Op-Ed: Going veg doesn't have to be a big deal

Growing up, I was mostly served microwaved chicken nuggets and french fries for dinner. When we had a salad it would consist of iceberg lettuce smothered in ranch dressing. Needless to say, eating vegetables wasn't something that came naturally for me. But today, I find myself craving cabbage and peppers far more than a burger or brat. My transition from omnivore to vegetarian is something that I eased into and I'd like to share how it's something you can easily accomplish as well. Being vegetarian may not be ideal for everyone, but for a number of reasons I believe adopting a veggie based diet is a good idea and doesn't have to be a stressful process.

Baby steps toward a veggie diet

I didn't simply decide one day that I would never eat meat again. Instead I decided, "I'd like to eat less meat". Many people would like to do the same but find it difficult in a culture where eating meat in 2 out of 3 (if not 3 out of 3) meals a day is standard. Meat products are everywhere in restuarants, cafes, and other stores. They're also very cheap because of the production style in factory farms. So it's easy to eat meat in America, some would say a meat diet is easier than a veggie one in current social conditions. However, there are several ways to get started with a vegetarian diet:

• Set realistic goals. You do not have to give up all meat right away. Instead of eating meat everyday, first limit it to every other day, then only once a week, then once every two weeks, until you are accustomed to meals without it at all.
• Try chosing just one type of meat to eliminate at first. Get used to what it's like to avoid that kind of meat and how to substitute it. From there you can move on to another meat and another, until you are meat free. 
• Use meat substitutes. Although "fake meat" can perpetuate mental dependence on meat, it can at least help in the transition until you are more comfortable with meals that don't include the texture of flesh. Of course there are soy products to use but there are other alternative as well like Quorn, so you have several options.

Is a vegetarian diet really healthier than an omnivorous one?

I don't think we can say there aren't any up-sides to eating meat. Meat does offer nutritional value and a significant amount of calroies to sustain life. Many athletes choose meat over carbohydrates/vegetables because in their personal experience that diet acheives results for them. However, as I will highlight more in the next section, you can get the same kinds of nutrition that meat offers but without the negative side effects (high cholesteral, hypertension...animal cruelty). Many seeds, grains, and even fruits can offer you high-density fatty acids, proteins, and minerals that are excellent fuel sources.

How a vegetarian diet has affected me
 
Eliminating meat from my diet makes weight control much easier, has given me more energy, and helped me experience new foods.

Though I maintained a healthy weight while eating omnivorously, it became even easier when those extra calories and fat from meat were eliminated. What is difficult is finding vegetarian options at fast food restaurants or other cheap food vendors. By making "no meat" a rule, it automatically took away my ability to eat at those undesireable places and cuts out fatty processed foods. No matter what I decide to eat from there is usually already an improvement on the average American diet.

During exercise, I find that I have plenty of energy needed to execute vigorous workouts and recuperate from them better. Contrary to popular belief, proteins produce a very small amount of energy (ATP) needed during exercise. Therefore, to power my workouts I rely more upon high-density fats from seeds and oils (along with certain carbohydrates). And though protein is linked to repairing muscles, I have found that I bounce back from heavy workouts more quickly since eliminating animal protein. I believe part of this is due to my vegetarian diet lowering the rates of stress hormones. Cortisol is a stress hormone known to cause sleeping problems, even insomnia. But a diet containing more whole-foods/vegetarian based is linked to lowering this hormone in humans. Therefore, because I sleep better, I allow my body more restfull time to repair itself and have more energy to keep working out.

As I've already mentioned, my upbringing didn't allow for much adventurous eating. So another benefit of going veg is being open to trying a variety of new things. I didn't even know some types of foods existed like quinoa for example. Quinoa is a South American crop grown mostly for its seeds. It's also known as the "super food" because it contains almost everything a person needs to survive within it; this includes protein and fats that are higher-density and therefore better for you than the kinds found in animal flesh. I've also explored the huge realm of vegetables previously unknown to me including a variety of dark greens not normally found in a standard American salad (kale, beet greens. etc.).

