for the cheddar: ‘I wonder how the cows are treated.’ This didn’t prevent me from making a grilled cheese sandwich. It didn’t provoke me to find out, either. I did and didn’t want to know at the same time. At the end of 2004, I heard about veganism on the Internet. In early 2005, I met a vegan Buddhist who invited me to a picnic. There I met a lovely couple who gave me a Vegan Outreach booklet. They also lent me a Tribe of Heart film called Peaceable Kingdom. I watched it a few days later. In it was a brief piece of footage of a farmer or farmhand removing a calf from his mother rather forcibly. The desire to eat anything from a cow completely vanished. Poof.

Once I became vegan, I noticed that the excruciating sharp pain that I’d felt almost every day in my breasts went away.

Soon after I became vegan, the The China Study was released and I gobbled it up. I also gobbled up lots of vegan treats. I got very fat — 178 pounds and I’m only 5’ 3.5” tall. In 2008, I stopped eating sweets, ate small meals every few hours and biked every day. Then I joined the vegan body building forum online and started lifting weights and doing a lot more exercise. With the guidance of a vegan fitness nutritionist and trainer, I also increased my protein to 1 gram per pound of lean mass, which was about 120 grams a day. I was never healthier. I felt 20 again!

I had a lot of faith in the vegan diet and very, very narrow information on which to base this faith.

In 2010, I got married and moved to Northern California. After one month in California, I was so tired, my bones ached. I thought it was because I missed my family in Florida, or the stress of a new marriage. I felt old. After a week or two like this, I looked at my diet and saw no obvious difference, but then I realized I was missing sunshine. I took 2,000 IU of D2 and I didn’t notice any improvement. I got a container of D3 and took 6,000 IU for a few days. I felt better. Not great, but better.

Then I read your interview with Jack Norris. After that I started googling and reading anything I could find about ex-vegans. It was now around Thanksgiving. I found out about the vegan pot luck in town. There my husband and I spoke with various people separately and he introduced me to a vegan family on their way out the door. I spoke with the mom and asked her a few questions. I discovered they had a vegan doctor. I asked the mother about her children’s teeth. Regarding her daughter, the older child, she said that all her front permanent teeth had decayed and they were replaced with permanent dentures. I was appalled. A seven- or eight-year-old with dentures! Regarding her son, she said his teeth were much better. She told me that their doctor told her to give both children vitamin D. She asked me why I asked about her children’s teeth and I just replied, “Oh, something I read,” and left it at that.

I was so sad and pissed off. It’s like my friend named Vegan died a horrible, painful death that involved getting her teeth punched out.

I didn’t do a wrinkle count or look at everyone’s teeth, but it appeared to me they looked older than their same-aged counterparts in Florida.

After meeting that vegan child with dentures, I started reading as much as I could about nutrition and failed vegans. I met three ex-vegetarians and one ex-vegan in person. At least two mentioned craving fish. I was trying to figure out this “ex-veg*n” thing with very limited knowledge. My mother got brain cancer, and I moved back to Florida to take care of her. Nutrition for healing cancer and other immune compromised people is more important to me now.

A lot of vegans tell us not to listen to our bodies when our bodies seem to be telling us that we are deficient in something and that animal products would make us feel better. Do cravings have nothing to do with nutrition? Should we listen to these vegans instead of to our bodies?

I can only answer this from my own perspective. I listen to myself without regard for other people’s opinions. My sister might be perfectly healthy; I am not her. If I craved meat, and the situation were desperate — as in severe depression, for example — I’d eat it from the cleanest source possible. Then I would discuss with Jack Norris what I could do. In the here and now in the vegan world, Jack is here and his websites are open 24/7. His email address is not hard to find.

If you had Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome (SLOS), you’d need dietary cholesterol to survive. You’d be mentally retarded, autistic, have facial deformities and other severe health problems. It requires both parents to have this SLOS gene, so only 1 in 60,000 people are born with SLOS. However, being a carrier of this gene will not result in any facial deformities or other health issues, if you eat food containing cholesterol. It is estimated that about 1 in 100 Caucasians in North America carry this gene, and between 1 in 30 or 1 in 50 Central Europeans carry this gene. If you were a carrier, your ability to make your own cholesterol would be drastically diminished compared to someone who is not. Do the math. That’s a lot of people.

Research has shown that low cholesterol and/or low fat is linked to depression, sometimes suicidal depression. If you are a vegan (particularly — but not necessarily — a low-fat vegan) who is a carrier of this SLOS gene, you’d never know it without getting a test. You don’t even need to be a carrier to get depressed from having low cholesterol. You would need to raise your fat intake, though. Might I suggest coconut oil? If you were a carrier, you’d be severely depressed and that depression might result in craving anything with cholesterol and it may not. Your ideology or ethics, call it what you will, might get in the way.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-breakthrough-depression-solution/201106/low-cholesterol-and-its-psychological-effects

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200304/the-risks-low-fat-diets

DHCR7 Mutation Carrier Rates and Prevalence of the RSH/Smith-Lemli-Opitz Syndrome

“They” say that pregnant women crave odd foods. Some pregnant women crave dirt and some people with anemia do too. Craving dirt is called pica. Dirt contains iron. People with anemia may also crave chewing ice, which would soothe the pain in their tongue from a lack of this metal. I would not dismiss cravings. You might not know why you are craving something but it’s not something to dismiss no matter what anyone says.

What do you think of Jack Norris’ and Ginny Messina’s nutritional recommendations in their book Vegan for Life?

My hobby is nutrition; it’s not my profession. From this standpoint, I think the book is a very good template — a starting point — for a balanced vegan diet for a lot of people. One would take their guidelines and tweak them for their own needs.

I’m happy that Vegan for Life includes:

lightly cooking certain vegetables to increase the nutrient content;

adding fat to your vegetables in the vitamin A and K sections;

reducing phytic acid;

getting more protein;

the need for iodine;

hair loss;

exercise;

not sweating the small stuff, such as trace amounts of animal-sourced elements in your food.

I wish the authors would have addressed tooth decay. However, if you eat like they recommend, the issue would not be what you’d find if you listened to some raw vegan cultist, or MDs with guru-like status.

They missed the boat on K2, which I’ll discuss later.

What have you discovered by reading up on nutrition? Is there more to vegan health than just supplementing b12?

I’m going to break this answer up by topic.

Choline

One thing that really reduces brain fog is enough dietary choline, if you are certain that your B12 status is good. What is enough choline? I don’t know. Your body does, though. I didn’t find choline in Vegan for Life, but I did find it on Jack’s site. Unless you eat a massive amount of beans, you will not reach Adequate Intake (AI) of choline on the vegan diet, as far as I can determine. Your personal choline requirement depends on your dietary levels of folate, betaine, B12 and B6 too. There are great levels of betaine in quinoa, spinach and beets. There’s a lot to learn about choline and betaine. Start here:

http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/othernuts/choline
http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.com/2010/12/meeting-choline-requirement-eggs-organs.html

Chris Masterjohn’s work is fantastic and rather thorough. He’s getting his PhD in nutrition science and I read his work with fervor. Here’s a very important point Chris made about choline: “Thus, folate, vitamin B12, B6, and betaine can spare choline, but only methionine can be used to make choline.”

Cysteine

Dietary cysteine directly affects how much glutathione you generate. If you don’t know what glutathione is, learn today. It’s vital. You can’t take a pill for it because the molecules are too big. My mom and I are chowing down a lot of broccoli sprouts here! I switched my mother from a plant-based protein powder, one with very good levels of cysteine, and started her on undenatured whey from pastured cows. Here’s a good place to start learning about glutathione. Remember to research everything he recommends because you don’t want to puke from too much N-acetyl-cysteine (NAC). Get your cysteine from your diet before resorting to NAC:

Low protein intake exclusively of plant origin, significantly lower protein levels with 16% frequency of hypoproteinaemia, significantly lower glutathione values in blood in comparison to omnivores and lactoovovegetarians confirm the risk of a vegan diet also in adult age.

Once you learn about the vital importance of glutathione, you will need to be very sure that you get a complete protein at every meal. I don’t care what anyone else says about this. You will need to eat more protein than your omni counterparts. That’s about 10-15% more, I believe. Plant protein is simply not as bioavailable as animal protein. This is why it’s important that vegans exercise so they can consume a lot more protein without gaining a lot of weight.

Vitamin A

Regarding Retinol Activity Equivelants (RAE) and conversion to vitamin A, everyone is different. I wouldn’t assume that vitamin A is the only vitamin whose conversion from the raw material varies from person to person as this research indicates.

That research is about genetic differences. There could also be conversion differences due to high levels of sugar and omega 6 in our diets. I think, especially with sugar, that it wreaks havoc on our beneficial gut microbes and digestive enzymes, and promotes inflammation. Too much omega 6 is also inflammatory. This contributes to various health problems. Too much sugar and too much omega 6 could inhibit our ability to absorb and convert RAE to A, and very possibly other nutrients.

Vitamin K2

Vitamin K2 (MK-7) is found in natto and some brands of sauerkraut. You can get it in a supplement made from natto in a veg cap. I seriously disagree with how little importance Ginny and Jack put on K2, saying that we convert enough of it from K1. Some people probably do alright; others not so much. K2 is a separate nutrient with a different role than K1. There’s valid research on it, especially The Rotterdam Study. This is information you won’t find relying on the Institute of Medicine (IOM).

You can learn more about K2 here:

The Rotterdam Study

Vitamin K2: The Missing Nutrient

Menaquinone studies:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15630245
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18722618
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19179058

I learned about the importance of K2 before my mother was diagnosed with brain cancer. Having this knowledge provided crucial information because Mom’s nutritionist put her on 10,000 IU of D3 a day. K2 directs calcium toward your bones, teeth and nails and away from your heart. K2 prevents hypercalcemia. It’s vital. For the first time in her life, Mom has hard nails.

Through Chris Masterjohn’s research and the research of Lara Pizzorno, MDiv, MA, LMT, I learned that vitamin A prevents the toxicity of D and vice versa. From the Vitamin D council, I learned that magnesium is lowered, quite a lot, by large amounts of D.

Vitamin D

I’m pleased that Jack and Ginny emphasize the need for making your own D and/or taking a supplement if you fall short of the requirements. There’s more to D than rickets and bone health. I believe that vitamin D is the driving force behind an excellent immune system and that the natural vitamin D in the vegans I met in Florida is why they are so outrageously healthier than the vegans I observed in Northern California.

Humans used to walk around a lot without sunscreen. We’d make a lot more D than the RDI or even the upper level of the IOM’s recommendations, but natural vitamin D is not the same as taking a supplement, so you need to be well informed and get a test. From all the research I’ve read, Vitamin D2 is not as effective as D3.

Here’s some research to start learning about vitamin D:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21177785
http://lpi.oregonstate.edu/infocenter/vitamins/vitaminD/
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/time-for-more-vitamin-d.htm

There’s a real problem with Vitamin D deficiency world-wide, and it’s even worse with darker skinned people. There is a debate that they might need less because they use D more economically. If you mega dose an African American the same as a Caucasian, then it could be harmful. (I elaborate on this here.) There’s also concerns over fluoride in the water and in dental care products. Fluoride is a vitamin D antagonist.

The IOM’s Food and Nutrition Board (FNB) revised their Vitamin D recommendations in 2010. Apparently the FNB consulted with 15 vitamin D experts and then suppressed the reports from these experts. Suppressed. This suppression includes the feedback of renowned vitamin D researcher Professor Robert Heaney, MD at Creighton University, and the pioneering nutritionist Professor Walter Willett, MD, DrPH at Harvard. Interestingly, a pharmaceutical company is developing a patentable synthetic drug version of vitamin D. One of the FNB committee members, Glenville Jones, PhD, is an advisor for that pharmaceutical company. He’s quoted as saying things such as, “We think there has been an exaggeration of the public’s interest in vitamin D deficiency.” Nice.

People must understand that nutrition as medicine is not patentable and is therefore not profitable. Not in the billions upon billions that pharmaceutical companies reap. So research on nutrition is paltry compared with pharmaceutical research. That is true also for off-label, out-of-patent drugs that work better, with fewer side effects, than the new drugs that come on the market.

Phytic Acid

To reduce phytic acid, I take digestive enzymes containing phytase. I also soak my nuts. That sounds sexy. There’s plenty of resources on the web on how to reduce phytic acid. Read up!

Omega 3, DHA and EPA

I wouldn’t wait to hear from the IOM, especially with self-serving FNB committee members, about something that humans have been consuming in our diets for a long, long time and at balanced proportions in relation to omega 6. I think that all studies on omega 3, DHA and EPA are going to be confusing when you consider that the subjects are likely getting a shit-load of omega 6 in their diets, along with fructose. It’s like a Denial of Service (DOS) attack. That is, the processing power in our body is dealing with lousy food and not working optimally when we receive what we need.

Vegan for Life quotes Robert Mason, a paleontology student and a vegan, who wrote, “There’s no doubt that hominids ate meat…”

Yes. We ate pristine meat, not the fouled up 20:1, or thereabouts, omega 6 to omega 3 ratios that people eat from factory farmed cows, for example. I have not researched this, but we probably didn’t eat meat morning, noon and night. It was precious, considering the effort alone, and I think it should be viewed that way now too.

I believe Ginny Messina takes a DHA supplement and I think all vegans should too.

I take about 400 mg of DHA a day. That’s 28 drops of the micro algae DHA oil that I use.

I spoke with the first author of this DHA and EPA study for 1 hour and 48 minutes a couple weeks ago. He’s a PhD in lipids. He said, “If you take DHA, EPA is your interest rate.” EPA has 20 carbon molecules and five double bonds. Your body typically needs more DHA than EPA. You’d have to manufacture two additional carbon bonds and an extra double bond to convert EPA to DHA. The reverse is easy for us to do when we need it.

Regarding vegans, he said that they are conducting a science experiment on themselves. This was about the ill-informed parroting in the vegan world of the low-fat mantra.

This PhD said that it’s been known for a long time in his circle that if you simply remove the sugary drink from your burger, coke and fries, you’d significantly reduce your risk of a heart attack.

Right now, there’s amazing new discoveries about sugar and cholesterol that indicate that dietary sugar, the fructose part of it, is the cause of rampant heart disease and possibly cancer. Many of us may have seen the recent 60 minutes report on April 1st where it was explained that fructose, separated from the fruit, or in HFCS, is responsible for the ‘ultrabad’ cholesterol, called MGmin-low-density lipoprotein (LDL). This particular type of LDL is not separated out in your total LDL levels.

To get a picture of heart disease risk, look at triglycerides. However, don’t underestimate the hideous imbalance of omega 6 to 3.

Once I added DHA, in a therapeutic dose, to my mother’s diet, her eyesight improved in about a month.

Taurine

What I understand about taurine is that we synthesize it from cysteine, methionine and B6 in our diets. This synthesis assumes you have the enzyme Cysteine dioxygenase. I only found one study on vegans, which reveled that they have very low levels of taurine. No surprise there. I found one study on human infants which indicated that by adding taurine, vitamin D absorption was improved. Perhaps it works with grown-ups as well. When I was suffering from severe Florida sunshine withdrawal in Northern California, I took 500 mg of taurine and felt a lot better. I didn’t know about this Vitamin D link before I took it. The woman at the health food store said that I would experience more energy. So, it could be that I was having a placebo effect. However, I did feel better.

Let’s look at the Wiki article on Taurine. Taurine is the major component of bile. Bile aids in the digestion of fat in our diet. That’s vital. Straight out of Wiki, “[taurine] is an organic acid widely distributed in animal tissues.” That’s a big deal to me considering we evolved eating animals. In the Mayo Clinic’s report “Metabolism of [35S]Taurine in Man” they write, “Taurine is one of the most abundant amino acid analogs in the body.” From the Human Metabolome project, I learned that “Taurine has many diverse biological functions serving as a neurotransmitter in the brain, a stabilizer of cell membranes and a facilitator in the transport of ions such as sodium, potassium, calcium and magnesium.” Important. People who have inherited errors with taurine metabolism experience depression, fatigue, sleep disturbances, lethargy, depth perception impairment and more. Parkinson’s Disease is indicated with low taurine status.

I think it’s foolish to ignore taurine. How would you know if you’re synthesizing enough?

Mom had a comprehensive nutrition test last month. The test indicated that she needs 256 mg of taurine per day. She eats eggs and some dairy, yet she needs more.

Here’s some research to start learning about taurine:
http://www.hmdb.ca/metabolites/HMDB00251
http://www.news-medical.net/health/Taurine-What-is-Taurine.aspx
http://www.vegan-supplement-checklist.com/2008/10/taurine-and-l-glutamine.html
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987704002178
http://www.smart-publications.com/articles/taurine-protects-heart-eyes-and-improves-glucose-tolerance#fn-320-4
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12436202
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/105/9/1206.full.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8241636

Summation

There’s no one-size-fits all vegan diet, or any diet as far as specific individual needs go. That being said, the nutritional information on Jack and Ginny’s blogs and in their book is a huge leap for significantly better vegan nutrition than you’d find anywhere else.

Let’s replace the word “vegan” in that sentence with “human”. This is where I have a problem. I wouldn’t just rely on one source for my nutritional information. I look at many other sources; even if those sources advocate eating in a way that doesn’t align with my ethics, or a sense of hypocrisy in my case. I learn from those sources, and if the information seems worthy, I find ways to apply the advice with plants, fats and supplements if I am so inclined.

Do you think a lot of ex-vegans gave up too easily? Could many instances of failure to thrive on a vegan diet be solved with the right vegan foods and supplements?

I have no idea what any ex-vegan personally went through, but I bet it was difficult to say the least. Difficult in their hearts, heads and within their nutritionally deficient bodies.

With more applied information about nutrition and preparation, any diet can be improved. There are so many variables inside a human being: genetics, conversion, allergies and so on. Whether or not any individual vegan can be improved with supplements or plants, Jack has experience with that. From what I’ve read, the answer is: yes. As far as thriving: that’s individually determined.

Do you think it’s easier to have better health as a vegan or as an omnivore?

Better health can be achieved on any diet when you remove sugar and you add exercise.

Better health on a vegan diet can be achieved when you remove sugar, you don’t demonize fat and you eat more protein from a variety of plant sources. These are general examples.

Vegans and omnivores should learn about good fats and bad fats and not just from one source. Here’s a source that will piss off the vegans.

Everyone should learn how to prepare their food correctly. This includes sprouting and cooking methods like adding fat to your vegetables to increase absorption of the nutrients. If you eat animals, you can’t just simply cook your grass-fed beef with high heat and think it’s okay — slow roasting is better. Learn.

A lot of vegans follow their diets because of their love for animals. Not ethics, but love. She sees part of herself in the eyes of a pig, a cow, a bird and so on. Perhaps she sees no difference between a cat or a dog and pig and a cow. She’s entitled to have her feelings and follow her heart as she sees fit. A vegan like this will work damn hard to adhere to her diet; not because it will save the world, improve her health, or do anything but be an expression of her heart of hearts. She doesn’t have to suffer either. I am certain there are ways to improve any vegan diet*. Some examples are: adding more good fat, proper cooking methods, more protein and a few different supplements. Not exactly “all natural”, but whatever. These changes could allow a loving-vegan to adhere to the vegan diet if his or her health is currently suffering from it.

However, these “loving-vegans” need to realize that not all people feel this passionately about animals. They just don’t. I tend to think that a lot of people feel like this comedian.

*This assumes that there is no genetic requirement for animal cholesterol, or some other health condition.

Many people will be skeptical of all your thoughts about nutrition because you’re not a professional. Should they be?

Everyone needs a healthy dose of skepticism and critical thinking, no matter who is providing the information. Rather than a knee-jerk reaction, though, I think that it should be based on being informed. Do your own research.

If you’ve ever had the pleasure of listening to Christian proselytizing broadcasting, you’ll find that thinking for one’s self is being outsourced. During one advertisement for a book, I heard this phrase over and over again: “We will tell you how to think about…” That’s just brilliant. No matter who is sharing their knowledge about anything…religion, nutrition, ethics, car insurance, and so on…research it and make your own decisions.

Dr. Caldwell Esselstyn is a proselytizer, but in a different way. So is Sally Fallon. And John Robbins too. Each one has good intentions, but good intentions are not what makes you healthy as a human being. You must figure that out for yourself. You might find that John’s diet rocks your world. You might find that Sally’s diet is the bees knees. You might find a middle path between both. It’s up to you. I recruit you for you.

Being a skeptic is perfectly fine as long as it doesn’t make one a closed system. Here’s an example: About 15 years ago, I watched an NBC news program with a segment on Glucosamine Chondroitin. In that segment a women with arthritis took this supplement and her condition improved. This was shown physiologically; her inflammation diminished and a doctor presented the evidence. A vet was consulted and he said that when he gives Glucosamine Chondroitin to old dogs with arthritis, the dogs also improve. Then a skeptic came on and said that it was a placebo effect. Unless the dogs are holding back on their ability to understand English, this skeptic’s skepticism is getting in the way of his well being and he looks like an idiot.

Is there anything you’d like to add?

Food is medicine. That medicine is only as good as what the animals ate, the soil your plants were grown in, and the water where the fish and/or seaweed came from. Source your food well. Individual nutrients don’t work in isolation — better health requires improved nutrition across the board. They didn’t invent a daily vitamin and mineral supplement for just vegans.

Dr. John Hadley on His Proposal to Give Animals Property Rights

Sun, 08 Apr 2012 13:07:00 +0100

John Hadley is Research Lecturer in Philosophy in the School of Humanities and Communication Arts at the University of Western Sydney. He has published on a wide range of topics in animal and environmental ethics, including recent papers on assisting wild animals in need, animal rights extremism, the reporting of animal research in the media and the ethical limits of veterinary expenditure.

Last year he got a lot of media attention for his proposal to give wild animals a form of property rights. Since that is an animal right that even many vegans are reticent to offer, or at least one they don’t often talk about, I was intrigued to learn more about his idea.

Why do you think animals should have some form of property rights?

I think extending property rights to animals, along the lines I suggest, could be a useful way of conserving habitat and thereby protecting biodiversity. For me, property rights are a means to the end of promoting mainstream conservation values and achieving mainstream conservation goals such as the preservation of a particular population of an endangered species. I don’t suggest animals are owed property rights as a matter of justice in virtue of being sentient or having intrinsic value, or on the grounds of some notion of equality; rather, I’m suggesting we extend rights to nonhuman animals in order to achieve what human animals want to achieve.

How would you have animals’ property rights represented?

A statutory authority would be established with an initial investment from the government or perhaps an NGO. This authority would be allowed to operate at arm’s length of government. It would administer a guardianship system not unlike the system we have now for certain humans, like children and people with dementia. When a landholder is seeking to modify habitat on their land, as part of the existing planning approval processes, they would need to meet with an appointed animal guardian and discuss their land management objectives. The guardian would thereby have an opportunity to make suggestions or dissuade the land holder – perhaps to alter their plans in some way, or delay implementation, or indeed stop them altogether.

I see this system as like a family court mediation, which need not take place in the courts but ideally would proceed in good faith and decisions would be reached on grounds of consensus. Guardianship gives habitat (and the animals that reside in it) a ‘voice’, whereas under the traditional system habitat is conceived as effectively empty. The legal term for empty or unoccupied land is ‘terra nullius’. My view seeks to overturn the view of habitat as terra nullius.

To accurately represent animal interests, wouldn’t the guardian have to say no to every single proposal to alter animal habitat for human ends?

Not necessarily. Some types of land use, such as those associated with sustainable agriculture or ecotourism, would be compatible with the preservation of habitat and so, presumably, the guardian would not take issue with them. It would depend on the context in each case.

The International Union for Conservation of Nature says:

Analyses of the data on threats to bird, mammal and amphibian species evaluated for the 2004 IUCN Red List show that the most pervasive threat that they face is habitat destruction and degradation driven by agricultural and forestry activities.

Animal agriculture has a big part to play in that habitat destruction, but then so does all human behavior. Would you say that habitat destruction is worse for other animals than meat eating per se?

This is a difficult question to answer. I’m not sure exactly what you mean and there are a number of ways of interpreting this question, but my initial response is that it is probably worse all told for an animal to be killed than to have their habitat taken from them. But I also think it makes sense to say that habitat loss results in a kind of death anyway. We have a view of animals as free-roaming in their natural surrounds. I would argue this view is a feature of our faculty for sympathy for animals and helps to explain our concern for their pain. Insofar as destroying habitat leaves animals leading lives at odds with this picture, then I think destroying habitat results in animals being killed.

