Vegetarianism seen through the skeptical eye

[bokonon]

As to the moral issue, I figure if Christ thought it was okie dokie to eat fish, who am I to argue about it?

Did he eat fish, or merely serve it to his guests? I'm too lazy busy to check.

 

[luchog]

All B-vitamins are present in Beer. That's what the "B" signifies (scientifically). I heard it from this guy up the pub, so it must be true.

Oddly enough, that's not far from fact. It has to be good quality beer, not mass-produced crap, and bottle-conditioned ale with lees is better than chill-filtered lager; but it does have quite decent levels of several B vitamins. Not a noticible amount of B12, unfortunately. So bang goes that excuse for drinking more.

 

[Terry]

That was actually kind of my point, in case you missed it. In places like America, we can shrug off certain foods because we know we can get multivitamins and plenty of fruits and vegetables of a wide variety. In places like India, people might stick to diets of plants and bugs because they have no choice.

Guess what, plenty of vegetarians and vegans are perfectly well aware that it is only the richness of the society they live in that affords them their moral scruples.

 

[luchog]

For example, is there any health benefit to following restrictions?
Or is it just religious claptrap? Does it make any difference at all?

Yes, for the most part.

Meat and dairy foods may not be eaten in the same meal.

This is the only one I haven't been able to sort out; and you've got it wrong anyway. The actual prohibition is against cooking a kid (or calf) it its mother's milk. The reason that all meat/dairy combinations are avoided is that when you don't raise your own meat and milk, particularly with modern factory farming techniques, it's impossible to know for sure that you're avoiding doing so. Technically, it should be perfectly safe to eat meat from one animal with the milk from another; but who wants the hassle? Or the bad image? Best avoid the whole thing. So you don't get a cheeseburger, you can still have a nice big dollop of sour cream with your borscht, so stop kvetching.

Blood may not be consumed.

Blood is not healthy for humans to consume. It's very difficult to digest, and unless it is heavily processed, produces ammonia during the digestion process, and typically causes serious nausea. It contains substantial amounts of iron, and eating too much can cause an overdose. There is very little real nutritional value in it anyway. Although relatively high in some amino acids, it contains negligible amounts of any vitamin or mineral aside from the aforementioned iron; and is extremely high in saturated fat/cholesterol, and sodium. The protein content is a lower bioavailability, and it takes a considerable amount of energy to digest, more than muscle tissue. Remember, also, that one of the most common ways of spreading pathogens (particularly viral pathogens like HIV,or encycsted bacterial pathogens) is through blood.

Blood is a subsistance/starvation food, and alongside the health issues, part of the prohibition against blood, insects, and other starvation foods for the Jews was "image"; that is, demonstrating to the other peoples that G-D takes care good of His people, and doesn't leave them to barely scrape by.

The sciatic nerve may not be eaten.

The brain, spinal cord, and major nerve bundles can contain large concentrations of prions, which are known to cause spongiform encephalopathy. Maybe not a whole lot in one particular source, but prions are cumulative. Flesh can also contain prions, but the concentration is orders of magnitude lower.

Internal fat may not be eaten.

Aside from the unhealthiness of consumption of large amounts of certain types of fat, those types of fatty deposits are also very likely to contain evironmental toxins. Environmental toxins, drugs, and other potentially harmful metabolites are often stored in fat cells.

All foods must be without blemish.

Thus ensuring it is free from diseases and parasites.

And it's all animals must be without blemish. I'm sure they don't quibble about the occasional brown eye in a potato.

 

[robinson]

Yes, for the most part.

Meat and dairy foods may not be eaten in the same meal.

This is the only one I haven't been able to sort out; and you've got it wrong anyway.

Meat (the flesh of birds and mammals) cannot be eaten with dairy.

http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm

If you have a better source, let us know. Every site I looked at says the same thing. I don't know that much about it, I go with Jewish web sites.
It does seem to be from the Oral Torah.

As far as I can tell, blood is prohibited because of woo woo reasons, not health.

