- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Animal Rights
Is a Vegan Diet Really Animal Free?
Animal Rights Activists and Philosopher, Gary L. Francione recently decried the development of the Happy Meat movement as a significant blow to the animal rights movement (http://www.opposingviews.com/i/why-we-must-reject-the-happy-meat-and-fle...). The Happy Meat Movement says that killing an animal does not violate its rights in itself, only the infliction of suffering would.
The topic raised the question for me, namely, "Is veganism free of killing animals?" My point is that animal rights activists claim that vegan eating is cruelty free because eating plants doesn’t harm animals. Really? Then what about the claims of an article in Frontiers of Ecology and the Environment 1:7(Sept, 2003):367-375 entitled “Mice, Rats, and People: The Bio-Economics of Agricultural Rodent Pests” by Nils Chr Stenseth, Herwig Liers et al. which says “In Asia alone, the rice loss every year caused by rodents could feed about 200 million people.” To be clear, they meant 200 million people could be fed for almost an entire year. Now if you think that Asians don’t know how to kill rats, you are sadly mistaken. The point is that they lose this much food each year even though they do kill rats and mice.
Think again if you believe this rodent problem to be just an Asian problem. Rodents cause significant losses to food production throughout the world. This doesn’t even begin to discuss how other types of animals harm crops, such as birds and ungulates. The fact is farmers do a lot of animal killing in the protection of their crops. So my question for animal rights activists who espouse a vegan lifestyle is simply this? Is the diet still vegan even though the crops have been protected by killing of untold numbers of animals? Or is this yet the next phase of vegan ideology namely certifying crops as no animals purposely killed in the production of these plants? (I will leave aside how many rodents die during the harvest process for now anyway).
Stephen M. Vantassel is author of Dominion over Wildlife? An Environmental-Theology of Human-Wildlife Relations (Wipf and Stock, 2009) and is an expert in wildlife damage management.
You can read more of his work at http://www.stephenvantassel.com or visit his blog at http://eco-theology.blogspot.com/
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
Yet again:
Why are vegans completely incapable of grasping any notion beyond " vegan " vs. "factory farm"?
Ten times more people can't be fed on grains if the cow in question is eating wild grasses, skylar. Are you truly incapable of understanding this notion? Grass fed, naturally-raised animals do not eat grains. Not grains produced for human consumption, not grains produced industrially, not industrial garbage like defatted soy and expired chewing gum. Cows are browsing herbivores. They are not built to eat grain and should not be forced to eat grain. You can't feed "ten times as many people" on the grass forage and brush browsing that naturally-raised cows and goats eat.
If you could set your babbling about "bloodlust" aside for a moment and pay attention to the actual point, here: an ethical, plant-based, omnivorous and locavorous diet saves more animal lives, is better for the planet, is naturally indefinitely sustainable, and doesn't result in the wasteful and wanton slaughter you vegans dismiss as "irrelevant ancillary animal death ". That I eat the few animals I kill is less "bloodlusty" than mowing them down by the hundreds of thousands and leaving them to rot in the fields and silos. If killing an animal is murder , killing it and eating it over the course of the year is far more justifiable murder than plowing hundreds of times as many lives down and dismissing it as "ancillary".
Subscribing to a delusional lie about veganism saving animals or being the best case scenario for the planet isn't noble, skylar. It's sick and sad, sad for anyone sucked into the delusion, sad for all the wildlife mowed down in the path of your "cruelty free" food , and sad for the exploited human labor force that harvests it.
We already have as much grain food as we need as it is. We can get rid of factory farming, rid ourselves of the industrial monoculture system, and live symbiotically with animals for the small amount of animal foods we do need. It's better for the earth, it saves animal lives, and it's better for your health .
Veganism is a comfy lie, but it's still a lie.
veganism is a lie
that doesn't even make sense. i guess these vegan protection laws might be necessary. if one isn't afraid to murder one kind of creature already...
why do all vegans ? why do all blacks ? why do all Jews? dangerous generalizations. judge by the individual if one must judge.
the locavore though has it's heart in the right place, but the example it sets is bad. the next step up from locavore is factory farming, that's essentially the roots of factory farming. locavores taking a few more liberties with the lives of creatures.
local herbivore is ideal, once again.
this life the locavore is claiming to live. i'd like to see it outlined with photos and testimonials.
i still think we will find the local herbivore to be more sustainable and setting a better example.
skyler
*Your Future Health*
(try vegan-- for your health , the health of society , and the health of the planet.)
contact skyler @ superapollo@ufl.edu to learn more and get involved.
www.myspace.com/skylerspektor
...Huh?
Really? Your first arguing tactic is to insinuate that because I'm here arguing in favor of ethical, omnivorous, local diets , that makes me a psychopathic human murderer who might track vegans down and stab them in the face?
I mean, really? Come on, now. If you'd like me to elaborate on this, I will, but I assume you know it's sheer intellectual dishonesty and are just amusing yourself there.
Okay, fair enough that you tell there might be a vegan who can reasonably discuss this issue without resorting to the "factory farm" red herring every other sentence, but so far you're not doing much to support your claim, here, big guy. If you'd like to demonstrate to me that this particular vegan can, in fact, think outside this ideological prison , then I'm all ears. So far you have not made much effort at doing so... in fact you did absolutely nothing but clap your hands over your ears, and chant "neener neener neener, I can't hear you... killing bad".
The skylar though has its heart in the right place, the example it sets is bad. It is no more ethically justifiable to choose to "accidentally" kill a thousand animals than to intentionally choose to kill one. Also, the skylar though it has its heart in the right place, its debate tactics are extremely anemic. The "slippery slope" argument is a very tired logical fallacy. Human animals have been living on locavorous, ethically omnivorous diets all over the world for all of human existence. Factory farming is a recent and clearly terrible experiment in industrializing animal food production, but we still have non-industrialized models found all over the world. We can all agree that the industrial system is terrible and should not be supported in any way. The fallacious "slippery slope" argument does not address the actual position being discussed.
Local herbivore is a nice idea in theory, but not practical in the real industrialized world either in terms of food production or in terms of holistic human nutrition . We cannot produce enough food efficiently in small-scale, low-efficiency grain production to serve the needs of our population, particularly not if we are eating a significantly higher proportion of grains in our diets than we truly need to for good health such as you propose. If we can offset some of the industrial grains we eat with ethically produced animal foods (which, remember, results in a net gain of animal life), then that is an extremely ethical and eco-friendly choice for those of us in the real world who understand that "a dog is a rat is a pig is a boy " is not a position that holds up under even the vaguest scrutiny, outside theoretical fundamentalist ideology and in the light of day.
