The
Vegans Who Perpetuate Vivisection
Because it is imperative that we encourage
as many people as we can to adopt a cruelty-free lifestyle, some activists
may employ the quickest, cheapest means by which to convert others
to
a vegan diet. Tragically, this includes making references to animal
experiments that supposedly “prove” the health benefits of
pure vegetarian eating habits. As an animal rights activist and vegan,
I feel that this is unacceptable.
Before I go further, allow me to emphasize the fact that vivisection
(animal experimentation) is scientific fraud—flawed by its very
definition. Because each and every animal species on this planet is
physiologically unique, information gathered from experiments done
on
one is not applicable to any other. Both vegans and meat eaters alike
can point to different animal experiments to support their opposing
views because of the fundamental inconsistency and inapplicability
of
vivisection. Only human population studies, human clinical research,
and the like can tell us what the most healthful diet is for humans.
Animal experimentation is a worthless, inherently misleading, unscientific
lie.
The number of vivisection-citing authors who are referenced by pro-vegan
activists is much greater than I had anticipated. I was shocked to learn
that many of the commonly referenced researchers and writers who cite
animal experiments include some of the most prominent advocates of animal-free
diets alive today.
Dean Ornish, MD, is famous for using vegan diets to help countless
people reverse heart disease and lose weight. However, not all of his
ethical
views are completely “vegan.” [Ornish does not specifically
advocte a vegan diet in his books. – ed]Chapter three of Ornish’s
book Eat More, Weigh Less (1993) contains references to six rodent experiments.
One investigation involved “experimental atherosclerosis-like lesions” in
rats. Other experiments could easily have substituted human volunteers
for the rodents. Not only would this have saved the lives of innocent
and unwilling animals, but the data acquired would have been accurate
and relevant to human beings. If Ornish wishes to use rat experimentation
to infer nutritional needs of humans, then he ought to tell people
that
[unlike humans] rats actually need lots of protein but zero vitamin
C in their diets.
Milk: The Deadly Poison (1998) by Robert Cohen—with a title
that makes it so tempting to quote—is itself poisoned with many
references to animal experiments, complete with analyses and charts.
A key section focuses on the Food and Drug Administration’s suspicious
refusal to let the author review potentially incriminating “evidence”
from BGH (Bovine Growth Hormone) experiments done on rats. In fact,
the author himself is a vivisector! He boasts of having performed “brain
surgery on laboratory animals” under the heading: “My Credentials” (p.
19).
The May 1999 issue of Vegetarian Times cites animal research in an
article about the pain-relieving effects of eating soybeans (Dustman, “Edible
Pain Relief,” p. 16). It describes how pain researchers at Baltimore’s
John Hopkins University Hospital were studying rats with sciatic nerve
damage who were hypersensitive to touch and temperature stimuli. The
vivisectors found that the group of rats eating soybean food showed
no signs of hypersensitivity. Interestingly, there is a note at the
bottom of the page that reads, “References to animal testing do
not reflect the editorial views of this magazine.” If the editors
don’t like it, then they had better keep this kind of cruel, outdated,
barbaric and medically fraudulent nonsense out of their magazine.
Another work containing pieces of bad science and poor ethics is John
A. McDougall’s The McDougall Program (1994). Although this book
cites many wonderful, accurate and relevant human studies which really
do prove that veganism is the best diet for humans, it is contaminated
with references to no less than seven animal studies, including one
about the dietary influences on the growth and sexual maturation in
premenarchial rhesus monkeys. McDougall’s The McDougall Plan (1983)
claims that animal experiments “provide important information”
on the effects of harmful substances on living tissue (p. 70). But what
about the thousands of physiological differences between species and
similar “important information”?
The most shocking discovery I have made on this subject is that John
Robbins cites primate experimentation in his Pulitzer Prize-nominated
Diet for a New America (1987), which has turned numerous people on
to
veganism. Robbins says that he does “not ethically condone most
laboratory experiments on animals” (my emphasis, p. 214). However,
he goes on to cite an experiment in which vivisectors at the University
of Chicago fed a standard American diet to one group of rhesus monkeys,
and fed a diet lower in calories, saturated fat and cholesterol to a
second group. The monkeys were then slaughtered and examined to show
that the monkeys fed the standard American diet had six times as much
atherosclerosis as the other monkeys. I expect that this is not one
of the animal experiments that he does ethically condone—but why
would he put it in his otherwise excellent book? Ironically, Robbins
hints at the scientific invalidity and worthlessness of vivisection
earlier in the book when he discusses the Osborne and Mendel protein
experiments done on rats (p. 177). As saddening as it is to me, I view
this as a contradiction—the very contradiction we all must face.
