Page 6«..5678..»

Category : Vegetarianism

Balancing health with your culture – The Miami Hurricane

The 2010s saw a dramatic spike in new health trends. Specifically, more people turned to veganism and vegetarianism as a lifestyle. The biggest food prediction for this new decade is a plant-based revolution that will take the mainstream media by storm. Its no secret that eating less meat can be beneficial for your health while also helping the environment. However, with these popular food trends, it can be tricky to also honor ones culture. Cuisine is a major part of every culture and it is challenging to try new things while also staying true to your roots.

Since I was a kid Ive always been interested in plant-based food options and I would constantly drag my mom and sister to the quaint vegan cafes that began popping up throughout Miami. I think its important to try new things, especially when they can improve your health and expand your knowledge on the positive impacts eating the right foods can make. Exploring these vegan or vegetarian food trends is especially difficult when your cultures cuisine is very meat-centric. I come from a Cuban background and one of our main dishes is a bistec de palomilla, or butter-fried beef steak, usually paired with a side of rice and beans. As a person who hasnt had any type of steak in over three years, I can leave people confused.

Youre Cuban but you dont eat meat? is a question I hear a lot, but I think its important to separate heritage and culture from health choices because culture can be honored and celebrated in other ways besides food.

My best friend who is also Cuban can relate to this issue, having been a committed vegetarian for almost four years. In Cuban culture, Christmas Eve, or Noche Buena, is a big deal for us. The designated dish for this celebration is lechon, or pork, but for a vegetarian spending Christmas Eve with a Cuban family, it can be difficult to balance this tradition with personal choices.

I think the best way to navigate these situations is to remember that food is not tied to your identity, and although it may feel like food is the center of your culture, you can still express your heritage through alternate ways, including music, dress, meat-free food options and other customs that dont compromise the health-conscious decisions you want to abide by.

While I havent cut out meat from my diet entirely, I feel that cutting out red meat was the right choice for me and it has helped me feel better physically. I no longer feel sluggish after eating like I used to when I had massive cheeseburgers every other week. Now I opt for a turkey or veggie burger, and when Im really craving meat, Ill order an Impossible Burger, which is entirely plant-based but tastes and even looks like the real deal.

The vegan phenomenon is often criticized because it makes people feel outcasted if they still eat meat, but I think thats the wrong angle to take. I think it all comes down to respecting peoples personal choices, whether that means having meat regularly or leaning towards a more plant-based life. And these choices dont define how strong your pride is for your culture, because it is definitely possible to strike a balance between the traditions of the past and the new ideas of the present.

Nicole Macias is a senior majoring in English.

Read more:
Balancing health with your culture - The Miami Hurricane

Recommendation and review posted by Alexandra Lee Anderson

Harrison Ford Ditches Meat and Dairy and Says he is Vegetarian – The Beet

Harrison Ford isn't just Indiana Jones or the most famous Wookie-loving pilot in the Galaxy. Now he is adding to his many roles. After playing heroes as lovable as Han Solo, Indie and the original Jack Ryan of the big screen, Ford just yesterday announced that he was giving up meat and dairy "to help the environment."

Speaking about his new diet, Ford said: "I eat vegetables and fish, no dairy, no meat. I just decided I was tired of eating meat and I know it's not really good for the planet, and it's not really good for me." This follows his speech last fallatthe UN Climate Action Summit where he spoke about the environmental crisis and saving the Amazon rainforests.

Always fit, always preternaturally youthful and always on the move, Ford is another "cool guy" who has joined the ranks of plant-lovers. When Arnold Schwartzenegger and James Cameron speak out against meat and dairy, and the benefits of adopting a plant-based diet for their health and performance, guys sit up and listen. There is the usual discussion of "Where do I get my protein?" and "What the heck do I eat?" which are all good questions and The Beet has complete guides to the best sources of plant-based protein and 21 days of ready-to-cook recipes as part of our 21 Day Plant-Based Challenge. But less and less, do you hear the line of resistance that goes something like: Real men eat meat. And Vegetarianism is for girls. Because it's not.

Ford says his athletic body is due to his diet more than hitting the gym, according to a recent interview, and insists he doesn't "work out" like crazy.

Making an appearance on The Ellen DeGeneres Show, he added: "I don't work out like crazy; I just, I work out a bit. I ride bikes and I play tennis and a little bit."

Meanwhile, Harrison has claimed the only people that can save the world are "angry" young people.

The Hollywood icon, now 77, appeared on Tuesday's edition of The Ellen DeGeneres Show, and went into detail about delivering his speech to save the Amazon rain forest last fall at the UN Climate Action Summit.

Asked if he was nervous beforehe gave the speech, the Oscar-nominated actor replied, 'Not until I [got] there - I don't have enough sense to be.'

'I was in this room, I was on a dais ... and everybody else was a head-of-state and I thought, "Oh man they made some big mistake here,"' Ford said. 'But then they let me talk about what I wanted to talk about - which is the environment.' The Daily Mail of London broke the story.

"We've been talking about saving the Amazon for 30 years. We're still talking about it," Ford continued. "The world's largest rain forest, the Amazon is crucial to any climate change solution for its capacity to sequester carbon, for its biodiversity, for its freshwater, for the air we breathe, for our morality. And it is on fire. When a room in your house is on fire, you don't say, 'there is a fire in a room in my house.' You say, 'My house is on fire,' and we only have one house ... They are the young people who, frankly, we have failed - who are angry, who are organized, who are capable of making a difference. The most important thing that we can do for them is to get the hell out of their way."

