19 Oct 04
Background: I just saw a clip on television promoting the consumption of insects instead of meat.
Ignoring the "ewww" factor; question: For those people who don't eat meat for cruelty-to-animals reasons, would raising insects commercially as a food source bother you? Would you consider adding this to your diet?
For those people who eschew meat on health grounds, would insect protein be a better choice than meat, considering beef is about 15-17% protein, grasshopper as high as 60%?
The television clip I just saw made the claim that insect farming would require much less land than the raising of cattle, for example, freeing more farmland for raising vegetables.
Thoughts? Comments?
19 Oct 04
7 edits
Originally posted by KneverKnightstrict vegetarians (vegans are vegetarians who also avoid animal products such as leather, wool, fur, silk etc) do not consume animals or animal by products (meat, fish, dairy, eggs, honey etc) for primarily 3 rationales:
Background: I just saw a clip on television promoting the consumption of insects instead of meat.
Ignoring the "ewww" factor; question: For those people who don't eat meat for cruelty-to-animals reasons, would raising insects comme ...[text shortened]... freeing more farmland for raising vegetables.
Thoughts? Comments?
1) health
2) environment
3) ethics
so while eating insects nutritionally may be 'healthier' because of the low fat ratio, it is unlikely you would get around the protein antigeneity problem.
and while environmentally, insects may appear to be not as pollutive or drain water or forest resources to the same extent, it may not be so because of the far greater numbers of insects required, hence one would need to calculate it out.
and though it can be argued that insects 'suffer' less than cattle etc, have a less developed nervous system, have less sentience etc, it would still not be considered suitable from an ethical perspective to consume insects since they are animals with complex social behaviours and functions in life that would be disrupted by the forced 'farmed' lifestyles as well as their premature executions.
finally, the 'veg' in vegetarian (and vegan) tends to represent vegetation and since insects are not vegetation, a vegetarian would by definition avoid eating insects - all ewwww factors aside.
in friendship,
prad
19 Oct 04
Interesting comments Prad, not sure I understand what the "protein antigeneity problem" is. Is that like saying "all protein must come from plants"?
Strict vegans remind me of certain Hindus who avoid killing insects, even flies, mosquitoes etc.
As far as land use goes, I don't know how much study has gone into the claims made, whether in fact less land would be used etc.
What about less strict vegetarians, say perhaps people who avoid animal fat?
19 Oct 04
2 edits
Originally posted by KneverKnightThere's always been a pretty strong efficiency argument for vegetarianism. Cows eat a lot. I think the ratio of plant calories consumed to meat calories produced is something like 60:1. Of course eating bugs would be even more efficient - no land required at all!
Interesting comments Prad, not sure I understand what the "protein antigeneity problem" is. Is that like saying "all protein must come from plants"?
Strict vegans remind me of certain Hindus who avoid killing insects, even flies, ...[text shortened]... less strict vegetarians, say perhaps people who avoid animal fat?
I suspect you're going to hear different stories from idealist vegetarians and relativist ones. Idealists will likely object to any killing on principle, although we all falter in practice:
All the time I pray to Buddha
I keep on
killing mosquitoes. - Issa
I don't know that I've ever met someone willing to admit being a relativist vegetarian, but we ALL have an internal hierarchy of killing preferences. Most of us don't mind killing a bug, but most of us would have a very hard time killing a favorite pet or another human. I believe the reason for this is empathy - it's much easier to emphathize with the suffering of a cute puppy than with (say) a stink bug. In general I think the simpler the organism, and the less the it resembles a human, the less guilt people feel about killing it.
Anyway, as the world becomes more crowded, we may not have much choice, and perhaps its inevitable that we experiment with eating bugs.
You first...
19 Oct 04
7 edits
Originally posted by KneverKnightprotein antigeneity results from the consumption of large animal proteins (and for some even soya or wheat proteins) which don't get broken down properly and wander in the circulatory system. they are viewed as antigens by the immune system which proceeds to produce antibodies to counter them. the net result of the coupling deposit themselves throughout the body resulting in various inflammatory conditions such as excema, asthma, arthritis and stuff like that. a lot of 'diseases' like these can be minimized by not consuming animal proteins. plant protein tend to be much smaller and more easily assimilated. (mind you eating insects could induce protein antgeneity - that one's especially for you kneverknight 😀 )
Interesting comments Prad, not sure I understand what the "protein antigeneity problem" is. Is that like saying "all protein must come from plants"?
