Like Beardsworth and Kiel (1992) individuals in the present sample 

reported that their social relationships were affected by their dietary 

choices. Responses indicated that friends and acquaintances had mixed 

reactions. Some did not attempt to accommodate the vegetarian's food 

needs at social functions, etc., some were critical, some were 

supportive, while others were merely inquisitive. Many reported that 

others wondered how an individual could possibly live without the taste 

of meat. Others queried about the ability to be nourished and receive 

sufficient amounts of protein. Still others, reported that their friends 

respected them for the ability to refrain from eating meat. Many 

reported that although their friends often teased it was understood to 

be in good humor rather than hostile. For those raised vegetarian, due 

to cultural/religious beliefs, all reported acceptance from friends and 

acquaintances. Thus, for these individuals vegetarianism is accepted as 

normative.       



As expected, disruptions in family relationships were somewhat more 

predictable. Only a few individuals reported that their families 

(parents) were totally accepting and supportive. However, most reported 

that disruptions in relationships with family members (primarily 

parents) were only initially problematic. Most reported that parents 

were initially skeptical/apprehensive, critical, concerned and even 

hostile. Many report the source of their parents reactions were due to 

fears that their son/daughter would be malnourished and sickly without 

meat in their diets. However, most reported that with the passage of 

time, they are accepted or tolerated as vegetarians and permitted to eat 

as they please. Interestingly, many report that their parents believed 

that it's merely a phase that their son/daughter is going through. Many 

parents frequently asked if they are "still, not eating meat." Although 

several reported that their parents had grown to accept their 

vegetarianism, many reported the lack of a willingness of parents to 

provide vegetarian food when they visited. Perhaps "acceptance" may mean 

that their parents have simply stopped nagging or inquiring about their 

son/daughter's diet.     



A few female vegetarians did not speak as positively about their in-

laws. Many expressed the total disregard on the part of in-laws to 

accommodate their daughter-in- law's food preferences. Instead, women 

expressed the feeling that their in-laws act as if vegetarianism is a 

terrible inconvenience to meal time.     For a very few individuals 

these types of sanctions as attempts to maintain social norms, serve as 

social constraints that do guide food selection. A few individuals 

adapted by occasionally eating a "little" meat/fish when they felt 

socially obliged to do so. Others altered the visibility of their 

identities by simply attempting to keep their dietary preferences hidden 

by quietly just avoiding eating meat at social functions, without making 

it an issue. For these individuals, being vegetarian was a personal 

matter that they felt no need to proselytize about. Others were adamant 

that they were vegetarians and would not succumb to eating meat at 

whatever the cost. One individual responded to the question of whether 

he ever eats meat to avoid embarrassment, "I'm a vegetarian, I would be 

'embarrassed' to eat meat."



CONCLUSION      The present study suggests that claiming "vegetarian" as 

an aspect of who one is, is a significant aspect of one's identity for 

many individuals. Findings suggest that individuals may be motivated by 

a variety of causes or issues to convert to vegetarianism, but over time 

will likely incorporate or assimilate other motives. This probably 

occurs for several reasons. First, the process of assimilation of other 

motives may be perceived relevant for the person's identity and thus 

enhances one's self-esteem. Second, these new reasons may be perceived 

as a logical continuation of one's present identity and thus provides 

for a sense of continuity for how one sees him/herself.          





Vegetarianism is important to a sizable number of individuals, and is 

growing. The importance associated with being vegetarian is clearer when 

one considers the social constraints present to maintain the centrality 

of meat in the structure of meals. Vegetarian food availability in 

restaurants and convenience foods is a constraint. In addition, social 

relationships may serve as constraints; social relationships are greatly 

affected, primarily in the initial stages of conversion to 

vegetarianism.   



Although there are social constraints present to maintain normative or 

meat-based foodways, individuals report support in maintenance of their 

vegetarian identity. That is, the present study finds support for 

Maurer's (1995) contention that through the media individuals have been 

able to find justifications for changing their eating patterns. 





ALSO, BELOW ARE TWO TABLES THAT APPEAR IN THE PAPER:



                                



                            Table 1---Categories of Vegetarians.

                                

Types ofVegetarians     Total

Vegan   12

Pesco   5

Lacto/Ovo       41

Lacto   18

Ovo     3









                                Table 2---Motivations for Converting

                                             to Vegetarianism.



Motivations forVegetarianism    Total

Health  28

Animal Rights   11

Ethics  12

Environment     4

Religion        8

Other   9

No Ranking/tie  7

Total   79

Beverly L. Stiles is a graduate in the Ph.D. program at Texas A&M University and is research assistant for the Laboratory For Studies of Social Deviance. She has published in the areas of disability and deviance. She is specializing in social psychology, sociology of deviance, and social organization. 