Think of the sense of ‘death’ or ‘being killed’ here as analogous to the phenomenon of brain death. Just as a person who is brain dead remains organically surviving but we think what is most important about them no longer remains; so it is with destroying habitat –- the animals may survive but they no longer are able to use what is most important to them.

Your idea would help preserve the animal habitat that remains. But for many animals, that is not enough. Their habitat is fragmented, disrupting their ability to roam for food and shelter, and the competition for territory and survival must be rough in the slivers of space that remain. If implemented, could your proposal help re-wild land that has already been developed for humans?

Perhaps. Guardians may be able to persuade landholders to adopt land management practices that promote re-wilding. The relationship between landholders and guardians will be crucial to the success of this kind of system. We ought not to assume that the system would play out in orthodox legal fashion, that is, in an adversarial way.

The guardianship system itself may indirectly serve to promote a social climate that is amenable to re-wilding. To draw upon an analogy with human health, once people start to focus on their health, they generally want to improve it even more. Their first goal may be to stabilize their weight or blood pressure (or whatever), but after a time their aim becomes to reduce it. In like manner, stabilizing biodiversity can be seen as the first goal and then perhaps landholders might desire to increase it.

In an interview with 2ser.com, you said that you hadn’t received any support from animal liberators for your proposal. Why do you think vegans aren’t more into this?

I think animal rights people may think I have not gone far enough. They may argue that animals are owed property rights ‘directly’, as a matter of justice, simply in virtue of animals being sentient or having intrinsic value or whatever. They may think my approach is too ‘indirect’ in the sense that I suggest we ought to give animals rights as a means to achieve what we want to achieve. If people want to argue for animal having property rights as a matter of justice then that is open to them to do so, but I think there are serious philosophical and political obstacles in the way of a such a move.

In addition, my theory has been under the radar for a few years, so most people outside academia haven’t been exposed to it.

What are the philosophical and political obstacles you see in the way of granting animals direct property rights as a matter of justice?

The philosophical aspect of this question is long and involved. Here goes…

Since about the seventeenth century, philosophers have regarded the scope of property rights to extend no further than human beings who are capable of entering into relations of commercial exchange; in other words, persons –- humans with sophisticated psychological capacities. This orthodoxy is a reflection of the concern of early property theorists to reconcile existing ownership arrangements with the ideals of natural law theory. Natural law theory is an ancient body of doctrine that amalgamates concepts from Greek philosophy with teachings from the Judeo-Christian tradition. A central tenet of natural law theory is the ‘initial patrimony’ - the idea that the Earth was given to humans ‘in common’ by God for the preservation of human life. Property rights have thus traditionally been justified by appeal to the natural rights, autonomy and freedom that only a person is capable of realizing. In short, given that animals are not persons in the relevant sense, it is difficult to attach the kind of moral significance traditionally attached to property to any direct claims of ownership made on their behalf.

If animals are owed property rights simply in virtue of some capacity they possess, then this would make the implementation of a guardianship system very difficult. The system would be unworkable, as presumably all animals would be eligible for guardianship representation, and the task of securing political support for such a system would be even more difficult than one geared toward promoting mainstream environmental goals.

Animal rights proponents say that animals have an interest in living and in not suffering, and so humans should respect those interests. Does it also make sense to say that animals have an interest in their habitats?

The orthodox approach to determining animal interests is by reference to their capacities. If an animal has the capacity to feel pain, then it is said they have an interest in not suffering. If an animal has the capacity for forward looking, self-reflective mental states, then it is said they have an interest in continuing to live and not being killed. The basic idea is that an animal has an interest in something if having it makes them better off – ‘enhances their well-being’ - and being deprived of it makes them worse off. In line with this view, it is difficult to say they have an interest in habitat unless you identify some kind of habitat-related capacity. Some philosophers, like Bernie Rollin, invoke concepts such as an animals’ telos which is meant to be like the basis of its species-typical or natural behaviour.

An alternative approach to interests is to go ‘indirect’, that is, to understand the question of animal interests with reference to human concerns and valuing practices. On this kind of view, animals will have an interest in habitat to the extent that it is meaningful to talk about and debate such an interest. Interests are, if you like, projected onto animals; or interests claims on behalf of animals are seen as expressions of human concern for animals. This approach, in contrast to the orthodox view described above, regards the question of determining interests as an ongoing political or evaluative question and not a scientific question to be determined once and for all by identifying this or that capacity.

Do animals not have a habitat-related capacity in the sense that evolution has adapted them to thrive in their natural surroundings, while leaving them unprepared to deal with drastic human alterations or shrinking habitat, making them more likely to die earlier, suffer or have trouble propagating when humans take over their land?

Sure, in so far as habitat destruction causes them to suffer or die then yes they have what philosopher’s call an ‘instrumental’ interest in a secure habitat. But the real interesting question that I was addressing before is whether they have an ‘intrinsic’ interest in habitat or an interest in habitat per se. Does habitat loss itself, independent of whether it results in suffering or death, diminish their well-being? This is why the issue of property rights is so important. It ‘connects’ particular animals to specific parcels of land. Every instance of habitat loss, irrespective of whether it results in suffering or death, will thus constitute a harm to them. The harm will take the form of a violation of a right –- a property right.

Animal rights vegans want to give animals a right to their lives, and a right not to suffer, but they don’t usually say anything about a right to habitat. Is it pointless to give animals a right to their lives but not to a place to live them?

Most likely a concern for the protection of habitat is presupposed by most animal rights people when they oppose the killing or argue for the rights of free-roaming animals. It is just that they are probably responding to what they perceive as a more direct threat, namely, the animals being shot, speared, trapped, etc.

One of the reasons why I think the notion of property rights for animals is so interesting is that potentially, in theory at least, it can be thought of as common cause by both environmentalists and animal rights people. Both sides ought to welcome a proposal that holds out hope of constraining damaging human impact upon habitat. It affords scope for achieving the environmental goal of conserving biodiversity and protection of endangered species, and the [free-roaming] animal rights goal expressed by Tom Regan as ‘leaving nature be.’

If we were to give animals true property rights in the sense that many human societies recognize them for humans, would it be possible for human civilization to continue?

Perhaps it is more accurate to say that extending property to animals is a means of continuing human civilization! After all, the world is currently in a perilous state and most reasonably thoughtful people would concede that as far as habitat conservation and associated biodiversity loss is concerned, the existing property-based land management system needs improvement. If, as I presuppose, liberal property rights are here to stay, then we need suggestions for reforming them. My suggestion is try extending the common law concept of guardianship to animals.

"Dear Awesome Vegans and Vegetarians and Compassionate People": Guest Post by A Meat Girl

Tue, 03 Apr 2012 11:57:24 +0100

I am stealing this grammatically suspect introduction from an email I received a few weeks ago, written by a vegan activist. The purpose of her email was to convince me to choose veganism. I am writing to tell You, All of You Out There, and her, because she is out there somewhere too, that I am a vegan. Yes, I eat meat, I wear leather and I work at a slaughterhouse. But I do actually think I am a vegan.

Her email called for bold “outreach” to non-vegetarians. In other words, some vegans are planning on passing out pro-veg pamphlets at a college campus near you. I thought, “Great! I am practically a vegan!” and emailed a reply. I told the vegan I wanted to skip the pamphlets, but was up for the outreach. I wanted to come and share with her and other vegans and vegetarians and compassionate people about my experiences eating meat, wearing leather and working at a slaughterhouse, and how those experiences had led me to believe that we are all a little “vegan-ish,” to steal from the great Kathy Freston.

The response I got was practically a fragment: “I’m in the middle of a very busy week, but will get back with you soon.”

I never even got a pamphlet.

Maybe truly bold outreach scares people. No matter. Like any good vegan, I am not easily deterred. If I cannot reach out, then I will simply reach around, although punching cleanly through is much more my style.

I re-read the email, which described the author’s path to veganism.

“In 1999, I began to delve into animal issues. I did a lot of reading and watched videos. I immersed myself in the issue and I learned a great deal about horrific cruelty that I hadn’t known about. I was deeply affected. I was shocked to the core and I desperately wanted to help animals. I took the idea of being the voice for the voiceless very seriously.”

I was struck by how almost identical our paths to veganism were.

“In 1999, I began to delve into animal issues.”

Sometime ago, it doesn’t really matter when, I went to work for a veterinarian who was contracted by the county to doctor livestock seized in searches, raids and animal cruelty cases. We treated a lot of farm animals that had not been well cared for — pigs, cows, sheep, goats, burros, horses — all in some state of less than perfect. It was eye opening. I was impressed with our ability to abuse and neglect almost anything. Often it seemed most of these animals were just sort of caught up in the unfortunate storm that is human chaos, but some of them were true victims of human brutality. Bloody. I remember very vividly a horse that had been shot in the head but not killed by his owner-for bucking him off. The owner made many wrong choices, including the caliber of the bullet that was required to penetrate a horse’s skull. Experiences like this marked the beginning of the end for me, I suppose. I began to delve.

There is an unspoken contract we humans have with farm animals. Animals give us their work, their wool, their progeny, and sometimes their lives, and in return we give animals our best. We give them our best land, our best protection. We give animals our best ideas, our best techniques, our best equipment, and the best labor out of our body. I saw the evidence of a broken contract in these animals. I wanted to do more than just offer to heal the wounds. I wanted to work to restore the contract. I wanted to find humans who never even broke the contract in the first place, and I wanted to develop, protect and improve the supply chains that raise, process, promote and sell their animal products.

“I did a lot of reading and watched videos.”

I did a lot of reading and watched a lot of videos. Mostly Spike Jonze and I’m a big fan of The Onion. I went back to school. It was perplexing and felt a bit like a mental prison. I was told to memorize The Industrial Ways of Animal Agriculture and then regurgitate them in a variety of testing rubrics. I was also expected to self-indoctrinate to The Industrial Ideas, to never question The Industrial Ideas, and to never think outside of The Industrial Ideas. I was told there were no viable alternatives and that the broken contracts were simply the moral cost of cheaply feeding the world. I was finally released from school. The Ideas never took.

“I immersed myself in the issue.”

I immersed myself in all things animal. I lived with animals. I cared for animals. I gave animals food. Built them shelter. Fenced them in. Set them free. Chased them when they escaped. I laughed at them, cursed them and listened to them. I stepped in their shit. I milked them, brushed them and bathed them. I removed their testicles. I notched their ears. I gave them shots, pets and smacks. I trimmed their hooves. I doctored their cuts. I helped their mothers bring them into this mad, glorious world. I euthanized them when they were suffering. I slaughtered them when it was their time. I taught others to slaughter them.

“I learned a great deal about horrific cruelty that I hadn’t known about.”

I learned a great deal. I began to see, very clearly, that we have a choice. That horrific cruelty is a choice that we never have to make. We can build something, both tangible and in our souls, that we can be deeply proud of. That we can breed, raise, slaughter, process and eat animals in a way that is good, and I mean spiritually good, not just tasty. I learned that when we are good to the earth, good to animals, good to our bodies and good to our hearts, that horrific cruelty can be torn apart and eradicated.

“I was deeply affected.”

I believe, very strongly, that we must not turn away from our problems. The industrial model for meat production is a problem. I have been inside this model and seen the problems for myself. I have been to an industrial slaughter plant. I was deeply affected. I have been to an industrial feedlot. I was deeply affected. I have been inside an industrial broiler house. I was deeply affected. I have heard some of the most powerful people in industrial agriculture speak the propaganda of industrial agriculture. I was deeply affected.

“I was shocked to the core.”

I was working on a farm in the rugged mountains of southern Oregon. It was a beautiful but not very forgiving place to raise hogs, chickens and dairy goats, all on pasture. I invited some friends of mine to come visit. She was a militant vegan. He occasionally ate fish and cheese. In other words, he was weak. Endless days of hard labor bring about a certain delirious humor amongst people, and so in the days leading up to their arrival, my coworkers and I had taken to chanting, “One if by land, two if by sea! The vegans are coming! The vegans are coming!” while we pounded fence posts into the ground. The vegans arrived by land. My coworkers switched to unintelligible humming, while I played host and gave the vegans the grand tour.

They wanted to see the goats milked. The farm had a neat little milking parlor. It was a small, white-washed room with one door that would let full goats in from the pasture, and another door that would let milked goats out into the barn. As the milkmaid, I would sit on a metal stool in between two stanchions with some basic supplies: towels, warm water, iodine spray, teat cups and a five-gallon stainless-steel milk pail, blonde braids, and an ample bosom. The pail connected to an old pump in the hay loft through a variety of tubing, allowing the goats to be milked by both hand and machine. The vegans watched as goats simply walked into the parlor when I opened the door for them, hopped up on the stanchions and munched on some feed while I went to work on their bags, and then exited into the barn without fanfare when they were finished. It was all very straight forward.

Later that night, I met the vegans in town for dinner. The vegans told me they loved the farm, but they had question. About the milking parlor.

They looked at each other apprehensively.

“There was something in the milking parlor that we want to ask you about,” they said intently.

“What is it you want to know?” I encouraged, not exactly sure where this was all going, but bracing myself for a lecture on the cruelty of something because of something I had done.

“We want to know…what the hammer is for.”

“The hammer?” I replied quizzically.

“Yes, the hammer. There is a big hammer hanging on the wall in the milking parlor. We want to know what it is for.” I don’t know if it was exhaustion or what, but I was failing to place a gigantic hammer in my own milking parlor, where I go to milk goats, twice a day, every day.

“Where did you see it, now?” I asked.

“On the wall, above the table with all the supplies on it.” A fuzzy image finally began to materialize in my brain, of a hammer, on the wall, in the milking parlor.

“Oh yeah! There is a hammer in there!” I said with the satisfaction of one who works on a farm, often with a hammer, who can always use another hammer.

“We want to know what it is for,” the vegans repeated, quite seriously. They made it sound like they uncovered a brick of cocaine or a crate of illegal guns in the milking parlor. This is one powerful hammer.

“Yeah, yeah, the hammer has a very useful purpose. Sometimes the suction on the milk pail is absurdly strong, and we use the hammer to knock the locking mechanism of the lid free to separate it from the pail. But actually, I learned a neat trick from the last intern which was if you palm strike the lock just so, like you saw me do, it releases quite easily, and you save yourself about 10 seconds because you don’t have to get the hammer off the wall, use it and then put it back. It might sound crazy to want to save 10 seconds, but when you have hours and hours of labor to do every day, it’s great, all the labor, I love the labor, but one is always looking for little ways to economize.”

The vegans stared back at me.

“Is that the only other purpose of the hammer?”

“Well…hammers can be used for all kinds of things, you know? They are one of the great tools of mankind,” I was trying to get philosophical. The vegans looked relieved. “What other purpose were you envisioning that the hammer might have?” I asked.

They laughed, sheepishly. “Oh, well we thought maybe you used it to defend yourself, if, you know, one of the goats attacked.”

I was shocked to the core. “Attacked? By a dairy goat?”

“Yeah! Did you see the size of their horns!?! We thought maybe the hammer was to fight them off or something.”

You, All of You Out There. I want to assure you that a dairy goat, while ornery, has to be one of the sweetest creatures I have had the pleasure of working with. Sure, they have massive horns, and yes, once in awhile they have bumped me with their heads. They communicate in this manner. But attack me, attack me so that I would feel the need to defend myself with a hammer, my sweet little dairy goats certainly did not.

KILLER DAIRY GOAT

So what would drive two otherwise normal, smart people to envision such violence from a tender creature? I would have to say nearly no common sense about animals, and no common sense about farm animals, which I have noticed is a common trait amongst the vegans that I have encountered in my life. And there have been more than you might think.

After I recovered from the shock to my core, I assured the vegans that the dairy goats were not going to attack me. And yet if one did, I considered death by dairy goat attack a pretty decent way to go out, so I probably would just let the horns come at me and be done with this world. I ordered another beer, and felt indeed very done with this world.

“I desperately wanted to help animals.”

I wanted to help animals, and I do help animals. Nearly every day I help animals. And there is nothing desperate about me or my intentions. They are actually quite focused, intense and confident. I truly believe I can do whatever it is that I set my mind to. I believe this because I have set my mind to do many challenging things, and I have been successful. I believe myself capable. I believe that my mind, my body, and my spirit, when focused on a single task, will find a way to master that task. I never stop learning. I never stop finding teachers so I can keep learning. I never stop looking for people to help me. I never stop facing new challenges. And I never stop believing in myself. I truly believe we can restore the contract with farm animals and focus my intentions on this task every day.

“HUMANS EARTH AND ANIMALS LIVING TOGETHER HARMONIOUSLY”

One of my mantras is, “We eat the elephant one bite at a time.” I believe this is the mindset that will restore the contract. One minute of labor at a time. One blade of grass at a time. One dollar at a time. One person at a time. One moment at a time. I believe that we must chip away at this problem, and all of its horrific cruelty, one little bit at a time. It will be a battle of inches. It will be exhausting. It will take lifetimes. And it will take many of us. But I truly, deeply believe that we can be successful. That if we eat the elephant one bite at a time, eventually we will eat the entire elephant.

“I took the idea of being the voice for the voiceless very seriously.”

I take the idea of restoring the contract with farm animals very seriously. I work at a multi-species slaughterhouse where my official title is “Animal Welfare Compliance Specialist.” It is my job, among other things, to make sure the animals are humanely slaughtered. I work very hard at this aspect of my job.

It is very easy to turn away from our problems in modern society. To never see. One of the problems of turning away is that we are not able to see the worst that we are capable of. But more problematic is we are not able to see the best we are capable of. The most concerning part of turning away, and seeing neither good nor bad, is that we lose the ability to tell the difference between the two. We are not able to tell the difference between the best and the worst that we are capable of because we have never seen either. It is my job to make sure that animals are killed without pain and suffering, and yet You, All of You Out There, I fear You wouldn’t even know painless, humane slaughter if it splattered blood all over your pretty, vegan or leather shoes.

You do not have to join me down there on the slaughter floor. You do not have to face the same problems that I have chosen to face. You do not have to face the same problems in the same manner that I have. In fact, we will have more success if our tactics and strategies are different. But please understand that we want the same thing. We want the world to be a better place. We are all working hard toward that goal, whether we eat animals or not, whether we wear leather or not, whether we work at a slaughterhouse or not, or whether we have any common sense about animals or not.

This leads me back to my original statement. That I see overwhelming evidence that vegans and I are entirely more similar than different. What is a vegan, then? What is veganism?
Vegans eat a lot of vegetables. I eat a lot of vegetables.
Vegans love animals. I love animals.
Vegans want to spare animals. Spare animals what, exactly? Death?
Vegans want to spare animals death. Impossible. Immortality is not an option for animals, not even the human animal. Suffering? Physical and mental suffering?
Vegans want to spare animals physical and mental suffering. I want to spare animals physical and mental suffering.
Vegans want to spare animals exposure to human brutality. I want to spare animals exposure to human brutality.
Vegans want to spare animals from ever experiencing anything painful, whether physical or mental. To never experience any pain or suffering, or less than perfect circumstances would defy the laws of the universe and subsequent reality which we are living beings in. Not even birth, the opposite of death, can occur without pain. To experience love, the most wonderful thing on Earth, we must experience some pain and suffering. Think of a person you love with all your heart, and now think of a time when that person caused you pain. That person lied to you, let you down, maybe hit you or just accidently ran over your foot with the car when they were backing out of the driveway. No matter, there was pain and suffering in there somewhere.
Vegans do not consume animal products of any kind. Impossible. Inside every vegetable is an animal and maybe another vegetable, and inside every animal is a vegetable, and maybe another animal. And on and on and on.

I just ate two hard boiled eggs for breakfast here at my desk at the slaughterhouse. They came from some chickens that have a great life at a farm down the road from me. They peck around the farm yard every day, eating a little chicken feed, any bugs they can catch, bits of forage and maybe some kitchen scraps. A fox living nearby killed one of these chickens and dragged its body to the woods and ate most of it, but some bones and tissue were left to rot into the earth. Some mushrooms found this new extra rich earth an ideal place to grow. They grew and grew, and then were spotted by a young couple, both models and both vegans, going on a romantic foraging date in the woods. These beautiful, young, vegan models picked these mushrooms and took them back to their sustainable co-op in the city, and they made a delicious vegan mushroom soup. They put some inedible bits of mushroom in a compost bin picked up every Thursday by the city, because they live in a very progressive city. The city picked up those vegetable bits and tossed them with a bunch of other inedible bits, and stirred it all around until they came up with some fertilizer. This fertilizer was purchased by Farmer John* (name changed from Jim). Farmer John raises heritage pigs on pasture, and he lives just outside this very progressive city, so he likes supporting their progressiveness. He puts the fertilizer on his field so the grass grows tall and then he puts his pigs on this tall grass. The pigs eat the grass down with authority, along with anything else they can find. When they are nice and fat, Farmer John brings the pigs to my slaughterhouse and I slaughter them. The offal is picked up by a rendering company, sent to another city, not quite as progressive as the one with the vegetable composting, but very close. The offal is rendered into a different kind of fertilizer. A farmer with several hundred acres of fruit and nut orchards buys this fertilizer and puts it down in his orchards. When the fruit comes into season, he takes a few flats to his neighbor farmer and trades it for some milk from her milking cows. The neighbor farmer has a heck of a grand time peeling and cutting and chopping all of this fruit and turning it into pies, jams, jellies and sauces. She throws big piles of skins and seeds out into the yard, where her chickens gobble it all up. They have a great life, these chickens. They break those kitchen scraps down into simple molecules, sometimes even elements, and rebuild them into eggs. The neighbor farmer collects the eggs and sells them in her farm store. I go to the farm store on my way home from work and buy some eggs. I eat them for breakfast, and the entire thing repeats itself over and over and over. The Great Biological Wheel never stops and it never separates. Remember, we are a part of the universe. So that then is our destiny-to be a part of every part of the universe. It means inside every vegetable is an animal and maybe another vegetable, and inside every animal is a vegetable, and maybe another animal. And on and on and on.

When I read through this list, I realize I am probably not vegan, but not not vegan. I want the same things as vegans. My perspective is just different. They are vegan. I am vegan with a slightly different perspective. Neither position is perfect, nor perfectly righteous.

After several weeks of silence, the vegan has spoken again. The vegan I contacted about outreach has reached out, and has asked to meet me, in three months, to discuss animal issues. After my security screening, the vegan will decide whether or not I will be allowed to interact with the other awesome vegans and vegetarians and compassionate people. But I am thrown some words of caution. “If we ever facilitated more communication between the vegans and your people, I’d want to be very careful how this was done.” <sigh>

Dear Awesome Vegan,
I look forward to meeting with you. It will just be me coming, though. The rest of “my people” think you are completely crazy. I don’t think you give awesome vegans and vegetarians and compassionate people enough credit. They interact with my people every day, not even very carefully, and seem to manage just fine. Remember that once, long ago, we were children. We played joyfully with other children without any regard for what they ate because we were all eating sticks and rocks and dirt. We were children. It was beautiful. You’re a vegan. I’m a vegan. Let’s eat the elephant one bit at a time. It will be beautiful.

Yours Truly,

Meat Girl

Les U. Knight on the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 08:03:00 +0100

Les U. Knight is a leader in The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, a self-explanatory movement that takes the “Profoundly Deep” ecological view that humans are inescapably a blight on the planet and should therefore stop reproducing altogether. Knight does not, however, agree with David Benatar that we should stop bringing more humans into this world because life contains suffering and so is worse than nothing. In fact, Knight thinks life is quite nice. He and many other VHEMT defenders just think that humans can’t help but muck it up for everyone else here.

Why do you advocate voluntary human extinction?

It’s so much nicer than involuntary extinction, don’t you think? I mean, we’re going extinct one way or the other, but if we go voluntarily we’ll avoid taking most of Earth’s biosphere with us. The involuntary extinction humanity is working so hard to bring about is just way too messy.

My personal reasons for advocating our extinction combine ecological and humanitarian benefits: as we phase ourselves out, there will be more habitat for wildlife and potentially more of everything for everyone. We might even cease our constant battles for resources. Others have their own reasons for suggesting that we all stop breeding and for doing so themselves.

What makes you sure that humans are destined for extinction?

We are pulling strands from the web of life, while jumping up and down on it with increasing pressure. There’s no safety net. Our global civilization could collapse before the biosphere collapses, and the resulting die off might delay our extinction. Eventually we would rebuild as we always have, and exploit Earth’s somewhat-recovered biosphere again. Our involuntary extinction will come when Earth’s life support systems fail, and biodiversity is reduced to small mammals and below. Or we could choose to go out voluntarily with grace and style.