Don't let them make you feel badly

When I started telling friends and family that I was trying to go vegetarian, I got a lot of heckling or strange looks. It's almost as if being vegetarian isn't American. After all, the meat and dairy industry is huge for American companies. But who cares what anyone else thinks? It probably says more about their own defensive personality than anything about you because why should they care what you're eating anyway? Yet, on the other hand, I and other vegetarians/vegans do care about what the meat-eaters are eating. So is that a double standard or does being veg have more validity? I know what I would answer (paying someone to torture and kill animals on your behalf is wrong), but that doesn't mean I am objectively right or that there aren't other important arguments to consider. So in the end, dietary choices are up to the individual and you should eat what you believe is right for your life. Try something new and see how it affects your energy, mood , and overall health. No pressure - just adventure.

War as Entertainment

Football Sunday! I day when two opposing sides meet on the grid iron to battle their way to victory. Only one team can win in this all male sport where hitting the opponent as hard as you can is ideal. Each Sunday during the season, a record number of Americans line up in front of their television sets to see who will win the battle. They also tune in to hear statistics, size up the enemy, and even to witness behind the scenes drama. This hugely popular sport is obviously a microcosm for the American obsession with war. However, is it really obsession, or is it that Americans can no longer tell the difference between war and football?

The physical violence is not the only, or most important, connection between American football and war in general. Some of the more simple ones are: team colors, team captains, and team positions. Yet, some other overarching connections make the two appear to go hand in hand: both are multi-million (or multi-billion) dollar industries creating revenue for all types of manufacturers, both have spectators (news coverage), and both are presented with comercials. Military advertisements are even found throughout stadiums and during broadcasts of games. This close correlation affects the average veiwer in many ways.   

War is not a publically moral thing to condone; football, however, does not have that same moral stigma. Therefore, the more that war can resemble a Sunday afternoon football game, the more negativity it sheds. So the news stations cut from footage of war, to the army "coaches" discussing strategy on the field, then cut to comercials, then cut to celebrities performing for troops or giving their opinions on the "game": sounds disturbingly like the Superbowl. I believe this is a specific strategy in keeping the American veiwer from being critical of what they're seeing.

As long as war is entertainment-like, less questions will be asked about it; this is because, normally, things of merely entertainment value have negligible consequences. The public enjoys the entertainment of graphic news coverage wether it's of a running back getting pummeled, or a huge explosion in a convoy of troops. That enjoyment hinges on our ability to detached from the situation and see what's on the screen as entertainment with little consequence. Now, troops getting injured is hardly perceived as different from the running back getting injured. In a busy lifestlye with dozens of beeping and flashing gadgets, and constant streams of movies, music, and sports, who has time to pay close attention to the details anyway? Distract and deploy.

So try turning off the TV. Re-evaluate and re-evolve.

Bullshit? A Rebuttal

Though my last post was focused around genetically engineered seeds, I recently saw something that disturbed me to the point of wanting to refute and discuss this same topic again. The famous magicians Penn & Teller have a TV show called "Bullshit!". On the show they assert their opinion on different controversial matters. Often the show is informative and entertaining. However, their episode on genetically engineered (GE) foods was far below par.

The magicians support the use of GE seeds for one sole reason: it will end world hunger. They use starvation statistics from Africa to back up their point that many people in the world do not get enough to eat. Therefore, they (and many others) believe that if we can increase food production, there will be enough food to feed many, if not all, the hungry mouths around the world. That's where GE seeds come in. GE seeds are made to be able to grow in harsh conditions where soil normally couldn't support growth. GE seeds are also often made to withstand herbicides allowing them to grow freely without weeds and insects hindering them. Ideally, GE seeds have the potential to produce large amounts food.

The first flaw in this episode of "Bullshit!" is when the magicians imply that GE food is a new, up and coming technology. They juxtapose, what they call, "Green Peace assholes" protesting GE companies, with dying kids in Africa; implying that groups like Green Peace are hampering a new technology that could end starvation. Here is what's wrong with that picture: GE seeds are not new, they have been in use for the past two decades. Today, 80% of corn and corn products are from GE seeds as well as over 90% of soy, over 60% of tomatoes, and 70% of general processed foods from soda to soup. Therefore, if GE seed use can end world hunger and a overwhelming majority of our produce is already made GE... shouldn't there have been a dent in world hunger by now, at least a little? The truth is quite the contray. Starvation rates dropped dramtically BEFORE the use of GE seeds from 1970 to 1990. But now that food production has turned to GE seed use, starvation rates have stagnated [1].