So if you crave more energy and want that veggie glow, try incorporating at least 50% to 75% raw veggies/juice/fruit into your diet. If you have a hard time leaving that cooked food behind, try "lightly" steaming vegetables (2 to 3 min.) that will keep most of the enzymes and other nutrients in your food. Dried un-sulfured fruit and veggies are also very useful in the winter months to help us retain robust health. Remember, enzymes are destroyed at 108 degrees so try to keep your fixins KooL for good health and good digestion.  Go Back ToTOP  

Go back toTOP  

  "When the suggestion was made that I visit a

slaughterhouse to observe first-hand blatant infractions

upon the rights of animals, I was very skeptical.  The

reason for my skepticism was that I felt a

slaughterhouse did not present an example of cruelty far

enough removed from everyday life to be poignant or

relevant in a discussion of animal rights.  I felt that

I should be writing on something a little more esoteric

or something considered cruel or immoral, such as the

clubbing to death of baby seals.  I was gravely

mistaken.  And the fact that what goes on inside a

slaughterhouse is done because of the demand the vast

majority of the American public has for the flesh of

other living beings makes it all the more poignant and

relevant.



   "There is no convenient escape from guilt by

association for what goes on inside a slaughterhouse as

there is from the case of the baby seals in the Arctic.

While it is easy for most of us to refrain from

purchasing the goods for which seals were slain -- thus

incurring no guilt for their deaths -- most people

willingly (and thoughtlessly) eat the flesh of one type

of animal or another whose life has been terminated

within the walls of a slaughterhouse.



   "As I stepped from my car in the parking lot of the

packing plant, the combination of sounds and smells

emanating from the corrugated metal structure made me

question whether or not this was something I really

wanted to go through with. The first thing to hit my

senses was the sound of cattle -- not the pleasant

bucolic mooing one might hear on a stroll down a country

lane next to a small farm, but a rapid, frantic mooing.

It was the kind of mooing I heard during a weekend stay

at my uncle's dairy farm when one of the cows was

attacked by stray dogs.  Aside from the noise, the

release of adrenaline in her body made the cow drool,

and caused her nose to run so profusely that she briefly

had difficulty breathing. At that moment in the parking

lot, I could only sense discomfort in the sound of the

cows, but later I discovered that each one awaiting

slaughter in the chute leading to the "killing stall"

was suffering the same symptoms of terror I witnessed at

my uncle's farm.



   "The second thing I noticed was also a sound. As I

walked toward the building, I heard the strange muffled

whine that can only come from a saw cutting bone still

encased in flesh. At this point I realized that I was

not prepared for what I was about to experience.  That

feeling was intensified to the point of nausea when, as

I walked closer, I caught my first whiff of the

combination of smells that I would have to endure for

the next few hours: the oddly sickening odor of newly

slaughtered flesh still so warm from the life so

recently removed that steam rises from it; the not so

oddly nauseating stench of the sausage and hot dog meat

boilers; and the quiet, cold reeking of flesh hanging,

carcass after carcass, row upon row, in the freezer

storage area.  My imagination had prepared me a little

bit for the visual experience, but I was entirely

unprepared for the almost unbearable smell that

permeated the entire plant.



   "After brief "pleasantries" with Jerry, the production

manager of the plant, I was allowed to procede through

the building unguided and at my own pace.  I began the

tour "where it all starts", as Jerry put it, in the

"kill shed".



   "I entered the kill shed through a short, tunnel-like

hall through which I could see what I soon learned was

the third butchering station.  The kill shed consisted

of one room in which a number of operations are

performed by one or two of six butchers at four stations

along the length of the room. In the kill shed there is

also a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

inspector who examines parts of every animal who goes

through the kill shed.



   "The first station is the killing station.  It is

worked by one man whose job is to herd the animal into

the killing stall, slaughter him or her, and begin the

butchering process. This stage of the process takes

about ten minutes for each animal, and begins with the

opening of a heavy steel door that separates the killing

stall from the waiting chute.  The man working this

station must then go into a corridor adjacent to the

waiting chute, and prod his next victim into the killing

stall with a high-voltage electric cattle prod.  This is

the most time-consuming part of the operation because

the cattle are fully aware of what lies ahead, and are

determined not to enter the killing stall.  The physical

symptoms of terror were painfully evident on the faces

of each and every animal I saw either in the actual

killing stall or in the waiting chute. During the 40

seconds to a minute that each animal had to wait in the

killing stall before losing consciousness, the terror

became visibly more intense. The animal could smell the

blood, and see his or her former companions in various

stages of dismemberment.  During the last few seconds of

life, the animal thrashes about the stall as much as its

confines allow. All four of the cows whose deaths I

witnessed strained frantically, futilely, and

pathetically towards the ceiling -- the only direction

that was not blocked by a steel door. Death came in the

form of a pneumatic nail gun that was placed against

their heads and fired.