You might really enjoy the "example" and "ideology" of an herbivorous life, but the reality is that far more animals die to fill your belly than to fill mine.
If you'd like to see what a local, ethical and fully sustaining life looks like, just poke around the internet for modern homesteading websites. There are tons of them out there. I realize your snide little comment was intended to insinuate that everyone who doesn't support veganism must automatically be a lying paid shill factory farm supporter, but... you should understand that with the absence of any useful intelligible discussion, resorting to snide ad hoc-ian commentary doesn't make you appear any more reasonable or grounded in your argument.
Now, would you like to try this again and perhaps make an honest effort at discussing these ideas?
------------------------
If you could set your babbling about "bloodlust" aside for a moment and pay attention to the actual point, here: an ethical, plant-based, omnivorous and locavorous diet saves more animal lives, is better for the planet, is naturally indefinitely sustainable, and doesn't result in the wasteful and wanton slaughter you vegans dismiss as "irrelevant ancillary animal death ". That I eat the few animals I kill is less "bloodlusty" than mowing them down by the hundreds of thousands and leaving them to rot in the fields and silos. If killing an animal is murder , killing it and eating it over the course of the year is far more justifiable murder than plowing hundreds of times as many lives down and dismissing it as "ancillary".
where are the facts
these comments resort to personal attacks to try to win an argument, rather than supporting positions with facts.
the idea of the necessity to kill animals , is not supported with facts.
the benefits of the vegan diet are available, i'll let that research be found individually.
it is indeed a slippery slope from locavore to whereveravore. it seems logically to be the next step indeed.
i'd really like againt to request a displayed example of a locavore lifestyle. really, one cow out in the fields that is eaten for a year?
let's see it. and don't other animals need to be kept off of this land?
we agree factory farming is wrong . and seem to agree that the number of animals killed is a number we want to keep low to null.
basically we need to improve our farming techniques.
skyler
*Your Future Health*
(try vegan-- for your health , the health of society , and the health of the planet.)
contact skyler @ superapollo@ufl.edu to learn more and get involved.
www.myspace.com/skylerspektor
Which comments are personal attacks?
Punkin, you were the one who launched off by insinuating that I'm going to stalk you down and slit your throat because I'm arguing in favor of ethically raised animal products. I never once resorted to such inanity, I only pointed out the fallacious nature of your own ad hoc commentary. This is not "personal attack ", this is reasonable refutation.
The necessity to kill animals *is* a fact. There is no such thing as a consequence-free life at the top of the food chain. This is why even vegans don't claim, between themselves, that vegan food is truly "cruelty free".
You are claiming that the choice lies between " killing animals " and "not killing animals". I am trying to show you, despite your very best efforts to squinch up your eyes and avert your head, that this is not very much not so.
The choice is between "intentional killing" and what you rationalize and excuse by calling "ancillary killing". If the choice to "intentionally kill" a cow feeds my family for a year, where the production, harvesting, storage, and protection of an acre of wheat and "ancillary killing" of a thousand field voles and baby fawns and marsh hawks (not to mention legions of mice and rats) in order to feed your family, the net gain to animal life lies in favor of my choices.
Once again, the "slippery slope" argument is nothing but tired fallacy. It may seem logical to you to imagine there's no fundamental difference between a happy cow living in a natural, wildgrass meadow and a filthy feedlot cow living packed in like sardines, eating industrial refuse and hock-deep in their own shit, but we thinking and feeling humans here in the real world are quite capable of drawing a distinction between the two scenarios. The slippery slope fallacy is no less fallacious now than it was one post ago.
I'm unsure about your repeated request for illustration. Do you honestly not believe that one beef steer is more than enough to provide for an entire family's meat needs for a year? How much meat do you think omnivores eat? Do you honestly believe that even if we include a lamb or two and a few wild rabbits, that this will come anywhere even remotely close to the "ancillary death toll" chalked up in your name?
What do you need to illustrate a naturally self-sustaining locavore lifestyle? Start here: http://www.google.com --type in "modern homesteading" without the quotes and click "enter". Where you say "the benefits are available, do your own research ", I offer exactly the same to you. The information is here, do a little research. Don't refuse to engage and then demand I do your homework for you, skylar.
And no, other animals most definitely do not need to be kept off this land. I see deer in my meadows every morning. Rabbits, snakes, skunks, 'coons, squirrels, critters of all shapes and sizes. I can happily share my part of the Earth with every living thing. It's industrial plant food that needs to be strictly defended from nature. My house cow can live perfectly happily within the scope of our natural ecosystm--there's plenty of room here on my piece of earth for us all.
I'm answering you where I can, but have much work to do away from the indoors today. I am interested in continuing a reasonable discussion if you are truly interested in having one, and want to make some honest effort at exploring the topic outside this ideological box you've walled your mind into.
still
i am listening. i said, let's look for ways to avoid the "ancillary deaths ".
it should be possible. this was said, but the worries were cutting out meat and dairy completely.
if there is a field where this one cow is raised, crops could be grown there. live off of the crops :)
find ways to protect the crops without killing the little woods creatures.
ta-dah! everyone wins! i think it is possible! just try living without dairy and meat, and see how it feels! :)
skyler
*Your Future Health*
(try vegan -- for your health , the health of society , and the health of the planet.)
contact skyler @ superapollo@ufl.edu to learn more and get involved.
www.myspace.com/skylerspektor
Oh, and one last thing...
I want to say on the topic:
A great big huge piece of this puzzle (especially if you live in the US) is petitioning to end the governmental subsidies for industrial corn and soy. The money we pay out to industrial crop farmers to produce corn and soy below actual market production cost is a huge benefit to the industrial animal industry... and to unhealthy, pre-packaged foods. It makes feedlot meat and factory-made foods artificially cheap to produce and we ALL pay for it, both through taxes and through the terrible health of our nation.
If we are to subsidize our farming industry, let's instead subsidize the growing of real food instead of industrial raw materials--whole food grains and small scale, wholesome fruits and veggies to feed a local population.
of course
agriculture needs reform, but these are powerful industry, who simply can tell the government "no"
so until we can tax meat and support local farms -- yes -- that's right -- try vegan ! :- D
skyler
*Your Future Health*
(try vegan-- for your health , the health of society , and the health of the planet.)
contact skyler @ superapollo@ufl.edu to learn more and get involved.
www.myspace.com/skylerspektor
YOU can simply tell the government no.