Strict vegans remind me of certain Hindus who avoid killing insects, even flies, ...[text shortened]... less strict vegetarians, say perhaps people who avoid animal fat?
vegan is a term coined in 1944 (see http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=11794&page=4 for a bit of history of the word) by Donald Watson, but the principles have existed for centuries - the Jain community for instance. generally, vegans would avoid killing insects though unlike some monks, for instance, they would not sweep the ground before them to make sure they do not step on an insect (nice idea though in imho).
insects can be 'corralled' three dimensionally - you really can't do that too easily with cows or pigs though i'm sure factory farming enthusiasts have at one time or another fantasized about it. so i imagine that land usage could be reduced. you also don't have to feed them their 'natural' food (not that cows are fed what is natural for them), so you probably wouldn't have to chop down forests to grow grain, for instance. insects adapt quickly so they probably would do so to some synthetically produced diet.
as far as less strict vegetarians eg lacto, ovo, lacto-ovo, lacto-ovo-pesco-polla-miele (etc LOL), they are usually in it for
1) health reasons - because they don't know (or accept), for example, the effects of milk resulting in hormonal imbalances, antigeneity, calcium leaching (leading to osteoporosis), allergies, acne and of course let's not forget the legalized cow pus limit amongst several other things
2) ethical - because they see, for example, that drinking milk doesn't kill animals which though true doesn't deal with the reality that dairy cows have their life expectancy quartered and their male offspring are sent off to the veal crates for the duration of their miserable short lives.
hence, depending on whether they see a nutritional benefit to eating insects and whether they view insects of deserving of quality of life, they may find it quite suitable to consume our six legged friends.
the difficulty with answering your question (on this most interesting topic) lies in that all vegetarians or vegans for that matter do not do things in the same way (eg lloydk's hiearchy). i, for instance, was a lacto-ovo vegetarian starting in 1972 for purely nutritional reasons (didn't know about the environmental or care about the ethical issues), went strict vegetarian in 1990, then became vegan in 1992. if you had asked me about eating insects in the 80s, i would probably would have because the idea would have sounded interesting and i have no ewww factors. now i would not do so.
in friendship,
prad
19 Oct 04
Originally posted by pradtfMight protein antigeneity help explain a hyper-sensitive immune system, such as mine, with its overboard reaction to poison ivy and gravilia contact?
protein antigeneity results from the consumption of large animal proteins (and for some even soya or wheat proteins) which don't get broken down and wander in the circulatory system. they are viewed as antgens by the immune system which proceeds to produce antibodies to counter them.
19 Oct 04
Originally posted by pradtfPrad, you know more about this than I do, so I ask:
2) ethical - because they see, for example, that drinking milk doesn't kill animals which though true doesn't deal with the reality that dairy cows have their life expectancy quartered and their male offspring are sent off to the veal crates for the duration of their miserable short lives.
Does the above milk quote (quartering the life of the cow and the calf/veal issue) pertain also to free range organic milk?
Nemesio
19 Oct 04
Originally posted by huntingbearit is certainly a possibility. when your immune system is kept constantly onguard because of what one eats, it may tend to over-react in certain situations. i know certain allergies have 'gone away' for some people as a result of dietary changes. there doesn't seem to be a hard and fast rule, simply because different bodies have different degrees of tolerance to simuli.
Might protein antigeneity help explain a hyper-sensitive immune system, such as mine, with its overboard reaction to poison ivy and gravilia contact?
however, one of the reasons people from the health and raw food gendre sometimes engage in detoxes (either through straightforward fasting or through more elaborate cleanses) is because they want to rid themselves of 'debris' that taunts their immune system.
a strong immune system, not driven to distraction, will function intelligently and with directed purpose. it can protect a body from much harm. it is not desirable to keep it on red alert continuously.
in friendship,
prad
19 Oct 04
3 edits
Originally posted by nemesiolife expectancy for 'free range' cows should be longer due to better diet and living conditions. however, being forced to produce milk regularly will take its toll and it is unlikely they will live their 'normal' 2 decades or so.
Prad, you know more about this than I do, so I ask:
Does the above milk quote (quartering the life of the cow and the calf/veal issue) pertain also to free range organic milk?
Nemesio
on small farms, cows are often treated as 'pets' and often lead a pretty good life as part of the family. however, a dairy business, organic or otherwise is still a dairy business - the cows must produce milk.
in a commercial venture one cannot keep feeding a cow and not expect production so if that becomes insufficient for whatever reason, it is unlikely the cow will die a natural death - there is commercial value in the skin, the meat, the hooves etc.
to produce the milk there need to be offspring: the females are destined to become dairy cows - and the males will have to be dealt with regardless of the organicity or free rangeiness of the milk. in veal production you don't want to feed the calf its mother's milk (though i have heard otherwise from 'organic veal' farmers) - you want to keep it anemic (through an iron deficient diet) and give the muscles little chance to grow (hence the confinement). so that connection will still remain which is one reason milk is called liquid meat by those opposed to the dairy industry.
in friendship,
prad
19 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by pradtf
on small farms, cows are often treated as 'pets' and often lead a pretty good life as part of the family.