Most humans have a drive to live and create offspring. The same is true for probably all other life forms. One of your objections to humans is the harm we cause to these other life forms, preventing them from living and procreating in peace. But why are other beings’ drives to live and procreate more important to honor than our own?

The ability of Earth’s entire biosphere to live and procreate is threatened by the existence of just one of the tens of millions of species sharing this space and time. In the same way one of our toes isn’t as important as our bodies as a whole, Homo sapiens isn’t as important as the rest of creation.

What is it about humans that makes us uniquely destructive compared to other animals?

Our enlarged frontal lobes enabled us to become super-predators, while retaining the short-term thinking which helped us survive earlier in our evolution.

We are exotic invaders everywhere except Africa. Each time we arrived in a new ecosystem, a major extinction event followed. Some native animals just stood and stared at us bewildered until we clubbed them into fresh meat. In Africa, we have evolved into virtual exotic invaders, and now the species we co-evolved with are mostly limited to parks and preserves.

What kinds of harms do humans cause other life forms just by existing?

We convert wildlife habitat into human habitat, where only domesticated, exotic and hard-to-kill species are allowed to live. We might also ask what benefits humans offer other life forms by existing. Except for our parasites and maybe our companion animals, the best we can do for other life forms is undo what we have done.

Many vegans want to end the exploitation of animals at the hands of humans. They typically want to do this by either giving animals rights and having humans respect those rights, or by advocating whatever it takes to decrease the suffering that animals endure because of human activities. Do you think that human extinction, then, is the logical conclusion of vegan goals?

Voluntary human extinction is the logical conclusion of many goals. Often, someone’s reasons for maintaining a vegan diet mesh with the concept of not breeding and even human extinction. The proportion of vegans and vegetarians among those who agree with VHEMT is far greater than the general population. It’s hard to say which came first for many of us—sort of a chicken and egg question.

When might a vegan VHEMT member say their vegan and pro-human-extinction views align?

Seems to me people avoid animal products for a combination of reasons, like concern for exploited animals, the biosphere, other people and themselves. Since we amplify our impacts by creating more of us, and exploitation of non-human animals will continue as long as there are humans, it’s a natural progression to VHEMT. If someone is mainly concerned about their own health, they’re not as likely to make the connection.

Are you a vegan or vegetarian?

I’m a vegetarian who keeps his lacto/ovo intake small.

Most vegans are not proponents of human extinction, despite the harms that even vegan humans inevitably rain down on other life forms. These pro-human vegans believe that the harms humans cause just by existing are “accidental” and are thus justifiable. The real crime, as they see it, is intentionally harming animals in order to use them as resources. Where do you disagree with this rationale?

Just by staying alive we have to accept our negative impact, though we can reduce it somewhat. When people don’t realize the harm they are causing, they can’t be blamed for it, but nescience doesn’t justify it. From an ethical perspective, our knowledge of the harm we are causing makes it worse when we don’t ameliorate it. From the perspective of the creatures whose habitat we destroy, it doesn’t matter what our motivations are.

Some people say that it’s human civilization rather than humans per se that is the problem. Would disarming humans of our agriculture and civilization make us harmless enough to justify our continued presence here?

No. Although the mythical culture of humans living in sustainable harmony with whatever species we haven’t killed off is something to strive for as we become less dense, we have been adversely impacting ecosystems since before we became Homo sapiens. Our misuse of fire as Homo erectus likely altered grasslands and wiped out species which couldn’t adapt. Our agricultural, industrial and electronic revolutions have accelerated destruction and allowed us to overshoot Earth’s carrying capacity while postponing the worst consequences of doing so. Even before modern culture, we eliminated many species, and there’s no guarantee we wouldn’t regain tools of mass destruction in the future.

If humans decided to voluntarily make themselves extinct, would you want them to first try to phase out other sentient creatures (perhaps through birth control) to spare future beings the suffering they would experience even in our absence?

Our domesticated plants and animals would naturally phase out as we go. We created them and it’s our responsibility to remove them from ecosystems. Perceived suffering of wildlife is mainly anthropomorphizing. Yes, it’s red of tooth and claw, but not for long. When a lion brings down an antelope, the rest of the herd quickly reverts to normal activity. Sometimes they watch with no apparent concern as the lions tear their former herd mate apart and eat. It takes self consciousness to live in fear as humans do. Most wildlife suffering today is imposed by humans. For example, there are more wolves in captivity in the US than roaming freely in the wild.

Transhumanists want humans to use technology to evolve into another — perhaps more ethical — species. One idea is that humans could possibly genetically engineer themselves into herbivores capable of digesting grass, thus lowering human impact on the world’s resources, and “morality pills” could cause humans to care more about other beings. Would this be a satisfactory way for humans, or human-like beings, to continue?

Suggestions of ways to improve Homo sapiens are valuable thought experiments which help us figure out what it is about us that makes us so incompatible with the rest of life on Earth. Herbivores will overgraze, so that alone wouldn’t be enough. Increased empathy would help us develop an Earth-centered orientation, though occasional sociopaths could go off their meds and rise to power, exploiting people and planet.

Physical evolution takes too long, though genetic engineering could speed things up, for better or worse. Social evolution is always behind reality by a generation or two, and since change is needed fast, it’s not adequate. Personal evolution can happen with an epiphany, or with a lot of little advancements adding up to big ones. However, when people must exert all their energy just to stay alive and feed their families—as a couple billion are—they aren’t likely to make much progress toward Earth-centered thinking.

Is there anything else you suggest that people do for animals and the Earth on top of not having kids?

Each of us can decide for ourselves which methods are best for reducing our ecological impact. We could do everything recommended on the 100 Easy Things lists, bicycle, and eat low on the food chain until the cows come home, but producing one offspring would more than negate it all.

Why do you think people are so attached to the continuation of the human species, even if they won’t be here to see it?

I suspect it grows out of a fear of death, though many proclaim that we are the greatest creature in all of creation: the planet, perhaps the entire universe, was created for us and would be meaningless without us. This species chauvinism might be an attempt to rationalize fear—if we can call that rational.

Life could be seen as essentially nothing but molecules organizing and re-organizing themselves in order to perpetuate their particular molecular structures. If humans are dominating the planet, then, that just means humans are winning the DNA duplication battle at the expense of other life forms who apparently arrange molecules in less effective ways. If humans ended themselves, the molecules they had been composed of wouldn’t disappear. These molecules would be scrambled and re-arranged by different life forms seeking to propagate their own particular molecular alignment. Reductively speaking, wouldn’t this be pretty much a neutral change rather than a positive or negative one? If this is all life is — a kind of interesting but meaningless vanity project by molecules duplicating their particular arrangements as far and wide as possible — does it really matter which molecular arrangement is dominating?

Life is not the molecules it animates. Mixing all the ingredients of a life form in one pile won’t bring that life form to life.

Every life form in existence today can trace its existence back uninterrupted to the earliest one-celled bacteria, evolving at the expense of 99.9% of other life forms. A flame of life has passed unextinguished from progenitor to progeny over billions of years against astounding odds. For us to extinguish the very existence of any species is an egregious crime against nature, not pardoned by mounting its molecules as trophies on our walls.

The same may be said of our species, and it’s sad to think that we aren’t going to continue on into the future. However, when we consider how many species will have a chance of continuing thanks to our voluntary extinction, there’s cause for celebration. Lions and tigers and bears, elephants and so many others teetering on the brink of extinction today might live on if we simply stop repeating ourselves and each other.

May we live long and die out.

Alexander Paul Burton on How Vegans Drove Him Out of Veganism and the Vegan Restaurant Business

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 21:27:00 +0000

Alexander Paul Burton grew up in the countryside in the south of England and moved to London for University. He co-created the vegan bakery Accidentally Vegan and ran it for over a year, and at the peak of its success, was beloved by members of the London vegan community, getting rave reviews like this one on A Vegan Obsession and this one on Fat Gay Vegan. But angry animal activists and the pessimistic side of veganism took psychological and financial toll on him, and he left the vegan cooking business and veganism behind — far more purposefully than he’d entered them.

What inspired you to create Accidentally Vegan?

I was asked to cater for a small community event in Covent Garden in May 2010 and decided to create food that would be suitable for anyone to eat. At that time I had the help of a colleague, and we created all sorts of awesome stuff that happened to be vegan. I wasn’t vegan at the time, but had prior experience of it during my time in Japan and just via contact with people at University. (I used to study Nutrition.)

We then decided to create a business based on the premise that everything would be ‘accidentally’ vegan. We had a good range of products that we started selling at a local market in Archway, in north London. It included: coconut macaroons, gluten-free cookies, biscuits, pain au chocolat, doughnuts, profiteroles (or cream puffs), focaccia bread, chili wraps and loads of other things. We did catering for some local councils, businesses, and groups in and around Covent Garden. We weren’t aggressive about our veganism, but we definitely had a passion for what we did.

We then started supplying a ‘boutique’ vegan store called Vx, in King’s Cross. This is a straightedge and vegan shop that had only started earlier that year, in 2010. We supplied food there until June 2011.

What happened once you became vegan yourself?

After a while, I became increasingly more negative in my outlook towards non-vegan businesses or non-vegan market stalls. Instead of showing that what I believed was a positive outlook on the world, I found myself thinking more negatively about anything even slightly non-vegan. I started doing more activist work too, food giveaways and events to show people how much ‘better’ vegan food was. I only wanted vegan employees as I worried that they’d spend their wages on food that wasn’t vegan and at one point I even stopped talking to my own family, as they weren’t vegan.

What made you stop talking to your family?

It all started when I helped my parents move from Chiswick into a new flat in Central London. Mum went out to get some food for herself and my brothers. She bought loads of vegan stuff for me and then some salmon for herself and my brothers. I got really frustrated because she didn’t want to eat only the vegan food and saw the need to buy salmon and kill harmless fish.

I asked my mother why she didn’t buy exclusively vegan food. To me it seemed like an insult to buy salmon, as she was basically saying vegan food isn’t good enough. I decided they didn’t understand me and stormed out of the flat and didn’t talk to them for two months.

I also deleted some friends off Facebook because I saw a picture of them in fur.

Did your family seem okay about it when you started talking to them again?

They were totally fine and accepting. My mother even wanted to help with the business again and had some good business leads. I employed her for a while too, but then I got upset that her wages were being spent on non-vegan food.

For some people, veganism make them happier or even more enjoyable to be around. It just works for them — they would seem less themselves if they stopped being vegan. For others, veganism exaggerates unpleasant traits and dredges up new kinds of obnoxiousness that weren’t previously evident. The extreme reaction you had to your family’s meat eating suggests that you and veganism were a poor fit. Why do you think veganism had such a bad effect on you?

I wouldn’t agree that I was unfit for it. I actually think other people made it unfit for me. After I made it up with my family, I re-evaluated my view points and became far, far more reasonable about things. For example, I didn’t mind buying a pint of milk for my mother where I wouldn’t have done before.

This meant that for around a year I was pretty much spot on with how a vegan should be. I ran the business well and reached out to loads of people and tried to give veganism a positive image.

Then it encroached more and more into my life. I started seeing someone last April, Jules, who knew nothing about the vegan thing. Jules pointed out that veganism was a massive part of my life and I was obsessed with it. I denied this, as I always tried to ensure that veganism was a minor part of my life. Now I think he was right, but that I simply didn’t see it.

I know many people who know how activism and also the vegan community can make you more obsessed with veganism, so they actively stay away from these groups. I feel that I ought to have stayed away from the vegan community, but I’m not sure whether this was possible when I was trying to run a business that would obviously involve the community!

What made you want to quit veganism? Other vegans?

It was, yes. Who else could it have been?

I used to hang out with and had a few discussions with vegans at a raw food cafe in Camden, north London, over a few months last summer. One time I met them in the evening. Now, the prior evening I was out with some friends from school who I hadn’t seen for around two years, so I really had a great time catching up with them and we had some wine. Anyway, the following evening, when I met the animal activists, we started talking and I mentioned that I had gone out with some friends. They targeted my non-vegan wine straight away and questioned me about it - making out as if I were some sort of cruel psychopath for not looking for totally vegan wine.

It really annoyed me. How on Earth does one glass of non-vegan wine mean that I am therefore a bad person? It didn’t add up. I didn’t see how I was contributing to animal slavery and discrimination and cruelty.

Another time, I had spent the day at an animal farm in Southern England with some friends. I came back up to London for the evening and met up with some more animal activists (I know, you’d have thought I’d be sick of them, right?). The topic somehow got on to the issue of blind or partially sighted people using dogs to aid them - guide dogs or service dogs.

The activist started ranting on about how these dogs are treated so cruelly and how the people who use them are evil. My stepdad is blind, to put it into context, and we’ve had a guide dog called Uska (a German Shepherd Dog) for over ten years. He serves my stepdad with so much loyalty, and he loves his job and was raised lovingly (we know the people who raised him on behalf of the guide dogs charity).

I obviously argued back quite ferociously with the activists who then started throwing personal insults at me. I realised I was surrounding myself with people who had no idea what they believed in, no idea what loving an animal actually meant and no idea about reality. I decided I couldn’t be a vegan.

One day in June, I finally waved goodbye to the Vx shop for good and stopped supplying them, as they were giving the business negative press and a militant image. I stopped doing animal activist work and decided to confine the business solely to small events and birthday parties.

Then in July our Facebook and Twitter accounts were flooded with comments complaining about our products, complaining that what we did wasn’t good enough. I even had some verbal personal attacks from vegans who had never been customers. I also received a lot of verbal abuse and gossip from the people at the Vx shop and their straight-edge friends.

I decided, obviously, that this was really bad. Why should someone have to deal with so much negativity, when all I wanted to do was execute a simple business plan? It confused me at the time, but after a few months of hanging around animal activist extremists, I realized why it was best to get out of there as fast as I could.

What did you do after closing Accidentally Vegan?

Well, another guy and I wanted to start a new business based on the principle of universal food, without being explicitly vegan. I’d finally got my passion back for baking and I was loving it. It’s funny that as soon as I stopped associating myself with vegans, I suddenly became so much more positive and happy, generally. I was finally going to get somewhere and maybe do a little bit of good along the way.

But no. As I started emailing people and networking, some people found out my name. Vegans started spreading rumours about the new business and made slanderous comments over Facebook and Twitter about me. I felt depressed and deflated at this point, as everything that had happened in June came back to me.

I then decided that I could never start another vegan business because, quite frankly, the vegan world wasn’t professional enough, and the negative, elitist attitude that pervades veganism is rooted in a vegan business. However positive these vegan businesses try to be, I don’t believe it.

In Obligate Carnivore, Jed Gillen wrote that vegans boycotted his vegan pet store when he offered backpacks for dogs, even though the boycotters then had no choice but to shop at massive pet chains, like PetSmart. Why do you think vegans so often go to war against vegan businesses whilst leaving non-vegan businesses alone?

Oh that sounds so, so familiar. I assume it’s because they have enough non-vegans around spreading unethical practices that they don’t like to see yet another vegan business doing “harm” to the world. Also, I guess vegans don’t mind being critical to each other - you know, a vegan might buy a certain brand of cookie only to be told by another vegan that it doesn’t have vegan sugar/fat, and will then accept the criticism without a qualm. To the people who boycott the vegan businesses, they think they’re simply being helpful. As helpful as suggesting a new brand of cookie to buy.

I remember the snide comments made by vegans about other vegans or vegan businesses throughout my time within the vegan community. I remember how easily a vegan could be knocked down because they wore something made with wool or they bought a certain type of soya milk that contained vitamin A from an animal. The vegan boutique store was the worst. They’d make rude and negative comments about vegan suppliers, condemning them for using non-vegan shampoo or drinking alcohol, yet still act like the best of friends. I never understood it.

Why does veganism often have the effect of making vegans angry with the world, and even with their friends and family? Is it difficult to avoid negativity when you hold a philosophy teaching that what most people eat every day is unethical?

That veganism has the effect of making vegans ‘angry’ with the world or feel that there is some sort of ‘struggle’ is so true.

I think there’s a feeling in veganism/animal rights/animal equality that one is doing their utmost if they react strongly to someone eating meat, and that if they don’t, they’re somehow ‘letting down the side’ as it were. I think this feeling becomes more prevalent when more time is spent with like-minded people who share all of the same values and beliefs that you do.

Most doctrines of veganism or outreach programs will teach potential or current vegans that their philosophy is one of positivity and enlightenment (so to speak) and that they have a clear and defined view of a vegan world. I know I wanted to be part of a positive world, doing good for all sentient beings. But it isn’t realistic. Although the vegan philosophy appears to liberate a vegan from the oppression of the world and the cruelty of animal enslavement, it actually slowly suffocates many people trying to follow it.

I don’t think it’s hard to hold this philosophy. In fact, knowing that 90 percent of the rest of world is eating an “unethical meal” simply helps the vegan feel like they’re doing something worthwhile. But knowing that their friends and family don’t just eat unethical meals but: have leather shoes, wear silk and wool, have pets at home who eat non-vegan food, support cancer charities that do animal testing, drink non-vegan wine, drink milk, use eggs and so on, probably adds to the anger. It’s hard to understand why those closest to you just won’t listen to you, when they usually always value your opinion and give you a chance.

Frustration that stems from being ignored in the struggle against inequality and unethical practices would make anyone slightly negative. Maybe it just affected me more than most people. But it’s not easy to notice how your outlook becomes slowly more negative over time.

What are you going to do now that vegans have deflated your vegan baking ambitions?

Well, as I said before, after two food business start-ups, I think I’m at the end of the road with it because of vegans. I’m finishing my degree in management studies. I have two months left now until I graduate. I’m trying to get a place in the Royal Air Force to help make a difference in the world. I’ll put the vegan thing behind me and carry on.

For Vegans, Human Health Comes Before Animal Lives

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 15:13:09 +0000

Most vegans and meat eaters agree: the lives of animals are not worth enough for us to willingly sacrifice our health for them. Vegans just don’t think that giving up animal products entails such a sacrifice.

In The Case for Animal Rights, Tom Regan writes:

There is no question that meat is a nutritious food. In particular, it is a source of complete protein, containing all the amino acids essential for human health and vitality. If it were true that these nutrients were not otherwise obtainable, then the case for eating meat, even given the rights view, would be on solid ground. If we were certain to ruin our health by being vegetarians, or run a serious risk of doing so…and given that the deterioration of our health would deprive us of a greater variety and number of opportunities for satisfaction than those within the range of farm animals, then we would be making ourselves, not the animals, worse-off if we became vegetarians. Thus might we appeal to the liberty principle as a basis for eating meat, assuming the other provisos of that principle were satisfied.

To concede the necessity of meat in a healthy diet is to concede more than is meat’s due. The essential amino acids are essential, that is true; but there are alternative ways to obtain them, ways that do not rely on meat. … Certain amino acids are essential for our health. Meat isn’t. We cannot, therefore, defend meat-eating on the grounds that we will ruin our health if we don’t eat it, or even that we will run a very serious risk of doing so if we abstain. Any “risk” we run can be easily overcome by taking the modest trouble required to do so. (337)

In Eating Animals, Jonathan Safran Foer approvingly quotes the American Dietetic Association’s vegetarian position paper giving its stamp of approval to a vegetarian diet, and writes:

I don’t think that individual health is necessarily a reason to become vegetarian, but certainly if it were unhealthy to stop eating animals, that might be a reason not to be vegetarian. It would most certainly be a reason to feed my son animals. (145)

In Animal Liberation, Peter Singer writes:

Apart from the tastiness of their meals, people contemplating vegetarianism are most likely to worry about whether they will be adequately nourished. These worries are entirely groundless. … Nutritional experts no longer dispute about whether animal flesh is essential; they now agree that it is not. If ordinary people still have misgivings about doing without it, these misgivings are based on ignorance. (179 – 182)

And later in Practical Ethics, Singer persisted:

If animals count in their own right, our use of animals for food becomes questionable. Inuit living a traditional lifestyle in the far north where they must eat animals or starve can reasonably claim that their interest in surviving overrides that of the animals they kill. Most of us cannot defend our diet in this way. People living in industrialized societies can easily obtain an adequate diet without the use of animal flesh. Meat is not necessary for good health or longevity. Indeed, humans can live healthy lives without eating any animal products at all… (54)

In “Vegan Power: Anecdotes of Inspiration”, James McWilliams writes:

Perhaps inspired by Lierre Kieth’s The Vegetarian Myth, a book that chronicles the author’s losing battle with a plant-based diet, bloggers have clogged foodie networks with angst-ridden accounts of fatigue, sickness, hair loss, anxiety, diminished sex drive, and mental breakdown after quitting animal products. The problem with these accounts, as far as I can tell, is that those who made the vegan leap (and I praise them for doing it) did so without doing due diligence on the details of intelligent veganism. Someone can live on potato chips, pot, and cherry soda and call himself a vegan. Many recidivists have evidently tried to do just that.

Whether you are convinced by a book such as The China Study or not, there’s no disputing the fact that a diet rich in plant-based, unprocessed food is a smart diet. My point here isn’t to suggest that a diet including modest amounts of lean meat can’t be healthy. It surely can be. Instead, I want to reiterate the equally healthful consequences of a healthy vegan diet. I can brook a million excuses for why a person simply cannot go vegan — cheese! yogurt! cream in my coffee! — but the assertion that veganism, when done right, isn’t healthy is just plain bunk.

In Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog, Gary Francione writes:

It is in no way necessary for human beings to eat meat or other animal products. Indeed, voices as mainstream as the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the American Dietetic Association have now recognized that a completely plant-based diet, supplemented by vitamin B-12, can provide the human body with sufficient protein, vitamins, minerals and other nutrients to maintain excellent health. For health-related reasons, animal foods have been coming under greater suspicion within the mainstream scientific community. Even the most traditional health care professionals are urging a reduction in our consumption of meat and other animal products; others are calling for the elimination of such products from our diet. It is an uncontested fact that vegetarians have lower rates of many forms of cancer, heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, gallstones and kidney stones, and other diseases. And we seem to hear on an almost daily basis of illnesses—ranging from simple food poisoning to more exotic maladies such as Creutzfeldt-Jakob (“mad cow” disease)—connected with eating meat. Countries that have shifted from plant-based diets to meat-based diets have experienced increased rates of obesity, heart diseases, and cancer. So not only are animal food unnecessary for our health; they may very well be detrimental to it. (14)

Finally, here’s Francione in an article called “Veganism: Morality, Health, and the Environment”:

We have a moral obligation that we owe to ourselves to be healthy; ingesting products that cause us harm is a form of violence we inflict on ourselves. The empirical evidence becomes stronger each day that animal products are not only not needed for health; they actually cause harm to our bodies in all sorts of ways. Even small amounts of animal products can be harmful. Just as we have a moral obligation not to smoke cigarettes (even a “few”), we have an obligation to make sure that the things we put in and on our bodies (remember that what you put on your skin gets into your body!) do not cause harm. We owe this obligation not only to ourselves, but to the humans and nonhumans who love us and who depend on us. … So, in the end, although I maintain that the moral argument in favor of animal rights and the spiritual argument in favor of nonviolence are the most important notions, we also have moral obligations to ourselves (and to the humans and nonhumans who depend on us) to maintain and improve our health.

Francione doesn’t provide a citation for his assertion that we have moral obligations to maintain and improve our health; but if he’s sticking to that, he’s committed himself to a strange position for someone who philosophizes for soy milk. Not only is meat immoral… so are vegan cupcakes! Even better, if it turned out that a diet with animal products was healthier than one without one, we wouldn’t only have the option to give up veganism: we’d be morally obligated to eat meat!

But of course Francione is convinced that animal products don’t need to be part of anyone’s healthy diet. So are Regan, Singer, Foer, McWilliams, Norris, Messina, Paleovegan and just about every other well-known advocate of veganism.

So what if they changed their minds on this issue and decided that humans, or a lot of them at least, were healthier when their diet included animal products? Apparently, they’d be fine with these humans eating meat. Even vegan leaders allow a health exception to veganism: it’s just that they see this exception as almost entirely theoretical. Notice that when ex-vegans quit veganism for health reasons, most vegans don’t say, “You should have sacrificed your health if you truly cared about animals.” Instead they say, “You did veganism wrong.”

The difference between many vegans and meat eaters, then, is empirical rather than philosophical. No one is saying that animals are worth making big sacrifices over. One side just thinks that veganism is a big sacrifice, and the other side thinks it isn’t.

Yeah, there are plenty of meat eaters who think that meat is unhealthy or unnecessary for health, and yet eat it anyway. And there are also some vegans who would stay vegan even if they started to suspect that it was causing them health difficulties. Those few martyrs aside, though, if vegans were a character in The Wire, they’d be Dante—not Brandon. Vegans are cool with giving up animal products when they think all they’re losing is some measure of habit, convenience, tradition and taste. But if their health starts to nosedive and they don’t think they can fix it without animal products, they’re suffocating salmon and chucking baby chicks into grinders in no time.

