Talk:Vegetarianism/Archive 5

For a list of vegetarian Wikipedians, see Wikipedians/Vegetarians

Older discussions have been moved to the archive:

Not a very neutral article

In my opinion, this article is in need of reworking to give it a more neutral point of view.

Several of the quotes in the "Non religious motivations" section have no source at all (e.g., "The amount of veg protein fed to the US beef herd would feed almost the entire populations of India and China - two billion people."), and the vast majority of the quotes are only attributed to a general group (e.g., WHO, Cornell University, Reading University), with no specific publication that the quote came from or what individual from the groups made the original statement. There are lots of people from Cornell and Reading who are probably very intelligent, but them being from the university doesn't make them experts on vegetarianism. We need to know more about the source of the quote to determine it's merit.

The other problem I have with this article is that it includes nothing about potential problems associated with vegetarianism. The main thing that comes to mind now is the possibility of a Vitamin B12 deficiency...but I'm sure that there are others. I saw that the B12 issue came up in an earlier discussion, but it doesn't look like it was definitively resolved. There is also no section about problems that can arise when babies/infants/children are on this diet. There should be a section on the possible hazards associated with a vegetarian/vegan lifestyle.

I'm certainly no expert on this field, but I'm going to do more research and see what I can find...if anyone has any info on these specific items, please include what you know in the article. In the meantime, I think a non-neutral point of view notification should be put on the article.Pkeck 21:37, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I removed some material that I thought was biased. There is a separate article on vegetarian nutrition. —Joe Jarvis 17:15, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

Also the ADA is a philanthropic organisation, not an independent panel of experts. It supports charities. It's not a neutral body. I think it needs to be tagged until someone can find a better source or the nutritional section is removed entirely. -Rushyo

Thanks to an Anon for writing a much higher quality version -Rushyo

"The psychology of why it is that human beings tolerate or go along with the destruction of nature is analyzed and discussed in Shierry Nicholsen's "The Love of Nature and the End of the World" [5]. But such an argument is regarded as a case of "Intuitionist Ethics". If one person intuitively feels that eating meat is moral, and another believes that anything less than vegetarianism is immoral, then there is no way that either can use intuitionist ideas to convince the other. [6]" This seems unnecessary for an article about ethics in vegetarianism. I'll remove it or rewrite it unless anyone objects. --komencanto 05:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

looking forward to your rewriting. Jeremy J. Shapiro 07:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

correct definition?

Since when is lacto-vegetarian the most common understood meaning of vegetarianism? In Australia at least a vegetarian is understood to eat eggs and milk unless they say they're vegan. I have asked several people and they all agree vegetarians eat eggs, vegans don't. --komencanto 01:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

"Vegetarianism is a dietary practice excluding all body parts of any animal and products derived from them (e.g. lard, tallow, gelatin, cochineal) from one's diet."

this is the definition of veganism not vegetarianism, iam right? - --Cyprus2k1 15:31, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Nah; veganism means excluding not only products derived from (i.e., made out of) animal body parts, but also other animal products like milk and even honey...

--DanielCristofani 13:01, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

But the phrasing leaves it ambiguous whether 'them' has as its antecedent 'any animal' or 'all body parts', i.e., are we talking about products derived from animals or merely their body parts. Shimmin 17:14, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Does the 'fish and pain' subject deserve space at Vegetarianism or should we just create a seperate article? Usedbook 20:36 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

...The Royal Society published research by Lynne Sneddon establishing for the first time, she said, the existence of nervous system receptors in the head of fish that respond to "damaging stimuli."
By injecting bee venom and acetic acid into the lips of captive rainbow trout, the Royal Society said, Sneddon and other scientists at the Roslin Institute in Edinburgh discovered that the fish displayed "profound behavioral and physiological changes" over a period of time, "comparable to those observed in higher mammals."
After the injections, Sneddon said, "fish demonstrated a 'rocking' motion strikingly similar to the kind of motion seen in stressed higher vertebrates like mammals, and the trout injected with acetic acid were also observed to rub their lips onto the gravel in the tank and onto the tank walls."
The Royal Society said in a statement, "This indicates, the researchers believe, that fish can perceive pain." The research contradicts the riverbank lore of anglers drawing on earlier research by Professor James Rose of the University of Wyoming that fish do not feel pain because their brain is incapable of that response.
Sneddon said the research did not make her anti-angling. "I wouldn't say it was cruel as long as the angler is getting the fish out quickly, killing and eating it," she said. "That outweighs the short period of discomfort for the fish." Alan Cowell, New York Times, May 6, 2003

Let's keep this sort of material off the vegetarianism page, please. Animal rights would be a much more apropriate place, or a new article. Mkweise 23:24 May 6, 2003 (UTC)

Using Animal rights instead was of my opinion aswell. Thanks for the input and be well. Usedbook 19:33 May 7, 2003 (UTC)

There should probably be a small mention, probably under reasons for, but yes, an animal rights link should help.

Re less pompous definition: I'm all for having the most concise definition that is correct as well as complete and unambiguous, but you oversimplified. Not eating fish or meat falls way short of defining vegetarianism, especially since many understand meat to refer to the flesh of mammals only. So you'd have to add at least poultry and seafood to the enumeration, and that still leaves exotic "delicacies" like snails, frogs' legs and sheep's eayballs in a gray area.

Vegetariansim is a subject of much confusion among non-vegetarians; you'd be surprized how often people have said things to me like:

"Oh you don't eat meat? Well, how about some chicken then?"

"Oh you're a vegetarian? Do you eat sausage?"

Mkweise 10:57 May 8, 2003 (UTC)

The section on Judaism seems unduly prominent, going much more into the background of the belief than the others. It seems like many of the details are better left on referenced pages such as the provided link. Furthermore:

Not eating meat simply because kosher meat is hard to come by is not exactly what you'd call being a vegetarian. It may be related, but it should probably be made clear that that's not really vegetarianism.
If you are vegetarian in order to keep kosher, not for pragmatic reasons but for ethical reasons, what does that mean? Doesn't it just mean that you're an ethical vegetarian who also happens to be Jewish? Isn't that subsumed by the section on ethical vegetarianism?
Why "red kosher meat"? Is kosher chicken or fish easier to come by?
I personally haven't experienced very many non-Orthodox Jews being vegetarian for the sole reason of keeping kosher, though of course that doesn't mean it's not true. More likely you might not order meat out at a restaurant (which would be keeping kosher enough for many people). (Orthodox Jews generally live in communities where kosher meat is available so it's usually not an issue.) Axlrosen 17:36, 10 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"Moreover, the meat of pen-raised animals (...) have much higher levels of fat and less nutritional value than the meat of their corresponding free-range or wild bretheren."