On a lighter note, Ellen accused Ford of riding an electric-powered bike, a fact he adamantly denied.

Go here to read the rest:
Harrison Ford Ditches Meat and Dairy and Says he is Vegetarian - The Beet

Recommendation and review posted by Alexandra Lee Anderson

A wider platter – The Indian Express

Written by Nayanjot Lahiri | Updated: February 25, 2020 2:02:33 am A promotional image for Historical Gastronomica. (File) With an impressive variety of meats, fish, and fowl, the cuisine of the Harappan city dwellers would even today be considered a gourmands delight.

Harappan food was rich in all kinds of fleshy delights. Indeed, with an impressive variety of meats, fish and fowl, the cuisine of the Harappan city dwellers would even today be considered a gourmands delight.

Before giving a graphic description of the nourishing non-vegetarian fare that they delighted in consuming, perhaps I should mention how food remains are studied. Within the material culture that has survived, there is the garbage of everyday life found at archaeological sites around the production and consumption of food vast quantities of broken and discarded pottery, chewed and charred animal bones, sundry cereals and seeds of fruits and implements used in producing and processing food. Such artefacts are now studied through scientific techniques that can even indicate whether stone tools were used to cut meat or wild grass, and whether grinding stones mashed mangoes or cereals.

In India, unfortunately, we dont get direct evidence of a meal, that is, of what ancient people consumed at a particular time and day because this comes from the stomachs and the excreta of past people. Neither of these have survived in archaeological contexts here.

Opinion | Harappan meat-eaters, Lutyens vegetarians

Occasionally, a single sample on a site will yield large amounts of material. At the Harappan city of Surkotada, charred lumps of carbonised seeds were discovered from an earthen pot. Two of the charred lumps yielded nearly 600 specimens, an overwhelming majority of which were from wild plants. Only about 7 per cent were identified as being of cereals. The cereals were millets, wild and cultivated, wild grasses, nuts, and weeds. This cannot give clues to the relative importance of different cereals because the sample only reflects a moment in time.

Plant remains from Harappan sites reveal the entire repertoire, from cereals and lentils to fruits and vegetables, and even the spices used. Recognising grains is easy and has been done for nearly a century since the discovery of Mohenjodaro and Harappa because burnt cereals survive rather well and sometimes also leave an imprint on clay. Among vegetables and fruits, it is usually their seeds that are identified. More recently, the archaeologist Arunima Kashyap has recovered and identified at Harappan Farmana (in rural Haryana), starch granules from pots, grinding stones, and teeth, showing the processing, cooking and consumption of mangoes, bananas and garlic. What was left over after the household ate was evidently fed to their animals since the same starch granules were scraped off the teeth from cattle remains found there.

The first thorough investigation of ancient animal remains from an archaeological site anywhere in the Indian subcontinent was done at Mohenjodaro, published in 1931 in the first excavation report of the city. Written by Colonel R B Seymour Sewell and B S Guha, no less than 37 species were identified. There were domesticated and wild animals and included a considerable frequency of humped cattle, pig, and fish. Apparently, gharials and turtles, remains of which in many cases have been burnt, indicate that such animals formed part of the food of that city. Since then, as a 1994 article by P K Thomas and P P Joglekar revealed, there have been some two dozen Harappan sites whose animal remains are reported. Interestingly, cattle bones account for more than 70 per cent of the bones and, in fact, any Harappan site where bones have been found, without exception, has yielded cattle bones. Evidently, while cattle were used for agricultural operations and as draught animals, their meat was vastly enjoyed. Mutton was the other food that was commonly consumed as were pigs.

Animal teeth have also been studied to understand when the victims were killed. At Harappan Oriyo Timbo (in Gujarat), nearly 15,000 animal bones were recovered and annular rings accurately fixed the age and season of death of fauna. The microscopic annuli on a dental substance known as cementum was carefully assessed. What these revealed was that cattle, sheep and goat were slaughtered from March to July. Usually, very young animals were not killed, and slaughtering was most common in cattle samples at 30 months and 18 months in sheep/goat. Mature animals bones were also very common which underlines that adult animals were valued for their productive capacity.

The animals that Harappans kept and consumed is rather well known. What is less known is the range of wild animals enjoyed by them and the fact that these contributed greatly to their diet. Various types of deer and antelopes were hunted, and many varieties of birds, turtles, fish, crabs and molluscs were found as Thomas and Joglekar point out, in the kitchen refuse. We also know that ancient Punjabis at the city of Harappa enjoyed marine catfish.

Among wild animals, from Gujarats Kuntasi and Shikarpur, bones of wild ass with cut marks and evidence of charring underlines that they were hunted for food. Gujarats Harappan sites, as Shibani Boses just published book on Mega Mammals in Ancient India reveals, also show the presence of rhinoceros. It is animals that are normally eaten which find their way into archaeological deposits and that is likely to be the reason why these bones are so commonly found. In the case of Nausharo in Baluchistan, rhino bones were found in a hollow along with trash. What Bose also points out is the consumption of rhino meat in historical India and that texts on Indian medicine like the Caraka Samhita attribute definite health benefits to it.

Some scriptures did frown on or had misgivings about killing and consumption of animals. The Satapatha Brahmana, an ancient Indian religious text that forms part of the Vedic corpus, is full of fine detail about sacrificial ritual, and the eater of meat is said to be eaten in his next birth by the animal killed. Regardless of these occasional scriptural impediments, the general picture is of an ancient populace not just carnivorous but eagerly so.