Through your votes, through contacting your political representatives, through petitioning and lobbying. It only requires you take the time and effort to make your voice heard.
So until collectively make our voices heard, stop eating factory farmed meat and industrially produced grain products. Yes, that's right! Try ethical omnivore!
omg
just ignoring the millions and millions of people who this is too difficult for.
dude, i admitted that it might be cool to eat safe , ethical, and environmentally sound eggs if one has the oppurtunity!
but admit it! peopel don't!
so for them -- vegan is the best solution for health , the environment and society !
skyler
*Your Future Health*
(try vegan-- for your health, the health of society, and the health of the planet.)
contact skyler @ superapollo@ufl.edu to learn more and get involved.
www.myspace.com/skylerspektor
omg
...continuing to rationalize and make excuses for being too lazy or too cheap to seek out ethical and environmentally friendly food !
Admit it! Many or most people do! have the opportunity! Even in urban areas! If they just take a moment to look!
Seek out your local chapter of the Slow Food movement. Visit a farmer's market. Don't just continue abusing our planet because it's cheaper and easier to buy Wheaties.
Ethical vegetarian /omnivore. It's the best solution for health , the environment , and society .
no, no they don't
do the research . and throwing in omnivore is very selfish. no need for killing the animals .
i agreed, ethical vegetarain, carefully planned. and pretty much just eating eggs. because milk, idk, i don't even really know about eggs.
so commercial vegan for the majority of society . or local ethical vegan is possible with B12 supplements .
skyler
*Your Future Health*
(try vegan-- for your health , the health of society, and the health of the planet.)
contact skyler @ superapollo@ufl.edu to learn more and get involved.
www.myspace.com/skylerspektor
Yes, yes they do.
I have done the research . Here, I'll even help you do your homework:
http://www.slowfoodusa.org/index.php /local_chapters/
Chapters in nearly every state, networking options all over the country and in most industrialized parts of the world.
Though you would like to believe that everyone everywhere can live on a strictly vegan or ovo- vegetarian diet , the reality of holistic human nutrition is that this is very simply not the case. Some people can survive on an artificial, factory-manufactured and pharmaceutically-supported diet. Most people cannot. This is one of the many reasons we see a paucity of vegans even among strict vegetarians.
Many or most people can survive on a strict vegetarian diet, but many people cannot. Killing an animal may seem "selfish" to you, but it sure doesn't seem "selfish" in comparison to the entire ecosystem (grasses, flowers, herbs, bugs, snakes, lizards, rats, mice, voles, rabbits, hares, deer, foxes...) destroyed for the sake of your wheaties. You kill more animals eating commercial, monoculture grains than are harmed by ethical consumption of ethically-raised meat ... and before you chime in with "yes but it's better than commercial omnivore" let me stop you and remind you that that's a red herring and a convenient rationalization.
Ethical omnivore is better and it is possible nearly everywhere. It doesn't take much in the way of ethically-raised animal products to satisfy the appetite and nutritional demands of an ethical omnivore. In return, our reliance on commercial grain is extremely small, even where we must still rely on commercial sources for whole grains.
If you can survive in good health on milk and eggs alone --and many, many people can-- then I'm fully supportive. On the flip side of that, if you cannot, and if you seek out ethical, green -pastured animal foods and eat them only as needed to satisfy good health (the same as you would any other nutritionally dense food ), then that is far... far better for your health, the health of society , and the health of the planet than choosing to eat wheaties or pasta because it makes you feel warm and fuzzy... the life of one cow that feeds your family for a year sure beats out the number of lives ended by the production, distribution, and storage of the equivalent ton of wheat.
If you are unsure about the health benefits of green-pastured raw dairy consumption, then I urge you to do a little homework there, too. There's a lot of nasty stuff said about industrialized, pasturized milk... and every bit of it is deserved. Green-fed raw milk is a cow (or goat) of a different color.
Commercial vegan is good for your ideology, but that's about all it's good for. It's true that "factory farmed meat, dairy and egg eaters" are worse, health and environment wise, but since that's not what I'm arguing for, we can set that aside as an irrelevant red herring =).
No excuses. Settling on supporting horrific industrial agribusiness which poison our planet and our food supply with a flippant hand wave and an "oh, it's just not convenient" attitude... well, I've heard that before, but usually it's from standard American diet eaters.
After you take some time to truly practice due diligence in this matter, maybe you will find that you live in the middle of Death Valley, CA and there really aren't any farmers or access to farmers markets in your immediate vicinity... but I doubt it. Even Las Vegas has a Slow Food chapter. You don't need to find an "egg farm", you just need to find someone who sells ethically raised eggs. Some of the egg vendors at my local farmers markets: one is a bee keeper who sells beeswax and honey (and also orchard-raised eggs, because her happy chickens lay more than her family needs). One sells herb starts (and also eggs). One mostly produces blueberries (and also eggs).
You may even find that it just takes making friends with one of the farmers at your local farmer's market, and arranging to purchase eggs from them, if there isn't already an established demand.
My local butcher shop (which I know you certainly won't support ) which only deals with local, truly grass-pastured and humane farmers, carries pasture-raised eggs.
Sometimes you have to do a little more homework than just looking in the phone book for an "egg farm", skylar. But you can do it, I know you can. You're even welcome to let me know if you need help and I will do what I can to help you connect with ethical sources for your food in your area.
Stop supporting Monsanto. They're bad news on every level, and trying to be bad news all over the planet. They have begun contaminating central and South American corn crops with GMO stock already. Again: watch the documentary "The World According to Monsanto" for more information.
Bad news.
no excuses for me
yes i will do the research , but i am limited in my travel. and so are a lot of people, and a lot of people will be able to understand the affects of going vegan first, and then when they become concious going local.
the research on the number of animals killed for a box of wheaties is variable. but i will do more research and get back to this.
for now i think the realness and impact of going vegan for the majority of society is the most practical choice, and a step towards becoming a more empassioned person who may consider going local as well
some pharmaceuticals are bad. but do kids get shots, and vaccines ?
not all is bad. i think a lot is, but not all. maybe the kids could live without it. idk enough about that either. i will do more reserach, but for now the most practical choice in helping society, our health , and the environment is going vegan, and if one is allergic to soy, there is rice.
next step is to try to imrpove those processes and localize our farming.but the local omnivore example too easily creates the slippery slope exampel to commercial ominvore. so the vegan example is more radical and impactful in the short term to get people thinking and to affect change .
skyler
*Your Future Health*
(try vegan-- for your health, the health of society, and the health of the planet.)
contact skyler @ superapollo@ufl.edu to learn more and get involved.
www.myspace.com/skylerspektor
Slippery slope still no good
...at proving your point. You can theorize that humans are too stupid to understand the difference between ethical meat and factory farmed meat, but think of it this way: you're basically saying "don't encourage people to adopt an ethically omnivorous diet because that might encourage some lazy people to support the factory farm industry, which is terrible in ethics and terrible for the environment . Instead, I will encourage people to support the industrial grain industry, which is definitely terrible in ethics and definitely terrible for the environment."