Hey, what about the fucking animals, guys? What’s a little brain fog and fatigue when we’re talking about animal lives?

Vegans rarely tire of citing The China Study’s case against animal products or the ADA’s claim that a vegan diet is appropriate for all stages of the lifecycle. But why should it matter whether or not veganism is healthy? It’s not like it would be worth killing hundreds of animals a year just to live longer or have a spring in your step, would it?

Harish at Counting Animals recently crunched some numbers and determined that going vegetarian “saves more than 406 animals each year—a vegetarian saves at least an animal a day!” And that’s just udder-sucking, chicken-period-thieving lacto-ovos. No doubt Harish would find that vegans “save” even more.

Granted, “saves” is a stretch in this context, since what vegans are actually doing is preventing animals from being born through their inaction, something vegans would have been much better at doing by never being born. As for the specific numbers, meat eaters clearly eat less than an animal a day if they’re mostly eating bigger ones like cows, pigs and lambs. Still, meat eating obviously creates a demand for killing animals, whether the motive is taste or health. And if it’s anything like 406 a year, per person—a number Harish says is conservative—that’s a lot of animals to kill just because you feel miserable without a daily dose of flesh to improve your mood. Sure, a lifetime with severe depression sucks, but could that justify taking an animal’s life every day?

For vegans, the answer to this seems to be “yes.”

If veganism were guaranteed to kill you within three months, almost no one would go vegan. If it merely shaved a minute off your life, this probably wouldn’t be much of a deterrent at all. But what if veganism tended to reduce human lifespans by 50 years? At first that seems like a big chunk of your own life to give up for any cause. But look at the trade-off: if you live to 100 instead of 50 because you ate meat every day instead of never, you’ve (arguably) killed at least 40,600 extra animals just to selfishly enjoy a bonus half century. Even if all those animals were killed only a year before the end of their average lifespans, which they almost certainly weren’t, this would imply that 50 years of your life is worth more than 40,600 years of the lives of other animals. Harsh, man. It’s not like it would be these animals’ fault if humans had a nutritional need for animal products.

Yet none of the major animal rights advocates is willing to say that everyone should go vegan even if it kills us.

In veganism, human health comes before the lives of other animals. Vegans just happen to think you don’t need animal products to be healthy. If they thought otherwise, most of them would eat animals… no matter how many animal lives it took to cure their brain fog.

How to Make Animals Go Extinct: The Vegan Way

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:55:00 +0000

Veganism prohibits humans from exploiting and murdering animals in order to use their bodies as material goods, but there are still plenty of ways for humans to eliminate animals without a single amendment to the vegan constitution. Though most vegans wouldn’t want to do this, it would even be theoretically possible—problems of practicality aside—for a vegan humanity to get rid of almost every sentient animal on the planet other than humans without doing anything that veganism considers unethical.

Here are some of the weapons that vegans would have in their arsenal if for some reason they wanted to vanquish other animals and have the planet to themselves:

Birth control. Veganism does not prohibit the spaying and neutering of cats and dogs, as long as it’s done while they are anesthetized. If we did that to every cat and dog in the world—a goal that would be perfectly compatible with veganism—we could end cats and dogs. But why stop there? If vegans have no moral qualm with removing the reproductive organs of domesticated animals, how can they object to doing something similar to wild animals? It’s not as if wild animals have more rights than domesticated animals, is it? (And if they do, does that make it okay for us to eat meat as long as it’s from domesticated animals?)

Wild animal birth control is improving all the time; one way to fiddle with the fertility of other animals is through contraceptive injections that last for five years. You have to sedate the animals first, but hopefully this can be done in a way that isn’t much more traumatizing than taking a dog or cat to the vet.

Vegans might still insist that there is a difference between sterilizing our dogs and cats and desexualizing every wild animal we find. We are responsible for our pets because they are under our care, and part of this responsibility means taking some paternalistic measures like cutting out their testicles or ovaries for their own good, or for our convenience, or to prevent the suffering of future dogs and cats in a world already saturated with devoted animal companions.

Point taken, but then are vegans okay with abandoning wild animal birth control in every situation at all costs? Because my understanding is that vegans support contraception on wild animals when humans decide that their numbers need to decrease one way or another. If it’s not a rights violation to sterilize animals without their consent when their population is creeping up (which many think it would be if done to humans), how does it become one if their numbers are relatively stable? If vegans are okay with humans reducing wild animal birth rates on the grounds that later generations of these animals will suffer if the competition to survive on dwindling resources is fierce, they have no reason to ignore that even animals born into food-rich environments experience plenty of suffering that could have been eliminated if their parents had only had a copule shots of GonaCon.

If humans decided it would be for the best to knock other species out of existence, veganism couldn’t stop them, as long as they phased the animals out rather than killing them outright.

Self-defense. If other animals are threatening humans with bodily harm, vegans usually say it is okay to kill them. This won’t help vegans kill the peacenik herbivores who would rather run from them than eat them, but could come in handy against the violent, uppity ones.

This is even more true if the herbivores have already disappeared thanks to humans removing their ability to reproduce. Bears and wolves often prefer to leave humans alone, but phase out a large portion of their food supply and we might start looking like bipedal venison to that sharp-toothed lot. Whether they come salivating to our cities or vegans camp amongst them, well-armed vegans would have the chance to take out a few carnivores without going against their ethics. They just better keep their Smith & Wessons in faux leather holsters.

Violently competing with other animals for plants. Veganism discourages us from seeing animals as food, but is okay with us killing animals who dare get in the way of our food. This gives vegans many opportunities to destroy other animals. Though vegans would rather avoid poisoning or shooting vertebrates who venture onto human croplands—preferring to keep them from loitering near the crops in the first place—veganism sighs and shrugs if doing so turns out to be “necessary.” As we saw in the self-defense example, vegans do approve of animal killing if it can be framed in some sort of human self-preservation sort of way, and most vegans consider guarding human food supplies to be close enough.

This “human food comes before animal lives” allowance in veganism mostly permits the veganism-approved killing of land animals, but it could be used to kill marine animals too, since humans sometimes compete with herbivorous fish for wild algae. Under veganism, it could be curtains for any non-human pest that wanders too close to a kelp forest, if that seaweed is destined to become human food, supplements or fertilizer.

Habitat destruction/fragmentation. People who specialize in this sort of thing name habitat destruction and fragmentation as the leading threat to wild animals. For instance, the International Union for Conservation of Nature says:

Analyses of the data on threats to bird, mammal and amphibian species evaluated for the 2004 IUCN Red List show that the most pervasive threat that they face is habitat destruction and degradation driven by agricultural and forestry activities.

In Essentials of Conservation Biology, Richard B. Primack writes:

Habitat destruction is an important cause of known extinctions. As deforestation proceeds in tropical forests, this promises to become the cause of mass extinctions caused by human activity. All species have specific food and habitat needs. The more specific these needs and localized the habitat, the greater the vulnerability of species to loss of habitat to agricultural land, livestock, roads and cities. In the future, the only species that survive are likely to be those whose habitats are highly protected, or whose habitat corresponds to the degraded state associated with human activity (human commensals).

In “The Human Footprint and the Last of the Wild,” Eric W. Sanderson, Malanding Jaiteh, Marc A. Levy, Kent H. Redford, Antoinette V. Wannebo and Gillian Woolmer write:

Called the single greatest threat to biological diversity, land transformation has resulted in loss and fragmentation of habitat in many different ecosystem types (Vitousek 1997). Moreover, fragmentation often facilitates additional negative consequences to species and ecosystems beyond the simple loss of habitat, in concert with other processes and over time (Crooks and Soulé 1999, Laurance and Cochrane 2001). … For most ecosystems, the greatest near-term threats are from direct human activities like those measured by the human footprint: transformation of land for agriculture and for suburban and urban development, direct effects of roads and indirect effects of the access that roads afford, a power infrastructure that not only pollutes and modifies the climate but also enables extensive land transformation and road construction, and, ultimately, greater consumption of resources by an increasing human population.

In “Causes and Consequences of Species Extinctions,” Navjot S. Sodhi, Barry W. Brook and Corey J.A. Bradshaw claim:

Although extinctions are a normal part of evolution, human modiﬁcations to the planet in the last few centuries, and perhaps even millennia, have greatly accelerated the rate at which extinctions occur. Habitat loss remains the main driver of extinctions, but it may act synergistically with other drivers such as over-harvesting and pollution, and, in the future, climate change. Large-bodied species, rare species, and habitat specialists are particularly prone to extinction as a result of rapid human modiﬁcations of the planet. Extinctions can disrupt vital ecological processes such as pollination and seed dispersal, leading to cascading losses, ecosystem collapse, and a higher extinction rate overall.

In Sparing Nature: The Conflict Between Human Population Growth and Earth’s Biodiversity, Jeffrey K. McKee writes:

Nature’s great restrictive law has been in evidence since the beginning of agriculture. As we take up more land, water and energy to produce our food, little is left for other species. At our current rate of agricultural expansion, it is estimated that by 2050 the worldwide amount of natural ecosystems converted to farms and pastures would total an area larger than the United States. Because we take this land bit by bit across the globe, what is left for other species and small and widely dispersed patches of land.

If every human were given an equal share of the land—their stadium-size piece from our thought experiment—it would be difficult to get sufficient resources for sustenance and sustainability without agriculture. A forager would have to range beyond the boundaries to continue living. But this is in effect what has happened to many other species, for their resources are not evenly distributed either, and often they must travel far to get them. Yes, we set aside lands for them to live in, parks and reserves, but for many wide-ranging species this is not enough. Their habitats have been fragmented, and they don’t have agriculture or any other means to focus ecological energy on producing the resources they need. …

The problem of habitat loss is compounded by habitat fragmentation—dividing up species’ ranges into patches, interspersed with environments that are less hospitable or even dangerous. This happens when roads are built, logging tracts are cut, agricultural lands expand, suburbs sprawl, rivers are dammed, and so on—the list is endless. Lifeways that have evolved over millions of years get cramped in tight spaces, and sustaining a wild population becomes difficult if not impossible. (114-115)

Will conservation keep us out of the woods in terms of biodiversity loss? No. … [Guy Cowlishaw of the Zoological Society of London] found an ‘extinction debt’ for 30 percent of the primates in each country studied. In other words, populations were on the decline and could be expected to go extinct over the course of the next few decades—with or without conservation efforts to prevent hunting or further habitat loss. Hunting would accelerate the eventual extinctions, but none of the species was in danger from hunting alone. Habitat loss and fragmentation were the main culprits. The human wedge has come between interbreeding populations of once widespread primates, diminishing their chances to perpetuate future generations. (119)

And New Zealand Biodiversity says, “For most native species, the destruction of their habitat is a worse threat than hunting by humans – hunting targets a few individual animals, but losing their habitat affects all species in an area.”

In animal rights veganism, animals have the right to their bodies, products of their bodies and their lives, but little else. Most notably, they do not own their homes. You think birds and gophers have deeds for those twigs they threw together or that hole they mindlessly dug in the ground? Please. The property rights of animals under veganism are basically nil. If humans want land for any reason other than animal exploitation or consumption, veganism does not forbid humans from taking this land, no matter how many other animals die so humans can spread out a little more. If we want to divert water to drip it over our corn, that’s cool with veganism, even if it kills fish. Sucks for Nemo, but hey, we’re not killing them to eat them, so what’ve they got to complain about?

As far as veganism is concerned, there is no limit to the number of forests we can fell to plant soybeans, so long as we feed those soybeans to ourselves instead of to cattle. Vegans like to point out that grain-fed animal agriculture demands even more land than getting an equivalent amount of calories or protein from eating grains directly, but this is one of those differences in degree rather than kind. There is nothing in veganism to stop a vegan world from taking over even more land for human use than we have already.

Human expansion is, in effect, a scorched earth policy against almost all of the other lifeforms in the world. It’s a more effective way to kill other animals than eating and wearing them, and yet veganism has nothing definite to say against it. Combine that with forced birth control on other animals, as well as self-defense and killing animals in the competition for plant foods and a vegan world could be just us and the algae.

A Vegan World Means Less Food For Humans (maybe)

Fri, 17 Feb 2012 10:41:00 +0000

“A vegan world can feed more humans,” is one of those absurd less = more vegan arguments — like that “veganism increases dietary variety” — that only makes sense when you consider a certain kind of omnivorism. There’s a good chance that someone who eats nothing but chicken nuggets and french fries will develop a more varied diet if she becomes vegan, since she would have no choice but to dabble in the fruit and vegetable aisles, if only to survive. But dream up the most diverse plant-only diet conceivable and it’s not going to have more variety than the most diverse omnivorous diet conceivable. It’s a physical impossibility. All you need to do is take that vegan diet and add a dash of smoked salmon to it and suddenly you have even more variety.

In “Universal Veganism?,” Jean Kazez makes a similarly obvious point that is lost on many who see veganism as the solution to world hunger: if humans reduce the number of foods they allow themselves to eat, there will be less food for humans.

Kazez writes:

71% of earth is covered with ocean, and seafood provides 20% of animal protein, world wide — 50% in some countries. In a vegan world, the ocean simply stops being used as source of nutrition. Land gets wasted too. Only 10% of the earth’s land surface is arable—used to grow for crops. 26% of the land surface is used as grazing land. Most of that grazing land is not convertible to cropland, so if animals weren’t being raised on it, it would simply be lost to food production. The total lost to food production: about 79% of the planet’s surface.

Some vegans might say that Kazez has unfairly overlooked seaweed, and a few vegans might even say that vegans can eat bivalves and jellyfish; nevertheless, it would be difficult to credibly argue that a vegan humanity has more food available to it than an otherwise vegan humanity that eats just about every kind of animal from the sea.

It’s probably impossible to figure out the exact percentage of grazing land that cannot be used as cropland, but there’s certainly some, and if you raise animals on it instead of using that land for nothing, that’s more food for humans. On top of that, eating insects and wild land animals increases the human food supply, as would repealing the taboos against eating dead pets and family members. The latter is unlikely to happen outside of mass starving scenarios, but still, the point is that this particular argument for veganism makes no logical sense.

A lot of vegans see it differently because they only consider animals that are fed on foods that humans can eat. Yes, there’s plenty of that going on, but you could abolish that without abolishing all animal product consumption. And if you did, you’d have a world with more food for humans than a vegan world would.

Or maybe not.

Devin, a commenter, made this point:

If it truly is most calorie-efficient to eat plants directly than it is to eat other animals that eat plants, if humans were to convert the entire biosphere to food production for humans and make every other animal (non-autotroph, anyway) go extinct, then it could in theory provide the most possible food for humans. After all, if every other animal is extinct, they’re not consuming any part of our potential food supply.

Ethics-centric veganism does not oppose humans taking over land for homes, agriculture, entertainment facilities, general civilization business or anything else we want to use it for, as long as our purpose is anything other than intentionally killing animals in order to use their products for ourselves. It doesn’t go against veganism to knock over a forest filled with animals and turn it into cropland for humans. Vegans know that would kill a lot of animals for our own selfish ends, but that’s okay as long it’s a side consequence of our territorial expansion rather than the primary objective. Similarly, it wouldn’t go against veganism to transform the oceans into algae factories, even though that would kill off the sentient sea creatures, since the foreseen fish deaths would be a side-effect rather than the primary goal.

Theoretically, then, a vegan world might provide the most food—but only if humans were to achieve this world by exterminating all other animals and planting highly efficient crops on their graves. So long as other animals exist, humans who eat animals will always have a greater potential food supply than humans who don’t. But maybe a world without other animals (and is thus vegan by default) is one that could be maximally exploited for human sustenance.

Even here, however, veganism doesn’t necessarily rule. Any animals who eat food that humans cannot — such as grass or waste — could still add to the human food supply if they only ate grass on land that could not be used for crops and were successfully kept away from human food. And of course the cannibalism taboo also reduces the potential food supply for humans in a vegan world.

It’s likely that the world with the largest possible food supply for humans would be one where the oceans were turned to edible algae, the forests were knocked down for soybeans, only the grass- and waste-eating animals were spared extinction and human funerals were barbecues instead of burials.

Any takers?

Vegetables: What Big Agriculture and James McWilliams Have In Common

Sat, 11 Feb 2012 01:03:00 +0000

Vegetables: What Big Agriculture and James McWilliams Have In Common:

James McWilliams has written another anti-meat column for The Atlantic. That’s his beat after all. Let’s see if it contains any fallacies.

Here’s McWilliams:

I’ve repeatedly argued that supporting alternatives to the industrial production of animal products serves the ultimate interest of industrial producers. The decision to eat animal products sourced from small, local, and sustainable farms might seem like a fundamental rejection of big business as usual. It is, however, an implicit but powerful confirmation of the single most critical behavior necessary to the perpetuation of factory farming: eating animals. So long as consumers continue to eat meat, eggs, and dairy — even if they are sourced from small farms practicing the highest welfare and safety standards — they’re providing, however implicitly, an endorsement of the products that big agriculture will always be able to produce more efficiently and cheaply. And thus dominate.

The logic of this argument — that you shouldn’t buy more ethically acceptable versions of items that are usually produced unethically because this could be seen as endorsing the unethical version — could be used against purchasing everything from shirts to soy beans. Should we not buy clothing from manufacturers paying their employees a living wage because wearing ethical clothing could be seen as an endorsement of clothing on the whole, which is more often than not made by underpaid workers? Should we not buy tomatoes from the farmers market because that would endorse tomatoes, which are most efficiently produced by slave migrant labor?

Just because McWilliams has “repeatedly argued” this point doesn’t mean it makes sense.

He continues:

Until the act of eating animals itself is made problematic, “voting with our forks” will be little more than a vacuous slogan. Critics claim that it’s unrealistic to expect a substantial transition to veganism, and advocate the support of small-scale animal farms as a more achievable alternative. What’s truly unrealistic, however, is the expectation that small, more eco-friendly and “humane” farms will permanently defy economic logic and convince a meaningful percentage of meat and dairy eaters to spend substantially more money to buy a nobler egg or pork chop. I’d bet on a massive transition to veganism before a massive transition to economic irrationality.

How is it irrational to spend more money on animal products from farms you approve of because you don’t like animal torture, but rational to never eat animal products again for similar reasons? Becoming an “ethical omnivore” does have its costs. You usually have to pay more for animal products, though if you’re not afraid of offal or less popular animals, you can often get meat on the cheap. At a farmers market near me, you can get a whole wild rabbit for £4, and half a pig’s head for a little more than that: about a week’s ration of meat for two people for around £10. True, so-called “ethical omnivores” often can’t eat meat when they’re at restaurants or in other situations where they don’t have control over the ingredients, and thus they have to eat like vegans sometimes (or take the bivalve option if there is one). But unless vegans practice freeganism or are cool with eating bivalves, insects and other animal products that fit vegan ethics, they always have to eat like vegans, making “convenience, habit and taste” even harder to satisfy for them than for ethics-minded omnivores. After all, ethical omnivores can eat the vegan option but vegans can’t eat the humane meat option. So how is veganism less of a sacrifice and thus less irrational than eating only humane meat?

It’s irrational to knowingly pay more for something that doesn’t contain any additional value. It’s not irrational to pay more for humane meat because if you care about animal treatment, it’s a much better product than factory farmed meat. As long as there are people who care about animal suffering but don’t see anything wrong with intentionally killing animals for food, there will be a market for humane meat.

And really, McWilliams doesn’t think people behave in economically irrational ways? How would he explain the existence of name brand cereals when the generic store versions are so much cheaper (just to give one of endless possible examples)? And unlike humane meat vs. factory farmed meat, there’s not even a discernible difference between Rice Krispies and Crisp Ricies.

McWilliams again:

A point that’s germane to this issue, but frequently muted, is how the preexisting power and amorality of industrial animal agriculture enables it to manipulate the rhetoric of alternative animal-based systems to its profitable advantage. Agribusiness has been conspicuously nonplussed by the rise of the food movement, shrugging its shoulders as it markets itself as “sustainable,” “supporting family farms,” and steadfastly oriented toward the “welfare” of animals. Industry grasps, then thrills in manipulating, the axiom that language is both cheap and powerful. Industrial machinations are helped along by the fact that the food movement’s buzzwords are slackened catchphrases that allow the largest pig farm on the planet to advertise itself as “humane” and “sustainable.” This fungible verbal lexicon, with every well-meaning new term appropriated by the marketers at Big Ag, is the food movement’s Achilles’ heel.

Translation: never trust labels. If you care about the conditions of the farm you’re buying from, research it. Just because corporations co-opt buzzwords doesn’t mean that the original idea behind “humane” no longer exists.

McWilliams writes:

A recent confirmation of this point is the emergence of an organization called humanewatch.org. Contrary to how it sounds, HumaneWatch is the self-appointed watchdog — think Cujo — of a group that actually does watch out for dogs, and many other animals, with admirable dedication: the Humane Society of the United States. Calling HSUS a “stealth animal rights organization” that’s stealing money from the public to promote secret agendas, humanewatch.com is a propaganda tool of the Center for Consumer Freedom. According to Source Watch, CCF is “a front group for the restaurant, alcohol, tobacco, and other industries” that “run media campaigns which oppose the efforts of scientists, health advocates, doctors, animal advocates, [and] environmentalists.” Its website offers a sordid example of how the pursuit of sustainable animal agriculture, so long as the consumption of animal products is encouraged, easily plays into the hands of influential industrial interests.

If we are to take any tangible point from McWilliams’ paragraph before this one, it would have to be that we shouldn’t support small-scale animal farms because corporations that don’t care about animal welfare can easily steal and distort the language of humane meat suppliers. Yet to illustrate this point, McWilliams says that the Humane Society of the United States (a pro-animal organization that McWilliams seems to support) has had its name co-opted and distorted by the odious pro-meat group the Center for Consumer Freedom. So if we can’t trust humane meat suppliers because cruel corporations have taken their language, shouldn’t we not support the Humane Society of the United States now that their language has been co-opted too?

Right now industry is merely stealing words, concepts, and websites. In the unlikely event that mass economic irrationality prevails, and there is in fact a statistically meaningful transition to supporting the non-industrial production of animal products, what’s to stop industrial agriculture from building a few token sustainable farms where the animals are pastured, pampered, and publicized? Most of the small-scale animal farmers I know are literally living hand to mouth. Tyson’s or Smithfield wouldn’t suffer such hardships.

So if there is a massive change toward supporting non-industrial animal farming, this will actually be worse for non-industrial farmers because large agriculture corporations will act like the best non-industrial farmers and raise some of their animals humanely, thus competing with them more directly? Interesting.

If it were the case that Smithfield and Tyson decided to get in on some of the humane animal action, ethical omnivores would then face the dilemma that vegans face now: should they buy food that fits their ethics from a company that otherwise doesn’t? If the answer is yes, then - like vegans who buy vegan food produced by non-vegan companies - they will consider buying humane meat from Smithfield or Tyson. If not, they’ll continue to buy from the small-scale farmer. And they might still choose the small farmer for other reasons anyway, perhaps because they’d rather support them than a corporation, even though both produce meat from non-tortured animals.

If there were more ethical omnivores and this prompted big companies to try to satisfy that demand by meeting ethical omnivore standards, they could siphon off some of the dollars that would have gone to small-scale farmers. But with more ethical omnivores on the whole, there would still be plenty left to support small farmers. Either way, there would be more humane farming, so I’m not sure I see the problem.

We’ll never beat Big Ag at its own game. Those of us concerned with the myriad problems of industrial agriculture will make genuine progress toward creating agricultural systems that are ethical, ecologically sound, and supportive of human health only when we pursue alternatives that are truly alternative. The most immediate and direct way to take a step in this direction is to stop eating animals.

“Big Ag” makes vegetables, fruits and grains as well as animal products. If buying meat directly from farmers or raising animals for food in your backyard doesn’t accomplish anything because big corporations also raise animals for food, then growing your own vegetables or buying vegan food also will fail because it too is trying to beat Big Ag at its own game. Why is McWilliams selectively lashing out at meat when all his arguments apply equally to vegan food?

Oh right. Because he’s vegan.

Vegans May Not Be Speciesist, But That Doesn't Mean They Don't Discriminate

Tue, 31 Jan 2012 16:59:00 +0000

“Following the civil rights movement, veganism is the next step for moral progress in our society. I think the movement will follow the same historical trajectory as all previous rights movements - through denial and anger, but finally acceptance.”