A vital mistake the magicians make is assuming that companies who make and distribute GE food actually want to help starving people. They assume people are naturally kind-hearted and as long as there is enough food, no one will starve. That is historically incorrect. The fact is, there has been plenty of food even before GE seeds. But poor, starving people can't pay for corn, tomatoes, etc. Starving people would have to get it for free. Yet, distributing food freely and equaly is "socialism" and simply not profitable for companies. That is how you get half of Americans at obese weight levels while people starve to death in other countries.

The answer to starvation is not to make more and more food because that food is going to go to people who can pay for it and who, frankly, don't even need it anyway. For a male of average height to maintain a weight of over 300 pounds, he would have to eat up to 3,000 calories per day. Knowing that a man of that description (which also describes 30% of Americans) could survive on not even 2,000 calories, he could feed a child every single day on the amount of food he consumes just for himself. The hunger problem is not in amounts of food, it's in distribution of that food - it will go to the highest bidder everytime. GE seeds could be helpful, but only in the hands of people not out for profit.

Since we have just reviewed reasons why GE food is not the answer to ending world hunger, the question becomes, why bother using GE at all? There are documented negative effects of GE seeds including health risks to humans and degradation of soil for future crops. So, again, if it is not helping world hunger and is in fact harmful, what really is "bullshit" here?

Soy's Problem



In the United States, 75 million acres of land are dedicated to Soybean crop. Soy is a $40 billion business in America which is a number that's been increasing steadily every year [1]. With the rise of health conscious dieting, including awareness of the affects of processed food and factory farming, individuals are turning to soy for their protein and dairy supplement needs. Unfortunately, soy may not be as healthy or environmentally friendly as some believe because of a big business takeover of the American seed market.

Nelson Farms grows soybeans as well as wheat and sugar beets on their 8,000 acres [2]. The farm is ran by Roger Nelson and his two sons; they are being sued by the world's largest seed distributor Monsanto. The Nelsons bought Monsanto's Genetically Modified (GM) seeds in the 90s and due to a contractual agreement, must buy seeds from Monsanto every year. This is because in Monsanto's terms farmers are prohibited from saving their own seeds from their crop each year, forcing them to purchase new ones every growing season. Monsanto has accused the Nelson's of "seed saving"; the Nelson's deny the charges.

The problem with Monsanto's terms is not just that farmers must buy new seeds each year, but that Monsanto has eliminated nearly all of its competitors through ruthlessly squeezing smaller distributors. Monsanto has bought out several smaller companies and started many spin-offs from them as well, the little companies can't compete with such a giant and so have no other choice [3]. Another incentive Monsanto has used to corner the market is that their seeds are "Roundup Ready" (RR). Roundup is another product Monsanto manufactures and so they've modified their seeds to be compatible with this particular herbicide; it saves the farmers time and money, theoretically, as well as forces them to rely solely on Monsanto for their farming needs. 95% of all soy and 80% of all corn in the US are from Monsanto GM, RR seeds: a staggering figure.

What does this mean for you and me? It means two things: unjust prices and inferior nutrition.

With so many products being made from soybeans these days and Monsanto controlling 95% of those products, when Monsanto raises its prices virtually every single dinner table in America is affected. And they have raised their prices. Within the last decade, seed costs have doubled [4]. The seed market, and many items on your own personal grocery list, are directly affected by Monsanto's pricing decisions and by hardly anyone or anything else. That is the epitome of a monopoly.

You and your family's nutritional intake is also directly affected by Monsanto's decisions. Genetic modification twists seeds into great money making tools, but also, unfortunately, twists them into pale nutritional comparisons to their natural brothers and sisters. Plants grown from RR seeds have increased numbers of parasitic colonies at their bases and roots and have been found to suffer more from Sudden Death Syndrome than non-RR plants. Robert Kremer conducted this research and in his own words RR seeds, "[alter] the whole soil biology. We are seeing differences in bacteria in plant roots and changes in nutrient availability" [5]. One of Kremer's future studies is to find ways to combat the negative effects of RR seeds which would need to include supplementation of nutrients as foods made from RR seeds do not provide enough for your body.

In laboratories, rats and rabbits that were fed a diet of RR seeds suffered from: liver cell problems, pancreatic problems, unexplained changes in testicular cells, altered metabolism in organs, and offspring dying within a few weeks of birth. One farmer even claims that his animals instinctutally know to avoid foods made from GM seeds when they are given the choice.