You are worried about a fallacious slippery slope, but I am worried about the reality that you are encouraging people to support GMO crops and industrial monoculture farming to support a very fuzzy ideology. The slippery slope fallacy is no less fallacious now than it was any of the other times you tried to use it.
You say you are worried about encouraging the best behavior because it might lead to bad behavior... so instead you encourage only moderately less bad behavior. That's no solution at all. Vegan may be more "radical" but it's a whole lot like airport security . You put on a good show at doing something effective, but in the end you're causing more problems than you solve for the sake of a public display of "responsibility". It doesn't matter if someone is allergic to soy, soy is toxic. It's toxic for your body, it's toxic for our planet, and it's all, nearly every bit of it, GMO contaminated.
And no, of course not all pharmaceuticals are bad... but there's a very real difference between using medicine as needed to cure or prevent disease, and making a voluntary choice to depend on a pharmaceutical to keep you alive when you could just eat natural whole foods which are good for the planet and good for your body... and -still- accomplish more for your stated goals of saving animal lives and reduction of harm. It's as if you said " drinking water harms little fishes, so instead I'm going to pay Merck to buy bags of lactated ringers solution which I will inject myself with. Save the fishies!" Well, sure, that's one solution, but not, IMO, the best or most effective one. It might be the "more radical and impactful in the short term to get people thinking", but it doesn't actually do anything useful for little fishies.
If you've gotta be vegan , take the stupid pill, don't eat more wheaties. At least then you're only dependent on a pharmaceutical company for your survival, and not contributing to massive environmental harm.
never said there was ethical meat
maybe ethical eggs. but still i am not sure how necessary or good those are for a person.
moderately less bad? no commercial vegan is leaps and bounds above commercial omnivore.
i say local vegan would be best with a side of bran flakes, or soy milk that is b12 fortified. and from there we can work on the farming methods improving. but the effects are very positive.
i am doing more research about soy, and have not found it to be all that bad, except entirely too much is being produced for animals , and some people are allegic.
in whcih case rice is the answer. in fact i have been drinking more rice milk and having a rice based diet lately, and i feel really good.
there is a lot of organic soy, which i don't think is genetically modified.
i am not seeing a bunch of soy related deaths or injuries. many people are doing quite well on soy diets and continue to preach the benefits .
i alternate rice and soy, and i feel really good. i remain active on all levels and feel better than ever. i rarely get ill at all. my immune system is very strong and i can ward off most colds in a few days, and ahve been over the years. so i say i am doing quite well, and i have felt better esp. since i cut out eggs and cheese, on top of dead animal meat .
also, yes i think the majority of people are not enlightened. we have wars. they no the issues with the environment but put faith in not taking responsibility. they like meat, in fact i'd like to see proof that this locavore is even really a locavore. something tells me that slippery slope has happened.
people think "buy local" they go to the local long john silvers or mcdonalds, they don't understand.
if they think "try vegan" they might realize , oh don't eat as many animals, okay we will have some meatless nights. and so that's a better start.plus it's more accessible and more easy to comprehend. plus the facts are more stable. i will post a fact sheet i give people...
skyler
*Your Future Health*
(try vegan-- for your health , the health of society , and the health of the planet.)
contact skyler @ superapollo@ufl.edu to learn more and get involved.
www.myspace.com/skylerspektor
vegan fact sheet
“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate, and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases. Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy , lactation, infancy, childhood, and adolescence .
Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat , cholesterol , and animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes , and prostate and colon cancer .”(1)
"We spend far more, per capita, on health care than any other society in the world, and yet two-thirds of Americans are overweight, and over 15 million Americans have diabetes , a number that has been rising rapidly. We fall prey to heart disease as often as we did thirty years ago, and the War on Cancer, launched in the 1970s, has been a miserable failure. Half of Americans have a health problem that requires taking a prescription drug every week, and over 100 million Americans have high cholesterol." - pg. 3.
"... dietary protein proved to be so powerful in its effect that we could turn on and off cancer growth simply by changing the level consumed... But that's not all. We found that not all proteins had this effect. What protein consistently and strongly promoted cancer? Casein, which makes up 87% of cow's milk protein, and promoted all stages of the cancer process. What type of protein did not promote cancer, even at high levels of intake? The safe proteins were from plants, including wheat and soy. As this picture came into view, it began to challenge and then to shatter some of my most cherished assumptions." - pg 6, italics by the author.
"... more than 8,000 statistically significant associations between various dietary factors and disease! ... people who ate the most animal-based foods got the most chronic disease. Even relatively small intakes of animal-based food were associated with adverse effects. People who ate the most plant-based foods were the healthiest and tended to avoid chronic disease. ...The health implications of consuming either animal or plant-based nutrients were remarkably different." - pg. 7, italics by the author.
"... heart disease, diabetes and obesity can be reversed by a healthy diet . Other research shows that various cancers, autoimmune diseases, bone health, kidney health, vision and brain disorders in old age (like cognitive dysfunction and Alzheimer's) are convincingly influenced by diet. Most importantly, the diet that has time and again been shown to reverse and/or prevent these diseases is the same whole foods , plant-based diet that I had found to promote optimal health in my laboratory research and in the China Study. The findings are consistent." (2)
Raising animals for their flesh, eggs, and milk is one of the world’s leading emitters of carbon dioxide (CO2). But global warming is caused by more than just CO2. Animal agriculture is the leading source of methane and nitrous oxide emissions, which—combined with carbon dioxide—causes the vast majority of global warming.
vegan fact sheet cont'd
• Methane: The billions of farmed animals crammed into factory farms produce enormous amounts of methane, both during digestion and from the acres of cesspools filled with feces that they excrete. Methane is more than 20 times as powerful as carbon dioxide at trapping heat in our atmosphere.(3) Statistics from the Environmental Protection Agency show that animal agriculture is the number one source of methane emissions in the U.S. (4)
• Nitrous Oxide: Nitrous oxide is about 300 times more potent as a global warming gas than carbon dioxide. According to the U.N., the meat , egg, and dairy industries account for a staggering 65 percent of worldwide nitrous oxide emissions. (5)
1. J Am Diet Assoc. 2009;109:1266–1282.
2. The China Study, by T. Colin Campbell, MD, PhD, with Thomas M. Campbell II, 417 pages, 35 pages of reference footnotes, and a 12 page index.