Couldn't find bretheren in my e-dictionaries. But it did remind me of brethren:

Wordnet: brethren

    n : the members of a male religious order

GCIDE:
Brethren \Breth"ren\, n.;

  pl. of Brother.
  [1913 Webster]

  Note: This form of the plural is used, for the most part, in
        solemn address, and in speaking of religious sects or
        fraternities, or their members.
        [1913 Webster]

So I guess this needs some rewriting... :) Guaka 15:26, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I don't see what the quoted passage has to do with vegetarianism in the first place. Mkweise 15:39, 23 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Jainism and microorganisms

For references, just google for one-sensed beings. Mkweise 01:59, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

We need to avoid creating a historical anachronism. Jainists could not have had rules that directly addressed microorganisms many centuries (or millennia) ago; they didn't even know that microorganisms existed. Rather, once they discovered the existence of these microscopic organisms, they then applied their sacred texts to this new discovery, and came up with rules for dealing with this case. Many of them may even have interpreted their texts as having been revealed to deal with this possibility all along, but that is a religious belief, as opposed to a historical certainty. And this is all fine. The precise same thing is true in regards to halakha (Jewish law). There were no rabbinic Jewish laws specifically made in regards to microorganisms; at that time Jews didn't know that microorganisms existed. Rather, once they discovered their existence, they then applied Jewish laws and principles to this new discovery, and came up with rules for dealing with this case. So we should phrase this section of the article very carefully. RK 02:08, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

They did know thousands of years ago about the existence of what today are called microorganisms. Read some of the ancient souce texts on Jain cosmology, it'll do you good :-) Mkweise 03:31, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

You are making an extraordinary claim, one that requires extraordinary proof. How these people, thousands of years ago, learn about microscoping one-celled organism? How did they detect them? Why did no one else in surrounding areas ever learn about them? Why didn't knowledge of this groundbreaking discovery spread? Do any mainstream historians of science credit this claim at all? RK 18:04, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'd add that most, if not all, microorganisms have more then one sense... Nikola 05:54, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

How did they detect them? by the use of common sense. They figured that living beings come in all kinds of shapes and sizes and that logically there must be smaller, still smaller and micro-organisms. This was not a discovery, but rather a philosophy. And spread, it did, to Indo-China, China and Japan. Buddhism pretty much has the same basis. Drjagan 10:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Given that Jain recognise existence for soul for everything including living and non living thing including plant or rocks and as consequence try to avoid harming them whether they knew the existence of microorganism is irrelevant. FWBOarticle 06:18, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Many religious texts, including Jain, Hindu and Jewish scriptures, have thousands of vague sentences that in retrospect, can be re-interpreted as referring to some newly discovered facets of the world, such as one-celled organisms, or the Big Bang. But to the best of my knowledge, no mainstream historians of science credit Jewish Kabbalah with describing the Big Bang theory of the universe. Many Orthodox Jews do make this claim, and they claim that the text is clear. But to non-Orthodox Jews, this is not such a clear claim, and it looks to the rest of the world like they are reading this new interpretation back into older texts. I am saying that the same thing is true here. Perhaps Jains claim that their scripture is talking about protista and bacteria. But to non-Jains, this is not such a clear claim, and it looks to the rest of the world like some Jains are reading this interpretation back into older texts. RK 18:04, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I'd suggest this debate (which I admit my edit started) is not so critical to the Vegetarianism page at this point. For my taste at least, the parenthetical comment "(called one-sensed beings in Jain scripture, which was written prior to the scientific discovery of microorganisms)" is good enough, though I'd say it might be interesting to get into more detail for the Jain article. Since I'm curious to know the history, though, I've asked a question on Mkweise's talk page, which is maybe a better place for the discussion. Zashaw 21:21, 25 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I agree with RK, it's difficult to believe that Jains knew about microorganisms thousands of years ago. And thus I think that parenthetical comment is not very accurate. Unless it is widely accepted that early Jains did know about microorganisms, we have to say something weaker - that some people believe that they knew about them. If we get rid of that comment, then it covers all bases - it covers those that think that the Jain scriptures were specificially talking about microorganisms, and those that think that the interpretation of these passages to microorganisms were made after the fact (i.e. after microorganisms were discovered.) And, as Zashaw pointed out, this debate has little to do with vegetarianism. Axlrosen 18:09, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

It's not just "widely accepted", but evidenced by ancient scripture: Jains have believed for thousands of years that the air, water, and especially soil are full of "subtle lifeforms". These are described as the lowest form of life on earth (below plants) and as so small that we can't see them. BTW Jains are (and have always been) forbidden from drinking unboiled water; such a commandment wouldn't make much sense without knowledge of microorganisms. Mkweise 08:33, 3 Sep 2003 (UTC)

The fact that Jains believed this to be true is different than saying that they knew it to be true. As an analogy, some ancient Greeks believed that matter was made up of indivisible atoms. They were right, but they didn't know, they were just guessing and happened to be right (or somewhat right - many of their specific beliefs about atoms were wrong). But the fact that they happened to get it right doesn't make them any more knowledgable than the other Greeks who believed lots of other wacky things that turned out to be wrong. The Greeks didn't see atoms, they just guessed.

The ancients 'knew' their theories to be as true as we think our physics to be the ultimate truth. How can we say that our own knowledge of atoms would NOT be utter nonsense in 10,000 years? For most of our scientific part about Cosmos, we are guessing as much as our forefathers did. Perhaps, we have defined better ways to guess, but the logics are about the same. Drjagan 10:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Just because it is unbelievable that the ancient Jains refered to microrganisms, and that the Jains couldn't have found it out untill the Microscope, we should deny them the right to use that word? It is a fundamental and widespread belief in Indic systems that just as there are variable species of animals, plants, insects and so on, logically, there must be smaller beings invisible to our eyes. Interpretation made before the discovery of micro-organisms would have meant only just the same: That there are microorganisms. The posts here are just hugely, pathetically patronising. Drjagan 10:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

BTW according to this site http://www.jainworld.com/education/juniors/junles08.htm, the Jain belief is that earth, air, fire, and water ARE one-sense beings, not that they contain them. Sounds like there's some room for interpretation going on. E.g. perhaps the early Jains believed that these things were living beings, but now that we know about microorganisms we re-interpret that to mean that these things CONTAINED tiny living beings. (Plus, there are no micro-organisms in fire.) Axlrosen 19:06, 13 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Earth, air, fire and water ARE NOT one-sense beings. You have understood it GROSSLY wrong. The earth, air, fire and water are elements, not living beings themselves. Living beings had bodies MADE of these elements, thus the expression, Fire-bodied or Water-bodied. A small flame can be considered as a non-mobile living being possessing a body of fire.. but the fire in the flame ipso facto is not the being. Actually, According to Indic philosophical texts, like 'Sakhyartharthvada' circa 100 BC -100 AD, there is not a single spot in the universe which is uninhabited. The Sun has dewellers as does ordinary dust. The Beings had bodies that can either be made up of physical elements and of varing proportions. Thus there are beings who have bodies entirely made of fire like those who live on the Sun, or humans whose bodies are made of all the five elements. There are also beings who have ethereal bodies made of Akasha or sky or space and some higher beings have no need for bodies that they exist as pure conscious minds alone. Therefore, your point that earth, air, fire and water being one-sense beings is just plain wrong. The second point is that the texts are plain about the existence of microorganisms. The text do not sound speculative, but are definite. For example, a verse from vAkyanAmasutra goes as follows: our Indriyas are defective; thus much of the cosmos and its beings are hidden from us, both big and small. The small are smaller than the smallest grains. 'ANU' is one word that is used to indicate the 'smallest of the smallest'. Invisible, small and microtic organisms are a matter of fact in these scriptures and they do NOT need any kind of difficult re-interpretation to suit modern discoveries. Again a verse, the source of which I forgot goes like this, 'elements are innumerable, and so are the derivatives. The impulse of material existence forces the Atman to take birth in innumerable wombs, some great and big, some thousanth part of a millet grain'. Now if that is not a reference to microscopic life, then what is it? For the upteenth time, those were not 'vague' guesses, but definite descriptions. Drjagan 10:36, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the article doesn't say that the Jain's knew that microorganisms exist, just that they have some moral issues with eating them. I could believe it's wrong to interfere with the little green men on Mars, and that would explain my opposition to NASA missions to Mars, even though there aren't green men on Mars. Of course, it may still be, as you suggest, that the Jain's didn't actually believe in anything we'd call microorganisms, i.e. tiny organisms you can't see, as opposed to earth, air, fire or water. That's something I don't know about. Zashaw 00:21, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Arguments against vegetarianism