It seems as though we vegans are talking out of two different sides
of our mouths when we talk about how wrong vivisection is and then
cite
animal experiments to support veganism. We must stop doing this. It
makes us look ignorant and hypocritical. These vivisectionists make
fools out of us while making a profit off of us! When we support these
vivisectionists, we become vivisectionists, too. We don’t only
lose all credibility and consistency when we quote these authors—we
also turn our backs on the animals who suffer and die in laboratories.
I call upon all animal rights activists not to buy, read, recommend,
pass along, quote, cite, reference, or in any other way endorse the
work of all animal experiment-citing writers and researchers unless
they offer an unconditional apology to the animals and to the world
for citing vivisection, and vow never to make the same ethical and scientific
mistake again. We cannot give vivisection an inch.
Paul Sewick
Animal Commandos
Phoenix, AZ
Robert Cohen Responds:
Dear Paul,
I do not claim to be the know-all on many things, but I do hold title
to being the expert on “doing the wrong thing to his body” by
being totally clueless throughout the 1980s and a good part of the
90s.
Every day has been a learning experience for me, and your letter is
beautifully written and correct. I do apologize to the animals of this
world for citing vivisection experiments. From hereon in I will do so
only when I find fraud within studies cited by my adversaries.
In no way should we ever interpolate animal studies to human health
issues. Humans are not rats, and I vow to never again cite an animal
study to try and prove a point about human nutrition.
I ask you and all animals to accept my apology, and I thank you for
sharing your wisdom with me.
Robert Cohen
John McDougall responds:
The tone of this letter is anger, not reason. I would much rather be
associated with people who are making a real difference in human and
animal life than with angry zealots. At the end of the day there is
no doubt that many millions more animals’ lives are saved by Robbins,
McDougall, Cohen, Ornish, and others than by Paul Sewick or any other
“Animal Commando.”
I wear leather shoes and drive a car—both use animal products.
I imagine that, if closely examined, one will find that the life of
Mr. Sewick also involves the death and suffering of animals. We all
do the best we can to make the world a better place—I make no
apology for my efforts.
John McDougall, MD
John Robbins Responds:
If someone has to agree with you in absolutely every respect in
order for you to be able to work with them and appreciate their contributions,
you are in big trouble. Taking extremist positions does not enhance
credibility. There is a line past which passionate zeal and committed
activism becomes fanaticism.
It can be difficult enough to cope in a world where your worldview is
in the minority. It becomes nearly impossible if the point of view you
adopt is all-or-nothing.
If you can’t find common ground with people, you lose all chance
of influencing them. When you take absolutist positions, you polarize
situations. Instead of being rational, you become belligerent. Instead
of finding creative responses to disagreements, you go to war.
For the record, in Diet For A New America I cited more than 1,000 research
studies and reports from the scientific literature. Of these, only three
or four involved animal experiments, and in each case I stated that
I had ethical misgivings about the study having been done, and did not
condone the study. But they had been done, and I felt, then, that the
information that had been learned had some value.
In the years that followed the publication of Diet For A New America,
I learned more about the issues surrounding animal experimentation,
and decided never again to cite animal experiments as evidence. Since
then, I have held true to this decision. In all my subsequent books
and writings, including May All Be Fed—Diet for a New World, and
Reclaiming Our Health—Exploding the Medical Myth and Embracing
the Source of True Healing, you will find zero references to animal
experiments.
When will people in the vegan and animal rights movement stop attacking
each other, and focus on the real problems? We can feel righteous and
superior when we hold positions of absolute ideological purity, but
the real test is in the impact of our lives. Infighting and back-biting
are not helpful in the building of a compassionate world.
John Robbins
The Anti-Globalization “Stonewall”
Thank you for your November issue on the World Trade Organization
(WTO) and globalization.
While I suspect few of your readers were able to travel to Seattle,
as I did, I hope many followed the story through the media. While it
is disheartening that many of the undemocratic and anti-environmental
aspects of the WTO were not covered in depth, I believe many Americans
now have some knowledge of the previously-unknown WTO, and may have
even understood the police-state ethos that is necessary to maintain
the WTO’s cloak of secrecy. The public will more easily forget
some smashed windows [in downtown Seattle] than hundreds of armor-clad,
Darth Vader-like, robo-cops clubbing, tear-gassing, pepper spraying,
shooting and violently arresting passive protesters and even local
residents.