The Torah prohibits consumption of blood. Lev. 7:26-27; Lev. 17:10-14. This is the only dietary law that has a reason specified in Torah: we do not eat blood because the life of the animal (literally, the soul of the animal) is contained in the blood. This applies only to the blood of birds and mammals, not to fish blood. Thus, it is necessary to remove all blood from the flesh of kosher animals.

http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm

Blood is the perfect food. Easy to digest, contains every nutrient, and can be used without killing an animal. The Masai do it every day, and mixed with milk, it is their main diet.

Now venous blood might be bad for you, having been depleted of nutrients, and full of waste products, but arterial blood is perfect nutrition.

 

[James Fox]

Nothing better than the unclean things in shells and quality meat cooked to perfection (fast or slow depending on the cut). Getting hard wood flame and smoke involved is always a nice addition.

I’ve always thought that many vegetarians only make that choice for the pleasure they get making sure everyone else in the whole fricken town knows what their eating preferences are, and that they have ascended to a higher plane than the rest of us troglodytes. Then again where I live there are a lot of ascended types.

 

[volatile]

To save me repeating myself in response to some recent posts, let me re-post something I wrote earlier in the thread, because it went rather unnoticed:

I became vegan because I examined diet sceptically.

First, I stopped asking why vegetarians were vegetarian and instead turned the question on myself. The real sceptical question seemed to be "Why did I eat meat?"

I found I couldn't really answer that question, as I had never given my dietary choices any serious thought. They were as ingrained, and as unquestioned, as my earlier, lazy theism was. I had simply never sat down and weighed up the relative benefits of each possible dietary choice, starting from a neutral position. I don't think many people have.

So, that's what I did. I started to list the reasons why I should choose meat eating over vegetarianism. I couldn't think of a single one, other than "Meat tastes good", and that wasn't enough. I'll guide you through my thought process:

1) Health. Is vegetarianism / veganism "healthier" than an omnivourous one? Even if it isn't, it's at least as healthy, according to the ADA. There are lots of studies pointing out the relative health risks of red meat, processed meat and all the rest, but dietary studies are notoriously unreliable, so let's leave that aside and assume that the ADA is right and cutting animal products out of your life is at least not harmful. Of course, you need to eat a balanced diet, but even omnivores don't always achieve this.

2) Environment. "Livestock are responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse-gas emissions as measured in carbon dioxide equivalent, reports the FAO. This includes 9 percent of all CO2 emissions, 37 percent of methane, and 65 percent of nitrous oxide. Altogether, that's more than the emissions caused by transportation." and "70% of all grains grown in the US are fed directly to farm animals, unnecessarily adding enormous levels of pesticides, herbicides, and petrochemical fertilizers to the Earth year after year, and consuming more fresh water than any other human endeavor." (Source). It seems to me that meat consumption is more harmful to the environment than the alternative, plant-based diet. There are plenty of other ways this is borne out, particularly when you consider how wasteful it is to grow food to feed to cows to then eat! See also: over-fishing.

3) Animal suffering. I am not dogmatic or evangelical about this, and I do not believe that a) it is always wrong to kill animals, b) that animals and humans are equivalent or c) that killing animals for food is metaphysically, or morally, wrong. Nevertheless, I believe it is undoubtedly the case that animals do suffer in the production of food. Cows, pigs and chickens all feel pain. I wouldn't kill a cat or a dog or a horse for food, and so I believe that if avoiding animal suffering for other species is possible, it should be pursued wherever possible. This seems to be at least a generally tenable position given laws on animal cruelty etc. If I can live as healthily as I can on a meat based diet, but eliminate unnecessary suffering, then why shouldn't I? In this sense (and in many others), veganism just seems a sensible extension of my broader ethical stance.

4) Convenience. As I said, I am not dogmatic about my veganism, and I am certain that in some cases, having a small-holding and being self-sufficient is a "better" choice. Nevertheless, I buy my food at stores. I do not hunt, or grow my own vegetables. If the soy milk and the regular milk are right next to each other on the shelf, why should I pick the animal milk, given points 1, 2 and 3 above? If the dairy free and the real mayonnaise are right next to each other on the shelf and pretty much indistinguishable from each other, why pick the animal product given 1, 2 and 3 above?