3. "Global Warming: Methane," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 8 Mar. 2006.
4. Sources and Emissions: Methane," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2 Jun. 2006.
5. H. Steinfeld Pierre Gerber, Tom Wassenaar et al., Livestock's Long Shadow: Environmental Issues and Options, Livestock, Environment and Development (2006) [Steinfield is the Chief of United Nation ’s Food and Agriculture Organization's Livestock Information and Policy Branch]
Mass production of eggs requires battery cages such as these. Egg laying hens live cramped, stressful and often injured lives, before they are taken to be slaughtered.
The personal health effects and environmental waste ( food and water resources, and pollution) of eating eggs and chickens can be avoided by substituting a plant based diet .
Baby cows raised for slaughter and called “veal” are the inevitable result of the meat and milk industry. Baby cows must be taken away from their mothers so the milk may be used for human consumption. This is wasteful and unnecessary. Many substitutes such as rice, soy, and almond milks cause less waste (water and food resources, and pollution). Green leafy vegetables can provide as much calcium and more healthy proteins.
fin
skyler
*Your Future Health*
(try vegan -- for your health , the health of society , and the health of the planet.)
contact skyler @ superapollo@ufl.edu to learn more and get involved.
www.myspace.com/skylerspektor
*shrug*
The only objection to "ethical meat " is the whole fanatical "a dog is a rat is a pig is a boy " thing, which mostly upon deeper examination turns out to be just as untrue for the vegan as it is for the rest of us in the real world. If eating one cow who lived a comfortable life and never saw his painless death coming saves a thousand collective rabbits, rats, mice, field voles, snakes, ground-nesting birds , etc, then clearly the one making the pro-animal choice here is the one eating the cow. I as an omnivore save more animal lives than you do as an industrial vegan.
As far as the health effects of soy, your continued strawman about how "great" you feel completely ignores the point. The raising of it is a horrifically toxic industry from an environmental perspective... and from an independent agribusiness perspective. The soy grown is very nearly all genetically modified Monsanto soy. Eating soy means you are consuming GMO products and directly supporting a monopolistic outfit that is primarily in the business of taking over the food industry from the inside out, starting with the farmers. If you are unfamiliar with this company, just... do a little research .
I guess maybe this also comes down to a fundamental difference of opinion--like the pharmaceutical thing. I can't in good conscience support a company that is actively contaminating heritage seed crops all over the world with GMO genetics.
And in any case, you may say you feel great, but judging by the photos in your link, you don't look so healthy. Maybe you're not a vegan after all? I hear that being vegan is a slippery slope to being a heroin junkie. You know how dangerous those slippery slopes are, one bite of soy and you just rationalize shooting some good China white right into your veins.
We can both make up stories about each other, but tossing out a ridiculous ad hoc about me being a lair about the food I eat doesn't work any better to prove your case than it did for our babbling fruitcake friend up there. As much as your preachers tell you otherwise, the world isn't divided into "Disney villains" and " vegans ". This lame fallacy doesn't prove anything except that you're running out of useful ammo.
As far as the "research" cited, you... must know how thoroughly this China... err... "study" has been debunked? And how the author is an animal rights activist, how the organization he represents, the extremely dubiously entitled "Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine" is nothing but a fanatical PETA -funded front group?
Here, allow me to once again do your homework for you: http://activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm /o/23-physicians-committee-for-responsible- medicine
In case you have an injured link-clicking finger, allow me to be of assistance:
“Less than 5 percent of PCRM’s members are physicians,” Newsweek wrote in February 2004. The respected news magazine continued:
[PCRM president Neal] Barnard has co-signed letters, on PCRM letterhead, with the leader of Stop Huntingdon Animal Cruelty, an animal-rights group the Department of Justice calls a “domestic terrorist threat .” PCRM also has ties to People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. An agency called the Foundation to Support Animal Protection has distributed money from PETA to PCRM in the past and, until very recently, did both groups’ books. Barnard and PETA head Ingrid Newkirk are both on the foundation’s board.
...
While PCRM presents itself as a doctor -supported, unbiased source of health guidance, the group’s own literature echoes Newsweek’s observation that 95 percent of its members have no medical degrees. And even the five-percent doctor membership that PCRM claims is open to question. Anyone claiming to be a physician or a medical student can join without paying a dime -- even if their only motivation is to collect free waiting-room reading material.
...
The American Medical Association (AMA), which actually represents the medical profession, has called PCRM a “fringe organization” that uses “unethical tactics” and is “interested in perverting medical science .”
PCRM is a font of medical disinformation. ...
PCRM discourages Americans from making donations to health charities like the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society, St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital, the American Foundation for AIDS Research, the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation, the American Red Cross, and even Boys Town. All because they support research that requires animals , in order to cure human diseases. PCRM’s multi-year crusade against the March of Dimes, which includes protests directed at March walkers, volunteers, and donors, has been reported widely.
...Yeah. Clearly you have zero experience reading scientific literature, or just like fruitcake, you'd be embarrassed to present this kind of stupidity as "evidence".
two sided coin
the man was also a member of the National Institute of Health where he conducted the studies.
one doesn't equate animals with people, that is there choice, but ethically, the average meat has tremedous effects and may cause cance.
killing effects people pyschology.
eating an animals who realeses chemicals and hormones when killed . and thus intaking some of these chemicals and hormones may be effecting people.
research is being done, but one might question the value of a vegan / vegetarian society . imagine, maybe we would live up to our advancments and people may be more civilized?
i do not do drugs , i feel very good. i have heathy skin, hair, and am physicially, mentally, and spiritually active.
let's see some pictures of the locavore?
skyler
*Your Future Health*
(try vegan-- for your health , the health of society, and the health of the planet.)
contact skyler @ superapollo@ufl.edu to learn more and get involved.
www.myspace.com/skylerspektor
PS:
Being a "member" of the NIH doesn't exclude one from being either a whackjob religious fundamentalist, or from being a terribly poor scientist.
Director of research for the American Dental Association? That takes some credentials.