Anonymous user 207.196.166.183 made this major edit, presenting a number of interesting and detailed arguments against vegetarianism. Unfortunately this person got carried away and also introduced a whole load of unsupported POV remarks as part of the same edit. It would be a highly wearisome a task to cut all the prejudice and rhetorical "fat" from the "meat" of this edit (so to speak), so it has been reverted. However, I think 207.196.166.183 makes some interesting points that deserve a mentioning in the article. If you read this, anonymous user 207.196.166.183, please have another go, but try to follow the principle of NPOV. GrahamN 02:38, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Agred. We should look at some of these arguments, and present them here in an NPOV fashion. BTW, I have now read in a number of sources that vegetarian diets kill far more animals than meat-eating diets. In our world of six billion people, we cannot support our population except through large-scale machine-assisted farming. Vegetarians (and the rest of us) depend on this farming to stay alive, but this farming kills millions of rats, mice, voles, crickets, insects and other animals during various steps of farming. Reducing meat consumption increases farming for plants. Is it really better to kill a thousand mice than one cow? (For the cow, yes!) I happen not to be a vegetarian, but I'd kind of like to be; I have already reduced my meat consumption. But points such as this make me question whether being a vegetarian is feasible or desirable. RK 02:47, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Reducing meat consumption does not increase plant farming, since animals also eat lots of plants (besides processed meat leftovers and lots of fish). In fact, lowering meat consumption would greatly decrease the demand. I read that in order to produce 1 kg of meat one needs 6 kg of plants, but I don't know if I remember correctly. Come to think of it, this 1:6 ratios seems a bit optimistic... Guaka 12:43, 31 Aug 2003 (UTC)

perhaps so, but meat brings to the body a concentrated amount of protein in a very low amount of food, that plants cannot easily provide. One must not confuse basic biomass provided to sustain people, with the necessary amount of each of the components necessary. I don't buy that 1:6 ratio

Indeed, the ratio is much more like 1:10 -- of the biomass 'going in' to a cow, only about 10% is converted into growth (read: 'meat'), which is a rather low efficiency-level. Of course, some of this input biomass would be deemed unsuitable for humans (thistles, grass, leaves), but the same amount of chemical energy to feed n people beef would feed 10n people wheat. (This figure is from my memory of GCSE biology, some 5 years ago, but I doubt it's changed since then ;-).)

James F. 02:23, 1 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I have heard comments that Britain could support itself in terms of food if people ate meat (as we have enough land for animals and plants, although would involve removing most remaining forest), but not if people ate only plants, as many regions are unsuitable for food crops, but suitable for cowes/sheep etc. --NeilTarrant 14:01, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Kill far more animals"? Are we talking biomass or just number of critters? --Calieber 19:48, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

However, it is important for vegetarians and vegans to be conscious of their intake of protein, B12, and other nutrients.

Well, not being a vegetarian, I guess I'll stop watching my nutritional intake... --Calieber 19:48, Oct 30, 2003 (UTC)

I wonder why the first external links point out a movie site. And as I'm French, I'm not sure to well understand this passage :
Meat vegetarianism refers to the consuming of a vegetarian by a meat-eater viz. A human eating a steak. This is because of the second defination of vegetarian, i.e. "Something that eats vegetarians."
Is this a joke, or something like that ? Rege 21:14, 20 Dec 2003 (UTC)

No joke. This is real. Auric The Rad 04:56, Dec 22, 2003 (UTC)

The name meat-vegetarian is not something I have come across, but this policy is part of a Jewish and Muslim dietary laws. i.e Carnivores and Omnivores are not Kosher.PRB 11:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the website which point out the meatrix have a link with the vegetarianism because I didn't wait the loading of the flash animation. For the other definition (meat vegetarianism), I am astonished. I'm surprising that a canibalian can be considering as a vegetarian. Rege 20:50, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Anecdotally, not only do some people have an intuitive aesthetic distaste for meat to begin with, but a significant number of vegetarians come to feel that way some months after becoming vegetarian for other reasons. Then this becomes one more reason for remaining vegetarian. I'm not going to add this to the article, because I don't have numbers or any authoritative support for this claim. But if anyone else has a firmer basis for this claim, it might be good to add a brief comment.

i recognise this, but for me the aesthetic block arose mainly when confronting inescapable proof of the animal origin of the food -- bones, blood vessels or blood, skin, eyes, and so forth served to remind me that this food had been an animal. that this motivated my vegetarianism i account to the ethics of meat consumption, rather than to the aesthetics of meat. i'd certainly still like to see it as a category in this article -- but, like you, i'm not prepared to speak so authoritatively. --Hamstar 09:53, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph placement

Is there a better place for this paragraph found under the Vegetarian Nutrition heading?

No diet is necessarily unnatural. Human beings have been omnivores since time immemorial; we have the teeth (incisors and molars) and the digestive systems of creatures who eat both meat and plants. The eating of meat enabled energy. Nearly all the other higher primates are omnivores, except the gorilla. In the past, many people ate meat infrequently, because often it wasn't available or affordable. Strict vegetarianism is something comparatively new in human history.

It seems a little out of place. The whole section could use more guidance and structure. --Ryan H. 02:42, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I agree. It's not very clear, either. Is it implying a diet of rocks is not necessarily unnatural? That just doesn't have any meaning. MShonle 14:44, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I rewrote the nutrition section, addressing these concerns. – Joe Jarvis 19:18, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

What's more, since the section has been removed, this is just an FYI which should interest many about a common myth, but it's related to vegetarianism's 'naturalness' -- just not related enough to put it in the actual wikipedia entry...

The author seemed to be making a point that only omnivores have incisors. Yet, gorillas have incisors -- gorillas which he himself identified as non-omnivores (frugitarians, technically). Incisors have many purposes including self-defense and chewing tough bamboo (not meat, since the gorilla obviously doesn't need those huge fangs to eat little beetles ;-) ), as cited by:

 www.angela-meder.de/publik/eep.pdf 
 www.hitchams.suffolk.sch.uk/skeletons/gorilla.htm
 www.safari.co.za/africa_GORILLA_2.html
 www.leeds.ac.uk/bms/teaching/ modules/humb1060/anth03.pdf
 www.geocities.com/osarsif/bio.htm

Primates developed incisors as a group, making it dubious that even non-gorillas evolved incisors *because* they chewed meat. (confusing causality with commonality, a Post Hoc mistake) Rather, it appears that only some apes, some monkeys, and some homonids only later used the fangs adapted for self-defense and tough vegetation toward an omnivorous diet. And if I'm not mistaken, we descended directly from herbivorous rodents to monkeys, to apes, to humans, rather than having involvement with order Carnivora. We also primarily have other herbivorous features such as our long G-I tract, appendix (only present in 2 other species, both herbivores), and we suffer from greater disease as we eat excessive meat. Thus, for all of these reasons, whether we evolved to gain incisors specifically because we needed them for eating flesh of large creatures and to become omnivores, as opposed to the opposite chronology (developing incisors for other reasons, then some primates and homonids conveniently using them to eat some animals larger than insects), is dubious. And to use, 'We have incisors,' as a stand-alone argument that we are 'naturally' omnivorous, is a fallacious argument due to many non-omnivores having incisors.

motivations: poverty

How about people who are too poor to afford meat? -- Kaihsu 08:25, 2004 Jul 14 (UTC)

I added this. – Joe Jarvis 13:24, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Are there really examples of people who consider themselves vegetarians for this reason? IMO this is not the same as vegetarianism. I will modify the article to reflect my perspective; see what you think. --User:Chinasaur

"pragmatic considerations"?