Now, don't get me wrong - I love the taste of meat. It's just that, having considered the relative merits of both diets, I can't justify eating it. I also love driving my car really fast, but I don't because my personal preferences aren't always sufficient to justify potentially harmful behaviour. And in any case, I'm not starving or denying myself anything at all. There are vegan alternative and analogues to pretty much everything these days.

People always ask me why I'm vegan. I always turn it round and ask them why they eat meat, because when I asked myself that question I never had the answer. It's just about thinking about the way you live your life, and why you hold the beliefs you do. In my humble opinion, non-dogmatic veganism is the logical and rational dietary choice; though if anyone can make the case as to why I should eat meat, please do.

Considered comment appreciated.

 

[luchog]

http://www.jewfaq.org/kashrut.htm

If you have a better source, let us know. Every site I looked at says the same thing. I don't know that much about it, I go with Jewish web sites.
It does seem to be from the Oral Torah.

The "Oral Torah" refers to the Mishnah, the Talmud, and the Midrash; a collection of traditions that carry less authority than the Torah, the degree and nature of the authority varying considerably between the sects.

The Torah is the written canon of scripture, what Christians think of as the Old Testament. The Talmud is the commentary on the laws and rules and other bits of the Torah. It represents many generations of debate over minutiae; and it's value is still controversial to a great extent. Karaite Judaism in particular completely rejects the Talmud and Mishnah as authoritative. The original laws in the Torah are much more simple and straightforward.

As far as I can tell, blood is prohibited because of woo woo reasons, not health.

As far as I recall, it is prohibited for reasons of minimizing what is viewed as cruelty. Possibly only symbolically, but symbols are very powerful things. As I said, I don't know that there's any actual health issue. However, I do not view minimizing cruelty as "woo".

The body of Kashrut is expanded well beyond what is noted in the Torah; in far more exhaustive detail, including details and prohibitions not found and not all of it is universally accepted in the Judaic world.

Blood is the perfect food. Easy to digest, contains every nutrient, and can be used without killing an animal. The Masai do it every day, and mixed with milk, it is their main diet.

Now venous blood might be bad for you, having been depleted of nutrients, and full of waste products, but arterial blood is perfect nutrition.

Care to provide a citation for that claim, because all the medical information I have says quite a bit different. And when blood is consumed, the two are pretty much never differentiated. 50% of the blood in the body is venous, and it's typically all drained for consumption. As previously noted, according to the USDA, vitamins and minerals are present only in trace amounts in blood prepared for consumption.

The only significant benefit to eating blood is is the protein content; and that's balanced by several serious drawbacks, as previously noted.

And the primary staple in the Maasai (you spelled it wrong) diet was historically meat, with milk a close second, not blood, which ranked third. Blood was an adjunct, a byproduct of meat production, and it's importance was as much ceremonial as nutritional, as it was typically consumed mixed with milk during special celebrations, or for the sick.

Oh, and since you're completely unaware, the Maasai didn't completely drain the blood from the animal, it was obtained in non-lethal amounts from the jugular vein, not any artery, the vein. It was never present in large enough amounts to be a significant nutritional component of the diet. Milk was far more important.

For modern Maasai, maize (and increasingly other grains) forms the primary staple, with milk the secondary, meat an uncommon addition, and blood consumption is almost non-existent. Agriculture is increasingly replacing traditional herding, and vegetables are becoming a more important part of the diet.

 

[casebro]

Here's a link to what "nutrition data" website says about blood sausage:

http://www.nutritiondata.com/facts-C00001-01c20LL.html

Lots of protein, in an almost perfect balance. Fats too.

Like the rest of the pig, "everything but the squeal", blood was used. To thicken soups, as a pudding, to make the sausage, and excess fed to the pigs.

 

[robinson]

There are dozens of cultures that eat blood, but I find a sidetrack about the nutritional value and safety of eating blood, in a topic about vegetarianism, a bit much to justify going further.