– Ruby Roth, author of That’s Why We Don’t Eat Animals

“It is racism when we choose to save one white person over two blacks. It is speciesism when we choose to save an orphaned an-encephalitic human infant whose existence is a secret over a chimpanzee.”

– UrConfused

Some vegans like to think of veganism as the final frontier in ethical equality, the movement that could finally put an end to the discrimination and violence that humans have practiced since splitting into tribes. It’s a common enough view that sexism, ableism, racism, religious discrimination, classism and heterosexism have to go. All this leaves, say some vegans, is speciesism: and worldwide veganism would crush that.

But does it really?

Consider the following passages from pro-animal philosophers, which supposedly do not undermine anti-speciesism ideals…

Practical Ethics by Peter Singer, p. 122:

If cows, pigs, chickens and the other animals we usually eat are self-aware, they are still not self-aware to anything like the extent that humans normally are. I agree with Varner and Scruton that the more one thinks of one’s life as a story that has chapters still to be written, and the more one hopes for achievements yet to come, the more one has to lose by being killed. For this reason, when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the basic survival needs of animals and of normal humans, it is not speciesist to give priority to the lives of those with a geographical sense of their life and a stronger orientation toward the future.

The Case for Animal Rights by Tom Regan, p. 351:

There are five survivors, four normal adult human beings and a dog. The boat will support only four. All will perish if one is not sacrificed. Which one ought to be cast overboard? The rights view’s answer is: the dog. The magnitude of the harm that death is, it has been argued, is a function of the number and variety of opportunities for satisfaction it forecloses for a given individual, and it is not speciesist to claim that the death of any of these humans would be a prima facie greater harm in their case than the harm death would be in the case of the dog. Indeed, numbers make no difference in this case. A million dogs ought to be cast overboard if that is necessary to save the four normal humans, the aggregate of the lesser harms of the individual animals harming no one in a way that is prima facie comparable to the harm death would be to any of these humans. But suppose, a critic may conjecture, it is not a question of having enough room on the boat. Imagine it is a question of which individual to eat if four others are to survive. Who should be eaten? The rights view’s answer, once again, is: the dog. And it is the dog who should be eaten because the harm that death is in the case of that animal is not as great a harm as the harm that death would be in the case of any of these humans. In lifeboat cases, in short, the obligation to be vegetarian can be justifiably overridden, according to the rights view. The survivors would be acting within their rights, justified by appeal to the liberty principle, if they chose to kill and eat the dog in these dire circumstances.

Introduction to Animal Rights by Gary Lawrence Francione, p. 159:

[In] the case of animals, we may well decide that although animals are similar to us in that they are sentient—the only characteristic that is relevant for the purpose of having a right not to be treated as a resource—there may be other characteristics of humans that cause us to tip the balance in their favor in these extreme and unusual cases. For example, I have absolutely no doubt that dogs are self-aware, intelligent beings who have a sense of the future and an interest in continuing life. Although I am certain that death is a harm for the dog, I do not know exactly what goes on in the mind of the dog and, therefore, I cannot fully appreciate what is at stake for a dog were she to die. I also lack direct access to the minds of other humans, but I am more confident that I understand better the harm of death to humans and what is at stake for them. I may, then, in these true emergency situations, in which I am forced to choose between a human and a dog, choose the human simply because I better understand what is at stake for the human than I do for the dog. But this is a matter of my own cognitive limitation and how that plays out in these extreme circumstances in which my decision will necessarily be arbitrary to some degree and in which no decision will be perfectly satisfactory. I do not think that death is a greater harm to the human than it is to the dog, but I understand (or think I do) the harm to the human in a clearer sense than I understand the harm to the dog; it is on this admittedly arbitrary and unsatisfactory basis that I break the tie between the two beings, both of whom hold a basic right not to be treated as resources.

Altering these quotes by substituting references to human groups, however, makes it pretty obvious that there’s some sort of othering going on here:

If [women] are self-aware, they are still not self-aware to anything like the extent that [men] normally are. I agree with Varner and Scruton that the more one thinks of one’s life as a story that has chapters still to be written, and the more one hopes for achievements yet to come, the more one has to lose by being killed. For this reason, when there is an irreconcilable conflict between the basic survival needs of [women] and of [men], it is not [sexist] to give priority to the lives of [men, who have] a geographical sense of their life and a stronger orientation toward the future. …

There are five survivors, four normal [straight] human beings and [a gay man]. The boat will support only four. All will perish if one is not sacrificed. Which one ought to be cast overboard? The rights view’s answer is: the [gay man]. The magnitude of the harm that death is, it has been argued, is a function of the number and variety of opportunities for satisfaction it forecloses for a given individual, and it is not [heterosexist] to claim that the death of any of these normal [straight] humans would be a prima facie greater harm in their case than the harm death would be in the case of the [guy dude]. Indeed, numbers make no difference in this case. A million [gay men] ought to be cast overboard if that is necessary to save the four normal [straight] humans, the aggregate of the lesser harms of the individual [gay guys] harming no one in a way that is prima facie comparable to the harm death would be to any of these [straight] humans. But suppose, a critic may conjecture, it is not a question of having enough room on the boat. Imagine it is a question of which individual to eat if four others are to survive. Who should be eaten? The rights view’s answer, once again, is: the [gay man]. And it is the [gay man] who should be eaten because the harm that death is in the case of that [gay man] is not as great a harm as the harm that death would be in the case of any of these [straight] humans. …

[In] the case of [brown people], we may well decide that although [brown people] are similar to us in that they are sentient—the only characteristic that is relevant for the purpose of having a right not to be treated as a resource—there may be other characteristics of [white people] that cause us to tip the balance in their favor in these extreme and unusual cases. For example, I have absolutely no doubt that [brown people] are self-aware, intelligent beings who have a sense of the future and an interest in continuing life. Although I am certain that death is a harm for the [brown person], I do not know exactly what goes on in the mind of the [brown person] and, therefore, I cannot fully appreciate what is at stake for a [brown person] were she to die. I also lack direct access to the minds of other [white people], but I am more confident that I understand better the harm of death to [white people] and what is at stake for them. I may, then, in these true emergency situations, in which I am forced to choose between a [brown person] and a [white person], choose the [white person] simply because I better understand what is at stake for the [white person] than I do for the [brown person]. But this is a matter of my own cognitive limitation and how that plays out in these extreme circumstances in which my decision will necessarily be arbitrary to some degree and in which no decision will be perfectly satisfactory. I do not think that death is a greater harm to the [white person] than it is to the [brown person], but I understand (or think I do) the harm to the [white person] in a clearer sense than I understand the harm to the [brown person]; it is on this admittedly arbitrary and unsatisfactory basis that I break the tie between the two beings, both of whom hold a basic right not to be treated as resources.

It would sound strange if an opponent of racism, sexism and homophobia said that people of different races, genders or sexualities should be treated equally most of the time, but that these other lives were ultimately worth less when it came down to it and so it makes sense to favor people of their own race, gender or sexuality in a pinch.

So why do vegans get to call themselves anti-speciesist while saying that they put more value on human lives than animal lives? Is speciesism so inevitable that even those who spend their careers propagandizing against it can’t avoid succumbing to a preference for their own species, in apparent violation of their own ideology?

Not necessarily. You can call yourself an anti-speciesist and still say that human lives are more valuable than animal lives if you want, but this comes at a price: you need to accept another prejudice to explain this discrepancy. As the above quotes from animal philosophers suggest, the form of discrimination that almost inevitably arises in speciesism’s place is discrimination based on cognitive abilities: “cognitivism,” you could call it.

You may be a speciesist if you would always choose to save an anonymous human over an anonymous dog, but you might also be a cognitivist. Answering a couple of hypotheticals could help determine which:

1. Imagine that dogs had the same cognitive abilities of normal humans and were just as social and communicative, being able to interact with humans in most of the same ways that humans interact with each other, except mating. In the sinking lifeboat, would you still definitely save humans over dogs? If so, you’re probably a speciesist. If not, you might be a cognitivist.

2. Many vegans tend to see some animal lives as fairly expendable. In particular, they can be flippant about the mammals, birds, lizards, gastropods, amphibians and fish killed due to civilization and agriculture, mostly treating that daily massacre of wildlife as a nuisance threatening to poke a hole in their doctrine. Would these vegans be equally as cavalier about the same number of mentally impaired humans being ground up, shot, poisoned and suffocated for agriculture? If so, they’re probably cognitivists. But if they would find the latter to be a bigger ethical quandary, they could well be speciesists.

It may be that the majority of vegans would still be able to call themselves non-speciesists after honestly answering those hypotheticals. For that matter, it’s possible that meat eaters would also find themselves to not be speciesist; just because they eat steak doesn’t mean they would oppose the admission of genius apes into universities or eat bacon from pigs who can speak Latin. However, vegans who might save a talking dog over a human but wouldn’t do the same for a typical golden retriever almost definitely discriminate on the basis of cognitive ability. Presumably, Tom Regan would throw a million cognitively disabled humans off the boat rather than sacrifice a few cognitively normal humans, despite how grotesque that pile-up would begin to look.

The reason hypotheticals can be useful – even though they often are based on absurd, impossible situations – is that they can root out prejudice that has no real-life occasion to show itself. This is probably the major reason that so many vegans don’t like them.

One of the presumptions of “the argument from marginal cases” is that most people think it’s unethical to discriminate based on cognitive ability, and so treating other animals worse than we treat severely mentally impaired humans can only be due to speciesism. Putting aside that there is more to our favored treatment of cognitively impaired humans than species membership per se, there’s also the possibility that many people actually do care less about severely mentally impaired people, but that there is almost never a reason for them to admit this.

Most people never meet an adult human whose cognitive abilities are on par with those of a squirrel, and since cannibalism repulses the majority of us and humans are inefficient sources of energy anyway, almost nobody feels the loss if we do not raise cognitively impaired humans for food. Perhaps scientific studies could benefit from using cognitively impaired humans instead of animals to do initial tests of a drug, but it’s unclear how much that would actually help since all medicines that might reach the market go through voluntary human trials already.

Just as there are plenty of racists who never admit their racist beliefs because there is no advantage for them to do so in modern societies that largely discourage overt displays of race-based prejudice (notice that it’s often people ranting drunkenly who get in trouble for hate speech), discrimination based upon cognitive ability is often hidden because there’s just no reason for people to say that we should withhold rights from humans who will never be smarter than a pig, since granting those rights isn’t that big a sacrifice. But when there is such a sacrifice involved, the interests of the mentally impaired often get overruled. Consider a recent case involving a young girl who was refused a kidney implant because she was mentally impaired. From Janice D’Arcy’s article:

I also asked Arthur Caplan, the head of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania (which is affiliated with the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia), about the ethical framework involved in these decisions [over allocations of organ transplants].

He walked me through all the reasons doctors may decide to deny a child the opportunity to receive an organ, including medical issues, quality of life considerations and life expectancy.

He said that doctors might debate the issue when a child is in a vegetative state or if the child is institutionalized — a situation that increases chances for life-threatening infections after transplants and where medications cannot be as effectively monitored. But, he said, when a child is not institutionalized and is being cared for by parents, those issues do not exist.

Magnus said that teens with intellectual disabilities who are cared for by parents are actually more likely to follow medication protocols than typical teens who might rebel.

Of all the considerations Caplan said are ethically valid, intellectual abilities alone were not among them. Though that has not led to a reliable ethical standard.

“I do know many centers take it into account when they are putting a value judgment to quality of life,” Caplan said. But, “in my opinion, that’s bias.”

It would be frowned upon to have an abortion because your baby was going to be female, but few people would question why someone might want to abort a severely mentally impaired fetus. In fact, many would encourage it.

Nevertheless, we claim that we don’t discriminate based upon cognitive ability because we can claim that, since our actions – not using severely mentally impaired humans as resources – imply that we treat all humans the same. Similarly, vegans claim not to discriminate based upon species membership because weaning themselves off their desire to consume animal products looks like what anti-speciesism might look like. (Then again, an anti-speciesist might also eat animals of every species, including their own.) Why should vegans admit to being speciesists if they don’t have to?

Not that this helps them, since there’s still the lingering charge of cognitive bias.

The confusion between cognitivism and speciesism arises because — “marginal cases” aside — differing cognitive abilities track reliably along species line. You cannot honestly say, “The smartest man in the world is obviously smarter than the most intelligent woman” or vice versa, but it’s not merely stereotyping to say, “The smartest human is smarter than the most intelligent pig.”

It’s not surprising that vegans and vegetarians try to get us to be more empathetic toward animals by showing us they’re not as dumb as we think.

According to Skinny Bitch, by Rory Freedman and Kim Barnouin:

Animals are intelligent, emotional, social creatures. Researches at Bristol University in Britain discovered that cows actually nurture friendships and bear grudges. One study showed cows displaying excitement while solving intellectual challenges.

Chickens are as smart as mammals, including some primates, claims animal behaviorist Dr. Chris Evans of Macquarie University in Australia. They are apt pupils and can learn by watching the mistakes of others. One researcher conducted a study that demonstrated chickens’ ability to use switches and levers to change the temperature of their surroundings. A PBS documentary revealed chickens’ love for television and music.

Pigs can play video games! They’ve been labelled as more intelligent than dogs and three-year-old humans. They too can indicate their temperature preferences. (74–75).

According to Joshua Katcher at The Discerning Brute:

Pigeons are commonly seen as dumb pests. People call them “rats with wings”. But according to a new study, these birds are much more intelligent than we may think. Their brains have the ability to use facial recognition in the same way that we humans do…

And on pages 64–66 of Eating Animals, Jonathan Safran Foer says pigs are smart enough to open the latches of gates, play video games, have favorite toys, come when called and have a documented language “of sorts.” Of fish, Foer raves about their nest building skills, their monogamous relationships, tool use and ability to cooperatively hunt with other species. They are “Machiavellian,” have long-term memory, can spread information across generations and have cultural traditions. As for chickens, Foer also quotes an animal physiologist who says they are as intelligent as some mammals and even primates, and discovers that they have memories that are “written down according to some sort of chronological sequence that becomes a unique autobiography,” and can also pass on information, deceive one another and delay satisfaction for bigger rewards.

Funny that what many humans consider vices -– deceit, Machiavellian behavior, playing video games and hunting with other species –- become virtues when other animals do them because it shows how much they resemble us.

Of course the major animal philosophers are savvy enough to reject the animal intelligence approach, each saying that their own definition of sentience is enough to qualify for consideration of interests. Even though Regan and Singer still both say that cognitive ability has a bearing on quality of life (and thus how much harm a death is to a given being), Francione seemingly refuses to accept even this caveat. In his entry “A Note on Humanlike Intelligence and Moral Value,” Francione argues against the animal intelligence outreach strategy, correctly pointing out that the smarts game is one that other animals cannot win. Who cares that pigs can play video games when we already have plenty of humans who can do that without needing a treat after every right move?

Francione writes that humans attaching moral importance to intelligence would be like a bird seeing moral significance in the ability to fly, and says that “subjective awareness” is the only relevant factor in whether a being’s interests should be considered. This would seem to make Francione both anti-speciesist and anti-cognitivist, but despite often treating choices between humans and animals as Sophie’s Choice-esque impossible decisions, Francione can’t quite stomach the radical equality that true anti-speciesism requires. As quoted above, Francione admits that he doesn’t really know what the subjective awareness of other animals is like and how valuable the lives of other animals are to them, and so would tend to favor humans in an emergency. Also in Introduction to Animal Rights, Francione says:

What about the situation in which we have no choice but to eat an animal or starve? Assume that Simon is stranded on a remote, snow-covered mountain after a plane crash. He is starving and there is neither a reasonable hope of rescue nor any vegetables available. When a rabbit happens by, Simon is confronted with the choice of killing the rabbit or starving. Just as we would be inclined to excuse Simon if, under these extreme circumstances, he killed and ate a human—which has in fact happened more than once—his killing the rabbit would also be excusable and completely consistent with the animal rights position.

Francione again strikes the pose of an anti-speciesist/anti-cognitivist by saying it would be equally excusable for Simon to kill a human for survival as it would be for him to kill a rabbit, but as I pointed out in “The Survival Exemption: Great for Vegans Stranded on an Island… Horrible for Veganism,” the two examples Francione cites of humans killing other humans for survival don’t parallel his Simon on the mountain with the rabbit because the human cases are both lifeboat scenarios in which the choice was between some people dying and everyone dying. With Simon vs. the rabbit, it’s either Simon survives or the rabbit survives, and Francione does not explain why he thinks it should be Simon.

If this has nothing to do with Simon’s superior intelligence (since Francione argues that it’s self-serving for humans to see intelligence as morally important), all that’s left is either an appeal to might makes right or a belief that anyone who is on the verge of death can take whatever they need from someone else in order to save themselves, including their lives. If Simon can kill a rabbit or a human wandering by simply because Simon is starving – even though the rabbit or other human are at no risk of harm otherwise – this excuses all manner of moral non-sequiturs such as forced organ donations, even if the person being forced to give up their insides to a sick person is perfectly healthy. Such a rule would lead to a healthy-organ hot potato as doctors would have to keep switching organs between the forced donor and sick recipient, since as soon as they take the healthy guts from the forced donor and put them in the sick person, the original donor would now be the one most in need of organs, so they would have to go back, and then come out again, etc.

I doubt that Francione would defend such an awkward and invasive obligation, and he certainly wouldn’t claim to believe in might making right, which means that he obfuscates his true feelings about why humans should come before other animals in certain situations, so it’s impossible to say if he’s a speciesist or a cognitivist. Nevertheless, it certainly does not seem that he is as prejudice-free as he claims.

It’s smart of Francione to try to dodge this issue and avoid saying that human life has more value by virtue of greater cognitive abilities. As Speciesist Vegan points out in the comments of one of his entries, it’s embarrassingly convenient how the “morally relevant” features that supposedly anti-speciesist vegans credit for adding extra value to certain lives are only held by humans:

WHO decides what is and isn’t a morally relevant feature? If humans decide that humans just happen to have more morally relevant features, on average, than essentially all other animals, what does this say about us? What does it say about our (im)partiality? Your example of the chimp and the baby born with extremely severe mental impairments only proves this: that in order for the scales to be tipped in favor of the non-human, the human basically has to be really, really messed up i.e. they need to lack some sort of ability or capacity that we normally think of as being uniquely human. Can you give a situation in which a normal human deserves less moral consideration than a normal animal? If so, what qualities or attributes justify this? Don’t you find it interesting that in the vast majority of cases, humans deserve more moral consideration? That’s just a coincidence, though, right? Wow, lucky for Singer (and you), because otherwise, he would sound like a psychotic misanthrope!

Only humans can appreciate certain high-level concepts such as existential dread and the inevitability of death, and only humans are capable of complex communication, deep connections with others, “future orientation,” ethics and creating the illusion of meaning. Luckily, these happen to be the things that matter, and it’s not speciesist to say so! As Speciesist Vegan points out in a different comment, vegans favoring humans over animals and calling it non-speciesist by labeling the traits only humans have as “morally relevant” is like saying, “I didn’t save the baby instead of the dog because it’s human. I saved it because it has an opposable thumb.”

Thus anti-speciesism becomes the most convoluted, self-serving and seemingly self-contradictory of all anti-prejudice doctrines, all to hide the fact that in rejecting one form of discrimination – that based on species classification – vegans more often than not accept another.

The cognitivism or speciesism trap is certainly one vegans would avoid if they could. After all, vegans are saying that because of cognitive differences, animal lives matter less than human lives. Most vegans say that difference in life value only justifies killing animals in emergency situations, but that’s just how they personally choose to weigh human interests against other animal interests. Once you declare that animals don’t care as much about their lives for whatever reasons, and so that gives us the upper hand, there is little to no ideological leap between “tear down the forests so we can plant crops and build cities because we like having a reliable food supply and civilization” and “let’s eat meat because we like it.”

This is why vegans feel the desperate need to bust out “the argument from marginal cases” every chance they get. The problem is, if they already want to say that cognitive differences actually are morally significant, all the amc does is try to get meat eaters to agree with vegans that saving an “orphaned an-encephalitic human infant whose existence is a secret” over a chimpanzee would be speciesist. They might as well whip us with a limp strip of kombu.

But what else can vegans do? Abolishing both cognitivism and speciesism would lead to consequences too radical for even for the most hardcore animal supporters to accept because it would demand true equality between the species and a selflessness that would — if consistently applied — lead to voluntary human extinction.

So most people could be labelled either speciesists or cognitivists (the latter perhaps only to hide that they are the former). The challenge for cognitivists is that despite so many vegans attaching moral significance to cognitive ability and arguing that human life has more value because of its richness, there is no proof of this other than cocky, human-biased assertions such as “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied.”

I’d love to believe that, but this appears to be nothing but wishful conjecture. Where’s the proof? Is such proof even possible? As I argued in “Why the Top Priority of Vegans Should be Human Extinction, Not Veganism,” the additional richness of human life includes plenty of added suffering, and it’s quite possible that life becomes worse the more complicated a being you are.

What Tom Regan leaves out of his calculation that human life has more value than animal life because humans have more avenues for satisfaction is that more often than not, these avenues are gridlocked. David Benatar skilfully argues in “Better Never to Have Been” that a desire you don’t have is as good as a desire satisfied. And he’s not alone:

Old age, Seneca argues, has its benefits: ‘Let us cherish and love old age; for it is full of pleasure if one knows how to use it.’ Indeed, he claims that the most delightful time of life is ‘when it is on the downward slope, but has not yet reached the abrupt decline.’ He adds that even the time of ‘abrupt decline’ has pleasures of its own. Most significantly, as one loses the ability to experience certain pleasures, one loses the desire to experience them: “How comforting it is,” he says, “to have tired out one’s appetites, and to have done with them!” …

As we age…our feelings of lust and the state of distraction that accompanies them diminish. Some would argue that this is a bad thing, that it is yet another example of one of the pleasures of youth that is lost to us. But the Greek dramatist Sophocles offered another viewpoint. When he had grown old and someone asked whether, despite his years, he could still make love to a woman, he replied, “I am very glad to have escaped from this, like a slave who has escaped from a mad and cruel master.” (A Guide to the Good Life by William B. Irvine, 192 – 193)

Rather than seeing our complex natures and rich lives as an advantage, the Stoics and Epicureans saw this as a sort of curse that we needed to overcome – something other animals need not worry about because their limited desires and expectations come naturally to them. Dogs may not be able to appreciate refined, heady conversation, but then they also don’t suffer the inane banter that generally dominates instead. Fewer opportunities for satisfaction means fewer opportunities for dissatisfaction, and dissatisfaction is arguably the more common state.

In The Consolations of Philosophy, Alain de Botton quotes philosopher Michel de Montaigne:

Dare we conclude that the benefit of reason (which we praise so highly and on account of which we esteem ourselves to be lords and masters of all creation) was placed in us for our torment? What use is knowledge if, for its sake, we lose the calm and repose which we should enjoy without it…? … We have been allotted inconstancy, hesitation, doubt, pain, superstition, worries about what will happen (even after we are dead), ambition, greed, jealousy, envy, unruly, insane and untameable appetites, war, lies, disloyalty, backbiting and curiosity. We take pride in our fair, discursive reason and our capacity to judge and to know, but we have bought them at a price which is strangely excessive. (The Consolations of Philosophy by Alain de Botton, 120 – 121, quoting The Complete Essays by Michel de Montaigne, 1.14.57 & 11.12.541)

It’s hard to say for sure, but there is at least a strong case that it’s the simpler beings who have it good, because they have fewer needs to satisfy and are prone to fewer anxieties and disappointments. It’s even possible that the placid and unconscious life of a plant, which is likely no experience at all, would be preferable to the experience of a wild animal who is always battling to survive. If philosophers like David Benatar and Arthur Schopenhauer are right and life is more pain and hassle than it’s worth, maybe the priority should be on killing the sentient beings before the non-sentient, since the non-sentient state of existence is as close as life can get to the peaceful serenity of nirvana.

The reality is that we don’t know how attached to life other animals are, and so it’s nothing but self-serving speculation to say that other animals don’t get as much out of life as we do. Veganism, then, does not crush the last remaining prejudice. At best veganism — as practiced now — crushes the second to last one. But even if cognitivism could be destroyed too, odds are a new prejudice would materialize that “objectively” put humans above other animals. That’s because human domination is not about species discrimination or even cognitive discrimination. In an upcoming entry, I’ll elaborate.