All this should give pause to modern advocates of vegetarianism who want to make ancient Indians in general and Harappans in particular appear to be like them. Harappans would most certainly have scoffed at such attempts, even as they chomped through chunks of roasted cattle and pig.

The writer is professor of history at Ashoka University

The Indian Express is now on Telegram. Click here to join our channel (@indianexpress) and stay updated with the latest headlines

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App.

View post:
A wider platter - The Indian Express

Recommendation and review posted by Alexandra Lee Anderson

The Taste With Vir: The moral case for veganism is much stronger than the case for non-vegetarianism – Hindustan Times

Some of you know may know that Penguin has recently published a collection of old Rude Food columns in book form. The thing about a column is that no matter how much effort you put into writing it that week, there comes a time, say 100 columns on (which is nearly two years in the case of Rude Food), when you no longer remember what you said in each column.

I have been reminded of this with startling regularity as I have given interviews about the book or spoken at events where the book is the primary focus. A week ago, at Mumbais Kala Ghoda Festival, I was interviewed on stage by the actress and food writer Tara Deshpande.

Tara is not only very bright but had done her homework so, as she asked me questions about some of the columns that had been compiled into the book, I found myself struggling. Did I really write that, I often thought to myself while simultaneously struggling to seem cool on stage and pretend that I recalled the details of the pieces she was referring to.

One of these was an old column on vegetarianism. I am a non-vegetarian though the Gujarati genes inside me ensure that I do not miss meat even if I dont eat it for a while.

I did not choose to be a non-vegetarian. My parents were non-vegetarians so I grew up as one. It was never a conscious choice or one that I thought deeply about.

Some of my relatives are vegetarians and again, it wasnt a conscious choice for them either. They were brought up as vegetarians and are put off by the smell and taste of meat. In a few cases, there may have been religious reasons --- my family are Jains though you would not think it, judging by our eating habits. But I often wonder if all of us had to put off the decision till adulthood and make it at an intellectual level alone, would we choose to be vegetarians or non-vegetarians?

If it was a purely intellectual exercise (unrelated to religion, gastronomic preferences, background etc.), then I think that anyone who was intellectually honest would have to concede that the moral case for vegetarianism is far stronger than the case for non-vegetarianism.

Lets start with the whole business of killing. Our society is built on the assumption that it is wrong to kill another human being. (Except in special circumstances: war, self-defence, the death penalty etc.)

We regard this as a moral imperative with hardly any qualifications. We do not believe that we can kill less intelligent people, the badly handicapped, etc. In fact, anybody who uses such criteria to justify killing is, we believe, a monster.

So where does that leave animals?

Well, we are ambivalent. If somebody killed your pet dog, you would treat it as an act tantamount to murder. If we caused pain to animals, we would risk prosecution in many parts of the civilised world where there are laws against cruelty to animals.

Even dedicated non-vegetarians (in most of the world) would refuse to eat cats, dogs or other animals that we treat as our friends. At the other end of the spectrum, we wont eat animals we consider dirty or icky. Jews and Muslims wont eat pork, for instance. Whenever we see pictures of East Asians eating cockroaches or locusts, we are appalled. And we dont eat animals we consider holy: many non-vegetarian Hindus wont eat cows.

So how do we distinguish between animals we can kill for food without a second thought and those we cant? Why is it okay to slaughter some animals and not others? Why are we allowed to kill animals but not to cause pain to them?

There is no logical answer or distinction. It depends on prejudice and on geographical context: for instance, Koreans will eat dog even if the rest of us wont. The Chinese routinely kill animals in the cruellest manner possible.

What all of this suggests is that at some level, we are confused ambivalent about killing animals. We will kill some; we wont kill others. And we are as ambivalent about the ones that we are willing to eat. Most of us deliberately duck the moral questions and ignore the contractions in our stand.

None of us (even the most dedicated non-vegetarian) ever says that all animals were created to be eaten by human beings. And frankly, we cant say that because human beings dont need to eat animals to survive. Only other animals do.

A tiger will suffer damaging consequences to its health if it eats only grass. Nor, given the size of its appetite, will grass be enough to fill its stomach. So yes, there is a justification for non-vegetarianism among animals.

But even there, human attitudes are contradictory. We mourn when a tiger is found dead. But we shed no tears for the deer and goats that the same tiger killed every day. If pushed to defend this apparent contradiction, I imagine we would fall back on the defence that there is no reason for humans to kill tigers. But tigers need to eat goats or deer to survive.

So yes, unlike predatory big cats, we dont need to kill animals. Millions of people live quite happily on a largely plant-based diet. Others may consume some animal products (eggs or milk, for instance) but their vegetarian diet allows them to live to a ripe old age.

So, if we dont need to kill animals to survive, how do we justify the slaughter of sentient beings for meat?

There is no easy answer to that question and now, in the years since I first wrote about vegetarianism, there is a new reason to give up on meat. Scientists have broadly agreed that the breeding and killing of animals for food is damaging the planet. If we were all to turn vegan (no milk or eggs), it would help the environment. Even being vegan for half the day would make a huge difference.

Morally, I dont think there is any way around this: veganism is the best and most ethical solution.

