Re: Re: Response to local vegan article...

[Guest guest]

José Barbosa wrote:

>

> Hi :

>

> You could consider using this. I have taken it from a Course in

> Anthropology, by Haviland (1974):

>

> " After early hominids became fully bipedal and more omnivorous... "

Thanks, .

This reminds me of a paper I read based on the same idea that you posted.

It went on to say that as humans broadened their palate to more nutritious

foods, their brain sized increased, which resulted in their ability to use

tools to break open animal skulls and large bones so they could eat the

fatty brain and marrow tissues. This further enabled the development of a

more complex nervous system.

[Guest guest]

From: Pratick Mukherjee <<I find it difficult to deny the treatment of animals

raised for meat or milk.>>

see article below.... Dedy

______________________________________________________________

Oregon State University scientist questions the moral basis of a vegan diet

(3/5/02)

http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html

CORVALLIS - Why is it right to kill the mouse and not the cow?

This question is central to a study of bioethics that explores the moral

foundation of a strictly vegetarian, so-called vegan diet. The research, by

, a professor of animal science at Oregon State University, adds a

new perspective to a millennia-old debate: Is it right for people to kill

animals in order to feed themselves?

turns that question on its head. How many animals must die, he asks, in

order for people to feed themselves?

To address the question, applies a principle used by moral philosophers to

measure the least amount of harm an action might cause, called the Least Harm

Principle.

's research focuses on the work of Tom Regan, a philosophy professor from

North Carolina State University and founder of the contemporary animal rights

movement. Regan argues that the least harm would be done to animals if people

were to adopt a vegan diet - that is, a diet based only on plants, with no meat,

eggs, or milk products.

What goes unaccounted for in Regan's vegan conclusion, according to , is

the number of animals who are inadvertently killed during crop production and

harvest.

" Vegan diets are not bloodless diets, " said. " Millions of animals die

every year to provide products used in vegan diets. "

presented his research last fall at a meeting of the European Society for

Agriculture and Food Ethics, in Florence, Italy. There he questioned the

conclusions of animal rights proponents and offered alternatives using the Least

Harm Principle. Central to his argument is the unseen mortality that accompanies

the production of row crops and grains, staples of a vegan diet, in agricultural

systems large enough to sustain the human population.

" Over the years that I have been studying animal rights theories, I have never

found anyone who has considered the deaths of - or, the 'harm' to - animals of

the field, " said. " This, it seems to me, is a serious omission. "

Consequently, asks what is the morally relevant difference between the

field mouse and the cow that makes it okay to kill one but not the other so that

humans may eat.

Few studies document the losses of rabbits, mice, pheasants, snakes and other

field animals in planting and harvesting crops. Said one researcher: " Because

most of these animals have been seen as expendable, or not seen at all, few

scientific studies have been done measuring agriculture's effects on their

populations. "

has found evidence that suggests that the unseen losses of field animals

are very high. One study documented that a single operation, mowing alfalfa,

caused a 50 percent reduction in the gray-tailed vole population. Mortality

rates increase with every pass of the tractor to plow, plant, and harvest.

Additions of herbicides and pesticides cause additional harm to animals of the

field.

In contrast, grazing ruminants such as cattle produce food and require fewer

entries into the fields with tractors and other equipment. In grazed pastures,

according to , less wildlife is lost to the mower blades, and more find

stable habitat in untilled fields. And no-till agriculture also helps stabilize

soil and reduce run-off into streams.

" Pasture-forage production, with herbivores harvesting the forage, would be the

ultimate in 'no-till' agriculture, " said.

proposes a ruminant-pasture model of food production, which would replace

all poultry, pig and lamb production with beef and dairy products. According to

his calculations, such a model would result in the deaths of 300 million fewer

animals annually (counting both field animals and cattle) than would a total

vegan model. This difference, according to , is mainly the result of fewer

field animals killed in pasture and forage production than in the growing and

harvest of grain, beans, and corn.

Applying the Least Harm Principle, argues that people may be morally

obliged to consume a diet based on plants and grazing ruminants in order to

cause the least harm to animals.

's work goes beyond the vegan debate to grapple with issues of animal

cloning, genetic engineering, and ethical treatment of production animals.

Through the OSU Agriculture Experiment Station and a regional project on animal

bioethics, is part of a team of biological and social scientists from

throughout the West who are working to integrate ethics and moral reasoning into

the work and study of agriculture.

By Peg Herring, 541-737-9180

SOURCE: , 541-737-1892

[Guest guest]

> From: Pratick Mukherjee <<I find it difficult to deny the treatment of

> animals raised for meat or milk.>>

>

> see article below.... Dedy

> ______________________________________________________________

> Oregon State University scientist questions the moral basis of a vegan

> diet (3/5/02)

> http://eesc.orst.edu/agcomwebfile/news/food/vegan.html

>

>

> CORVALLIS - Why is it right to kill the mouse and not the cow?

Good one, Dedy! Exactly the article I was going to look for.

Pratick, the treatment is less than a century old. War and industry age

replaced most of what respect there was, to what gives us life, with abuses.

Wanita

[Guest guest]

Dedy,

Thanks for the article on animal deaths in the field--this argument

hadn't occured to me and I think it is a powerful one.

[Guest guest]

>While a small minority of us may be able to obtain meat that is raised with

love and

>respect for life, the majority are still stuck with commercially raised meat -

organic or

>otherwise.

Pratick:

Well, as more of us DO get humanely raised animals, it will get

easier for everyone else. Most of the roadblocks are

cultural. It isn't *difficult* to get good meat: it does take

planning, but it's a lot easier than I ever figured. I would have

said, 8 years ago, that it was " impossible " for me to do it.

Now I wonder why I went to so much WORK back then

to buy meat and spent so much money on it. It's just that

it's easier to do what you've always done than to find

a new way to do things.

I agree with the vegans on that point too though: factory

animals aren't humanely treated AND they likely aren't

as healthy to eat either.

Heidi Jean