I'm a bit confused by the section on "pragmatic considerations." These seem to me to be just more health reasons, and should be moved to that section. A pragmatic consideration would be something like "meat is just too hard to cook, vegetables are quicker,"--a reason may not be accurate but is occasionally floated. Things like hormones to me would seem to fall back under the health column. 141.158.238.201 03:13, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree. There are pragmatic reasons, but the ones in the article under "Pragmatic considerations" don't seem to be any of them. I'd say "pragmatic" would be more like: quicker/easier to cook (is that true?), cheaper to buy, last longer in storage (is that true?), easier to clean up, or you just don't like meat. -- anon

I rewrote the non-religious motivations section, addressing these concerns. Modern agricultural methods like pesticides and growth hormones are irrelevant. One could eat organic meat if that was the concern. – Joe Jarvis 19:18, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Joe Jarvis' last comment is untrue regarding pesticides -- and SOC's in general (Synthetic-Organic Compounds, a class of chemicals to which many of the most dangerous pesticides belong), due to the following... Pesticides from organic meats are still a concern because of the results when we combine the 2 following facts:

- SOC's concentrate approx. 20 times during each step up the food-chain (i.e., if corn has 1 PPM of a certain SOC as residual, better to eat that corn [and thus the residual pesticide] directly, which gives you 20x the concentration it was in the corn, rather than to have a cow eat the corn [and thus the residual pesticide], which gives the cow 20x the corn's concentration, and then for you to eat the cow (20 PPM) which ate the corn (1 PPM), which gives you 20x the cow's concentration, i.e. 400x the corn's concentration), and

- SOC's introduced to the biosphere make their way into organic foods (e.g., a study [sorry, I lost the citation long ago] found that remote Canadian Inuits above the Arctic Circle, where no PCB's had ever been used, had **HIGHER** PCB levels than most people because their diet is heavier-than-average in fish and meat. The simple fact is that PCB's (and all liquid SOC's -- i.e., most of the old, 'bad', persistent pesticides) spread via natural means such as ocean currents and in groundwater.

The 'organic' nature of these Inuits' meats, such as no PCB factories (nor other **DIRECT** PCB sources) being within hundreds of miles of their fisheries and hunting-grounds, was more than offset by the fact that they ate nearly the diametric opposite of a vegan diet. In other words, it was proven that even non-organic NON-vegans who merely **moderated** their meat-intake more than these Inuits, such as the average American, had lower concentrations of PCB's than the Inuits. By extrapolation, a vegan diet is even more effective (than the Inuit's meat-heavy, yet organic, diet) as a means to reduce one's SOC (pesticide) risks. The only way someone 100%-organic, but non-vegan, can get as low of an SOC (pesticide) toxicity as the typical vegan is to reduce his intake of the organic meats so low as to be insignificant and thus, become a near-vegan himself. -- an epidemiologist

Gorillas?

Article says: "Nearly all the other higher primates are omnivores, except the gorilla." ...which are ... what? (It's not even a link!) I had to do some searching, and finally ended up on the Mountain Gorilla page, to find out what gorillas eat. Could we put that in the article there, somehow?

Perhaps you could--PRB 12:25, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I removed the gorillas discussion altogether from the nutrition section. It is not relevant to vegetarian nutrition. – Joe Jarvis 19:18, Sep 25, 2004 (UTC)

Loaded terms

Just for the record, I think many of the terms used in the article are somewhat loaded and POV. The article takes a stance by defining the word "vegetarian," for example. Even while it acknowledges that some people hold different definitions for the term, it labels that definition as "misleading." Now, I don't want to turn this article into a mess of "most vegetarians say this, but others say this" as happens in many POV resolutions. But it's just something the editors here should be aware of. Please resist the urge to use loaded terms, and define contested words in a certain way. "Erosion" has a negative connotation, I don't agree with its inclusion but I'm not going to revert if it's what people want here. Rhobite 16:12, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)

I think "erosion" (my edit) is a good descriptive term for what is happening. I agree the connotation is negative, but it is used in the context of explaining some of the drawbacks of the mutating terminology, so I think it's appropriate in that context. I can see why you are concerned about other definition stuff, but essentially the problem with "vegetarian" is a usage one, which is for the dictionary people to decide. IMO our best approach is to pick a definition, cover it well, and acknowledge the alternatives (most of which are substantially covered here or given their own pages). --Chinasaur 22:06, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that's the best approach. I just think this article takes a stance about the one true definition when it doesn't have to. Rhobite 23:38, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

Seems to me there's only the one really objectionable paragraph (mostly my edit): the "erosion" one we have been discussing. But even if you're a pure descriptivist, wouldn't you say it's still worthwhile to identify and highlight usage differences where the ambiguity can lead to significant social angst? I'll look at it now; if you don't see any changes it means I couldn't think of a good way to improve it. --Chinasaur 07:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the recent edits are an improvement. I'll go over the article in more detail soon, and see if I can find more POV. Rhobite 13:58, Sep 27, 2004 (UTC)

Phrases such as "of course," "obviously," and "it should be noted" are usually unnecessary and opinionated. In this case, the word is used to indicate that this article makes a value judgement about the proper definition of vegetarianism. It doesn't belong here. There's a good discussion of this on the Village Pump.

"Obviously" is appropriate because what is being stated is obvious. Writing to readers' expectations is a fundamental of writing to be understood. Therefore if we find it necessary to state something obvious, it might be worthwhile to acknowledge it.

"This is not considered traditional vegetarianism" is too wishy-washy. It isn't traditional vegetarianism, assuming we all understand and agree on the definition of "traditional vegetarianism" (which we do). IMO, the sentence is acceptable as "most people do not consider this vegetarianism", or "this is not traditional vegetarianism". If you choose the latter, I would make the stylistic choice to add "obviously". --Chinasaur 22:31, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Economic vegetarianism

I made a number of comments on economic vegetarianism that are relevant to this article. Rather than repost them here, I thought I would link to the economic vegetarianism talk page. – Joe Jarvis 15:08, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hindus and honey

What is the basis of the statement about Hindu vegetarinans not eating honey? As a Hare Krishna, my religion is not included in the list (typical), but I believe this is something we have in common with Hindus. We use honey along with other auspicious substances when worshipping the Lord, and the remnants are later drunk with great satisfaction. --Pandu108 19:36, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding it being "typical" that Hare Krishna is not on the list, why not add it yourself? I do not know why Hindus refrain from eating honey (I'm Jewish) but I do know, from a friend who is a beekeeper, that bees are often killed (accidentally) during the process of harvesting the honey. Also, parts of bees can end up in the honey itself. Commercial honey is often boiled first and THEN strained, which means that bits of bees might have been boiled in it. Raw honey still in the comb is your best bet to avoid this problem, although it does not avoid the problem of bees being accidentally killed in the harvest process. User: rooster613