How can you avoid non-GM soy? Unfortunately, there is no easy way. Products in grocery stores are not required to indicate whether or not they are genetically modified and, frankly, even if they did, 95% of your choices at the store would be GM foods anyway. Yet, if we could get a labeling system imposed, it may be a great step in the right direction. "If you put a label on genetically engineered food you might as well put a skull and crossbones on it." -Norman Braksick, president of Asgrow Seed Co. Requiring GM labels on food is something Monsanto is terrified of. As outlined by the Organic Consumers Association, a clear indication of the impact of warning labels was established in California in 1986 when voters passed a ballot initiative called Proposition 65, which required consumer products with potential cancer-causing ingredients to bear warning labels. Rather than label their products sold in California (and all over the nation) as likely carcinogenic, most companies reformulated their product ingredients so as to avoid warning labels altogether.

Soy may be a good source of vegetarian protein and have other positive health effects, but that's not necessarily true for the type of soy we're given in American products. Monsanto's grip on farming stifles our opportunity for fair nutrition. Slowly, our personal nutritional choices are being taken away. Encourage your state representatives to initiate a bill requiring GM foods to be labeled. Or if you'd rather stay out of the political arena, you can always seek out alternatives to soy products. Instead of soy milk you can purchase almond or rice milk. Instead of buying "fake meat" made from soy, you can buy meat substitutes made from mushrooms like Quorn. We can fight monopolizing big business, that cares less for our health and more for their profits, one refrigerator at a time.

Animalkind - A Short History of Animal Rights and Activism

Animal rights and activism can be traced centuries into the past. Bear-baiting was first prohibited in England in 1835. Yet even further back than that, some of the first animal rights laws passed were in 1635 when it was made illegal to pull the wool off of sheep or tie plows to the tails of horses. Therefore, the collective social concern for the wellbeing of non-human animals is not a new concept. However, the modern age of animal activism can't be said to have began until the mid 1970s when philosopher Peter Singer published his book, Animal Liberations. Singer based many of his arguments on utilitarianism. In his book, Singer asserts that humans and non-humans alike do not have distinct natural rights but instead have equal consideration of interests. Animal Liberations sparked the interests of many scholars and to this day it stands as the canonical piece of animal rights literature. Since the mid 70s more and more groups and agencies have risen to aid animals against mistreatment.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) was formed in 1980. This group advocates veganism; highlighting that eating meat is only one way in which animals are mistreated. They rally against fur/leather clothing, vivisection, circuses, and other animal abuses. PETA is known for collecting undercover evidence at various animal facilities and filing lawsuits when they find mistreatment. Currently, PETA has a lawsuit open against SeaWorld on behalf of the Orcas that are kept there. What is interesting about this case is how PETA asserts that the 13th Amendment, which abolished slavery, doesn't just apply to humans but to all species. PETA is sometimes called "radical" or even "crazy" for the extreme enthusiasm their members exude toward helping animals. Though everything can be taken too far, calling PETA "crazy" is not a constructive argument against their work and undermines the progress they've made in legitimately relieving animals of harmful situations.

Five years later marked the first annual Great American Meatout organized by Farm Animal Reform Movement. The year being 1985, many Americans didn't even know what a vegan diet was, hence the Meatout ads may have been the first exposure some families had to this idea. Now individuals could consider different options to factory farming which was growing greatly at the time (and still is).

Animal rights really came to the forefront in 1987 after a high school student in California refused to dissect a frog in her science class. She believed that ''animals are just as alive as we are". Though this seems like a small gesture from a child, it made headlines around the nation and spurred a four year lawsuit. The up and coming generation was beginning to view animals differently. They were also starting to question what is justifiable as means to an end in the pursuit of scientific enlightenment.

Here is a short list of animal rights landmarks that followed:

1989: Avon and Revlon stop testing their products on animals [1]; [2].

1993: General Motors stops using live animals in car crash testing. Over 19,000 animals had been killed in crash tests since 1981 [3]; [4].

1997: PETA releases a VIDEO showing animal abuses at Huntingdon Life Sciences. (WARNING: before you click on the link to the video, know that it is very disturbing and could upset some viewers. Then again, hiding from the truth empowers these things to continue.)

2001: Compassion Over Killing stages a documented rescue at a battery hen facility [5].

2002: McDonald's settles a lawsuit for mis-advertising their french fries as vegetarian. (The "natural ingredients" added to enhance flavor include beef extract) [6].

2006: Under the Animal Rights Terrorism Act, the "SHAC 7" are convicted for operating a website that reported on and expressed support for protests against Huntingdon (from the PETA video) and their associates; a blow to animal activism [7].