But, of course, the decision about whether to eat meat or not is rarely an ethical one for us in India. The overwhelming majority of Indian vegetarians have been brought up to be vegetarians. Usually, this is for religious reasons; no moral choices are involved. And our vegetarians still depend on milk products (yoghurt, ghee, etc.) which require the breeding of cows and damage the environment. A man who eats lots of dahi (curd) and paneer (cottage cheese) may well do as much damage to the environment as the guy who eats seekh kababs.

Non-vegetarians dont give up meat because, basically, we like the taste. We are used to it. We would miss it if we gave it up. Thats how we have been brought up. We dont worry too much about the moral and ethical issues.

But given how unnecessary non-vegetarianism is and given how much damage it does to the planet, perhaps we should consider a simpler solution.

Many writers and ethicists have found this solution: dont give up meat. Just reduce your consumption. Its the same with milk products. If you are a hardcore vegetarian who likes curd-rice, paneer or ghee, then reduce your intake.

It is not always convenient to be a vegetarian in many parts of the world. But in India, it is easy. We have such wonderful vegan options that we can easily cut meat out of our diets if we want to.

Except that non-vegetarians and milk-lovers dont want to. And if they give it up, their will usually collapses in a month or so and they are back to their normal diets.

So heres a suggestion. Dont give up anything. Just reduce the quantity. Try being vegan till the sun goes down (breakfast, lunch and tea). You can eat what you like at dinner.

It wont fulfil any moral criteria because you can still eat mutton curry for dinner. But it will help the planet.

Its not difficult to do. So, think about it.

I certainly am.

To read more on The Taste With Vir, click here

Follow more stories on Facebook and Twitter

Excerpt from:
The Taste With Vir: The moral case for veganism is much stronger than the case for non-vegetarianism - Hindustan Times

Recommendation and review posted by Alexandra Lee Anderson

Rakul Preet Singh is not going to eat non-veg now, there are lots of extra stars who don’t eat meat and fish! – Sahiwal Tv

Rakul Preet Singh is counted among the many scorching and exquisite actresses of Bollywood. Rakul can also be dominated in South Cinema in addition to Bollywood. Rakul has labored in Bollywood with Ajay Devgan and Tabu within the movie De De Pyar De. Apart from this, she has labored in lots of movies together with Yaariyaan, Iyari, Marjawan. Recently Rakul Preet Singh has taken a giant determination. He has given up non-vegetarian meals. Now she is vegan. She is not going to even eat dairy anymore. He says, 'Ive been a staunch carnivore all my life. It just isnt that I didnt eat greens, however meat was an necessary a part of my weight loss plan, particularly eggs.

->However, sooner or later, I made a decision to simply turn into a vegetarian. It was a sudden determination one thing that got here from inside and was not pushed by any tendency. Now, I really feel gentle and stuffed with vitality. '

There are many stars in Bollywood whove given up non-food. Looking at health, non-veg has turn into vegetarian, whereas some have left non-veg following PETA-like organizations. Stars like Akshay Kumar, John Abraham, Anushka Sharma comply with the vegetarian weight loss plan.

Akshay Kumar's title has additionally been included within the record of Vegetarian Stars. At the age of 51, Akshay can also be one of the vital match stars. Recently, Akshay mentioned that in an effort to keep wholesome life and health, he give up consuming non-veg four months in the past and has turn into a vegetarian.

Bollywood actress Anushka Sharma is a vegetarian. Recently, Anushka additionally acquired the title of Person of the Year from PETA. Because she eats pure vegetarian meals. Anushka feels that she has felt a distinction in herself since she left Nonvez. Anushka herself advised that, after turning into a vegetarian, she may be very wholesome and feels good. He advised, what we eat, all of it issues rather a lot, as a result of your foods and drinks defines you. By the best way, Virat Kohli additionally eat veg meals together with Anushka Sharma. After marriage, Virat has additionally turn into a vegetarian.

Karthik Aryan, who reached the seventh sky of success nowadays, can also be a vegetarian. Karthik additionally doesnt eat any non-vegetarian meals. Karthik additionally acquired the Person of the Year title from PETA this 12 months. Karthik says that he noticed a video through which an animal was bitten. After this, he left Nonvez and have become a vegetarian.

Vidda Balan Bollywood's most well-known actress Vidya Balan can also be a vegetarian. Vidya additionally doesnt eat non-veg. Vidya loves solely vegetarian meals. Due to this, hes additionally included within the record of 'Peta' scorching vegetarian celebrities. Veg has been consuming meals for years. She doesnt work non-veg.

Bollywood celebrity Amitabh Bachchan additionally doesnt eat non-veg. Big B has been consuming wedges for years. Big B loves Idli Sambhar. Apart from this, they wish to eat moong dal, spinach cheese and girl's finger. Everyday in addition they eat several types of veg issues to suit them.

Bollywood's John Abraham additionally doesnt eat non-veg. John has by no means resorted to non-veg for such a superb physique and physique. John solely eats veg. John Abraham believes that you do not want to eat meat for protein. If you need protein, you can too eat solely veg.

Queen Kangana Ranaut additionally eats veg. Kangana doesnt eat non-vegetarian meals. Kangana believes strongly in God. She additionally recites a whole lot of pooja. So she doesnt eat non-veg.

Everyone is loopy about Mr. Perfectionist Aamir Khan. Aamir additionally does what he does with perfection. Aamir can also be a vegetarian. Aamir additionally doesnt eat non-veg. Aamir Khan adopted vegetarianism on the behest of his spouse Kiran Rao. Because Kiran is a vegetarian herself.