   "The gun is designed so that the nail never completely

leaves the gun, but simply is blown into the animal's

head and then pulled out by the butcher as the animal

collapses.  Three of the four times I saw it used, it

did the job on the first try, but one cow struggled a

good deal after collapsing. After the animal has

collapsed, the side of the killing stall is raised, and

a chain is secured to the right hind leg.  The cow is

then hoisted by that one leg to a hanging position.  At

this point, the butcher drains the body of blood by

slitting the cow's throat.  When the blood vessels are

severed, there is an amazing torrent of blood so profuse

that the butcher is unable to step aside fast enough to

avoid being covered with it. This steaming torrent of

blood lasts only about 15 seconds, after which the only

task left to the man at the first station is to skin and

remove the animal's head.



   "At the second station in the kill shed, the headless

animal is dropped to the floor.  The body is propped up

on the back and relieved of hooves and, if female, milk

sack and udders. At this time, any urine and feces that

didn't drain from the body during the first few seconds

of death now pour freely onto the floor.  The body is

then slit down the middle, and the hide is peeled

partially away.  A yoke is then hooked to the stumps of

the hind legs, the body is lifted upwards, and the rest

of the hide is pulled past a roller secured to the floor

and peeled off. The animal's body is now at the third

station of the kill shed where it is gutted and then

sawed in half -- becoming two "sides of beef".



   "The sides of beef are sprayed down and weighed at the

fourth and final station of the kill station.  They are

then placed in the cooling locker where the residual

warmth of life steams away slowly in preparation for the

deep-freeze storage locker. From the cooling locker, the

meat goes into a main storage area where it is kept for

as long as a week.  This locker exits to a butchering

area where the sides of beef are reduced to parts for

the supermarket which end up on dining room tables.



   "The final stop on my tour was the sausage and hot dog

production facilities. It is often said that if you

could see what goes into a hot dog, you'd never eat one

eat one again. Well that adage applies tenfold to the

production of sausage. The most violently nauseating

smell that I have ever experienced was the odor wafting

up from the sausage meat boiling vats.



   "As I left the complex, I was embarrassed about my

previous skepticism, and I encourage anyone who has any

of the doubts that I once possessed to make a visit to a

slaughterhouse or spend a day at a factory farm. I think

it would become clear that there has to be better way to

feed ourselves, and that it is our duty as moral beings

to pursue the alternatives.



Published in The Forum

A Diet for living - Dr. Jean Mayer, professor of nutrition, Harvard

Diet and coronary hart disease - S. Seely

Medical Hypotheses (1981; 7:907)

Four studies by Joel Fuhrman, MD - British Medical Journal (1961; 1:154 and 2:929 and 1979;1:382

Israel Journal Of Medical Sciences (1985; 21:575]

Rheumatic Disease Clinics Of North America (1988; 14:1:15);

Aladjem, Understanding Lupus (40)

J Of Chronic Diseases (1979; 32:6:469)

Eur Urol (1982; 8:334)

Braz J Med Biol Res (1993; 26:805

Fasting and Eating for Health (1995:34,97)

Immunol (1927:14:143, Am. J.Med. Sci (1927; 173:297

Learn More About Milk At The No Milk Page

A new report in the Journal of the American Medical Association(1), suggests that eating oily fish reduces the likelihood of heart attacks. This latest fish story must be put in context of other evidence which does not support the use of fish products.

A much larger Harvard study, published earlier this year in the New England Journal of Medicine(2), found that men who ate the most fish actually ended up with more heart problems than those who rarely ate fish. The 44,895-person study also showed that omega-3 fatty acids did not help either. Those whose diets were richest in omega-3's had more heart problems than those whose diets contained far less.

The only diet/lifestyle program that has been shown to reverse heart disease, pioneered by Dr. Dean Ornish of the University of California at San Francisco, uses a low-fat, vegetarian diet along with mild exercise, stress reduction, and smoking cessation. Plant foods have no cholesterol and are usually low in fat, while animal products, including fish, always contain cholesterol, and are usually much higher in fat.