Partial vegetarianism

I've come across people who call themselves vegetarians but do eat fish. More recently, I've heard of people who call themselves vegetarians but will eat free range meat. Are there names for these practices? -- Smjg 18:03, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Idiots. The first group are called Pesco-Vegetarians. The second group are called fools. I suppose you could call them Carno-Vegetarians, but then that would apply to all omnivorous humans. PRB 18:07, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Claims that need sourcing

A number of bits of the article are non-obvious and need sources:

"90 per cent of the UK's animal feed protein concentrates come from poor countries - often those where children die from starvation."

jdb ❋ (talk) 07:28, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

“The cost of mass-producing cattle, poultry, pigs and sheep and fish to feed our growing population... include highly inefficient use of freshwater and land, heavy pollution from livestock faeces... and spreading destruction of the forests on which much of our planet's life depends.” - Time magazine 11/8/99

TIME is an American magazine, and would not use the British spelling 'faeces' except in a direct quote, which we should not cite without mentioning its source. Removed pending verification. jdb ❋ (talk) 07:26, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The quote was taken from http://www.choosevegetarian.com/wasting_resources.asp . On that page you see it with the American spelling, it's just I'm Australian and automatically wrote it in British English. I don't believe the page would fabricate such a quote, so I think it should be returned. In fact I have sources it to this article and found it myself on the database: http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=anh&an=2430637 . Given that the PCRM quotes were removed (fair I guess), I'm sure we can find some other statistics on that issue to source, because the relationship between meat and heart disease, diabetes and cancer is well documented. I'll go looking tomorrow. --komencanto 12:47, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh, good. Thanks. Incidentally, there are far too many places on this page that are just laundry lists of sound bites with vague sources (often just acronyms). We probably should clean those up, but that's another issue. jdb ❋ (talk) 15:30, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

World Hunger

"Critics of this view may observe that the root causes of world hunger are often traceable to harmful political structures rather than genuine resource shortages; see Hunger." Well proponents of this view observe the same thing... however, the sentence suggests otherwise. I couldn't come up with the different sentence structure without making it to unreadable to those who actually have no idea what vegetarianism is. Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)

I thought it made sense in context, but if it doesn't, it may be necessary to rearrange that paragraph a bit. jdb ❋ (talk) 18:03, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Water use

This page here contains a lot about this and other issues with references, so if anyone wants to add some information from there: http://www.choosevegetarian.com/wasting_resources.asp . I'm too busy at the moment and I can't be bothered checking the references. --komencanto 09:51, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've pretty much done this now, but some of the quotes and claims in the motivations section definitely need sourcing. Issues such as topsoil and land use haven't been properly covered. Pollution could do with a larger mention. I've copied a lot of things from the www.choosevegetarian.com website, but I think it is reasonable impartial stuff given it is all sourced. --komencanto 07:02, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

History of Vegetarianism

This article could do with a history section, focussing on the growth of vegetarianism over time due to religion. It could also mention the various events in recent history that have promoted vegetarianism, such as the BSE scare, the organics movement, the backlash against factory farming, Peter Singer's [Animal Liberation] and concern over toxins building up in the food chain. Anyone willing to start up something like this? It could even be its own page. --komencanto 23:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Vegetarianism and gender

From personal experience, the majority of vegetarians I have met have been female. Not to say that I don't know male vegetarians/vegans, but I know many more who are female. I know how unfounded it is to extrapolate from very unscientific personal experience, so I was wondering if anyone knew figures on this? Also, I know a few years ago some papers ran stories discussing vegetarianism as a fad among middle school girls. I think these are interesting angles to discuss, anyone agree? The lesbian 02:51, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My own subjective experience agrees with this, but we need hard numbers before putting anything into the article. Anyone got some? Tannin 02:55, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you google "vegetarians are women", you get tons of results indicating that some high proportion of vegetarians (60–80%) are women. But I haven't been able to find a scholarly source. (There are no relevant results for "vegetarians are men", in case you were wondering.) —Caesura ^(t) 04:25, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

This is your personal experience—it depends entirely on the population and situation you are looking at. If you were to go to Gujarat you would find as many vegetarian men as women because that is the norm. Or if you went to certain Buddhist countries in east Asia you might well find more vegetarian men than women because this is often associated with asceticism and there are more monks than nuns. On the other hand if you looked at a middle-American middle-school, you might well find that eating a lot of meat—or even killing animals—is considered macho, and concern for animals considered effeminate, and naturally you would expect to find more vegetarian girls. NTK 16:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Another factor, though probably a small one, is probably that vegetarianism and veganism are sometimes adopted to cover up anorexia, which (in the US at least) is more prevalent in young women than in the general population. DanielCristofani 09:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Among Hindus as well, where the family is not traditionally vegetarian, the women are usually the first to give up meat. 7/11 women and 1/11 men in my extended family are veg. --Pranathi 03:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Copy veganism article

The article about veganism is better than this one. We could probably make a lot of improvements by looking at that one and adjusting what we've done. We should probably have a separate page about vegetarian societies. --komencanto 06:07, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Opening para

With respect, I think "requiring the death of animals" is superfluous and the paragraph in general is starting to get unwieldy and lose focus. "The exclusion of these foods is called veganism." will IMO need to mention the notion not using animal products like leather and thus is better left out. Toast 19:24, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

possible edit war issue

I generally have nothing to do with this article and will continue not having any part in this article but I feel it necessary to bring up the fact that the issue of Fructarianism may end up becoming an edit war issue since it seems that there are different point of views on the subject on whether or not it is a form of vegetarianism, I urge both sides to use this talk page to work out a compromise before a full out edit war occurs.

Bias

Please do not include flawed information about health benefits of vegetarianism in the article. There is no evidence whatsoever that meat in and of itself promotes disease, whereas vegetarianism does not. Also note that a vegetarian can base his/her diet on junk food, avoiding all meat, but nonetheless vegetarianism in and of itself is no guarantee for good health.

Pesco/pollo vegetarianism

Pesco/pollo vegetarianism are two seperate things and their summary should be seperated. Pesco vegetarianism involves not any poultry except for chicken and Pollo vegeterianism means not eating any poultry except for fish. Ovo-vegetarianism should also be included.

Here are the reasons for my revert.

I would like to say why these statements included by an anon are wrong. Also he is trying to add vague responses of his own and not backed up by any scientific evidence or reference. Here is what he added :

"Most vegetarians would reply that plants are not self-aware or conscious of their actions or situation as animals are and probably do not experience pleasure or pain in any meaningful way."

Obviously the editor failed to read the previous para that talks about the experiments past and current that they show electrical and other related responses, sometimes even when a nearby plant is cut. (also shown on BBC)

"From an evolutionary perspective plants would have no reason to experience 'pain' as they are eaten, because they cannot respond to that pain in any meaningful way. Animals have evolved pain as a way to motivate an animal to avoid the cause and survive. Most plants have evolved to respond positively to being eaten (it is used to spread seeds) and most can survive being dismembered.

By the same logic many animals can survive being dismembered, some even regrow other parts like a lizard can. plants like the ones in africa and south america make use of defender ants (I just don't remember their actual name) to protect the tree and rewards the ants with a sweet liquid. If this isn't defence, what is?