Alia Bhatt, who grew to become everybody's favourite in Bollywood at the moment, can also be a vegetarian. Aaliya additionally doesnt eat non-veg. Aaliyah used to eat non-veg very keenly. But later he gave up non-food. Now she solely eats vegetarian.

See original here:
Rakul Preet Singh is not going to eat non-veg now, there are lots of extra stars who don't eat meat and fish! - Sahiwal Tv

Recommendation and review posted by Alexandra Lee Anderson

Ways to Staying Healthy – Daily Pioneer

Lifestyle plays a big role in our health. Research shows that meditation and vegetarian diet are two proactive ways of increasing our wellness, says Sant Rajinder Singh

Each of us has the power within us to create a healthier way of life. The choices we make today impact our physical, mental, and spiritual health tomorrow, whether months or years from now. Our choices also impact our family. What we choose today regarding the care of our body, mind, and spirit will determine what our future health will be.

Medical research points at two ways by which we can increase our wellness. One is meditation and the other is a vegetarian diet. Meditation helps us increase our health and well-being physically, mentally, and spiritually. It keeps our body and mind calm and reduces our chances of contracting stress-related illnesses.

Research by medical practitioners and doctors indicates that meditation benefits the body and mind. As someone put it in jest: we can counter the effects of ill, pill, and bill by being still. Being still refers to sitting in meditation. This increased interest and popularity of meditation has grown as scientific studies verify what has been known in the East for centuries.

Lets reflect a little on the two simple steps to staying healthy:

Step 1: Meditation

Be still. Our parents had this one solution for us when we were children. These words really are a precursor for a healthy lifestyle. Being still is another word for meditation.

When we meditate, we slow our heart rate and breathing to a point where we are calm. When we are agitated and upset, the body produces fight or flight hormones such as cortisol and adrenaline which may be useful when in danger to help us defend ourselves or run, but not when simple problems of life upset us. We do not need cortisol and adrenaline to kick in when our spouse or children leave the toothpaste cap off or someone cuts us off on the highway. We have been so conditioned to becoming upset about things that are not life-threatening that we produce stress hormones that react on our body in a way that can break down our organs and bodily systems.

Meditation helps us be calm, and in a relaxed state so that we can ward off the effects of daily life challenges. When we are calm, our body is not producing hormones that can lead to stress-related ailments such as heart attack, stroke, hypertension, headaches, digestive and skin problems. When we meditate we also keep our mind calm. We not only suffer physical illness from stress, but we create emotional and mental difficulties when we are not calm. This can lead to emotional and relationship problems or other stress-related mental disorders. Through meditation we can keep a calm and peaceful mind to help us lead happier lives.

Meditation also helps us develop concentration. When we are stressed out our performance level is not as high as we need it to be. When we concentrate we can get better grades, which reduces our stress as students. Our stress as employees or professionals is reduced because we can perform better at work.

How can we prove the spiritual benefits of being still and meditating? This is one area where meditation fits the scientific model. It is based on experimentation leading to proof. Those who have tried the experiment have discovered that meditation leads to wellness not only of the body and mind, but of the soul.

In meditation, we close our eyes, gaze within, and still our mind of thoughts. When the reflecting pool of our mind is still, we see what lies within us. We see Light within, hear celestial Music, and can soar to regions of Light. Through meditation, we thus achieve physical, mental, and spiritual wellness.

Step 2: Vegetarian Diet

Another key to a healthy lifestyle is living on a vegetarian diet. Research proves that a plant-based diet reduces the risk of many diseases such as stroke, heart attack, diabetes, digestive disorders, and even some cancers, among other illnesses. By cutting out meat, and even fish, fowl, and eggs we can reduce the risk of many ailments.

Vegetarianism also benefits our state of mind and spiritual well-being. Think of the state of the animals when slaughtered. Hormones of fear and stress run through them at the time of their captivity and slaughter. It has been said that we are what we eat. All that was a part of the animal becomes part of us when we eat it. This means we are ingesting their fear and panic hormones, which can contribute to our own state of fear and anxiety when it becomes a part of our body.

We also are taking into our body anything the animal ate. For example, antibiotics fed to the animal become part of us, and if we have too much it can cause bacteria to become antibiotic-resistant. If animals are fed hormones to make them grow faster, they too become a part of us which can lead to problems because now those hormones are in our body. We also are taking into our body any diseases that the animal may have contracted.

There are moral benefits to a vegetarian diet. Most cultures believe in the law that thou shalt not kill. There is a recognition in many cultures that even animals have a soul in them. Thus, when we take the life of a creature, we are taking the life of a being who has a soul in it. Those who ascribe to a spiritual way of life and meditate have even witnessed that the same Light of the Divine in us also shines in all other human beings and all creatures. Thus, a thread of divine connection knits all life together.

Today, there are numerous delicious and nutritious vegetarian, plant-based foods that we can eat. Besides a growing number of vegetarian restaurants, most restaurants now offer a wider variety of vegetarian dishes. Mainstream supermarkets have many vegetarian options for customers. Even places where it was hard to get vegetarian foods, such as school cafeterias, hospitals, cruise ships, conferences, and venues for professional gatherings, offer vegetarian choices.

It is now easier than ever to be vegetarian and the benefits are enormous. One can try the experiment of incorporating meditation and vegetarian diet into ones life. You can see for yourself the benefits you will experience. If you track the changes these two choices bring, you will find that you are healthier physically, mentally, and spiritually. May each of you make choices to experience the benefits of a healthy lifestyle for your body, mind, and soul.