Do Animals Have Inherent Value? (abridged)

Fri, 20 Jan 2012 14:55:45 +0000

Angus Taylor’s Animals & Ethics: An Overview of the Philosophical Debate delivers on its title’s promise: it summarizes the philosophical debate over animals, often phrasing points more clearly than the philosophers did themselves. One of the key figures in this debate is Tom Regan, author of The Case for Animal Rights, and Taylor applauds him for his main contribution to the animal rights debate, “inherent value”:

The key concept in Regan’s philosophy is inherent value. Inherent value is a quality that Regan attributes to every creature that (to put it briefly for the moment) has a life that matters to it. To say that a being has inherent value is to say that it has a value that is independent of any use that it may have for others. Inherent value, then is to be contrasted with instrumental value. To have inherent value, in Regan’s view, is to have the fundamental right never to be treated merely as an instrument, or means, for others. …

The kind of autonomy that Regan says many animals possess is preference autonomy. To have preference autonomy, as he defines it, is to have preferences and the ability to initiate action with a view to satisfying them. In Regan’s view, preference autonomy is the key to having a life that matters to oneself, to being what he calls the subject-of-a-life. Those who are subjects-of-a-life are those who ‘have beliefs and desires; perception, memory, and a sense of the future, including their own future; an emotional life together with feelings of pleasure and pain; preference- and welfare-interests; the ability to initiate action in pursuit of their desires and goals; a psychophysical identity over time; and an individual welfare in the sense that their experiential life fares well or ill for them, logically independently of their being the object of anyone else’s interests (Regan 2004a, p.243). Regan believes that normal mammalian animals of at least a year in age meet this criterion and thus have inherent value and hence moral rights. Birds are probably subjects-of-a-life, and some other creatures may be too (Regan 2003). …

Now, asks Regan, what is it that accounts for our ascription of inherent value to someone, regardless of whether that individual is a genius or a moron, regardless of whether that individual is a morally responsible agent? What relevant similarity can we point to among individuals who have inherent value? Regan answers that what plausibly accounts for our ascription of inherent value to them is the fact that the individuals in question have lives that matter to them, that fare well or ill for them, independently of their usefulness for others…

Further, in Regan’s opinion, this inherent value that we ascribe to persons depends neither on the quality of their experiences nor on whether they are saints or sinners. All who have inherent value have it equally, he says, and it does not matter whether someone is Mother Teresa or an unscrupulous used-car salesperson. (67 – 70)

Taylor does a good job of summing it up, but I thought I’d better consult the original. At the beginning of Chapter 7 of The Case for Animal Rights, Regan unveils his core concept, using slightly more obscure terminology than Taylor:

The inherent value of individual moral agents is to be understood as being conceptually distinct from the intrinsic value that attaches to the experiences they have (e.g., their pleasures or preference satisfactions), as not being reducible to values of this latter kind, and as being incommensurate with these values. To say that inherent value is not reducible to the intrinsic values of an individual’s experiences means that we cannot determine the inherent value of individual moral agents by totaling the intrinsic values of their experiences. Those who have a more pleasant or happier life do not therefore have greater inherent value than those whose lives are less pleasant or happy. Nor do those who have more “cultivated” preferences (say, for arts and letters) therefore have greater inherent value.

To say that the inherent value of individual moral agents is incommensurate with the intrinsic value of their (or anyone else’s) experiences means that the two kinds of value are not comparable and cannot be exchanged one for the other. Like proverbial apples and oranges, the two kinds of value do not fall within the same scale of comparison. One cannot ask, How much intrinsic value is the inherent value of this individual worth—how much is it equal to? The inherent value of any given moral agent isn’t equal to any sum of intrinsic values, neither the intrinsic value of that individual’s experiences nor the total of the intrinsic value of the experiences of all other moral agents. To view moral agents as having inherent value is thus to view them as something different from, and something more than, mere receptacles of what has intrinsic value. They have value in their own right, a value that is distinct from, not reducible to, and incommensurate with the values of those experiences which, as receptacles, they have or undergo. …

Two options present themselves concerning the possession by moral agents of inherent value. First, moral agents might be viewed as having this value to varying degrees, so that some may have more of it than others. Second, moral agents might be viewed as having this value equally. The latter view is rationally preferable. If moral agents are viewed as having inherent value to varying degrees, then there would have to be some basis for determining how much inherent value any given moral agent has. Theoretically, the basis could be claimed to be anything—such as wealth or belonging to the “right” race or sex. … All moral agents are equal in inherent value, if moral agents have inherent value. (235 – 237)

Before I get to my own quibbles with Regan’s fantasy, I want to quote a comment that Joel Marks made on Tom Regan’s blog, since I think it deftly gets at the main problem with inherent value (that it doesn’t really exist):

Tom Regan’s argument has always been the rock on which a thoroughgoing animal liberation movement could be built. I certainly embraced it wholeheartedly … until a few years ago, when I suddenly realized that the notion of inherent value did not jibe with my otherwise materialist worldview. The so-called Argument to the Best Explanation of the world as we know it simply does not have room for any such “animal.” There are quarks and gluons and maybe even trees and rabbits and human beings and beliefs and desires, but it does not seem plausible to the scientific-minded to suppose that there are also inherent values (among many other mythological beasts).

What there are are subjective values, and also, let us grant, valuers — the “subjects” of those values. A distinction that is often lost on folks who discuss these things is between inherent value and intrinsic value. The latter is quite subjective and contingent; it is distinguished only from instrumental or “extrinsic” value. For example, you value your cat extrinsically if you like her for ridding your house of mice; but you value your cat intrinsically if you simply find her lovable and wonderful and wish only her good “for her own sake.”

Inherent value is quite different from either of these. And Regan certainly recognizes this in Chapter 7 of his book. But it leaves me wondering, now that I have taken a skeptical turn regarding objective value, just what basis Regan thinks inherent value has. It is a distinct concept, yes. But is it instantiated in reality? If so, how? …

Without some spelled-out basis for fitting inherent value into the universe we accept on nonmoral grounds, where is that rock for us to stand on when we affirm the truth of animal rights (in a non-derivative and merely utilitarian sense)?

I think Marks is correct that “inherent value” is a supernatural concept that Regan does not (nor could ever) properly defend. For something to have value, there must be someone valuing it. Otherwise, what the hell are we talking about? What is an inherent value that is independent of any valuator making a value judgment upon something?

The only way I can make sense of a concept such as “inherent value” is to interpret it as “self-valuation” – an individual’s assessment of their own worth – but Regan insists that this isn’t it. (“Those who have a more pleasant or happier life do not therefore have greater inherent value than those whose lives are less pleasant or happy.”) I don’t see how this can be logically supported.

Regan says it is subjects-of-a-life who have inherent value. And he also says that what distinguishes subjects-of-a-life from other living creatures is that we are aware of our lives and value them. The reason subjects-of-a-life have value even when no one else cares about us is that we care about ourselves. Self-valuing beings provide their own guaranteed worth. (In contrast, since non-sentient things cannot value themselves, there must be someone else valuing them if they are to be worth anything.) And if the reason we subjects-of-a-life have inherent value is that we are aware of our own lives and value them, how can Regan then say that this value that appears only in beings who value their own lives is independent of how we personally value our own lives (“Those who have a more pleasant or happier life do not therefore have greater inherent value than those whose lives are less pleasant or happy.”)? If inherent value only comes about through consciousness, how can the quality of that conscious experience not affect the quality of that inherent value?

I can see why Regan goes this route. Otherwise, suffering and suicidal people would have little to no inherent value, no matter how beloved they were (sorry Kurt), and deluded, conceited, self-important pricks would have the most inherent value, even if everyone hated them. Arrogant idiots and psychopaths would be due more respect than depressed, world-saving geniuses.

But just because that seems like a sad state of affairs doesn’t mean that Regan’s answer makes sense. If self-valuation is not germane to inherent value, a life characterized by near-constant pain from birth to death has the same inherent value as a life characterized primarily by pleasure and joy. The person enduring ceaseless, excruciating suffering who never wants to leave bed is no doubt less pleased with her own life than is her neighbor who experiences mostly happiness and races to the shower every morning, yet Regan says these self-assessments cannot contradict that their lives are equally inherently valuable.

So let’s imagine a pre-existence, as philosophers are wont to do. And let’s say the pre-born get some say in the lives they are going to assume on Earth, but there is fierce competition and the pre-born have to squabble over the lives that are most in demand. Wouldn’t they all be fighting to secure the more pleasurable future lives for themselves? And wouldn’t they all shy away from the lives of mostly agony, boredom, gloom and defeat? If there were money in the pre-existence, wouldn’t the richest pre-born buy the most desirable future lives? And if so, wouldn’t it seem that the lives of agony have less value, and the lives of ease and pleasantness have more value?

Since Regan says inherent value doesn’t have to do with self-valuation or the assessment of outsiders, this inevitably raises a question that Regan never answers: where does inherent value come from if it’s not dependent on a valuator? If I don’t value myself, and no one else values me, how do I have value?

By the power of Regan’s wishful thinking, it would seem:

To view certain individuals (e.g., moral agents) as having equal inherent value is a postulate—that is, a theoretical assumption. As befits any theoretical assumption, however, it is not one made without reason. On the contrary, it is an assumption that vies with alternative theories about the value of moral agents, in particular the views that they lack value in their own right and are only receptacles of experiences that are valuable in themselves (the utilitarian view) or that they have value in their own right but a kind of value that varies from individual to individual, depending upon the possession of favored virtues (the perfectionist view).

And there are reasons for accepting [the equal inherent value] postulate. To postulate that moral agents have equal inherent value provides a theoretical basis for avoiding the wildly inegalitarian implications of perfectionist theories, on the one hand, and, on the other, the counterintuitive implications of all forms of act utilitarianism (e.g., that secret killings that optimize the aggregate consequences for all affected by the outcome are justified). (247)

In other words, Regan doesn’t like what happens if we don’t accept inherent value, so let’s all believe in inherent value even though it doesn’t appear to have any basis in fact.

Many people are not opposed to believing a myth if it makes their lives better, so inherent value could be defensible if it worked in that regard, but Regan seems to have overlooked that accepting a sourceless valuation on our heads that is independent of even what we think of ourselves leads to some strange results.

For instance, even if your life were horrible and no one loved you and you wished for nothing more than to be dead, suicide would be wrong because it would violate your own inherent value, that mysterious value which is inextricable from yourself and out of your own control and everyone else’s. In fact, it would be just as bad to self-murder as it would be to murder someone who loved her life and was loved by many people, since you both have this same inextricable value. Inherent value traps us in a secular version of the religious view that suicide is immoral because even if we don’t value our lives, God does, and so killing ourselves is an affront to God and a harm to his creation. Except it makes even less sense here, because at least in the religious version we know where this value is coming from.

If Regan explicitly discusses suicide in the book, I missed that part, but he does talk about euthanasia in an earlier chapter; unfortunately, he appears to have written this section before the concept of inherent value occurred to him, because he comes out in favor of euthanasia in certain conditions, seemingly unaware of its obvious conflict with his ideal of equal inherent value no matter what anyone thinks of a sentient life, including the one living it. If inherent value exists whether or not anyone values a given life, there can never be a justification to intentionally end any life that could otherwise persist—not even your own miserable one.

It’s not just suicide that is on par with murder if we all have equal inherent value no matter what. Another unusual development is that killing someone in self-defense or hunting an animal for survival are both as bad as premeditated, cold-blooded murder. Like with suicide, Regan doesn’t come right out and say this — in fact, he says self-defense can be justified in certain instances — but the implication is hard to miss:

Though this is not the occasion to work out the full implications, it is worth noting in passing that the rights view could not sanction any form of punishment that failed to treat the convicted criminal with that respect to which he or she is due as one who possesses inherent value. For no one can gain or lose this value by anything that person does or fails to do. (290-291)

If you don’t lose your inherent value by being an aggressor with murderous intent, then no matter who dies in a fight to the death –- the one who started it or the one acting in self-defense -– either survivor is equally guilty of snuffing out someone with inherent value. And since animals don’t lose their inherent value just because you’re on the verge of starvation, eating one would be an instrumental use of animals (and thus wrong), even if you were about to die.

In an earlier version of this entry, I questioned the consistency of Regan’s “lifeboat scenario,” in which he argues that human lives have more value than other animal lives, but at the same time have equal inherent value. Equal inherent value, it turns out, has nothing to do with lives being equally worthy, but rather with equality of respect. We have to give due respect to beings for the sort of lives they have, and in the case of animals, this means sometimes treating their lives as less precious because they have simpler, less rich experiences.

I still don’t think that works for Regan because it leaves the value of animal lives and the respect due to them open to subjective interpretation; if you are willing to acknowledge a hierarchy in life value, there’s nothing — aside from the argument from marginal cases — to prevent us from saying that we can respect animals and yet also eat them. For instance, you could say that because animal lives are so basic, all it takes to respect them is to raise them humanely and attempt to kill them painlessly. Since their lives are not as valuable as ours, we are under no obligation to treat their lives as we do human lives.

But I took this section out because the lifeboat scenario has been attacked so often that it’s hard to say anything new about it, and it’s what everyone focuses on, even though there are plenty of other problems with inherent value. I do still want to quote the lifeboat scenario anyway, but for another reason. Here is Regan:

There are five survivors: four normal adults and a dog. The boat has room enough only for four. Someone must go or else all will perish. Who should it be? Our initial belief is: the dog. Can the rights view illuminate and justify this prereflective intuition? The preceding discussion of prevention cases shows how it can. All on board have equal inherent value and an equal prima facie right not to be harmed. Now, the harm that death is, is a function of the opportunities for satisfaction it forecloses, and no reasonable person would deny that the death of any of the four humans would be a greater prima facie loss, and thus a greater prima facie harm, than would be true in the case of the dog. Death for the dog, in short, though a harm, is not comparable to the harm that death would be for any of the humans. To throw any one of the humans overboard, to face certain death, would be to make that individual worse off (i.e., would cause that individual a greater harm) than the harm that would be done to the dog if the animal were thrown overboard. (324)

All I want to say about this now is that since Regan claims that death is a harm because it forecloses all opportunities — and so we should not intentionally kill anyone except in an emergency — anything we do that forecloses even some opportunities should be considered an inexcusable harm, as it is a kind of partial death. Inherent value, then, would ban the spaying and neutering of companion animals, since that forecloses the opportunities these animals have for the satisfaction of sex. And euthanasia and suicide are on the cutting room floor again because even if a life is awful on the whole, it still has an opportunity for at least one or two satisfactions, and death would foreclose the opportunity to experience those meager joys.

An even greater problem comes from Regan’s implication that in a choice between something with inherent value and something with instrumental value, the one with merely instrumental value must always be sacrificed. Since plants are not subjects-of-a-life and have only instrumental value (we like to eat them), equality of respect means plants get none. Therefore, we should never sacrifice an animal for a plant. Accidental and “unintentional but foreseen” killing of animals for agriculture might not upset Regan too much, but intentionally killing rodents, birds or deer to protect crops could not be allowed if we accepted Regan’s views. Even though the crops we plant make our lives possible by giving us sustenance, they still only function instrumentally — unlike all the animals that we now have to let devour our cherished food supply.

And yet, to make this even more non-sensical and confusing, Regan doesn’t discount the possibility that non-sentient life may have inherent value!:

It may be that there are individuals, or possibly collections of individuals, that, though they are not subjects of a life in the sense explained, nevertheless have inherent value—have, that is, a kind of value that is conceptually distinct from, is not reducible to, and is incommensurate with such values as pleasure or preference satisfaction. The issues here are extremely complicated. As I have argued elsewhere, the very possibility of developing a genuine ethic of the environment, as distinct from an ethic for its use, turns on the possibility of making the case that natural objects, though they do not meet the subject-of-a-life criterion, can nonetheless have inherent value. Attempts to show that this is conceptually absurd are inconclusive at best, while attempts to show that postulating inherent value in natural objects or collections of such objects, though intelligible, is unnecessary, suffer from a similar fate. Nevertheless, it is extraordinarily difficult to give an intelligent account of inherent value in this connection. …

Those who would work out a genuine ethic of the environment in terms of the inherent value of natural objects (trees, rivers, rocks, etc.) or of collections of such objects are not logically debarred from undertaking the task by anything said or implied in these pages, since the subject-of-a-life criterion is set forth as a sufficient, not as a necessary, condition of making the attribution of inherent value intelligible and non-arbitrary. While no one is denied the possibility of working out such an ethic, however, those who aspire to do it certainly have their work cut out for them. (245 – 246)

I am amazed that Regan left this issue unresolved. Adherents of his philosophy don’t eat animals because they believe them to have inherent value by virtue of being born subjects-of-a-life, and here’s Regan saying that plants may have inherent value too, despite not being subjects-of-a-life. Dear lord, what are vegans supposed to eat?! True, Regan mentions “trees, rivers, rocks, etc.” and doesn’t say anything about soybeans and earns of corn possibly having inherent value, but if frickin’ rocks might deserve equal respect, who knows? It’s not like we get to choose what has inherent value, right Regan?

Regan is skeptical that anyone could reveal inherent value in non-SOALs, but all it would take is a minor tweak of his own theory. He says that all beings deserve equal respect if they care about their own lives. A more lax (but no less plausible) way to put this is that all beings deserve respect if they have a survival instinct, which is a sort of caring about one’s life, even if an unconscious one. Plants have a survival instinct (or Wille zum Leben), despite not being aware of their own lives, so they could have inherent value too.

What a mess it would be if inherent value actually existed! It’s kind of nice to know that it’s all just a figment of Regan’s imagination.

The (Mostly Anecdotal) Evidence for a Vegan Diet

Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:24:00 +0000

The (Mostly Anecdotal) Evidence for a Vegan Diet:

Many ex-vegans and ex-vegetarians quit for health reasons, but animal agriculture abolitionist James McWilliams doubts their credibility in his post “The Evidence for a Vegan Diet,” saying:

Perhaps inspired by Lierre Kieth’s The Vegetarian Myth, a book that chronicles the author’s losing battle with a plant-based diet, bloggers have clogged foodie networks with angst-ridden accounts of fatigue, sickness, hair loss, anxiety, diminished sex drive, and mental breakdown after quitting animal products. The problem with these accounts, as far as I can tell, is that those who made the vegan leap (and I praise them for doing it) did so without doing due diligence on the details of intelligent veganism. Someone can live on potato chips, pot, and cherry soda and call himself a vegan. Many recidivists have evidently tried to do just that.

McWilliams then goes on to imply that if only all vegans ate at restaurants like the vegan macrobiotic spot Casa de Luz in Austin, the above issues would never happen:

For me, the most persuasive evidence supporting a healthy vegan diet is anecdotal. The vegans who frequent Casa de Luz, my breakfast (and often lunch) destination, are paragons of good health. Many of them are significantly older than I am — in their 50s, 60s, and 70s — but they rock on with glowing intensity, looking much younger (in some cases by 20 years) than they are. Every now and then a local vegan hero will drop in — John Mackey (founder of Whole Foods), Rip Esselstyn (pioneer of the Engine 2 diet), a noted musician who will remain unnamed — and we’ll gawk in admiration. The everyday reality, though, is that a dozen or so ordinary people with whom I eat have done extraordinary things as a direct result of intelligent veganism. They’ve conquered obesity, chronic disease, depression, and a host of food-related disorders by exclusively eating an exciting diversity of plants. If there’s one lesson I’ve learned by eating with seasoned vegans it is this: the diet empowers.

Dude, I used to work at Casa de Luz. I volunteered there off and on for a couple of years before I finally got a job there, which I kept for about a year; I quit to leave Austin for New York, where I quickly got a job at the quasi-macrobiotic vegan restaurant Angelica Kitchen. It’s all about who you know: one of the managers at Angelica was the daughter of a manager at Casa de Luz. I worked there for about a year too, and it was only six months after my Angelica run that I quit veganism because of angst-riddenness, fatigue, sickness and brain fog. I still had some Angelica Kitchen hijiki in my freezer when I started loading up on salmon and eggs. And look at the blog I write now! Are you sure that telling vegans to eat at Casa de Luz is a good idea, McWilliams?

McWilliams makes scientific claims for veganism to bolster his anecdotes, but fails to cite sources for his claims that:

a low-fat vegan diet can substantially mitigate the impacts of type 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and Parkinson’s disease. Veganism reduces the risk of colon cancer. … Veganism is more effective at combating obesity than other prescribed diets, such as that promoted by the National Cholesterol Education Program.

He also quotes vegan activist Dr. Michael Greger saying, “A plant-based diet is like a one-stop shop against chronic diseases.” But what about these vegans, Dr. Greger?!

Admittedly, when I reference vegan health issues, I fail to cite studies about brain fog in long-term vegans, but I don’t try to make grand health claims about veganism on this blog (…anymore). The the only direct claims I’d make about health and veganism now are that: some nutrients are harder or impossible to get on a vegan diet without supplementation (I’m including “non-essential” nutrients because some bodies are better at manufacturing them than others), a more varied diet has good potential to be healthier than a less varied diet and veganism is a less varied diet (but of course it depends on what constitutes the added variety in the diet and on the person), and many people quit veganism after feeling horrible and then feel better once they start eating animal products again.

Anyway, after referencing a little science, McWilliams then re-emphasizes, “I could continue in this scientific vein, but again, it’s the stories of personal transformation that make the biggest impression.”

Though there are vegan success stories, as McWilliams says, there are plenty of vegan failure stories too, and not all of these ex-vegans subsisted on potato chips and pot. In fact, vegan RDs Jack Norris and Ginny Messina have suggested that it’s ironically the most health-obsessed vegans who often end up failing the most, because they restrict too much — such as raw foodists and the clientele at Casa de Luz, many of whom are terrified of nightshade vegetables and refined soy products.

Here’s an anecdote for you, McWilliams: Michio Kushi, founder of the macrobiotic Kushi Institute, got colon cancer at 81. He fortunately survived, but his wife died of cervical cancer at 78. And unless it’s changed since I left, they sell Kushi’s books at Casa de Luz, including The Cancer Prevention Diet and The Macrobiotic Approach to Cancer.

McWilliams is right that many new vegans experience health improvements. This isn’t surprising, since veganism inspires many people to switch from a junky mainstream diet to a fruit- and vegetable-heavy one, which cuts out a lot of harmful foods. The problem, many ex-vegans theorize, is that veganism often swings the pendulum too far in the other direction — from excess to deficiency. Which means that early improvements are no proof that everyone benefits from being vegan for life.

So if you want to go after the ex-vegans, McWilliams, you’ll need to do better than suggesting that all failed vegans were non-supplementing, chip-addicted potheads who skipped too many Casa de Luz Guatemalan nights.

(Thanks for the tip, Stella)

Why Veganism Should Move Beyond "No Animal Products Ever"

Sun, 15 Jan 2012 15:58:00 +0000

Jonathan Safran Foer’s Eating Animals opens with the sentence “Americans choose to eat less than .25% of the known edible food on the planet.” That sounds like it’s supposed to be a criticism, but then for the next 266 pages, Foer proceeds to badger Americans into restricting their diets even more than that.

No wonder so many vegans like that book! Vegans sometimes portray themselves as rebels subverting the mainstream, upending SAD-ist notions of “tradition, convenience, habit and taste,” and yet what veganism usually comes down to is piling on new taboos.

The early vegan pioneers deserve credit for pointing out the fatal paradox in lacto-ovo vegetarianism – simply avoiding meat doesn’t address the issues that vegetarians actually want to address – but then they just took the vegetarian idea and added even more restrictions to it, defining veganism as:

A way of living which excludes all forms of exploitation of, and cruelty to, the animal kingdom, and includes a reverence for life. It applies to the practice of living on the products of the plant kingdom to the exclusion of flesh, fish, fowl, eggs, honey, animal milk and its derivatives, and encourages the use of alternatives for all commodities derived wholly or in part from animals.

If the first official vegans had been less hasty to spell out the dictates of their philosophy and had clearly defined the sentiment of veganism while leaving the application open to interpretation, maybe veganism wouldn’t be as commonly mired in dogmatism as it is now. Seven decades after “Vegan” exploded into the world, everyone’s first exposure to it is still, “Vegans don’t eat or wear animal products,” which presumes a robust line between animal and vegetable that isn’t actually there and makes it sound like veganism is a set of restrictions in search of a motive.

If vegans want to convince us that it’s ethical to eat plants and unethical to eat animals, they need a coherent reason for this. So vegans settled on sentience. And yet when people want to eat non-sentient animals and say it’s okay by vegan ethics, the vegan majority gets upset. Christopher Cox outraged a ton of vegans with his “Consider the Oyster” manifesto that held up non-sentient oysters as a veganism-compatible animal food. Well, vegans… if oysters aren’t sentient, what is the problem?