Die Ende =)
i am not the other person
this method of attacking with just catch phrases and repetiton is what locavore and babble resort to, not me.
the point was about learning not winning. i never attacked Dr. Price, but i do question his funding.
even with the meat and dairy industry's backing, it is hard to find much good research in favor of meat and dairy.
the people against the dairy and meat inudstry's seem to be mostly people concerned with the plaent and people's health .
the idea of chemicals and hormones is real, and locavore dismissing it soeasiy is a sign of unwillingness to learn, and rather just ranting.
in conclusion i find local vegan to be the best solution with substitutes for B12 fortiication. commerical vegan is more possible and practicle for the millions of people we need to reach to make a difference.
skyler
*Your Future Health*
(try vegan-- for your health, the health of society , and the health of the planet.)
contact skyler @ superapollo@ufl.edu to learn more and get involved.
www.myspace.com/skylerspektor
So?
Dr. Price was research chair for the ADA for many years, which is when and where he conducted his studies... yet you cheerfully disregard the science because today a group of local, small-scale, independent, ethical farmers champion his body of literature.
The difference here is that Dr. Price was a working scientist not backed by any whackjob religious fundamentalist group. Your guy, on the other hand , is. If you cannot grasp this distinction then again I'll simply say that you clearly have zero experience reading scientific literature, or you'd be embarrassed to present this material in defense of your argument. It's not just that he's a whackjob religious fundamentalist backed by whackjob religious fundamentalists... it's that the science is absolute hogwash. Clean hogs aside, it's not good science.
"Killing affects people psychologically" and " eating an animals who realeses chemicals and hormones when killed . and thus intaking some of these chemicals and hormones may be effecting people." "imagine, maybe we would live up to our advancments and people may be more civilized?"
Okay, now you're just wandering off into fruitcake fundie-land, my friend. Every single time I have a conversation of this nature it becomes abundantly apparent right about the time you run out of actual facts and reasonable arguments, that this really comes down to a belief that omnivores are mentally different, mentally inferior, or lesser-evolved beings than vegans . It's nothing but pure dietary racism and evidence of a severely psychologically twisted cult-like religious mentality.
Your skin and hair don't look like what we in the real world call "healthy", my friend. You're anemic looking with dark shadows under your eyes and stringy, greasy hair. Even still, if we are to accept your claims as fact, I'll match your claims of perfect health with my own. I feel great, have healthy skin, hair, and teeth, and am physically, mentally, and spiritually active. I work hard physically for a living, have a perfect ass, excellent fertility, and textbook ideal blood values, including astonishingly low cholesterol . So how does that prove either case?
No dice on cheesecake photos for you, my friend. I am quite familiar enough with the domestic terrorist actions of animal rights activists to find it in any way wise to link to any personal information in a discussion of this nature. For all your cultists' claims of a peaceful, more evolved society , the PETA -funded and ALF-facilitated firebombings paint a much different picture.
Anyway, as much fun as this has been, I think we're done here. Like I said, if you ever decide you want help finding resources for eating more ethically and reducing your impact on non-human animal lives as well as on the planet, just contact your local slow foodies. Even if it's just buying non-exploitative tomatoes, it makes a difference. For your health, the health of society, and the health of the planet.
(continued)
...
You defend your crops from all manner of living things. Since the native plant colony no longer keeps them out, you're constantly doing battle with truly invasive weed species. You do battle with all the foraging herbivores, roaming insect life (except the bees which you still must enslave), there's not much left here among your crop except a few scrawny coyotes. They've outcompeted the foxes for whatever meager food there is left and you're grateful for their help at eliminating the foraging critters, though now you've got a real problem with all the mice and rats that have stepped in, more killing. You still have to feed the crops, still more plant matter borrowed from still more earth, or still more chemicals stolen from the petroleum reserves of the Earth.
If you're in it for the money and in the business of producing large volumes of food for people far away, you exploit cheap labor to balance out the costs of storing and distributing your crops.
When you finally do get your crops in, you have to process them somehow or store them. Either way means more defense against the wild life that would eat them or live in them, bugs and animals both. Some of this food will be run through a factory and doctored with pharmaceutical additives for you to buy back to ensure your very survival. Some of this factory food inevitably makes people sick through contamination or FDA-approved toxic ingredients.
And when you're done, you start all over again. Since you don't have animals to graze down the straw, or to eat it through the winter and turn it into rich fertilizer, you do what you can to recycle what's left, or attack it in extremely aggressive industrial ways. And you start all over. What do you get out of it?
One kind of food to feed your family . One kind of food for human animals, reaped from an extremely aggressive battle against the near entirety of the local ecosystem.
The other system costs a cow its life now and then, a few chickens, a few rabbits. A couple of female slaves out there digging the sun and chewing their cuds have to put up with being milked, and the chickens lose some of their ova.
I don't know how you'd tally the final score, but I know how I feel about it. It's certainly true that this is a "fantasy" portrait of food animal life, but it's not "fantasy" because it doesn't exist, it's simply "fantasy" because too many people want very cheap, very convenient, very high-volume food and are too lazy or too cheap to seek out ethical food sources. Never mind that the foods I describe are far... far more nutrient-dense and far... far more health and appetite satisfying than industrially produced animal products and plant foods. Never mind that you eat less for far greater health rewards. Never mind that we could get rid of a huge swath of this horrific industrial food industry (starting with industrial animal production) if people would be more mindful to eat smaller quantities of more wholesome, more naturally and thoughtfully grown foods... if people cared about where their food came from and how it was produced, and cared about spending their money buying wholesome foods instead of devoting their income to purchasing cheap crap made in third-world countries.
Some vegans propose we create space pods and hydroponic systems to artificially synthesize foods. That also sounds nice in theory, but the synthetic chemicals and fertilizers needed to grow food outside the natural ecosystem are not ultimately sustainable, and not at all desirable for anyone who has ever experienced the richness of a human existence with a functioning place in our natural, Earth-bound ecoystem.
None of this means I'm encouraging people to continue to consume factory farmed foods. I'm simply saying that adopting an unnatural vegan diet is not the ultimately peaceful panacea you all seem to think it is... and the net losses to the environment and to animal life are far broader-ranging than an overly simplistic notion of "well, we can assume X number of animals dies per acre of grain... tally that against Y number of animals killed for food..." no matter -what- side of the argument you're on.