The writer is a spiritual leader

View post:
Ways to Staying Healthy - Daily Pioneer

Recommendation and review posted by Alexandra Lee Anderson

EU spending tens of millions of euros a year to promote meat eating – The Guardian

The EU has been accused of an indefensible approach to human health and the climate crisis in spending tens of millions of euros each year on campaigns to reverse the decline in meat eating and trying to rebut so-called fake news on the mistreatment of animals bred for food.

Campaigns range from those designed to counter official warnings about the risk of cancer from eating red meat, to improving the public image of veal products said to be crucial in deriving value from young male calves superfluous to the dairy industry.

The EU provides an annual 200m (166m) subsidy for the promotion of agricultural products each year. About 60m has been spent in the last three years on 21 meat marketing campaigns, including in the UK, according to research by the Dutch animal welfare organisation Wakker Dier.

The stated ambition of many of the projects has been to halt a decline in meat consumption amid a growing trend to vegetarianism among Europes young people.

The livestock sector is responsible for about 14.5% of total human-derived greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists have provided evidence of a link between cancer and diets involving pork, beef and lamb products.

The description on the European commission website of one recent campaign entitled Pork Lovers Europe, which secured 1.4m for marketing, including a road-show with a pink bus painted to look like a pig, noted that the consumption of pork meat in Europe has decreased in recent years.

It continued: Therefore, it is very important to promote pork meat to restore the confidence of the consumer, which was shaken by news such as the last IARC [International Agency for Research on Cancer] report.

Scientists at the IARC, a UN agency, reported in 2015 that the consumption of bacon, red meat and glyphosate weedkiller increased the risk of developing cancer. The Pork Lovers Europe adverts targeted consumers in the UK, Spain, Germany, France and Portugal.

A campaign by the Association of Poultry Processors and Poultry Trade which will be run in six member states at a cost to EU taxpayers of 4.4m aims over the next two years to contradict myths and fake news about the rearing and slaughter of chickens for meat.

EU poultry consumption in the European Union is still increasing but at a slower pace, as more and more consumers are mistrustful regarding the poultry meat production, the European commissions website says. The campaign, targeting a 1.22% growth in chicken consumption in 2020 and 2021, is aimed at young children, professionals, media and opinion leaders.

A second pork campaign received a 2.5m subsidy for an initiative aimed at Danes and Swedes. Pork is no longer a natural part of the diet of young Scandinavians, the commission website says. They tend to eat less meat in general and to avoid pork in particular. The aim is to increase consumer demand and thus halt any otherwise expected fall.

A campaign in favour of the Dutch veal sector to promote the meat of calves in the Belgian, Italian and French markets received a 6m subsidy.

The veal market has been declining since the 2000s, says a description of the project on the commission website. There are various reasons for this: the economic crisis, changes in consumption behaviour and above all a lack of top-of-mind awareness. France, the Netherlands, Belgium and Italy are minded to fight this fall in consumption by boosting the image consumers have of European veal.

Sjoerd van de Wouw, a researcher at Wakker Dier foundation, said the funding policy was outdated indefensible. We understand that you need to consider the interests of producers but not by completing ignoring the interests of consumers and the climate, he said.

In response, a European commission spokesman said: The selection of projects is based on a strict and defined procedure involving external evaluators. The producers organisations send proposals regarding their campaign ideas and also participate in the funding of the campaigns.

In an effort to constantly evaluate and adjust its existing policy, the commission will soon launch a public consultation on the EU promotion policy for agricultural products.

See the original post:
EU spending tens of millions of euros a year to promote meat eating - The Guardian

Recommendation and review posted by Alexandra Lee Anderson

Why some philosophers think you should be a vegetarian – Big Think

Vegetarianism is having a moment in the sun. Record numbers of people are giving it a try, the number of places offering vegetarian food is ever-increasing, and the variety and quality of vegetarian alternatives to meat products are rising with it.

But, is this all just misplaced environmental concern, sentimentality, and hippie mumbo jumbo? After all, the stereotype of a vegetarian remains less than flattering. Or is there a method to the bacon-denying madness? Today, we'll look at three philosophies that endorse vegetarianism, look at their arguments, and consider if you should put that piece of steak down.

Peter Singer is an Australian philosopher well known for his work in Utilitarian ethics. His 1975 book Animal Liberation is a groundbreaking work in the field of animal rights and presents a bold program for treating animals much better than we currently do.

He begins with a simple idea; that animals have interests that should be considered equal to the similar interests of human beings. If it is wrong to inflict unnecessary pain on human beings, then it is also wrong to do it to animals.

While it is true that many arguments have been made to separate humans and animals because of differences between them, Singer points out that we never apply them to other members of the human race. If we can't hurt and eat people with very low intelligence or who cannot use language, then why do we justify eating animals because they don't use syntax? Since animals clearly can feel, why should we not consider them as equal when calculating the net pleasure and pain caused by an action?

He argues that any attempt to morally separate humans from other animals when it comes to whose pain matters is based primarily on speciesism, prejudice against other animals, rather than a consistent logic and should be rejected. He then concludes, given the nature of industrial farming and the suffering many animals endure because of it, that we should switch to vegetarian and vegan diets to maximize the total happiness.