To the more repressed and heterodox vegans, there is something unseemly about experimenting with animal products, even if those animals don’t care whether or not they are eaten. Veganism should be about accepting your lot and eating your veggies, not looking for delicious exceptions! These killjoys are prone to saying that vegans shouldn’t eat non-sentient animals because all animals deserve “the benefit of the doubt” in case they might magically be sentient through some non-central-nervous-system means that science doesn’t yet understand. On top of that, it’s unbecoming of vegans to hungrily scour the lands and seas for animals who don’t have feelings so they can gobble them up. Part of being vegan is representing that “animals are not ours to eat,” say these dreary nags, and slurping oysters supposedly blurs that message. But then, if non-sentient animals are not “ours to eat,” neither are the photosynthesizing bounties of the earth, and we should all starve as punishment for being born in a world we can never own.

I say it’s the exception-seekers who do the most for veganism. If vegans want to spread their lifestyle far and wide, they’d be wise to think, “How can we achieve our goals while making the fewest demands possible?” Not, as now: “Let’s overshoot on restrictions and err on the side of self-punishment, just in case.”

Humans like to achieve the maximum possible gain through the smallest possible effort. How have vegans failed to notice this? Every time you put up an additional hurdle, you shrink the crowd willing to follow you. Why else would there be far more lacto-ovo vegetarians than vegans even though veganism makes marginally more sense?

This doesn’t mean that blindly smashing rules and regulations is guaranteed to draw a cheering crowd. You still need hindrances to create meaning, but going overboard doesn’t help anything. Just maintain the minimum required to satisfy your core point. Imagine if veganism could somehow allow cheese. That would destroy the most clichéd objection to it! Of course, there’s no way to make cheese without animals – unless you count tapioca flour and canola oil shreds – but vegans can eat cheese without violating the vegan idea: any cheese about to be in the garbage will do. And let’s not forget new human mothers with weaning babies and milk to spare.

Either veganism is about sentience and complicity, or it’s a baseless division between plant and animal products. Since a lifestyle grounded on an unexplained “just because” aversion to animals is about as philosophically intriguing as a low-oxalate diet, I have to assume that veganism is concerned with sentience, exploitation and logical consistency rather than just the shape of a food’s cells.

Which means vegans get to eat some animal products! Here are the ones I can think of:

* Any animal products that are in the trash or on their way there.

* Road kill.

* Insects.

* Bivalves (oysters, clams, mussels and scallops).

* Jellyfish and most other aquatic invertebrates, except for cephalopods.

* Human dairy products.

* Human placenta.

* Humans in irreversible comas.

Forget what the Vegan Society tells you. If veganism is to make any sense whatsoever, the above foods are vegan.

Now it’s true that researchers haven’t settled the issue of whether or not insects have feelings or first-person experiences. That doesn’t matter, however, if veganism cares about logical consistency. Vegans simply cannot believe that insects are sentient, because if they do that, they have to abandon sentience as the standard dividing ethical from unethical foods. That’s because, as a practical matter, any philosophy that respects the interests of insects cannot work.

Vegans buy plants that are laced with anti-insect poison and which are often pollinated by bees who are shipped there without their consent and are in many cases gassed after their uncompensated exploitation. Saying that it’s wrong to eat honey but okay to eat the fruits and nuts that exploited bees labored to grow is a bit like saying it’s ethically fine to buy the products of slave labor so long as you don’t steal the sandwiches from the slaves’ lunchboxes. Vegans better hope insects aren’t sentient, because if they are, the number of rights violations contained in a single jar of almond butter blows away the comparatively paltry ethical transgressions in even the most succulent cuts of grass-fed beef. “Benefit of the doubt” indeed!

Whether or not vegans neutralize the insect question by proclaiming their non-sentience, there’s still the issue of mammals who are killed (often intentionally) to protect and harvest the crops vegans eat. But vegans can at least try to wash that from their consciences by telling themselves, “Technically I don’t know for sure that animals are being hunted and poisoned for this veggie burger; maybe I got lucky and this all came from farms that have figured out how to peacefully shoo away pest animals.”

That could never work with insects, though. How could you delude yourself that your leafy greens are insect-friendly when you have to remember to wash the anti-insect death powder off them every time you want to toss a salad? Vegans could re-define veganism to mandate organic, pesticide-free produce, but that wouldn’t necessarily free them from reliance on bee slavery, and raises another problem: unless they are buying from a veganic farm (which they aren’t), their organic produce is fertilized with the excrement and bodies of exploited and possibly tortured animals.

Better to accept that insect lives don’t matter and grow your plants with petroleum.

For the bivalve skeptical, Christopher Cox does a good job of defending oyster veganism here. I’d just add that if logical consistency forces vegans to say that insects don’t have interests, then they are definitely free to eat bivalves, most of which are simpler organisms than bugs. Cox tells vegans to restrict their bivalve consumption to elevation-raised oysters because he says digging clams, mussels and scallops out of the ocean floor may cause environmental damage and kill other fish, but since plenty of land-based vegan foods hurt nature and all the animals who get in the way, I don’t see why vegans should limit themselves to only the most ethically bulletproof bivalves.

Octopodes, cuttlefish and the like appear to be an exception, but for the most part, aquatic invertebrates are not sentient in any sense that vegans need to worry about. That includes jellyfish, who are becoming an overpopulated scourge of the seas, and taste kind of like salted nothing, but have a nice texture. Why don’t vegans eat or at least promote the consumption of jellyfish? Jonathan Safran Foer makes a big stink about bycatch in Eating Animals and might lament all the other fish who could accidentally be killed as we chased after the see-through, flavorless, tentacled ones. The problem with this argument is that it means vegans shouldn’t eat plants, since there are unintentional deaths in agriculture. Mammals are the bycatch of the land and some of them even have to be killed on purpose to protect crops. No sentient animals have to be killed purposely to capture mindless jellyfish.

As for all the human-based products, I don’t think it would be wise from a tactical perspective for vegans to spend much time campaigning for a reversal in the cannibalism taboo whilst cruising hospital wards for human vegetables that nobody wants. But I do think that vegans’ silence on the matter of consuming non-sentient humans, and lack of interest in ethically sourced human breast cheese, does illustrate that vegans are not as iconoclastic and anti-tradition as they like to claim. Their aversion to promoting the consumption of insects, aquatic invertebrates, dumpster food and human milk isn’t due just to doctrinal confusion. A big chunk of it comes down to “convenience, habit, tradition and taste,” the four sins that vegans like to say are the only excuses for meat eating.

Vegans might protest that they are working within the situation they’ve inherited, a sorry state where people aren’t open to entomophagy outside of reality game shows, think jellyfish will sting their tongue and gag at the thought of milk made from a human even though that’s all they ate when they really had it good. But vegans are already asking people to forget tradition and give up lots of delicious foods. If they’re going to demand that we reject everything grandma ever cooked for us, why not tell us to add weird new foods to our diets to make up for it? And I don’t just mean previously overlooked grains and greens, nutritional yeast flakes and soy formulations. The novelty of millet wears off quickly, and as good as quinoa is, using it to break up the monotony of your nightly white rice ration is not as interesting a change as growing mealworms in your backyard. Don’t just add new taboos, vegans. Rip some away!

But vegans are just as beholden to cultural conditioning as the rest of us, the main difference being that they want to make us even more queasy than we already are. If there were a vegan revolution, it would be one of the sorriest revolutions in history, led by an army of out-of-step, meek do-gooders chanting “eww, yuckie!” in unison.

If vegans wanted, they could combine their Spartan self-discipline with a fearless embrace of some of the allegedly grossest foods on the planet. They could be among the most compassionate and most hardcore. Unfortunately, vegans would rather direct our attention to the vital wheat gluten powder (which contains insects parts, by the way, but at least you can’t see them).

This is more than a personal failing on the part of individual vegans. It’s a fault with veganism itself. The Vegan Society defined veganism in terms of self-restriction and aversion to animal molecules, and there veganism remains.

You’d think vegans would care more about sentience and animals than anyone, and yet they’re either too afraid or incurious to investigate where sentience and animals don’t overlap and how that could accelerate the spread of veganism. It’s bizarre when vegans are treated as heretics for admitting that they eat non-sentient or dumpstered animal products, when it’s the outraged “no animal products ever” vegans who don’t seem to understand their own ethics.

And then there are the vegans who hear about vegan-appropriate animal products and shrug them off with an indifferent “fine, but gross, I wouldn’t eat that” and never address the subject again. But that’s just damning oysters with faint acknowledgment and does nothing to reconceptualize veganism as an idea based on an actual principle rather than an arbitrary division between categories of food. If vegans really want to save sentient animals, they should be at the forefront of making insects more palatable. The Loving Hut vegan restaurant chain should have an actual seafood menu. Vegans should raise their next generation on peanut butter and jellyfish sandwiches, with human breast milk soft serve ice cream for dessert. They should be petitioning for the green “V” to appear on boxes of frozen New Zealand mussels. And they should be mass-marketing bivalve sausages. Hell, those would actually be good!

But no, they’re still obsessed with soy and dream of the day when scientists will make meat in a lab.

Lab meat is a fine enough idea if it can ever be financially feasible, but why is PETA offering $1,000,000 to the lab geeks who can develop a market-friendly lab-cultured chicken flesh when the oceans are already growing unconscious flesh for free and anybody can raise non-sentient animals in cardboard boxes in their backyards?

Many vegans hate Anthony Bourdain for going around the world, eating the weirdest animals he can find and chastising vegans for rudely turning down the food of other cultures, but what Bourdain is advocating here (amongst selfish hedonism) is adaptability – an admirable trait that vegans tend to utterly lack. Some relatively freewheeling vegans retort, “Okay, so why not just eat animal products that one time a poor Korean farmer offers you a piece of duck in a loving gesture of friendship, and then be vegan for every other meal?” But by the time most vegans find themselves on a farm in Korea without the language skills to adequately explain the tenants of their quasi-religion, they’ve demonized all animal products for so long that the thought of eating any makes them feel ill.

Veganism breeds rigidity – it’s about as maladaptive as it gets. Some vegans like to think that humanity would be forced into animal-free living in the event of a societal or environmental collapse, but how does that make sense? The looming threat of starvation certainly didn’t lead to community soy gardens in Leningrad: first they ate their pets and then they became cannibals. Not that that is a future that most of us want to strive for, but it shows that flexibility can come in handy. And a diet that gets us used to eating insects would satisfy vegan ethics while preparing us for just about anything – unlike a lifestyle that forbids us from eating everything that ever moved.

More aversions may not be what the world needs.

I can see no advantage of veganism outlawing more food than it must. Simplicity and ease of explanation? That could justify an abridged “no animal products ever” speech to confused waiters, but not making it the actual definition of veganism. Some vegans explain their objection to freegan and non-sentient animal products by arguing that inoculating disgust to all animal bits makes you less likely to stray from the truly unvegan ones. But if you really believe in not hurting animals, is it necessary to feel an urge to puke every time you see a pepperoni pizza? And what a waste if that pizza is about to go in the garbage! All these aversions do is make it harder to be vegan. And that makes it harder to recruit.

Despite vegan implications that animal foods are, at best, flavor tabs with no special nutritional benefits, health seems to be the primary reason people quit vegetarianism. Unless you’re including an array of supplements that cover even the animal-based nutrients that are deemed nonessential, it’s inaccurate to say that vegan food provides all the same nutrients as a well-planned omnivorous diet. But it doesn’t have to be. Vegans can’t honestly say that plants give you all the same nutrients as animals, but they could say it’s possible to get all the nutrients you need without buying the products of sentient beings. Why don’t vegans want to be able to say that? Why are supplementation-adverse vegans desperately seeking B12 in seaweed when it actually exists in animal foods that their ethics cannot logically prohibit?

A lot of vegans seem to think that the more they limit their food options, the better people they become. But if their motivating principle is sentience, what’s the ethical benefit of adding rules that have nothing to do with that? Why teach an avoidance of all animal products when allowing some of them would be more consistent, less restrictive, would draw more followers and yet still meet the same ethical goals?

Just because the Vegan Society said so?

The Non-Vegan Pet Loophole

Sat, 24 Dec 2011 21:01:00 +0000

Vegans wanting to extend their ethics to every domain under their control often rear their dogs and cats as little furry meat abstainers. Some call this cruelty to animals (a charge that is sometimes undermined by the accusers’ support of factory farming), but if imposing a vegan diet on someone is a form of cruelty, it’s at least a cruelty that vegans are willing to foist upon themselves. Vegans have good reason to fill their omnivorous dogs and carnivorous cats with animal-free kibble: it’s the only way for them to be relatively consistent with their ethics. It’s vegans feeding their rescue pets carcass who open up a vicious anti-vegan loophole.

“If wild animals get to eat other animals, why can’t humans?” is a stock question that vegans get a lot, and seasoned veggie apologists have their retorts ready. Unless they are obsessed with suffering reduction, most vegans are happy to wash their hands of what animals do to each other when humans aren’t looking. Wild creatures don’t live by complex ethical frameworks, so no ethics are breached when a porpoise eats a fish. As long as humans aren’t involved, what happens in nature stays in nature.

Also relevant, vegans say, is that humans have tamed the land to produce vegetables, fruits and grains, somewhat at our whim, making it possible for us to live without eating meat. Eating meat becomes cruel the exact moment it is possible to survive without it. Wild animals, who lack the intelligence and opposable digits required to plant, harvest and write out ethical screeds, can’t be blamed for eating meat; they have no choice.

But a variation of this question can highlight the culpability of (some) vegans in a scenario that hits closer to home. Something like: “If you don’t have a problem with buying meat for your pets, why do you have a problem with me buying meat for myself?”

With non-vegan pets, it’s not an issue of animals eating animals outside the bounds of human civilization. Dogs and cats may not know how to plant and harvest, but their vegan owners should know how to read labels and look for that green V on pet food labels. Yet vegans –- who are against humans eating animals –- are sometimes complicit in feeding animals to each other. How do they defend this?

It’s no good to say simply that cats are carnivores and dogs are omnivores and that’s why it’s okay to feed them meat. That’s the naturalistic fallacy, a fallacy that vegans call out whenever humans say that they eat meat because they are omnivores. Most vegans know they have to do better than this.

Some vegans might say that it doesn’t make sense to impose vegan beliefs on animals who don’t know what veganism is and can’t reap the psychological rewards of it. Vegan dogs and cats are forced to make the same sacrifice as vegan humans without reaping one of the few selfish benefits that veganism offers – the pleasure of being ethical.

This, however, is the same argument that meat eaters make against vegans raising babies and toddlers without animal parts. And vegans have an easy answer for this: babies are helpless and under our care and any way we decide to raise them will be imposing some kind of belief on them. Vegans may be imposing vegan ethics on their babies, but meat eaters are just as surely imposing their (perhaps unconsciously-accepted) carnist philosophy on their own spawns. To say that humans must be raised on omnivorous diets because humans are categorized as omnivores is a belief, as is the vegan supposition that humans do not need to be raised on omnivorous diets even though they are omnivores.

Vegans who feed their dogs and cats meat are endorsing carnism for their pets (and the other animals who must die for them) rather than veganism.

Besides, vegans who shield their dogs and cats from the temptations of flesh aren’t necessarily imposing ethics on their pets so much as imposing ethics on themselves. The goal of vegan pet owners seems to be less about purity for their pets and more about not undercutting their own veganism. If they purchased meat for their pets, they would be contributing directly to the meat industry, and isn’t the whole point of veganism not to do that?

Vegans who do buy canned meat for their cats or dogs clearly don’t object to directly funding the meat industry per se. Their objection to buying meat, then, has to be based on the kind of product being purchased, or the circumstances of the being for whom the meat is purchased.

It’s unlikely to be the former, because that would mean that vegans with non-vegan pets are okay with anyone buying meat for themselves, as long as it’s the sort of meat you might find marketed to pets: euthanized cats and dogs, organ meats, odd cuts and other spare or unpopular animal bits. When I purchase meat for myself, this is the sort of stuff I tend to buy (excluding the euthanized cats and dogs). Vegans with pets who eat meat either have to say that this is okay, or they need to focus on the differences between humans and their companion animals, and why these make it appropriate for vegans to buy meat for their dogs or cats, but ask humans not to do the same for themselves.

The strongest argument I can think of for vegans with non-vegan pets would go like this: “My understanding is that humans can thrive – and might even be healthier – on a diet with no animal products. If it turned out that this wasn’t true, I would start eating animal products again and wouldn’t begrudge other people doing the same. My understanding is also that cats and maybe dogs do not thrive on a diet with no animal products. If I found out that I was wrong about this, I would feed my pets a vegan diet. For now, I don’t want to risk their health to be consistent with my ideology, so I am feeding them what I believe to be the most suitable diet for them.”

The basic idea is that for humans, meat is an expendable luxury that we only consume for reasons of taste, tradition, habit and convenience, while meat is vital for the health of cats and maybe dogs. The (former) American Dietetic Association says that a vegan diet is appropriate for all stages of the human lifecycle, but neglects to mention how Fido and Patches fare.

What it comes down to for these vegans is that cats and maybe need meat, and humans don’t.

But need meat for what? To be as happy as possible? There are plenty of meat-loving humans who could testify that they need meat to have as good a life as they can possibly have. Many could even say their livelihoods depend on making, serving or eating meat.

To survive? It can’t be this, since vegan food isn’t known to kill dogs and cats on the spot, and many vegan pets have long, apparently healthy lives. True, some eventually develop complications that could be due to a vegan diet and die earlier than they otherwise would have, but even they manage to survive as vegans for a while. So then are vegans who feed meat to their pets saying that their aspiration is to give their pets the diet that makes them live as long as they possibly can? If so, this would mean that any studies indicating that pescetarian humans live longer than vegan humans (or any other study indicating that veganism isn’t the healthiest possible diet) give ethical license for humans to eat at least some animal products.

Anyway, if the goal of vegans with meat-eating pets is to provide the healthiest food they can offer, they’re falling short by giving them canned meats. At least for cats, the healthiest diet seems to be a raw meat diet that includes bones and possibly a supplement.

It could be, then, that these vegans aren’t saying they want to give their pets the healthiest diet conceivable, but that they want to give their pets a reasonably healthy diet, and they think vegan kibble falls short of even that more modest goal. Sounds rational enough, but when vegans feed their dogs or cats meat because they don’t trust supplemented vegan pellets to fully nourish them, they are implying one of two possible failings that could tarnish veganism overall.

One of the possible implications is that there is more to satisfactory nutrition than eating plant products and supplementing for the missing nutrients. Yes, cats cannot last long without taurine, calcium and thiamin, but that’s why vegan cat food is supplemented with them. Why isn’t this good enough?

Surely these vegans don’t want to say that there is some vital aspect to eating meat that can’t be artificially replicated by mixing amino acids and vitamins and minerals in grain pellets. Because if there’s some special attribute about a meat-inclusive diet that a purely vegan diet can never have, that could suggest that having a well-planned vegan diet and taking B12, essential fatty acids, zinc and calcium pills may not be adequate for omnivorous humans.

What these vegans might prefer to say is that humans are omnivores, which means we can digest just about any plant or animal, but cats are obligate carnivores, which means they have to eat only meat. But this is too literal a reading of these taxonomic classifications. Just as this herbivorous deer and cow can eat meat, carnivorous cats can certainly eat plants. Even specialized diabetic dry cat food has cereals in it.

The other possible implication of vegans saying that vegan cat and dog food isn’t good enough is that supplementation is theoretically fine, but nutrition science is too young for us to know everything that must be supplemented to keep vegan pets healthy.

But if we don’t know enough about feline and canine nutrition to supplement everything vegan cats and dogs might be missing, why do vegans think we know enough about human nutrition to expect humans to be vegan and fill the holes with all the right pills?

I suspect that vegans with meat-eating pets would respond to this by re-emphasizing that most humans are just fine on a vegan diet, but veganism may prove ruinous for dogs and especially cats; meat is nothing but a frivolous flavor transmitter for humans and a vital necessity for the most basic well-being for pets, and it is their responsibility not to send their trusting companions to an early grave.

However, this dichotomy overplays how badly many cats and dogs need animal products, and underplays the difficulties of many humans who go animal-free.

In Obligate Carnivore, Jed Gillen argued that vegan cats are sometimes healthier than carnivorous cats because meat-based pet food often contains the poisonous remains of euthanized dogs and cats. And in the article “Can My Cat Be Healthy on a Vegan Diet?”, Armaiti May describes the potential challenges of raising cats as vegans, but thinks it can be done. She suggests monitoring vegan cats’ urine to make sure it stays acidic enough so that the cats don’t develop urinary crystals (though female cats can usually pass these without pain), and recommends plants that can be added to a vegan cat’s diet to lower their urine pH.

Raising a healthy vegan cat sounds like a hassle, but since vegans think convenience is not a good reason for humans to eat meat, it’s hard to see why convenience should be a reason for them to feed their cats meat.

Nevertheless, it’s uncontroversial to say that cats are usually healthier eating animal products than supplemented corn discs, and that putting companion animals on a vegan diet may be risking their health. And given these facts, it’s not unreasonable for vegans to choose to do the most responsible thing for the animals under their care by feeding them other animals.

But this doesn’t get vegans with non-vegan pets entirely off the hook. For one thing, it raises the question of why vegans rescue pets from shelters in the first place, when they know they’ll be sustaining them with the corpses of other animals.

They certainly can’t claim that they are doing so in order to save animal lives. Now, it could make sense for meat-eating speciesists to consider only the heroism of saving a cat when they adopt a rescue, since they don’t put as much value on farm animal lives, so it’s easy for them to overlook that other animals are now going to have to die to sustain the cat who was just about to be put down. But for a vegan who believes that lions and lambs have an equal interest in living, the act of saving a shelter cat whom they plan on feeding meat is a selfish one. They know that other animals will have to die for their own more favored animal, but they save the carnivore anyway.

At least meat-eating humans didn’t ask to be born and grow up to be people who feel they need to eat animal products to maintain a good quality of life. Vegans who save shelter dogs and cats and then feed them meat, on the other hand, are essentially securing the release of an unrepentant serial killer on death row and then agreeing to collaborate with them on future killings. Meat eaters kill for the pleasure of taste and nourishment. Vegans with meat-eating pets kill for the pleasure of having a warm, cuddly carnivore purring at their feet.

It seems like it would be fair to say that humans could just not get a cat and then eat the amount of meat they would have fed the cat. Or — since vegans with meat-eating pets don’t say there is a limit to how many meat-eating pets they are allowed to rescue — couldn’t I get one cat instead of eight cats, and then eat the amount of animals I would have killed for the other seven?

An easy way around this problem would be for vegans to feed their pets only freegan meat. Butchers and fish mongers can often sell or give you scraps of meat that will otherwise be thrown out, such as odd cuts of liver, kidney and heart, fish guts, bones and lamb lungs. Most dogs and cats could be happy and healthy on a well-planned freegan diet (though you would have to be careful not to feed them a diet too rich in organs), and at no additional cost to other animals. Why don’t all vegans with non-vegan pets do this?

I suspect that it’s either convenience (which, again, would be scandalous since vegans disparage humans for eating meat out of convenience), thoughtlessness or queasiness at handling the body parts of other animals.

No matter the reasoning, when vegans feed the bodies of other animals to their cats and dogs without taking freegan precautions, their actions say that the quality of life of the animals under their care is more important than the lives of animals they don’t know.

Which is good news for humans, since each of us is an animal under our own care, and many of us benefit from having animal products in our lives.

The “fuck it, I’m going to do what’s best for my pets,” resolution some vegans must have after overcoming their reservations and deciding to feed their dogs and cats a meat-based diet is not much different than the “fuck it, I’m going to do what’s best for myself” epiphany many ex-vegans have upon deciding to eat meat again.

So why are many vegans giving their dogs and cats better treatment than they expect us to give ourselves?

Dr. Joel Marks on his Amoral Veganism

Tue, 06 Dec 2011 13:56:00 +0000

For some professors and authors, making a career out of philosophy means developing a theory or set of principles that they then elaborate on — and never seriously question — for the rest of their productive lives. Not so for Dr. Joel Marks, professor emeritus of philosophy at the University of New Haven and a Bioethics Center Scholar at Yale University. For instance, you don’t have to travel too far back in the works referenced on his main website to figure out that Marks used to believe in morality.