Unfortunately, not covered by the mainstream media was the treatment
received by those who were arrested, some for simply wearing anti-WTO
buttons in the “protest-free zone,” others because they “looked
like protesters.” Even those who were part of the medical team
that helped tear-gassed and pepper-sprayed demonstrators were either
arrested or harassed, their supplies taken from them or smashed on
the
ground. Many arrestees were not given food for an entire day, had no
access to a phone for hours, were physically and verbally abused by
guards, kept handcuffed in their cells, and were held in jail in cramped
conditions for up to five days.
Also receiving scant attention in the media were the multitude of protests
occurring throughout the world against the WTO during the week of the
Seattle meetings. In dozens of cities in France over 75,000 marched
against the WTO; thousands of farmers protested in Bangalore, India;
the Brisbane, Australia stock exchange was blockaded; 8,000 marched
on the U.S. embassy in Manila, the Philippines; and 8,000 rallied in
Muzfer Ghan, Pakistan. Numerous protests occurred in the U.S. as well—over
a thousand people demonstrated in Boston, and many ports on the West
Coast were shut down by thousands of Longshoremen. In my hometown of
Portland—where thousands of activists traveled north to Seattle
on November 30th—there were solidarity rallies on Wednesday, Thursday,
and Friday of that week. On Saturday, with many who were not arrested
having returned home, over 1,000 people marched through the streets
of downtown to celebrate free speech and denounce the WTO, while hordes
of riot police looked on.
Inspired by the events at the end of the week, I felt moved to hop
the train to Seattle for the last hurrah on December 3rd. I truly felt
that
the events of that week signaled the dawning of a new movement against
global corporate hegemony, a movement I had somehow to be a part of.
The need to bear witness to an American city under de facto martial
law was additionally compelling. Friday’s rally—sponsored
by labor as an exclamation point on the week—was smaller than “the
big one” on November 30th. Nevertheless, it was wonderful to see
such a diverse collection of 5,000 human beings protesting against
a
common entity. While the largest block was young, white and counter-cultural,
there were people of all races, ages, and a number of nationalities
as well. Conservative-looking men and women carrying union banners
and
American flags marched side-by-side with hipster environmentalists,
European farmers next to black-clad anarchists.
Even with the return of Friday’s holiday shoppers, downtown Seattle
remained eerie as some streets were deserted and dozens of shop windows
were boarded up, some after being broken and others for protection against
further vandalism. A phalanx of riot police, armored vehicles and police
cars blocked off streets that led to the convention center and stood
ready to protect the temples of corporate consumerism: Niketown, Nordstrum’s,
and Starbucks.
While one can only hope the momentum started at last year’s WTO
protests will continue into this century, questions remain. Will Seattle
‘99 be considered the “Stonewall” of the anti-globalization
movement or fade into obscurity? Is it silly to even believe Seattle
is the beginning of anything, since enormous demonstrations against
the WTO, global capitalism, and corporate agriculture have occurred
in Europe throughout the ‘90’s? A few items floating around
lately on the Internet seem promising. The machinery may soon be in
motion to make globalization the major theme for Earth Day 2000 and
there is an invitation to the world to come to a People’s Trade
Organization (PTO) conference in Seattle on the one-year anniversary
of the WTO conference and demonstrations. Wouldn’t it be funny
if thousands of CEOs and millionaires from around the country brought
their Lexuses and SUVs to blockade intersections throughout downtown
Seattle to stop the PTO conference? I would bet my life that they wouldn’t
get tear-gassed or shot with rubber bullets.
Philip Goff
Portland, Oregon
To the Editor:
I first read the letter about Elizabeth Forel’s carriage horse
organization in Satya, June 1999. Shortly after, I saw an article in
a newspaper about “Pets Alive,” an animal shelter, run by
Sara Whelan in Middletown, NY. She had an extra 15 acres so she decided
to use them to give the carriage horses a place to retire and live out
their lives in peace. Well, it sounds good so far, doesn’t it?
So I called Miss Whelan to thank her for what she is doing and to see
what she had to say. What she had to say is that she has never seen
any signs that the carriage horses she gets have been used or abused
in any way and that any claims of misuse or abuse was “just stuff
made up by animal rights people.” Wow, that’s a pretty shocking
statement after all that’s been said about the poor, suffering
NYC carriage horses. I [still] cannot figure out whether or not these
horses are suffering. Could anyone help me get to the bottom of this?
Name held by request
New York City
Judaism and Vegetarianism
This is my response to a letter by Stuart Scheer (Satya, October
1999) emphasizing that Jews “may and should eat meat.”