There are two subtleties to his arguments that must be remembered. The first is that he is not talking about "animal rights" in the pure sense. He certainly isn't arguing that an elephant be given the right to vote. He is arguing only that the difference between pain in humans and elephants is morally irrelevant and that the elephant's interests should be considered as equal to a humans' when deciding what to do.

Secondly, he is a utilitarian, and some apparent contradictions come with that. Most notably, he argues that some medical experimentation on animals is morally justifiable, as the benefits of the research will significantly outweigh the pain caused to the animal in the laboratory. Similarly, while he likes free-range farming as an idea, he doesn't encourage it in all cases as it can be worse for the environment than factory farming. The cost to benefit ratio doesn't quite work out for him.

His work has been widely influential, and most of the modern animal liberation movement cites him as a major influence. However, some philosophers, such as Richard Sorabji, have argued that his moral theory is simplistic and gives rise to strange moral instructions in some situations.

Many religions have lines of scripture that are commonly interpreted as encouraging or even mandating vegetarianism.

The Dharmic Religions of India are well known for their tendency towards vegetarianism. In Jainism, vegetarianism is mandatory, as harming animals is considered bad karma. Hinduism and Buddhism also have scripture forbidding violence against animals, but how much that applies to the killing of animals for food is still debated. For those who do eat meat, ritualized methods of minimizing the suffering of the animal before death exist.

A third of Hindus are vegetarians. The number of vegetarian Buddhists is not known with certainty. The Dali Lama tried the diet for a while himself but was forced back to omnivorism again for health reasons. He continues to encourage vegetarianism in the name of reducing the suffering of animals.

Pythagoras, of the theorem, encouraged an entire way of life named for him which included vegetarianism. This was perhaps motivated by his belief in reincarnation and aversion to violence.

Lastly, many more recent thinkers have put forward arguments based on the environmental costs of industrial animal farming as a reason to cut back on our animal consumption. Thinkers like Steve Best and Peter Singer have made this argument. They point to studies like one in Nature, which reminds us of how much of the carbon footprint of meat production we'll have to cut back on if we want to reach our goals in the fight against climate change.

You might have noticed that most of these schools and thinkers share a common theme; they tend to object to the production of meat, the killing and suffering of the animal, rather than the actual act of eating it. Some people make arguments along these lines, but they are in the minority.

Most, if not all, of the thinkers mentioned above would undoubtedly be fine with lab-grown meat if the energy costs of producing it could be lowered. Similarly, many debates over if it is alright to eat oysters, which probably can't feel pain and are rather plant-like, have taken place as part of the broader discussion of moral vegetarianism.

There you have it; serious thinkers are often behind vegetarianism, and they make very good arguments as to why you should eat less meat -if any at all. While they won't convince everybody to switch to tofu, they do provide an excellent starting point for any discussion of what an ethical diet is.

From Your Site Articles

Related Articles Around the Web

Go here to read the rest:
Why some philosophers think you should be a vegetarian - Big Think

Recommendation and review posted by Alexandra Lee Anderson

Why fake meat will never be a substitute for a chicken wing – National Post

Even though I grew up as a vegetarian, I knew that when it comes to eating chicken wings, you have to use your hands. The first time I had them was at a Super Bowl party. After 20 meatless years, I turned full omnivore. More than the texture or flavour, what I remember from the first bite was the primal feeling of eating meat straight from the bone.

Growing up in a vegetarian household at least a couple decades ago makes you different. Most of my classmates ate meat regularly, many daily. Because of how meat-focused meals have traditionally been, it doesnt surprise me that such a large percentage of the vegetarian food industry would be devoted to replicating meat products. Nor is it all that surprising that vegetarianism would expand with more options that supposedly taste like meat.

Before graduating high school, it felt as though I had consumed a lifetimes worth of soy, seitan and tempeh made to look like (and yet only occasionally taste like) beef, pork and chicken. Most of the mock meats were gummy and grey, slathered in artificial smoke. They seemed to exist beyond the realm of the natural world, created in laboratories where people wore latex gloves and protective glasses. It was only on a rare occasion like eating at Montreals legendary ChuChai restaurant, which offers an impressive array of Chinese fake-meat alternatives that Id ever desire a second helping.

Limp and flavourless, the fake chicken options in particular seemed ghastly. Perhaps the texture of the bird is difficult to replicate, but I suppose we should be thankful that forays into fake chicken have been limited. I would hate to imagine artificial chicken wings, fake cartilage included. The dystopian vibes alone would be too much to handle.

Undeniably, there have been technological strides in the fake meat market in the past decade. Beyond Meat and the Impossible Burger capture the texture and taste of beef. But why has this become the goal? Why undertake this culinary fraud? The more realistic the meat, the more I think of the grey slabs of petri-dish flesh from Brandon Cronenbergs Antiviral. In this Canadian science-fiction film, an out-of-control celebrity culture has created an industry of laboratory-grown human flesh steaks intended for popular consumption. Imagine Soylent Green for a new and willing generation; Soylent green is people? Sounds delicious.

Whenever a new pea protein product or unholy concoction of chemicals and plants is introduced I also think of that first bite of a chicken wing. When it comes to abandoning vegetarianism, you go through a lot of the same motions as those who adopt it. You dont suddenly go decades without eating chicken wings to a feeding frenzy without considering where this new food is coming from. Its impossible to escape that once, not long ago, it was alive.

Like a child who believes that an egg comes from a supermarket and not a chicken, many of us are detached from the production of the food we eat. In an age of sterile plastic-wrapped shopping experiences, its easy to lose track of where the meat we consume (real and unreal) comes from.