If your solution is to Star Trek your way out of this natural ecosystem with no care to the consequences of the rest of the planet, no concerns about being fed by a factory and kept alive with pharmaceuticals , then I understand totally why such a fundamentalist ideology makes perfect sense. For those of us who know the beauty of the natural world, and wish to see our species living with as little impact as possible amongst it, it's no solution at all.
just proved the point for veganism
yes maybe we have to rely on fortified foods, but that is a lesser evil than slaughterhouses and even "caged free" farming.
because, this may be surprising --- most people don't live on small area of land where they can raise animals and live in peace with nature!
i am glad they are getting internet out to the sticks, but what about the majority of people living off of Grocery stores?!
that's right -- try vegan ! beats the alternative.
maybe, living off of the land that way, and taking care of one's own animals would be ideal. still i could imagine a vegan diet possible, but it is arbitrary because most people have to deal with the fact they have to shop at grocery stores.
for those, go ahead and get the vitamins from supplements or fortification of wheaties/total/generic cereal!
if i was living off of the land, i might consider these circumstances, but i live in a townhouse, and most people live in settings where living off of the land isn't possible. -- try vegan!
so we have to rely on grocery stores, and farmers markets.
so of course local herbivore is the answer!
thanks for prooving this point! :- D
skyler
*Your Future Health*
(try vegan-- for your health , the health of society , and the health of the planet.)
contact skyler @ superapollo@ufl.edu to learn more and get involved.
www.myspace.com/skylerspektor
*facepalm*
Yes... you live in a townhouse... so you can purchase whole, wholesome foods from people who raise it in the manner I describe.
What I am describing is not a system that feeds just one family . There are small-scale food producers EVERYWHERE growing foods this way to sell at farmers markets and even some whole-foods grocery stores.
It only requires you be willing to spend the time and money to seek these foods out.
Eating wheaties/total/generic cereal supports horrific industrial grain production processes. You could instead eat the truly free-range pastured eggs I described. You could choose wholesome and ethically raised foods instead of horrifying industrially produced factory foods.
So of course, local vegetarian /omnivore is the answer!
Thanks for proving this point =D
people don't have the time and money
people are busy. if they can get to a local farmer's market -- that's great. but the method described of raising small amounts of animals and eggs, will not feed people on large scale.
all this is doing is making people think it's okay to by dairy and meat from wherever, because this insistence that they need it, when they don't.
if someone could be a local vegetarian kudos, and maybe even local vegan if finding a way to get B12 through fortified foods as a supplement for animal products.
i might even consider buying local eggs if i knew for sure they were being treated well, and not harming the environmnet, BUT THIS IS RARE!
so vegan is the solution for most people, and for our planet.
skyler
*Your Future Health*
(try vegan-- for your health , the health of society , and the health of the planet.)
contact skyler @ superapollo@ufl.edu to learn more and get involved.
www.myspace.com/skylerspektor
...
"people don't have the time and money
people are busy."
I think you misspelled "people are too lazy and too cheap".
These methods of raising small amounts of animals and eggs most definitely will feed people on a large scale, if people were limiting themselves to the amount of animal products they truly need in their diets .
Your excuses about being too lazy and too cheap to seek out ethical sources of food are no more effective for your commercial vegan argument than for a standard American's diet .
i'm not arguing for a standard American Diet
that attempt at streghtning the arguement only confused the issue.
commercial veganism beats commerical ominivore, which is what most are faced with.
there are not that many safe , ehthical and environmentally sound egg farms avaible. if people are lazy for not travelling to Georgia to get some eggs, i guess this world is worse off than i thought.
it's not it's an excuse, it's what is available. so commercial veganism is the solution for most people.
local vegetarian may be better IF one can find safe, sound egg farms where the animals are taken care of. again -- THIS IS RARE!
so for most people, the commercial, or mostly local vegan diet is the best example and the best solution for the world on the global scale.
skyler
*Your Future Health*
(try vegan-- for your health , the health of society , and the health of the planet.)
contact skyler @ superapollo@ufl.edu to learn more and get involved.
www.myspace.com/skylerspektor
And no,
of course you're not arguing for the standard American diet ... but you're using the same excuses those folks do.
Yeah, it takes a little time, and might cost a little more up front, but taking the steps to improve the quality and ethics of your diet is one of the very most powerful things you can do to affect this planet, our society , and our industrial food system... not to mention your health , good as it might be already. Try not dining out of a factory for a while. You might be surprised at how good you feel.
there is no pastured egg farm nearby.
i looked, i would have investigated. i will do more research on soy, but commercial vegan beats commercial standard ominvore which is what most people are faced with.
local ethical vegatarian may be ideal, if the eggs are truly safe , snd sound, but for most, commercial vegan will be the healthiest and best for the planet.
because we don't support the soy grown for animals , which is the lowest grade.
do research and tell me how many places ethical vegetarian is possilbe. for those few i encourage them to research the egg farms and this might be the best way.
but for the rest, commerical vegan does the most good. end of arguement.
smile, be blessed :)
skyler
*Your Future Health*
(try vegan-- for your health , the health of society , and the health of the planet.)
contact skyler @ superapollo@ufl.edu to learn more and get involved.
www.myspace.com/skylerspektor
idk about eggs
fortied B12 my be better in an all ethical vegan diet .
so commercial vegan for the majority of society . or local ethical vegan is possible with B12 supplements .
skyler
*Your Future Health*
(try vegan-- for your health , the health of society, and the health of the planet.)
contact skyler @ superapollo@ufl.edu to learn more and get involved.
www.myspace.com/skylerspektor
Whether or not there is an "egg farm" nearby...
...there are entirely likely local egg buying options. I do not know anyone involved in the slow food movement who subscribes to the monoculture theory of food production. I do not know a single person who runs an "egg farm" but I do know a lot of people who keep poultry on a small scale and sell eggs either from their farm, through the local farmer's market, or through small independent food retailers. It sometimes takes a little looking to find ethical sources for your food, but it's rarely totally impossible.
Again, try contacting Slow Food USA: http://www.slowfoodusa.org/index.php /local_chapters/ --there are chapters in nearly every state and hundreds of contacts all over the country.
Commercial vegan (even locavore vegan) is only an option for someone who is happy letting a factory and a pharmaceutical company hold the lifeline to their vary existence. This may be perfectly comfortable for you, but it is no solution at all for many of us.
Commercial omnivore is also no solution at all. Sometimes it takes a little looking to find good healthy sources of ethically produced foods, but it's rarely an impossibility... and the more people look and demand such products the easier it will be for people to find them.