2007: Horse slaughtering is banned in the United States [8].

RECENT UPDATE- 2011: Horse slaughter ban has been lifted with PETA's support.

Another recent event in the world of animal rights happened this November (2011). The USDA has fined Ringling Bros. circus for mistreatment of animals. Ringling Bros. have agreed to pay $270,000 for violating the Animal Welfare Act on several occasions. In short, the elephants were being chained improperly, forced to work while sick, and abused with "bullhooks". The USDA can fine up to $10,000 per incident. Also, the circus moguls have agreed to instate new training protocol for individuals working with the animals. This is the largest fine in circus history [9].

Animal rights and activism are concepts stemming back through the centuries, but they are evolving concepts struggled with to this very day. From cosmetics, to farming, to fast food, many industries have been affected by new laws triggered by activism. Though there've been great steps forward in obtaining fair and ethical conditions for all animal species, there are still problems as well. Vivisection facilities still exist on many college campuses and the huge consumption of meat in the US has increased the harshness of living conditions for animals being raised for slaughter. To put into perspective of how much we rely on animal products, check out THIS LIST of products made from cows alone. The history of animal rights is expansive and even conjures questions about our own place on this planet and our moral role within the universe.

UPDATE 12.5.11
America's 5th largest egg farm caught for animal abuse by undercover video taken by Mercy for Animals. WATCH HERE.
UPDATE 12.2.11:
I came across this ARTICLE describing the second chimp in space and the malfunctioning equipment that made his journey devastating.

The Reagan Standard

I started working on this post a while ago when the death of bin Laden was fresh news. It's something not on our minds so much now with Occupy Wall Street and what not, but it's never NOT relevent:

What is terrorism and how should the world deal with terrorists? The killing of Osama bin Laden has stirred these questions for some. As an American, I feel I have been given an inaccurate view of terrorism and terrorists. I've seen the celebrations on mainstream media of Americans over-joyed with the death of bin Laden. In fact, his killing has seemed to bring both liberals and conservatives together admitting that either way "he had to go". Yet, I believe something is missing. Though the death of bin Laden is not something to be sad about, I wonder why Americans aren't more angry at their government for operating with such hypocracy.

Terrorism is defined as: systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve ideological or political gain.

In the 1980's, tens of thousands of Nicaraguans were killed by bombings and shootings in, some would say, the worst acts of terrorism the world has seen. This was done is the name of ridding the world of Communism by the Ronald Reagan administration. Reagan stood to gain a lot from terrorizing the people of Nicaragua: namely, the overthrow of a non-allied ruler. Stomping out the Nicaraguan government and supporting the Contras ensured a new ruler who would bend to the will of the US government (sound familiar?). Reagan funded his "war" by illicit arms sales to Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran (and in turn, to the Taliban). All the while, and to this day, Reagan was able to keep the guise of the good guy; he was spreading democracy and "the American way" to less fortunate people (again, sound familiar?).

You may be asking yourself, if what Reagan did was so bad then why hasn't anyone spoken out or tried to do anything about it? The answer is: they did take notice and they did try to do something about it. In 1984 the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled, in the case of The Republic of Nicaragua v. The United States of America, that U.S. support for rebels fighting to overthrow the Sandinista government of Nicaragua violated both "customary international law" and a 1956 Nicaraguan-U.S. friendship treaty. The US was guilty of illegally placing mines in Nicaraguan harbors. The court also ruled that  the U.S. encouraged human rights violations by the Contras. ICJ demanded that the US pay reperations to the Nicaraguan people. However, the Reagan administration simply said it would ignore the ruling because the court has no power to enforce its decision. Seriously. They were seemingly correct and to this day the U.S. government has taken no responsibility for their acts of terrorism. The United Nations established ICJ after WWII to, basically, rule on morality and put a checks and balance system into place so large nations/armies cannot steamroll their way to political gain. The U.S., historically, accepts the court's jurisdiction only on a case-by-case basis (or when it's convenient).

Who are the bad guys and who are the good guys? Apparently, we're afraid to view our own country's actions as terrorism and are willing to let history repeat itself over and over while small, impoverished groups take the blame. In the late '80s a top CIA official, Jonh Stockwell, testified that, at the time, over 6 million people had been killed by American acts of terrorism in covert operations... how many more have been killed since then under the false flag of democracy?