His 2009 book Ought Implies Kant: A Reply to the Consequentialist Critique took the existence of right and wrong as a given, and argued for a version of Kantian ethics that would extend moral duties to animals and universally obligate humans to follow a vegan diet. Now, however, Marks is putting the finishing touches on a new book titled Ethics Without Morals, suggesting that he changed his mind about a few things in the past two years. What changed is that Marks stopped taking right and wrong as a given. In fact, he had an epiphany and decided they were myths. His “Moral Moments” column at Philosophy Now magazine became “Ethical Episodes,” he took to questioning some key components of animal rights philosophy such as inherent value and announced his new thinking in a New York Times column called “Confessions of an Ex-Moralist.”

But none of this affected how Marks felt about animals. He still wants people to go vegan — it’s just that now he emphasizes that his call for a vegan humanity is based on his own desires and aversions, not innate rules that he deduced by objectively observing the workings of the universe. Since its tendency toward moralizing is the main thing I don’t like about standard vegan proselytizing, I admire Marks’ amoral “desirist” approach (and can’t wait to read his next book), even though I don’t share his desire for everyone to stop eating animal products.

Could you summarize why you don’t believe in morality?

It’s very simple (although devastating to our everyday but unexamined assumptions). The universe as we now understand it consists of such things as spacetime, dark energy, dark matter, gravity, stars and planets, quarks and gluons, beliefs and desires, plus the natural laws that govern all of these things, plus mathematics and logic. Granted we do not yet have a single overarching theory of everything that explains how all of these things fit together perfectly, but there is a certain type of reality that adheres to them that does not adhere to moral values. In other words, it is not to be expected that the final theory will have any place in it for moral good or moral bad or moral right or moral wrong, nor any of their attendant concepts such as moral responsibility and moral desert. Everything that needs explaining can be explained without postulating any of those phenomena.

For example: There is no need to postulate the notion of moral wrongness in order to explain why most human beings believe that torturing babies is morally wrong. All you need is some kind of evolutionary explanation along the lines of: Creatures that thought it was OK to torture babies would (or did!) simply die off because their offspring would be too debilitated to reproduce. But suppose that under certain environmental conditions the only successful reproducers were those who had been “toughened” to the max. Then maybe under those conditions, torturing babies would be the ticket to survival (that is, of the genes that in combination with that environment, motivate the torturing of babies). So there is no “objective” or “absolute” wrongness attaching to the torturing of babies; there is simply the survival, under given conditions, of certain practices and prohibitions, some of which assume the mantle of objectivity or absoluteness in order better to motivate us to carry them out.

Some ex-vegans use amoralism to escape vegan moralizing. For them, the lack of proof of right or wrong is the best argument against giving rights to animals, and doesn’t preclude human rights, since we all selfishly benefit from rules against murder and so on. But you don’t believe in moralism, yet you remain a vegan and would like to convince more people to go vegan. However, there appears to be no human benefit to giving rights to animals, so if there’s no right or wrong, why should we do it?

The main difference between a moralist and an amoralist such as myself is not at all about altruism versus egoism or hedonism. Most of the reasons that a moralist has for treating other animals with caring and respect are also reasons for an amoralist. The only difference is that the moralist treats these things as matters of duty incumbent on both him- or herself and all other human beings. But that is a big difference because of the consequences of having that sort of attitude about one’s own preferences, namely, that it is wrong for anyone not to have them. It leads to a way of interacting among human beings that, I would argue, is contrary to our considered desires. A very good source on this is Ian Hinckfuss’s The Moral Society.

As to our treatment of nonhuman animals, then, I would expect – perhaps I should acknowledge that this is my faith – that once we become fully aware of the nature of other animals as revealed to us through evolutionary theory and ethology, as well as of their actual treatment in animal agriculture (not to mention the clothing industry, animal circuses, biomedical research, etc.), and of the facts of human nutrition and the huge variety of non-animal culinary (and other) options, we will be moved by our natural compassion to adopt a vegan diet.

This was certainly my own story. And it is also another reason for my opposition to moralism. For I had become convinced of the moral wrongness of eating animals long before I became a vegan. But it was only when I had the opportunity (which came about largely by chance) to immerse myself in information about all of the above that I just spontaneously found myself motivated to make the final leap to veganism. So it’s really just cause and effect, I believe.

And that’s why I am also motivated to try to educate as many people as possible about the facts about other animals and how we treat them. The truth shall make the animals free, you might say. My peculiar angle on that project as a philosopher is to help those facts “sink in” for people through logical dialogue and reflection on them.

My main objection to veganism is that it is often preached as a mandate, the so-called “moral baseline.” A lot of vegans who are not particularly moralistic about other issues slip into moralism when it comes to human treatment of other animals, to the point that animal rights outrage sometimes reminds me of fervent, religious anti-abortion activism. Why has veganism become so wrapped up in moralism, is this ultimately bad for animals and is there any hope of extricating veganism from moralism?

One reason, I would surmise, there has been such an emphasis on morality in veganism (or vegetarianism more generally) is that so many people who become vegetarian, probably the vast majority in fact, do so for reasons that have nothing to do with concern about the animals who are being abused and slaughtered for our food, but instead for dietary reasons. Meanwhile, in the minds not only of animal advocates but of just about everyone, being caring and respectful of others is associated with being a good person and doing the morally right thing (and not being so or doing so is morally wrong). Therefore, especially if you want not only to be morally pure yourself but also to help the animals as much as possible by spreading the good word about not exploiting them, it seems incumbent on you to emphasize your moral motives. For if other people assume you are vegetarian or vegan because you are only concerned about your own health or fitness or weight, they may be less likely to become vegetarian themselves if they happen not to care about “dieting” for such reasons. So morality may seem to be the only alternative to (human) health (and possibly environmental) appeals for getting people to stop aiding and abetting cruelty and disrespect to nonhuman animals.

Of course my role as a philosopher would be to disabuse folks of the idea that there is a necessary dependence of caring about and respecting animals (human or otherwise) on being moral. You can have the former without the latter. This is very similar to the equally mistaken notion that without the belief in God, everybody would just go around raping and pillaging and murdering. If anything, I would say, it works the other way: Religion and even morality cause more such behavior than would their absence.

As for what hope there is to turn this around: I haven’t a clue. The human (and animal) condition in general strikes me as hopeless. But my preference would be to rid veganism (and everything else) of its moralism, and my hunch is that doing so could only help the animal cause by removing yet another barrier between animal-consumers and their giving up the habit – that barrier being the defensiveness that inevitably arises from being labeled immoral or bad.

I would expect an amoralist veganism to be relatively understanding of animal users, since it rejects dogma. However, an amoralist can be just as appalled at Nazism as a moralist is, despite refusing to call Nazism objectively wrong. Do you think amoralism would soften the judgment of most moralist vegans, making them generally more accepting of meat eaters, or might it have no discernable effect other than cutting out the “right and wrong,” “immoral and bad” phraseology?

If it were only a matter of using a different terminology, it would not be very interesting or important and hardly worth the effort to “convert” everyone to the amoralist way of speaking. So my belief, or as I put it before, faith, is that changing the way we talk about things we are used to thinking of as moral matters – whether it be meat-eating or genocide – would also change the way we think about them and hence feel about them and ultimately how we behave. Now on the face of it that would seem to count against the switch I favor since who among us would want to lessen the outrage against Hitler and his ilk? And who among us ethical vegans would want to lessen the outrage against the abuse and slaughter of nonhuman animals?

But as I have suggested, the moral outrage against the practices we don’t like really has two quite distinct components: an extreme and universal aversion on the one hand, and a moral judgment on the other. It seems to me pretty clear that we can retain the former while relinquishing the latter. And the point of doing this, I have further maintained, is that it would enable us to be more rational in our attitude toward those with whom we disagree, and perhaps even, as a consequence, more effective in achieving what we desire. We would cease to see the others as evil or evil-doers and instead as people who are for the most part just like ourselves but perhaps with a very different background or in very different circumstances or even with some very different inborn tendencies. Isn’t this likely to inspire in us greater tolerance, greater willingness to give the benefit of the doubt, to negotiate, to compromise, etc.?

Now that may sound rather appealing in the abstract, but a further worry implicit in your question is that this transformation of the moral psyche into an amoral one could lessen our commitment to causes that we are used to deeming of the utmost urgency and importance, like stopping Hitler or bin Laden (if we are not their acolytes!) and ending the exploitation of nonhuman animals (if we are animal advocates). I think my only response can be that in life there are always tradeoffs. So on the one hand the amoralist program would indeed tend to remove a certain ferocity from one’s advocacy, a certain self-assurance and judgmentalism that can give one all sorts of motivational and rhetorical advantages in the struggle against opponents. On the other hand this kind of attitude, besides being based on sheer falsehood (that is, the belief that there is such a thing as objective value in the universe), has well-known tendencies to take people over-the-top in their characterizations of others and what they do, resulting in both figurative and literal overkill. Indeed, Hitler and bin Laden themselves could be prime examples of this phenomenon: moralists to the nth degree.

So which kind of effect is more aversive to our considered opinion: a somewhat lessened, because less fanatical, allegiance to our causes, or the world as it is? I hope this is not just the grass is greener phenomenon, but all I can say is that from my present outlook – surrounded as I and we are by people who are forever berating and slaughtering one another out of moral conviction – the former looks more attractive. Especially when, as I must keep reminding folks, we would still be fully susceptible to appeals to our compassion and allied motivations. When the victims of Hitler cry out to us, when the animals in factory farms cry out to us, there is something quite natural in us that will respond (other things equal). But at the same time we need not vilify those who are responsible for these things. The only rational question is: What is the most effective way to address the situation in keeping with one’s own considered desires? In the case of Hitler this could mean killing him. In the case of factory farms it means, I believe (following Gary Francione), promoting veganism.

I will add one more thing with respect to the plight of other animals at human hands (or mouths). If the animals themselves had the mental and physical means to do so, they might well mount a violent rebellion against humanity. More power to them, I say in the abstract. But given that I am a human being, and even one who is fully committed to so-called abolitionism or animal liberation, my strongest desires are human-centered. And so I have no sympathy for mounting any kind of violent overthrow of the tyrannical human regime. I possess a strong desire to live in a peaceful community with my human neighbors and friends and relatives, the majority of whom eat animals and animal products, and, further, to be on friendly, respectful, even loving terms with them; and to live in a society where major decisions are taken on a democratic basis in an environment of maximal, informed dialogue. So I will cheer for the chimps in the movie theatre as they wrest control of the world from human hands; and I most certainly admire intelligent animal-rescuers and undercover videotapers. But I do not support violence against animal-users, nor their demonization, nor even an attitude of contempt, nor intimidation, vandalism, arson, etc., in the cause of the animals. Fortunately the more extreme acts are rare, and in fact many animal advocates have explicitly ruled them out on moral grounds. But mine is not a moral statement; it’s just how my personal desires pan out in light of reflection on relevant information and experience.

The issue here is not even specific to the human/animal situation, I suspect, but has generally to do with our subjective allegiances. Furthermore, these things need have nothing to do with judgments of “inherent worth,” another item from the moralist’s toolkit. Thus, we all show various preferences to our own children; but does this rest on a belief in the lesser value of other children? Of course not. This is also why I would not consider it necessarily speciesist to refuse to take certain steps on behalf of nonhuman animals that one would take or support as a matter of course on behalf of other human beings. For there need not be a judgment of superior worth of the humans in order to have stronger bonds of commitment to them. As things stand, I believe inherent worth is a myth anyway; but if I believed in it, I would probably attribute equal worth to all sentient beings. This still would not eliminate my having preferences.

I don’t see why amoralism should force anyone into total consequentialism, but does amoralism tend to encourage a more consequentialist attitude, and could this have implications for how an amoralist animal advocate promotes veganism?

For instance, there are subsistence hunters who believe they are responsible for less animal suffering than vegans; they sometimes argue that by hunting wild animals for food (sometimes singling out destructive invasive species for bonus ethical points) rather than purchasing, let’s say, vegan meat replacements, they have less of a harmful impact on wild animal habitats than vegans and are less responsible for the exploitation of factory farmed animals in the form of factory farmed manure that goes to agricultural crops. Someone who believed in right and wrong might focus on intent and say that it’s always wrong to intentionally kill an animal for food outside of extreme hypotheticals, and so fail to see anything positive about the hunting, even if it helps animals overall. In contrast, would an amoralist vegan be more likely to see the potential defensibility of intentional harm in order to avoid greater foreseen (but unintentional) harm?

Basically, are amoralist vegans more likely to be concerned with suffering reduction than “animal rights”, and thus be more likely to think that non-vegan behaviors are sometimes the most preferable?

That is a brilliant question. But I don’t necessarily agree with the implication. I see the point that morality is often preoccupied with motives, so that these motives could lose a great deal of their significance if we were not concerned about their moral quality. But I don’t think that the features of motives that interest the moralist would necessarily be a matter of indifference to an amoralist. Take your example. It is true that an amoralist would not be bothered by any supposed immorality of intentionally killing animals for food when there were vegetarian alternatives available. But what is to prevent someone from “simply” disliking the killing of animals for food when there are other options? Nor do I think this is only a logical point. It strikes me as quite plausible that many people just don’t like to see human beings killing other animals (or any animals, including humans) unless there is a clear and present necessity to do so. And this is so even if, as in your example, the net outcome may be the deaths of still more animals.

In other words, your suggestion seems to presume that human beings are natural utilitarians, or would be in the absence of moral considerations. But I doubt that this is true. I think human responses tend to be nonutilitarian. We love our family and our pets, then our friends, then our country, our religion, and on and on, without regard to how it all plays out for “the greatest good for the greatest number.” Just so when it comes to specific phenomena, such as killing (versus letting die or inadvertently causing death), and so on. The practice of utilitarianism requires focused effort, which is why somebody like Peter Singer has to keep trying to convince everyone to behave in accordance with the results of utilitarian calculations.

The approach I would therefore recommend (and which Singer does employ in fact, along with his arguing) is to try to engage people’s nonmoral and, indeed, nonutilitarian feelings … even if it turns out that this is in the cause of some utilitarian objective. So for instance, to get the ex-moralist animal protectionist to condone hunting under the conditions you describe, you might want to portray (by verbal portrait or photographs or video or cartoon or imaginative novel or theatre or whatever) the suffering and death of wild animals via loss of habitat for vegetable farming versus their relatively quick and less numerous demise by subsistence hunting. This could work. But in the end it’s an appeal to emotion, not a utilitarian argument. I would only comment on behalf of the anti-hunter that such examples may be (for better or worse) relatively rare in the modern world.

Amoralism doesn’t undermine compassion for animals, but does it undermine the specific logical arguments that the major animal rights philosophers make, such as the argument from marginal cases and inherent value? Are either Singer, Francione or Regan at all equipped to argue with those who don’t believe in an objective morality?

Honestly, I don’t think it makes much difference one way or the other. This is because the belief in objective morality does not guarantee that one will subscribe to any particular moral theory. A moralist could be a utilitarian or a deontologist or an egoist or a virtue theorist or a feminist or whatever. From my amoralist point of view, all those theories simply manifest some strongly held desire or “intuition,” which the moralist then – due to the very strength of the desire – wants to impose on everyone as if it were a law of the universe. “Thou shalt” (or “shalt not”) do x in morals as in logic (as opposed to “obeying” a physical law, where one has no choice in the matter).

When I say it makes no or little difference, however, I mean that, without morality, we would still be left with our strong desires that the world be a certain way and that people behave in certain ways. So: a nonmoralist Singer would presumably still desire that the capacity for pain, even absent certain cognitive abilities, determine how we treat other sentient beings; and Regan would still desire that we treat all subjects of a life with a certain type of fundamental respect; and Francione would still desire that everyone refrain from eating any animal products (whenever it is feasible so to do) and from owning animals, because of the detrimental impact such practices and institutions have on nonhuman animals; and so forth. It’s just that their desires would no longer be supported by certain metaphysical underpinnings, such as inherent value or objective good. But such fictions are not necessary, are they? Is not compassion sufficient to motivate the same desires? Do we really suppose that Singer, Regan, and Francione do not care about other animals but only about certain abstract values and Ultimate Reality?

Furthermore, Singer, Regan and Francione will still be able to adduce all of the evidence they are accustomed to do. Singer can still point to the painful procedures employed in animal agriculture; Regan can still point to the psychological lives of other animals; Francione can still point to the counter-productivity of welfarist schemes of using other animals “humanely.” All of these things and more are available to influence the beliefs, feelings and behaviors of animal users.

The only things denied by amorality to Singer, Regan and Francione are these: some presumed objective truth or categorical imperative that requires everyone to leave off using or abusing other animals, and the attribution of wrong-doing or evil to those people who do not leave off doing those things. Neither of these has any basis in reality according to our best theory of the world, it seems to me.

I should also mention that some would argue that morality is not only not necessary to motivate people but it is also not sufficient to motivate people. An excellent article that makes this very point is Maxim Fetissenko’s “Beyond Morality: Developing a new Rhetorical Strategy for the Animal Rights Movement” in the Journal of Animal Ethics (Vol. 1, No. 2, Fall 2011, pages 150-175). (Alas, Fetissenko argues that compassion is not very effective either and suggests instead a focus on self-interested motives such as concern about health and the environment.)

Vegans don’t often talk about illegalizing animal use, perhaps because that idea is too far off to consider seriously (and it would make them look bad), but a lot of vegans do see that as a goal, ideally. Is that, however, not the case for amoralist vegans?

Even people who believe in morality sometimes say “you shouldn’t legislate morality,” usually in reference to rules with a religious taint, since people have conflicting religious beliefs. So if the issue of ethics were openly acknowledged as unsettleable because there is no right or wrong, wouldn’t this encourage a relatively ethics-agnostic governance that wouldn’t want to ban too many behaviors that didn’t violate social stability? And assuming there are always some humans who want to eat meat, wouldn’t that leave out animals from major legal protections?

If animal advocates were undogmatic and recognized that their desires to protect animals were based on subjective feelings - subjective feelings that many humans do not share - would they feel less justified than moralist vegans would in legally overruling the desires of meat-loving, animal-indifferent humans, given that banning animal use can’t be justified for practical reasons like mutual self-interest and keeping order?

This is just another of the infinity of practical questions that one could only have more-or-less educated hunches about. Also, there may not be one-answer-fits-all. As a philosopher I am not professionally in the business of judging things like this, although I often have my personal opinions (but likely based more on desire than knowledge). But I can say that the moralism/amoralism divide is not necessarily the most relevant consideration. As you point out, even moralists can be political libertarians, or selective libertarians. And when they are so, they are as often as not being pragmatic about the most effective way to bring society ‘round to their particular moral ideal. (And recall also that an amoralist could have the same ideal as a moralist, the sole difference being that the amoralist does not believe there is any obligation to achieve or live that ideal but simply desires it to hold sway.) So while your question is a very interesting one, my answer is boring: “It depends.”

But to say something a little more specific: The desirist form of amoralism I have espoused holds that we have desires regarding means as well as ends. Thus, in my own case, while I desire (as an end) that there be no use of nonhuman animals for human purposes, I also desire (as a means) that coercion be minimal. Therefore I would want to avoid legislating the abolition of animal use not only because that might be an inefficient means of achieving that goal but also because I find that means to be intrinsically aversive because coercive. Someone else, however, might find the horror of animal use to be so compelling that any means whatever, even if likely futile, would be desired by that person as a means of eliminating animal use (or, perhaps more correctly to say, as a form of expression of their strong opposition to what they are nevertheless unable to eliminate). So that person and I could end up being opponents regarding means even though we shared the goal of animal liberation.

There seem to be a lot of atheist vegans. One theory for this is that without religion, we don’t have the concept of Dominion to soothe our consciences. Believing in evolution instead of God could make us feel less superior to other animals - though it could also make some of us more prone to use blood-drenched nature as our guide. Some people say that those willing to question religion are more likely to question other traditions, like meat eating. Others say that humans have a need to believe in something, and the atheist who doesn’t have a personified higher power will seek substitute meaning devices, like veganism. Does it seem to you that vegans are often atheist? What’s your take on it?

I am becoming repetitive since mainly what I have to say is that I’m a philosopher and hence not professionally knowledgeable about the religious or irreligious tendencies of vegans as a matter of empirical fact. Like you I can lay out the logical possibilities, and surely there are reasons both for and against veganism being allied with religion (all the more so of course because religion is hardly monolithic). But as it happens I have taken personal note of a certain phenomenon that is relevant to your question, but I put this down as no more than an impression based on my limited experience. I have been struck by the opposite tendency from what you suggest: I see much of veganism as having a religious flavor (and fervor), even among those who make no explicitly religious references. (I here take veganism to be shorthand for animal advocacy or animal liberation, both because I find Gary Francione’s brief persuasive that dietary veganism is the royal road to animal liberation and because I find Lee Hall’s brief persuasive that veganism, conceived broadly as the non-use of animals, is the very expression of the ultimate goal of respect for all animals.)

Now this should not be surprising if my general amoralist critique of morality is correct, namely, that morality even in its secular form is just another form of theism (see for example my “Confessions of an Ex-Moralist”). But the association of veganism with religion is even more specific than that. To take the most obvious example: Who among animal advocates in the West can resist the comparison of animal liberation to the Garden of Eden? The images that the Biblical narrative brings to mind are the very model of the abolitionist goal:

And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

Even the animals are vegan! Indeed, I suspect (even if only generalizing from introspecting my own ideals) that a certain romanticized – and surely false — view of animals in nature derives from the pleasant idyll of the wolf dwelling with the lamb and so forth in Isaiah’s prophecy of the new Eden. Also, I find it quite natural to recoil at the abuse of animals as a violation of their God-given life and preciousness – even though I fancy myself an atheist.

But religion, being a pervasive influence in any culture, will offer us “grounds” for whatever position on anything. It has worked the way it has in my personal journey to veganism due purely to contingent features of my life, no doubt, such as having gone to a Quaker school for 12 years. But religion could function in someone else’s life as the foundation of their carnivorism (“Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you” says God to Noah after the Flood), in which case embracing atheism could become that person’s route to veganism.

In Beyond Morality, Richard Garner argues against morality and then discusses amoral approaches to living that he thinks may lead to more pleasant lives for most people. He cites Stoicism, Epicureanism and aspects of Buddhism as useful philosophies that may reduce suffering by encouraging adherents to temper their desires and not fret about things they cannot control. Has your approach to living changed since you gave up a belief in morality? Did anything arise in morality’s place? And do you find that you are happier in a “post moralist state of mind”?

Garner and I are pretty much twins about this, although I see moralist thinking and attitudes as more pervasive and ingrained than he and hence am perhaps less optimistic about the prospects for an amoral regime. But I am much happier now, indeed. Let me only begin to count the ways. A great weight of “guilt” and second-guessing is falling from my shoulders, slowly but surely. Life is so much simpler, now that, besides figuring out what I most informedly and reflectively and deeply want and how to get it, I need not also try to figure out what is the right (i.e., obligatory or permissible) thing to do (which is not only a difficult task but an impossible one, as thousands of years of inconclusive moral argumentation attest). I also thereby avoid making my own life and other people’s lives unnecessarily more difficult by opposing strong desires with mythical injunctions and prohibitions. I also am lowering the moral chip from off my shoulder; thus, I avoid countless pointless hassles with people. In fact I can now say that I hate no one, and I respect everyone; and I wish everyone well.

When I come up against a person who is doing something that I had hitherto considered wrong, even an outrage, I will now likely react only with some combination of aversion, sadness and puzzlement, but also rational reflection on how to turn the situation around to my liking. So I certainly have not become any kind of quietist. And neither have I become an egoist, a common misconception of the amoralist (or what I call the desirist) position. Although my desires are the only basis for whatever I do, my desires are just as other-directed as any moralist’s – the case in point being my unadulterated desire for the well-being of all nonhuman animals.

So I would recommend the amoralist way of life to anyone and everyone, but it is also not for me to say if everyone else will take to it as I have. For those who reject it, at least if we agree on all relevant factual matters, I would seek to live on tolerant terms to the greatest degree that is compatible with my considered desires regarding both ends and means. But therefore if my contrary desires were strong enough, as in cases where my opponent’s desires adversely affect third parties (such as animals) about whom I care, I might strive to circumvent or even overpower my adversary. I have already spoken about how this plays out (for me) with respect to veganism.

I close my remarks with a friendly request that my interlocutor and readers reconsider any resistance they may still harbor toward veganism. For people who, like myself of yore, are daunted by the apparent difficulty of becoming vegan, I have put together a dedicated Website: www.TheEasyVegan.com. For people who are skeptical about the amoralist approach to veganism (and ethics in general), I recommend the follow-up article I wrote in reply to objections that readers posted to my “Confessions” article (cited above): Atheism, Amorlity and Animals: A Response.

Thank you for this opportunity to reflect further on and share these ideas. I look forward to additional dialogue.