"Therefore most plants can be grown and harvested without any real harm being done to the plant."

most cereals are harvested by plucking them from the ground. and it's a permanent damage to their lives.

so I hope i made my point. just because some lives don't shout that it's safe to assume they were "born" to be eaten. for even the deer was "born" to be eaten by the tiger or the baboon or any other omnivore (including man) by the same logic. Idleguy 12:44, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Nutrition / Vitamin B12 and some other fairy tales

Sorry to some of you, but I guess you have no idea of vegis. I'm vegetarian for more than 10 years, and i'm still alive - with no problems regarding my health. moreover, i'm still do a lot of sports (triathlon, runing...) and all without eating meat, chicks, fish.

See, you can only do triathlon with veg. i do decathlon with non veg.... Just Kidding! Idleguy 17:19, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

I see that nutritional deficiency in veggie diet is a concern for most people from a traditionally non-vegetarian society and this doesn't have a section addressing that except for a poorly worded section 'criticism'. Seems to me also from the links that it's not just fairy tales, some vegetarian diets do fail - can we maybe list the common causes.. And alongside it mention that most vegetarians (like user above) have no issues and are not limited by any activites.

I would like to expand the criticism section to say 'criticism and nutritional concerns'. I wanted to add that the switch from non-vegetarianism should be made slowly (first eliminate red meat, then months later, chicken and seafood then eggs etc) giving your body the time to adapt. I am not sure if this is an accepted/mainstream idea though? Anyone know? Also, would like to add that veggie diet may need to be well balanced and nutrition concious to be more successful. Any suggestions and help are welcome since I'm not the best person to add this. (I moved from a highly veggie non-red meat diet to completely vegetarian diet..)

Also, completely off-the-topic question. Indian society believes that a vegetarian diet increases mental prowess - traditionally, learned men, and merchants, those that don't need to do physical labour and use their mental faculties more, were vegetarians. How mainstream or far-fetched is that thinking in western vegetarian societies? --Pranathi 16:13, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be an article on Non Vegetarianism?

I think maybe it's time to create an article on Non Vegetarianism since many affluent people in the east are resorting to eating more meat as incomes jump up. Is that the right word to describe meat eaters or is there a better word/article already existing in wikipedia? Idleguy 17:59, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

"Carnivore" is the usual term. I guess to differentiate humans from other meat eaters they'd be called "human carnivores." Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Correction, the human race is an omnivore collectively since people eat all kinds of stuff. What I was referring to is the specific diet each one follows. Idleguy 09:50, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Controversial thinkers and POV

User Idleguy removed a reference I had inserted from Peter Singer on the ground that he is a controversial thinker. My understanding of NPOV is that it does not mean eliminating controversy but, to the controversy, representing it as opposed to suppressing it in favor of advocacy for one particular point of view. ALL of the thinkers mentioned in the vegetarianism article are controversial, because vegetarianism is a controversial subject. Peter Singer is at least one of the most distinguished philosophy professors in the world, and, like many philosophers, adopts controversial positions. The idea that plants have feelings is much more controversial than the idea that animals and plants differ in their consciousness, awareness of suffering, and so on, and Peter Singer isn't usually criticized for distorting information. So it seems to me quite reasonable, and in keeping with Wikipedia's basic philosophy, to cite him in this context, especially since there's a much greater consensus in the scientific community that animals differ from plants with regard to their nervous systems than about plants having feelings of a kind that would make it cruel to kill and eat them. Hence I am going to reinsert that sentence. Jeremy J. Shapiro 21:11, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Firstly not all the sources mentioned in the article are controversial as claimed. Secondly I think the issue is not if plants possess a neural network or not. The point is do plants feel "pain"? It does not matter if they feel pain despite a lack of nervous system, it is the end result that matters, i.e do they sense their environment to survive. Furthermore you have just tried to change "some vegetarians" to Peter Singer without giving the article or website where this quote of yours seems to exist. I think it's a case of conveniently putting words of yours into others' mouths. If the idea of plants defending themselves seems controversial, either you haven't been pricked by a rose or chanced upon a poisonous plant. Also the idea that animals would "feel" pain when they have no sixth sense might seem equally alien or controversial to others who might not share the same views as yours. the fact remains all lifeforms defend themselves and as per such flawed logic it would be unethical to kill any life for that matter be it a vegetative state of being or a mobile organism. Idleguy 10:13, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I certainly agree that the issue is whether plants feel "pain". I don't understand the connection between a rose having thorns and a rose feeling pain, nor do I understand the reference to sixth sense. I also don't understand the idea that there are no gradations of pain bearing on ethics. Please explain. Meanwhile I'll insert the Singer reference as you suggest. Jeremy J. Shapiro 13:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Following your suggestion and criticism and emphasis on sources, I added the reference to Singer and took out the statement "Critics say...", since there were no sources given either for the idea that plants feel pain or suffering or that the feelings cited for plants should have ethical consequences for human beings. I think that it would contribute to the article if you or others familiar with such sources would add them. Jeremy J. Shapiro 14:32, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you have taken things out of context and are confusing yourself in the process. Firstly the links and the works of the author i mentioned clearly stated the source for the starting lines including feeling "pain" etc. I advise you to read the links and the author's works (Bose) before any further mistakes. Also I find it amusing that you have to constantly revert back to the same controversial author. I think it's time this section of the article was properly edited to reflect a more diverse view instead of trying to defend the vegies and trying to put the last word as a pro-veggie. I think we'll leave it to the reader. Also I'll be adding and editing this section in some time. I see that the current article seems to be a tilt towards vegetarianism even in the critics section! Idleguy 15:23, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

There are no links or references to opinion in the recent edits. By the numbers of 14 gallons water for a pound of rice and 441 for beef, if rice needed 5 times that of wheat it would be 70 gallons - 6-7 times much less than 441. Cow's dung is used as a fertilizer and fuel - but only as long as it's alive. I think the article should present the vegetarian point of view with maybe a phrase or two against their views. The bulk of criticism should go in the criticism section. Just what I think ... --Pranathi 18:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Beef is just one of the meats. goats, sheep and chicken are others and the 441 gallons used is maybe for an american beef and not a cow or carabeef in asia/africa. it's like comparing apples to oranges. I admit i should have clarified such statements and I'm trying to get some online sources (the current edits are based on books). the section on economics plainly states views and opinions from a largely western pov. the techno-economics of animal husbandry in the developing world is entirely different. Idleguy 18:43, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm convinced that though it's different, it's not really apples to oranges. I think rearing any animal is more resource intensive than growing crops. There are industries around animal rearing even in devlpng countries and it's not just free-ranging, home-grown animals that are eaten. Even free ranging animals can't survive on just left-overs. But that is my pov and I will read up before I speak further.. --Pranathi 21:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Shocking how people make assumptions on what is eaten in developing countries based on western media. "There are industries around animal rearing even in devlpng countries and it's not just free-ranging, home-grown animals that are eaten." While it's partly true that free ranging animals are not the only ones eaten, the meat industry is only limited to the broiler industry in most of africa and asia. even in the rural and underdeveloped regions free ranging chicken is still eaten and they unlike crops need near zero resources to survive and lay eggs or be eaten as meat. goats and lambs are still herded by shpherds and I assure you that "stallfed" goat rearing has not taken off at all. pigs in these nations are often the least sanitary and grow on nothing more than waste and are labelled "meat king" and reared for subsistence farming. also beef and carabeef are fed not on the grains called rice but on the hay and they are often eaten by the lower classes of hindu society when they die. Sometimes these animals in the city even resort to eating paper and garbage dumped by humans. I'm sure no mentally stable human would feast on hay/paper/discarded vegetables.