Everything that is done to farm animals today—the confinement,
the artificial insemination, the artificial hormones and antibiotics,
the shackling and hoisting—is a travesty of all the humane sentiments
detailed in the Talmud. The waste of water, grain, soil, natural resources,
the rainforest destruction, etc., is a violation of the mandate: Do
Not Waste. And if this were not enough, the overconsumption of meat
and meat-products today is directly connected to the major killers,
heart disease and cancer, in opposition to the mandate: Take Care of
Your Health.
Mr. Scheer might also want to take a peek at Hulin 84A which clearly
states that meat-eating should only take place under special circumstances.
Eating meat is not a mitzvah in Judaism.
Susan Kalev
New York City
Richard H. Schwartz responds to Stuart Scheer’s letter (October
1999):
In promoting vegetarianism since 1977, I have been arguing that
Jews have a choice as to whether or not to be vegetarians. In support
of the view that Jews need not eat meat today are the Talmud (Pesachim
109a states that since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, Jews
are not required to eat meat in order to rejoice on festivals), scholarly
articles by Rabbi Alfred Cohen and Rabbi J. David Bleich that indicate
additional sources and arguments supporting this view, and the fact
that several Chief Rabbis are strict vegetarians.
Through my writings and talks, I try to help make Jews more aware of
Jewish mandates to take care of our health, treat animals with compassion,
protect the environment, conserve resources, and help hungry people,
and how far the realities related to the production and consumption
of animal products are from these mandates. I have hoped that sensitive
Jews, once they are aware of these discrepancies, would switch to vegetarian
diets. While this has happened in some cases, the vast majority of Jews
still consume animal products. Hence, I am starting to think about the
argument that committed Jews are not only permitted but are obligated
to be vegetarians
For those who take halacha (Jewish law as interpreted by Jewish sages
and rabbis) seriously, a fundamental question is: since Jews can only
kill animals for an essential human need, and it is not necessary to
consume animal products in order to maintain good health, aren’t
observant Jews obligated to be vegetarians? In an essay on “Animals,”
in his The Jewish Encyclopedia of Moral and Ethical Issues, Nachum Amsel,
an Israeli Orthodox rabbi, states, “Man’s need to use animals
must be a legitimate and not a frivolous one.” Jewish sages and
others have thought that meat was necessary for proper nutrition.
We know now from modern science, however, that for human beings the
necessary nutrients can be obtained from a plant-based diet (with the
possible exception of vitamin B12). Moreover, many degenerative diseases,
including heart disease, stroke, and several types of cancer have been
shown to be related to animal-based diets.
For Jews who live according to Jewish ideals and values, but don’t
base their practices completely on Jewish law, the following question
applies: in view of the Torah’s mandates—to take care of our
health (v’nishmartem meod l’nafshotechem, Deut. 4:9), to treat
animals with compassion, protect the environment, conserve resources
and help the hungry—and the very negative effects that the production
and consumption of meat has in each of these areas, shouldn’t
committed Jews who take Jewish values seriously be vegetarians?
Another concern for committed Jews is tikkun olam, the general mandate
to preserve and protect the world, and, when necessary, to restore
it
to a less polluted state. It is becoming increasingly apparent that
vegetarianism is not only an important individual choice today, but
is a societal imperative because of the severe economic and environmental
costs of animal-based diets. In 1993, almost 1,700 of the world’s
scientists from 70 countries, including 104 Nobel laureates, signed
a “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity,” which stated
that “a great change in our stewardship of the earth and the life
on it is required if vast human misery is to be avoided and our global
home on this planet is not to be irretrievably mutilated.”
Judaism teaches that “the earth is the Lord’s” and that
we are to be partners with God in preserving the world, and mandates
bal tashchit, that we are not to waste or unnecessarily destroy anything
of value. Livestock agriculture requires far more food, land, water,
energy, and other resources than plant-based agriculture, and contributes
substantially to soil erosion, air and water pollution, and deforestation.
If Jews are to be partners and co-workers with God in preserving the
earth, this requires active involvement today. An essential part of
that involvement is a switch to vegetarian diets.
In view of these considerations, rather than stating that Jews are obligated
to be vegetarians, I believe that it is best to advocate that they are
obligated to be aware of how realities related to the production and
consumption of meat sharply diverge from Jewish mandates. In light of
this, Jews can make a decision with regard to their diets that they
believe is consistent with such awareness.