 

[robinson]

To save me repeating myself in response to some recent posts, let me re-post something I wrote earlier in the thread, because it went rather unnoticed:



Considered comment appreciated.

I've been pondering your post. Will respond at length, when time permits.

I was a vegan, or vegetarian, in the past, for 15 years, for health reasons.

 

[madurobob]

Considered comment appreciated.

You've more or less laid out my reasoning for becoming a pseudo-vegetarian over 25 years ago (I still eat some seafood).

I have available to me a huge variety of delicious and healthy food. There is simply no need to consume meat and certainly some downside to doing so.

I have, however, reclassified shrimp and salmon as vegetables in my diet

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

You've more or less laid out my reasoning for becoming a pseudo-vegetarian over 25 years ago (I still eat some seafood).

I have available to me a huge variety of delicious and healthy food. There is simply no need to consume meat and certainly some downside to doing so.

I have, however, reclassified shrimp and salmon as vegetables in my diet

I wonder why so many vegetarians make the exclusion with seafood. I mean, it's still technically animals you're eating, not vegetables. If anything, you should eat seaweed.

But I respect your decision.

(I just might reclassify chicken as vegetables in my diet for that matter, though)

 

[madurobob]

I wonder why so many vegetarians make the exclusion with seafood. I mean, it's still technically animals you're eating, not vegetables. If anything, you should eat seaweed.

Yeah, I know. I make no special claim to moral high ground or logic in my food choices. It just feels right for me. But, I DO eat seaweed.

 

[CapelDodger]

Oddly enough, that's not far from fact. It has to be good quality beer, not mass-produced crap, and bottle-conditioned ale with lees is better than chill-filtered lager; but it does have quite decent levels of several B vitamins. Not a noticible amount of B12, unfortunately. So bang goes that excuse for drinking more.

So you say. Guy-up-the-pub says different. So there's no consensus, is there? M'kay? "B12" means it's the 12th vitamin discovered in Beer. Any fule kno that.

(I brew my own, and I don't use finings, I just let it settle by gravity. It gets kinda crunchy towards the bottom of the barrel, but nobody turns their noses up at it.)

 

[CapelDodger]

Guess what, plenty of vegetarians and vegans are perfectly well aware that it is only the richness of the society they live in that affords them their moral scruples.

If it comes down to me or the rabbit, the rabbit gets it. But that's in extremis, after the cats have run out.

 

[CapelDodger]

To save me repeating myself in response to some recent posts, let me re-post something I wrote earlier in the thread, because it went rather unnoticed:



Considered comment appreciated.

I find your post unproblematic. I'm not vegan myself but I do consider my sources, and I go for quality rather than quantity. I don't feel good about it, but there it is.

 

[volatile]

Yeah, I know. I make no special claim to moral high ground or logic in my food choices. It just feels right for me. But, I DO eat seaweed.

Considering DHA is the hardest nutrient for humans to obtain from vegetable sources, I find this unproblematic! Consider over-fishing, though, and the general damage human consumption has wrought on the oceans...

 

[volatile]

I find your post unproblematic. I'm not vegan myself but I do consider my sources, and I go for quality rather than quantity. I don't feel good about it, but there it is.

That's all good.It's good that you've actually sat down and given your dietary choices some thought and made a conscious decision about what to eat. This is pretty rare these days...

 

[madurobob]

Considering DHA is the hardest nutrient for humans to obtain from vegetable sources, I find this unproblematic! Consider over-fishing, though, and the general damage human consumption has wrought on the oceans...

Yes, over-fishing is a problem. But, a valid solution is farmed seafood. Shrimp and salmon are successfully farmed (albeit with some problems). This, of course, drives some cognitive dissonance with me since one of my objections to beef/chicken/pork is their treatment in industrial farms.

So, why is it OK to have huge industrial salmon farms and not the same for cows? I don't know; it probably isn't. Still, I have a nice salmon filet about once a week. This is why I don't begrudge my friends the occasional hamburger even when they say cruelty to animals is a big issue for them.

I'm still waiting for the Soylent Green.