"I think rearing any animal is more resource intensive than growing crops." Maybe you fail to see the fact that crops are not just limited to cereals but cash crops, fruits, exotic spices etc. Many times the later requires as much if not more resources to cultivate as these days people look at planting alien food stuff to satisfy the export market or "organic" produce. Furthermore another source of protein from meat, are the fishes which lives in a place called water where the question of resource intensiveness does not arise for we don't have alternatives to see food unless one wishes to eat seaweeds or corals.

I fail to see the point of this paragraph. Are you saying that farming animals is less resource intensive than growing crops that yields the same nutritional content? And on a lighter note; What's wrong with seaweed as food? Andreas Kahari 06:43, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

The fallacy of this argument stands clearly exposed. If anything rearing of livestock and their meat in most developing countries is much more beneficial than just sticking to vegetarian food as few seem to be getting their daily intake of proteins. So please don't jump in with half baked information. I also plan to introduce these facts into the article backed by properly online sources.(most of my references are offline in books etc.) Idleguy 05:01, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the issue of protein intake from a vegetarian diet is not really an issue. Andreas Kahari 06:43, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Moreover it ...as these animals' dung ..natural fertilizer and as fuel when dried ..seen as an added bonus. [13]

I could not find the book on the net - which year was it published? Also, couldn't understand how a book on paddy cultivation concerned itself with animal husbandry? If you look at manure the manure of horses, camel etc are used as fertilizer. Only cow (rarely camel) dung is used in India as fuel, where it is not eaten commonly. Chicken's cannot be used as fertilizer if it is fresh - can be used only if it is composted (see manure) (don't see anyone gathering chicken manure : )). basically, argument doesn't stick IMO. --Pranathi 23:02, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it was published late in the last century. It's an inhouse publication that was widely distributed in the agri banking industry. (In India agri banking includes animal husbandry, if you have ever stepped into SBI or other PSU banks, you'll know what I mean). The net is not the world, btw.

Cows, buffaloes and bulls are eaten in India, mainly the old ones or they are exported. If you exclude the hindi belt of the north, it happens practically everywhere. Maybe the "upper classes" might scorn at the idea, but I assure you it is eaten nontheless. A certain company called Al-Kabeer has minted money out of exports of beef and carabeef to the middle east. Also it's much more economically viable for the farmer to make money out of a dying cow/bull rather than keep it. Moreover, animals per se means sheep, goat, cows and other animals that graze the lands. chickens don't "graze" they just stay around the village and seldom go to the farmlands to eat. So bird manure does not make much of a difference. It is evident that people who talk about vegetarianism know little about the actual facts before making such imprudent economic assumptions based on either outdated info or selectively quoted data obtained mainly from the internet. Idleguy 05:50, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

The name of the book is 'Techno economics of Paddy cultivation' and don't see how it concerns itself with animals, even if it is widely disributed in the agri banking sector. But I guess if you say so, it is. I am not going to indulge in this never ending conversation - especially with you hurling abuses at anyone who challenges your viewpoint as ignorant, idoits etc.. In case you don't realise it, more than your info (which btw is ridden with errors itself as pointed out previously), it is your arrogance and putting everyone else down that jars.

If what you said was true, I would think there would be a rush to gather the numerous ambling, aging cows on the streets of India for export.. no, don't answer. --Pranathi 22:08, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I didn't want to answer but your false accusations that I've "abused" is a serious matter. Which was the line exactly I hurled verbal epithets? It is still surprising even after I explained the link of animals and agriculture in the Indian context that you should harp on this issue. Do you even know that paddy is a crop that is consumed by both humans and animals alike? So the economic aspect of paddy naturally includes not just rice but also hay. Thus in the same vein the scope of the book expands to cover the farm animals of indian agriculture. I did not write the book, so why question me on exactly why they decided to add a chapter on this or other environemental aspects of the said crop?

India is amongst the largest exporters of carabeef in the world. So despite your ignorance and wishy washy thinking, many heads of cattle are being consumed locally and also increasingly being exported. If you could step in southern india you will know what I mean. Infact in northeastern india (7 sister states) all animals from dogs to donkeys are eaten with aplomb. It is quite hard to get concrete evidence online for some facts for fear of reprisals from religious fundamentalists opposed to this, but like many other things in India they just go on mainly unheard of. Is it hard to learn and correct mistakes for you? I admit i made a minor mistake of calculation as i put 5 times instead of 4 times (the amount of water needed for paddy). But I find that you are neither willing to correct your mistakes or learn from the facts and are quite happy to shoot the messenger. And don't make false accusations that I've been calling people "idiots, fools" etc. Idleguy 10:14, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

Since I notice that there seems to be some strong emotion, verging on hostility, in some of the recent comments and edits, I would like to suggest working out the issues on this talk page rather than getting into an "edit war". I, in any case, am going to withdraw from making changes to the article itself until some of the actual issues as well as the strong emotions have been clarified on this page. Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:49, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

If there has been anything added without proper references (save the economics part), then please do point them out. If you find it offensive to learn the truth then I can't help it. I have after all not deleted your controversial sources, so I don't get the "hostility" part. Did i revert your edits after your quoted them properly? No. Did I verbally abuse you anyone? No. Was the image I added offensive? I don't believe so. Were the sources (BBC, Bible) as controversial as the ones you added? RESOUNDING NO. I think it's time to learn the facts and append them to the article. Tx Idleguy 19:04, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I remove the link you, again, added to that BBC news article. The article itself does not refer to any published work by Sally Jordan, and the English Institute of Sport does not do it either. I also question the inclusion of Africa in your other edit, especially after reading this: [1]. Are you able to support it with a resource available on-line (that one can check)? Andreas Kahari 08:58, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

It's a clear statement of facts by the said researcher, so I think it does suffice given that statements of controversial thinkers have been passed off without questioning in the article. Secondly I admit there was a mistake in adding africa on the paddy thing and the five times is also only 4 times. Here's another link. [2] stating that it 4 acres of land can be irrigated with the same amount of water that one acre of land needs. the actual techno economics part are available in that book and I think i've given maximum info on the book. if i can get hold of online sources i will add them accordingly. Hope that helps. Idleguy 09:19, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Move religious section to separate article?