Richard H. Schwartz
Professor Emeritus
Mathematics College of Staten Island
Stuart Scheer responds:
With regard to the comments of Susan Kalev and Richard Schwartz,
I find that there is little to which to respond. Neither one of them
has refuted a single statement that I made. I pointed out that the Torah
offers direct permission and instruction regarding humans eating meat,
and the respondents have not disagreed. Therefore I feel that if the
prime source of Jewish knowledge and law, the Torah, is not refuted,
then all incidental and tangential arguments are mute.
Susan Kalev is adept at spelling out familiar mantras—“confinement,
artificial insemination, artificial hormones and antibiotics, etc.,”
and “the waste of water, grain, soil, etc.,” and “heart
disease and cancer,” just to mention a few. But where are the specifics
regarding the Jewish perspective? Why is she so vague? What does she
mean when saying that there is a Jewish mandate called ‘Do Not
Waste’ and another mandate called ‘Take Care of Your Health’?
What is the source of these so-called mandates, and in what context
were they given?
Richard Schwartz’s essay is not directed towards my argument at
all. He simply repeats his well-rehearsed, pro-vegetarian mantra. I
think the problem here is that both of these advocates approach the
question of ‘should Jews be vegetarians’ from the vegetarian
perspective and not from the Jewish perspective. They refer to position
papers generated by the anti-cattle industry to support their logic
that animal diets are bad and then try to reconcile them with a pre-existing
Jewish philosophy. Between them, they cite the following ‘Jewish’
mandates: do not waste, take care of your health, treat animals with
compassion, protect the environment, conserve resources, help hungry
people, and seek and pursue peace. But they never quote Jewish sources
that directly say “Do Not Eat Meat.”
This one direct mandate “Do Not Eat Meat” is missing from
their arguments because it does not exist in Judaism. And certainly,
every mandate, or mitzvah, is spelled out pretty clearly in the Torah.
In fact, there are precisely 613 mitzvahs in the Torah, and Susan Kalev
is right to note that eating meat is not one of them. It is a mitzvah,
however, to not eat non-kosher meat. And therefore the implication is
clear that eating meat, as long as it’s kosher, is perfectly fine
according to Jewish law. Ms. Kalev would have everyone believe that
eating meat is a sin, but in fact this is simply not true.
I do not doubt that Judaism supports these so-called Jewish mandates
listed above. For instance, according to the Torah, if we see an animal
suffering we are required to help it and it is forbidden to actually
cause suffering to animals. While we are permitted to use animals for
labor, we are not allowed to overwork an animal. A person is not permitted
to eat until he has fed his animals. Even when slaughtering an animal
for food, Torah law requires us to avoid causing unnecessary pain to
the animal.
Mr. Schwartz feels it is important to note that Jews are not required
to eat meat during the period of exile, and this is fine with me. I
would argue, however, that it was animal sacrificing that was ended
after the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem and this is why the
High Priests were no longer commanded to eat from the sacrifices as
commanded in the Torah. But this in no way bars nor discourages Jews
from eating cattle or sheep.
It is also interesting to have Mr. Schwartz citing the principle of
tikkun olam to advance his Jewish vegetarianism. I’m not sure if
it applies, however, to say that slaughtering fewer animals for food
will contribute to restoring the earth to a less polluted state. Tikkun
olam, as many understand it, is the principle of committing Jews to
repairing the world—spiritually. In other words, if human beings
were to stop slaughtering animals altogether, it would still mean nothing
in terms of tikkun olam unless it were done for purely spiritual reasons.
Mr. Schwartz also says that Judaism teaches that the earth is the Lord’s
and we are to be partners with God in preserving the world. I would
like to know where this comes from, since according to the Torah, God
gave to man the earth and all that lives on it: “fill the earth
and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea, the bird of the sky,
and every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:28).
And need readers be reminded that early Jews, pre- and post-Egypt,
were shepherds, including Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, no less? Not to
mention
Moses himself, the greatest of Jewish prophets. I don’t need to
point out that they weren’t in the business of leather and wool.
These are but a few examples of why the arguments for a Jewish mandate
to be vegetarian are off the mark. It takes giant leaps of faith (not
of the Jewish kind) to make connections between the beliefs of vegetarianism
and the laws and beliefs of Judaism. There isn’t even a logical
connection between the two. That is not to say, however, that a Jew
shouldn’t find it in his or her heart to go vegetarian. By all
means, it is perfectly okay and respectable. But I stand by my original
point that any Jews who think that being vegetarian makes them better
Jews are misguided, to say the least.
Stuart Scheer
New
York City