Dealing with the environmental and ethical sides of things (ignoring health for now),
shall I take this to mean that you would accept (although disagree with) an argument
for drinking cow milk if the cow is treated as a pet (i.e., fed properly and amply and
housed in a totally free-range environment). I ask this as well with respect to chicken
eggs (where the chickens are free ranging and fed whatever meal chickens would
normally eat in the wild).
I am assuming in both cases that neither the cows nor chickens are ever going to be
viewed as a food source, that they will live until they die totally natural deaths,
unmitigated by their diet or living conditions.
Nemesio
19 Oct 04
1 edit
Originally posted by pradtfAs long as I have been aware of how veal is produced, I've been abhorred by
in veal production you don't want to feed the calf its mother's milk (though i have heard otherwise from 'organic veal' farmers) - you want to keep it anemic (through an iron deficient diet) and give the muscles little chance to grow (he ...[text shortened]... milk is called liquid meat by those opposed to the dairy industry.
what people are willing to do (or ignore) in order to have 'tender meat.' On
this point, Prad, we certainly have 100%, no 1000%, agreement, and I feel no
shame in saying this.
Nemesio
19 Oct 04
Originally posted by nemesioit is acceptable on environmental grounds and to some extent on ethical grounds, but not on nutritional grounds unless you want to turn yourself into a 400 lb bovinoid 😀
you would accept (although disagree with) an argument for drinking cow milk if the cow is treated as a pet (i.e., fed properly and amply and housed in a totally free-range environment). I ask this as well with respect to chicken eggs (where the chickens are free ranging and fed whatever meal chickens would normally eat in the wild).
the problem with the ethics would hinge more around whether one feels it is proper to take the milk that was intended for its calf. cows do produce some excess so i suppose if that is what was taken it would be fine. however, it generally becomes impractical (unless you have the pastures) to keep a 'pet' that eats a ton (except at sanctuaries) even though that was one of the primary ideas behind the 'sacred' cow - which were more valuable for the milk than the meat. you may enjoy reading the story The Loincloth (at the bottom) which deals with some of this impracticality to an amusing extent.
eggs, under the conditions you describe, can be the most 'ethical' of any animal product since they come out anyway. nutritionally it doesn't make sense, of course, and i do have some doubts about consuming another creature's menstrual product though i did make a pretty mean omelette in my past.
if animals are treated properly it may even be ok for them to work for a living just as people do - say producing food the way you suggest or working in some other capacity on a farm. that to some extent is an animal welfare argument (though not an animal rights one).
in friendship,
prad
The Loincloth
There is a delightful story told by Sri Ramakrishna about a man who chose to become a sadhu (a holy man who relinquishes worldly possessions and takes a vow of chastity). Under the instruction of his guru, this sadhu lived in a small hut in the middle of the forest. Each morning after his devotional exercises, he would wash and hang his loincloth up to dry. One day, he found that his cloth had been torn to shreds by rats. So he went into the village to beg for another.
Unfortunately, the new cloth met the same fate a few days later. The sadhu was quite perturbed, but one of the villagers suggested that he get a cat to frighten away the rats. This arrangement proved to be quite satisfactory as far as the safety of the loincloth was concerned. However, though the sadhu had no need now to beg for loincloths, he needed to beg for milk since the cat had to be fed.
Another villager suggested that the sadhu keep a cow. All things considered, this seemed like a good idea so that is what was done and the cat had plenty of milk. However, though the sadhu had no need now to beg for milk, he needed to beg for straw in order to feed the cow.
To deal with this dilemma, it was advised the sadhu take to tilling the land in order to grow his own crops. However, since this was not an easy feat for one person, the sadhu had to engage some labourers and found it necessary to build barns to store the crop in. Eventually, he became a landlord and then had to take a wife to look after his large and growing household.
When his guru came to see him, the man fell at his feet in great shame and cried, " My Lord, all for a single piece of loincloth! "
The story ends here, so we don't get to hear the guru's response, but I somehow doubt he accepted that the cloth purloined the sadhu! The path to a noble goal may have potholes, but we can choose whether to walk the path or work for the Department of Roads and Transportation.
19 Oct 04
7 edits
Originally posted by nemesiowell there may be some shame present - i'm not sure how anyone can really agree more than 100% much less 1000% - so save some of that excess for later 😉
As long as I have been aware of how veal is produced, I've been abhorred by
what people are willing to do (or ignore) in order to have 'tender meat.' On
this point, Prad, we certainly have 100%, no 1000%, agreement, and I feel no
shame in saying this.
Nemesio
people are willing to accept certain things provided they don't know details or can somehow rationalize it:
In fact, if one person is unkind to an animal it is considered to be cruelty, but where a lot of people are unkind to animals, especially in the name of commerce, the cruelty is condoned and, once large sums of money are at stake, will be defended to the last by otherwise intelligent people.
Ruth Harrison, author
i must admit that in my carnivorous past, my favorite meat was, in fact, veal.
i didn't know how it was produced and back then i doubt if i would have cared.
it is otherwise now.
in friendship,
prad