Furthermore, you are either joking or completely deluded if you imagine that there is any difference the soy that a feedlot cow eats and the soy that you eat. Very nearly all soy grown in the US is GMO Monsanto Roundup Ready soy, or contaminated with it. It may make you feel better via your fundamentalist ideology to imagine that you're getting "special" "ethical" soy, but that is very simply not true. You are supporting this toxic industry, supporting this toxic agribusiness monopoly, and putting GMO foods into your body. If those issues are outweighed by your lack of tenacity in seeking more ethical foods... well, we all make choices.
Ethical vegetarian /omnivore. For your health , the health of society , and the health of the planet.
i'd like to see more research about soy
"hold the lifeline to their vary existence." [for B12 fortication]
a little dramatic? they fortify the cereals and soymilks -- it's not the big of a deal. compared to the alternative.
i am not sure about eating eggs, the animal protien may be more dangerous. i have read the animal protien can cause cancer .
i have been living quite well off of soy based products and B12 fortified products so i iwll have to say from personal exp, vegan definately works for me.
okay so encourage people to eat local, that's good, but the point is clouded when one tries to justify eating a cow. it wouldn't be necessary to a local based diet .
so i will attempt to eat more local. but it is hard for me, and it may be hard for others. people live busy lives. in which case, the bottom line, commercial vegan will be the best chocie for MOST people. if they can go local, that's great. but first let's comfront the problem of not supporting factory farms, and then start going forward on the local battle. we have to get people to care first. vegan is a more practical and tangible source of impcat for people. the resutls are clearer and the facts supported by more national orginizations (Enviromental Protection Agency, American Dietic Associatedl, and the United Natiions.)
skyler
*Your Future Health*
(try vegan-- for your health , the health of society , and the health of the planet.)
contact skyler @ superapollo@ufl.edu to learn more and get involved.
www.myspace.com/skylerspektor
research so far
some people are allergic to soy, and genetically modified soy.
so far the solution is to look for non genetically modified soy.
or see if allergic first. i don't think i am. but i do prefer organic soy.
skyler
*Your Future Health*
(try vegan -- for your health , the health of society , and the health of the planet.)
contact skyler @ superapollo@ufl.edu to learn more and get involved.
www.myspace.com/skylerspektor
More excuses
No, commercial veganism does absolutely NOT beat ethical omnivore, not in any way at all. There are plenty of safe , ethical, and environmentally sound egg growers available. You simply have not bothered to look. The more people who do get off their butts and do something, the more ethical foods will become available. That's how this whole "free market" thing works.
As always, laziness and miserliness is no excuse for supporting these horrifying industries. Eating wheaties produced originally on mega-mono-culture industrial wheat farms and made in a factory and shipped all over the world and shot full of pharmaceutically-prepared bacterial cultures rather than taking a trip to your local farmer's market is no solution at all, skylar.
And dude, seriously, stop eating soy. Nearly all soy is GMO Monsanto Roundup Ready soy, or contaminated with it. Watch the documentary "The World According to Monsanto" for more information. There is absolutely zero need to support this toxic industry or this absolutely cartoonishly evil monopolistic agribusiness when you could just do a little homework and support a local pastured egg grower.
Do your homework: http://www.slowfoodusa.org /
Ethical food is found everywhere. There are twelve chapters in New York state alone.
Stop making excuses. You can make these changes for the betterment of your health , for society and for the health of the planet. Living as an industrial vegan is not easy. Demonstrating that level of dedication tells me that you really could make some effort at seeking out ethical vegetarian food... if you wanted to.
Your tomatoes might cost more, but they won't have been picked by exploited labor . Your eggs might exploit a chicken in a pasture, but they won't come at the cost of an entire ecosystem the way your Wheaties do.
...
"it should be possible."
It is not possible. It may be possible to devise gentler harvesting methods, but unless you're proposing we separate our food production from the natural function of the earth, we cannot completely eliminate the impact it causes.
It is only possible to cut out meat and dairy if you rely on a pill or processed foods. This may be an acceptable solution to you, so no real argument there. Please simply understand that for those of us who prefer not to depend on factories and pharmaceuticals for survival, this is not an option.
"if there is a field where this one cow is raised, crops could be grown there. live off of the crops :)"
Again, this is a "tra la la" excessively simplistic, sounds-great-in-warm-and-fuzzy-ideological-theory idea... but it's not any kind of solution at all when you look at the reality of food production from a holistic environmental perspective. Growing crops sounds nice when all it means to you is that you don't eat a cow, but it's by no means always the best solution for the earth (either big E or little).
First, let us imagine a wildgrass meadow, teeming with an enormous variety of plant, animal, and insect life. We can count many species of native wild grasses, flowers, and herbs. Rabbits live there, burrowing critters of all sorts, mice and woodrats, snakes, birds , bugs of an unimaginable variety. A natural hedge fence, made up of native blackberries, trees and shrubs, provides food, cover, and travel routes for all manner of little furry beasties. You have foxes and coyotes around, making a reasonable living. A family of cows shares their space it with the local deer who are agile enough to move over and around the hedging. Your chickens and turkeys or ducks and geese can hang out perfectly happily here, the predators steering clear of a donkey. You lose some birds from time to time, but we call this a "nature tax", and accept it for the pleasure of sharing our home with foxes and coyotes.
What do you get in return? Several kinds of food for your family: beef, clean healthy grass-fed raw dairy products, eggs, poultry. For those of us who live here, we can also count wild herbs, leafy greens, fruits and berries from the hedges, and wild rabbits or hares from time to time.
Now imagine we have to get rid of the cattle and poultry and use that space to grow plant food. We strip that land bare either removing the gorgeous, rich first several inches of topsoil and getting rid of the mat of turf and root layer or being extra-careful about killing it in some way. You can't have all the (flowers herbs and grasses) "weeds" coming back mucking up your productive plant crop by stealing nutrients or getting in the way of their sunlight.
You thin down and open wide the hedging or else remove it entirely; don't want to encourage foraging herbivores to hang around. You make sure to clear back a wide piece of the surrounding woodland to make your herbivorous war zone easier to defend.
You tear up the bare ground that's left, destroying any animal and insect homes left in the top foot or so. You arrange tidy, unnatural rows of seeds so they can strip as much nutrient from the soil as possible as efficiently as possible. You feed them, either by using far more composted plant matter than is truly necessary (which of course has to come from somewhere), or by chemical means, since you no longer have your animal friends (or slaves if you like) helpfully providing it for you as a renewable resource. Then, the real battle begins...
I agree with a lot of this
You have made a number of points I agree with and which I have made in my book and articles.