By the way, it occurs to me that it might be a good idea to have a short paragraph stating that there are various religions sources of and attitudes toward vegetarianism and then move the detail to a separate article. It seems to me that most people wanting an introductory encyclopedia article about the topic wouldn't want all of the detail about each separate religion. There is also a long intellectual history of vegetarianism, and if we were to get into a summary of all of the ideas of important or famous thinkers about vegetarianism, that would take up a lot of space, too. Seems to me the article should capture the important points and not go into all of the detail about all of these things. The general paragraph could say something to the effect that within many major religions, there are people who have interpreted the religion as prescribing vegetarianism, briefly giving the reasons why, as well as people who don't interpret it that way, with one sentence on each religion. Then move the detail. I'm not about to do it, just raising it as a discussion issue. Jeremy J. Shapiro 18:58, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The biggest percent of vegetarians (I'm going to make a wild guess at 90%) are so for religious reasons (mainly Hindus). Although, reasons within religions usually overlap with the other secular reasons, they still need to be presented. IMO, this article is focussed on vegetarianism as a recent western trend and is less global in nature - no complaints, just an observation. I cannot speak for other religions but I think the Hinduism section should stay or be expanded. --Pranathi 21:34, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy, I agree with your idea to move "Vegetarianism and religion" to another article. It is a very important part of vegetarianism for many people and worthy of an article on it's own. This article (i.e. "Vegetarianism") should get into the non-spiritual motivations etc. As for Vegetarianism in Hinduism, this would have to moved along with the others in order to keep a neutral stance. However an introduction paragraph should be kept given that they are the first major religion to adopt vegetarianism as part of their spiritual practise. --nirvana2013 12:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

When I made this comment originally, it was not out of any kind of disrespect or wish to neglect the role of religion in vegetarianism, but rather out of my understanding of what an encyclopedia article should be, and that is that any extensive, highly detailed, specialized material does not belong in a general introduction to a topic. To me it's not an issue of what percentage of the world's vegetarians are vegetarians for what reason, it has to do with the level of detail. In working on these article, I'm always asking myself what kind of information an intelligent high school student or member of the general public would want and expect to read in such an article. I believe that the point of each major religion's attitude toward vegetarianism can and should be in the article, with a maximum of a couple of sentences for each. But it seems to me that the detail should be elsewhere. There is a lot more that could be said about the nutritional, ethical, etc. motivations. The issue to me is one of detail and proportion and of keeping a general reader in mind. Jeremy J. Shapiro 17:03, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Jeremy, I understand your intentions.. The religious section does take up a disproportionate amt of space and may be better to be moved to a separate article. Like nirvana says, an introductory parah should say that they are the first major religion and also that they make up the largest % of vegetarians. I noticed the hinduism section focusses on details more than philosophy and reasoning.. I will be back from a break end of the month and will attempt to make the section better and possibly article more global .. --Pranathi 22:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Freegan section totally inaccurate

I am the creator of the website freegan.info and do media interviews on this subject once or twice every week. The definition of freeganism offered is entirely inaccurate on numerous points including:

- suggestion that freeganism primarily relates to meat consumption - suggestion that freeganism is primarily related to environmental concerns (implying that it is not concerned with animal or human oppression)

I submitted a corrected definition, which for reasons I don't understand were removed. Can someone explain to me why my changes were removed?

Here is my corrected definition:

Freeganism; Freegans practice a lifestyle based on the idea that production in our capitalist society is inherently exploitative of animals, the earth, and human beings. Freegans point to the hidden layers of complexity in the production of everyday goods,even vegan ones, revealing worker exploitation, pollution, killing of wildlife, large scale consumption of fossil fuels, forced displacement of indigenous people, increased power and influence for socially unjust corporations fueled by our dollars, etc.

Freegans are critical of conventional vegetarianism, feeling that it is reflects a lack of understanding of the inherent oppressiveness of mass production under capitalism, and inaccurately labels products as "cruelty-free" that, in fact, involve a great deal of cruelty in their production.

Freegans are also deeply concerned with the large scale waste of useable commodities, including food. In fact, one of the mail ways that freegans provide for their needs is by recovering useable discarded commodities from retailers, businesses, homes, and other institutions. Freegans frequently find food, clothing, furniture, literature, computers, toiletries, art supplies--all sorts of goods regularly discarded in our throwaway society. In the United States, according to a recent University of Arizona study, 50% of all food is wasted, often while still perfectly useable. Freegans account for most of all of their dietary needs by recovering wasted foods that have been discarded in perfect shape for reasons like overordering at retail stores. In some cases goods are discarded before they even see a store shelf, guaranteeing freegans can eat food of equal quality to purchasers.

Many freegans are strict vegans. Others are willing to eat dairy, egg, or meat products to varying degrees (meat-eating freegans are called "meagans")if and only if they are recovered from refuse. Much has been made of this point by many vegetarians who have come to misunderstand freeganism as referring to a lifestyle where you eat meat "as long as its free." This is a fundamental misunderstanding of the scope and depth of freegan ideology.

Freegans who DO eat meat do so using the following logic:

1) If one studies the complex chain of production in producing ANY mass produced consumer good, animal, worker, and environmental exploitation can be found throughout the various stages of production--even for items marketed as "cruelty-free." For example, vegan, organic produce is transported to market in trucks that splatter insects and burn fossil fuels, contributing to the killing of wildlife in ocean oil spills and open oil pits in rainforests.

2) Since all foods that we buy cause suffering and ecological destruction, the divide between "cruel" animal products and cruelty-free" vegan ones is a false one. This is not to say that veganism is not a step in the right direction, since MOST (but not all)vegan foods require less stages of production than meat foods and thus involve less stages of destructive production impacts (e.g. eating grain is more efficient than feeding to cattle). But it does reduce the dichotomy between "good" vegan and "evil" meat foods, suggesting that we may not want to purchase items in EITHER category.

3) In a capitalist economy, our participation and complicity in production and marketing of goods is at point of purchase. Producers don't care what we do with goods so long as we BUY them. We could buy steaks and use them as hood ornaments for all beef producers care-- they just want the money.

4) Therefore, we lend our support to animal agriculture not by EATING meat, but by BUYING meat.

5) Recovering goods that would otherwise go to waste is a positive act that reduces landfill space consumption while eliminating our need to contribute to more resource consumption by additional purchasing.

6) Because vegan and non-vegan goods BOTH contribute to injustice, and because our consumption of discarded items does not contribute to increased demand for them or profits for their manufacturers, there is no morally significant difference between consuming discarded meat products or discarded vegan products.

7) To torture and kill animals, consume natural resources and exploit workers to create a product, only to have that product go to waste is deeply disrespectful to the animals, workers, and ecological resources that went into the creation of that product. Among animals, the body of a dead animal is food. We do more to honor that animal by allowing the animals' body to sustain life, to be eaten by another animal (a human), than to throw that animal's body into a landfill, a human invention that correlates with nothing in the nonhuman world. Even burying corpses as a way of honoring them is a human custom that makes little sense to impose on other species. Some meagans go so far as to see eating animal flesh under these circumstances as a more DUTY of respect to the animals who were killed and whose corpses then discarded unconsumed.

Among freegans, the eating or non-eating of meat that has been discarded simply isn't viewed as an important question, though many consider PURCHASING meat to be an abomination. Freegans feel that non-freegan vegetarians overemphasize on this question with regards to the overall ideology of freeganism as a result of a simplistic understanding of the relationship between capitalism, mass production, and exploitation. Freegans accuse non-freegan vegetarians of false piety, suggesting that their emphasis on the non-vegetarianism of some freegans is a bait-and-switch that allows them to shift focus away from non-freegan vegetarians having to take responsibility for the destructive impacts of the vegetarian commodities that they buy.

Would your insert not be better served under the article Freeganism? The vegetarian article will become overly long if all types of vegetarianism did the same. I would suggest making the main points under vegetarianism and then merging the rest into the Freeganism article. --nirvana2013 12:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

A NPOV tag has been listed on the article under the Motivation section for several weeks now. Has this been resolved and can it now be removed? Please advise. --nirvana2013 13:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Apparantly when the section was supposedly on its way to becoming neutral it suddenly seems to have been edited recently with volumes backing why ethically its right etc... Unless the section is pruned by moving large parts to the as yet uncreated main article on Ethics of Vegetarianism, I think the tag should stay given some of the statements are self defeating. Maybe you could hive the ethics section retaining only the gist here. Tx Idleguy 10:19, 6 October 2005 (UTC)