In that sense, meat alternatives represent a type of fulfilled fantasy. It comes from essentially nothing. Its easier to not think too much about where this so-called food comes from. And yet, they remain heavily processed. And make no mistake: Theyre not good for you just because theyre vegan.

For this Super Bowl, as a matter of personal taste, when tasked with finding a vegan alternative for wings, Im more likely to throw some buffalo sauce on roast cauliflower than pick up any variety of fake meat. While it cant capture that primal feeling of eating meat from a bone, its also not pretending to be anything that its not. It feels more authentic than something made in a lab. And if you really want to play meat-eater, its probably best to drop the fork and knife act, and get your hands dirty.

Here is the original post:
Why fake meat will never be a substitute for a chicken wing - National Post

Recommendation and review posted by Alexandra Lee Anderson

Nearly One in Four in US Have Cut Back on Eating Meat – Gallup

Story Highlights

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Nearly one in four Americans (23%) report eating less meat in the past year than they had previously, while the vast majority (72%) say they are eating the same amount of meat. Very few (5%) report eating more meat this year than in the past.

Americans' Reports of Meat-Eating Changes Over the Past Year, by Subgroup

In the past 12 months, have you been eating more meat, less meat, or about the same amount?

These data are from a Sept. 16-30 Gallup telephone poll with U.S. adults.

Asked how often they eat meat -- such as beef, chicken or pork -- two in three U.S. adults say they eat it "frequently" (67%) while 23% say they eat meat "occasionally" and 7% "rarely" eat it. Just 3% report "never" eating meat.

Certain groups are more likely than others to say they have eaten less meat in the past year:

Data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture found that pork and especially beef were the most popular meats for most of the 1900s, but chicken sharply gained in popularity over time, eventually becoming the top consumed meat in recent years. From a global perspective, the U.S. regularly ranks among the top countries for meat consumption.

Americans' reports of eating less meat don't necessarily mean vegetarianism is on the rise. In fact, Gallup's latest reading on this found 5% of Americans consider themselves vegetarian, similar to the rate over the past 20 years.

Gallup also asked Americans who refrain from eating meat -- either by cutting back on their usual amount or by foregoing it completely -- whether each of seven potential factors were "major" or "minor" reasons for avoiding meat.

The biggest factor in reducing meat consumption is health concerns -- nine in 10 say it is a major (70%) or minor reason (20%) they are cutting back on meat.

After health, environmental concerns are the next most prominent factor leading to reduced meat consumption -- seven in 10 say concerns about the environment are behind their avoidance of meat (49% say it is a major reason, and 21% a minor one).

Majorities also say concerns about food safety (43% major, 22% minor reason) and animal welfare (41% major, 24% minor reason) cause them to eat less meat.

Lesser cited reasons for avoiding meat are that it is more convenient due to other family members' eating habits (16% major, 24% minor reason) and that they see other people eating less, little or no meat (15% major, 19% minor reason).

Religious reasons were the least cited reason for cutting back on meat consumption (12% major, 17% minor reason).

Reasons for Eating Meat "Less," "Rarely" or "Never"

(Asked of those who are eating less meat or who rarely or never eat meat) Would you say each of the following is a major reason, a minor reason, or not a reason why you [have been eating less meat / rarely eat meat) / do not eat meat)]?

The most popular way to cut back on meat consumption is by eating smaller portions of it (77%), according to Americans who report having eaten less meat this year.

Other popular ways Americans have reduced their meat consumption are altering recipes to use less meat by substituting vegetables or other ingredients for some meat (71%) and eliminating meat entirely from some meals (69%).

Slightly more than a third of Americans (36%) who have reduced their meat consumption say they eat meat replacements such as plant-based burgers or sausages.

Ways in Which Americans are Cutting Back on Meat

(Asked of those who are eating less meat) Please tell me whether you have or have not been doing each of the following as a way to reduce the amount of meat that you eat?

Americans' reasons for reducing their meat consumption are compelling -- personal health, environmental impact, concerns for animal welfare -- but very few have totally given it up. Only about 5% of Americans have self-identified as vegetarian over the past two decades, Gallup has found, and fewer yet identify as vegans. Ninety-seven percent of Americans in the latest poll report eating meat at least rarely, and two in three say they eat it frequently. Meat is here to stay.

Still, nearly a quarter of Americans are eating less meat. The momentum behind plant-based meat options may reflect that reduction in meat intake -- and possibly even accelerate it. Such a decline in meat consumption would particularly impact rural economies as well as many industries, including hospitality, packaged food, grocery retail, and especially meat and poultry production and processing, the largest segment of U.S. agriculture production.

To reduce possible negative economic effects of reduced meat consumption, government and industry leaders should take Americans' meat reduction seriously and consider the rationale behind it. Corporate Social Responsibility programs can be designed to include stakeholders across their entire value chain. Industry marketing could shift toward potential health, environmental or animal welfare aspects of the meat product. Retailing can be redirected toward the changing market and can even create new markets. Such agility can alleviate the negative impacts of changing consumer preferences on industries and economies, but leaders will need to ensure that they continue to seek to understand the will of the consumer -- as well as their B2B customers, suppliers, workforce and the global community as a whole.

View complete question responses and trends.

Read the rest here:
Nearly One in Four in US Have Cut Back on Eating Meat - Gallup

Recommendation and review posted by Alexandra Lee Anderson


Page 6«..5678..»