Using a fish-based instead of a vegetarian diet can be risky. The blood-thinning effect of fish oils can increase the risk of hemorrhagic strokes. Second, all fish contain both cholesterol and fat, including saturated fat. Third, fish and shellfish are highly contaminated. As water passes over fish gills, industrial and agricultural chemicals in waterways dissolve into their blood, and end up in muscle tissue. As larger fish eat smaller fish, the contaminants become more concentrated. A 1992 Consumer Reports survey found that half of the flounder sampled in New York contained pesticides. Highly toxic PCB's were found in 43 percent of salmon, 50 percent of whitefish, and 25 percent of swordfish. The National Research Council reports that PCB's are found in virtually every site where fish or shellfish are tested, even in spots as remote as rural Alaska, the Virgin Islands, and Hawaii. Of 145 sites recently sampled for mercury in shellfish, it was found in every single one of them. Avoiding fish eliminates half of all mercury exposure. Fish oils are also highly unstable, encouraging the production of free radicals.

"Fish diets are certainly nothing like diets based on vegetables, fruits, grains, and legumes," said Neal Barnard, M.D., of the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. "Vegetarian diets, along with an otherwise healthy lifestyle, can actually reverse existing heart disease, with none of the stroke risk that fish oils can bring. And while you can buy organic, pesticide-free produce, there is no such thing as "organic fish" -- fish are loaded with chemical contaminants."

1. Siscovick DS, Raghunathan TE, King 1, et al. Dietary intake and cell membrane levels of long-chain n-3 polyunsaturated fatty ac ids and the risk of primary cardiac arrest. JAMA 1995;274:1363-7.

2.Ascherio A. Rimm EB, Stampfer MJ, Giovannucci EL, Willett WC. Dietary intake of marine n-3 fatty acids, fish intake, and the risk of coronary disease among men. N Engl J Med 1995;332:977-82.

In the past, many people believed that one could never get too much protein. Even today, some people worry that they may not be getting enough. Yet the reality is that the average American takes in far more protein than he or she needs. Americans now consume about 100 grams of protein a day. That is anywhere from two to five times higher than what we need.

Why the obsession with protein in this country? It is the legacy of outdated advice from well meaning health professionals, now appropriately called "The Protein Myth."

The idea that one has to eat protein-dense foods for good health has carried on despite a mountain of evidence showing that it isn't true. For example, The Worid Health Organization has established a minimum daiiy requirement for protein to be approximately 5 percent of daily calorie intake. For a man consuming 3,000 calories a day, that would be 37 grams of protein, and for a woman consuming 2,300 calories a day, that would be 29 grams -- 60 to 70 grams less than Americans consume in an average day.

The National Academy of Sciences has set the RDA for protein at 63 grams per day for adult men, and 50 grams per day for adult women. But the Academy admits that it added another 45 percent to the true minimum requirements in order to leave a substantial margin of safety for mostpeople. In fact, studies have shown that people can lead healthy, active lives while consuming only 2.5 percent of calories a day as protein; equivalent to 20 grams a day for an adult male, and even less for an adult female.

Except for malnourished people in third-world nations (whose diets are low in all nutrients) protein deficiency is virtually unheard of. Nevertheless, in the United States, where we are practically drowning in a sea of protein, people still feel the need to load up on protein-rich foods, consuming all the fat and cholesterol that usually come with them. Fortunately, there is a better way. You can get more than enough protein from high-fiber, low-fat, plant-based foods.

The Birth of A Second Myth,

The 1970s are remembered as the age of disco music, bell-bottom pants -- and the birth of a second myth that vegetarians had to carefully combine foods for their optimal protein value. Frances Moore Lappe's popular Diet For A Small Planet, originally published in 1971, encouraged people to eat beans and grains together to get their full protein value. While moving people away from animal products was a great idea, the idea of intentionally combining foods turned out to be a wrong turn.

The American Dietetic Association (ADA) in its 1988 position paper on vegetarianism, stated that intentional combining is not necessary. Even Lappe herself noticed how wrong she had been. In the revised edition of her book, published in 1982, she wrote, "In combating the myth that meat is the only way to get high quality protein, I reinforced another myth. I gave the impression that in order to get enough protein without meat, considerable care was needed in choosing foods. Actually, it is much easier than I thought."

A varied diet of grains, beans, and vegetables provides all the essential amino acids, even without intentional combining. As physician John A. McDougall, M.D. has written, "...the combination of amino acids in proper proportions takes place long before our foods reach the dinner table. Nature has designed vegetable foods to be complete. If people living before the age of modern dietetics had to worry about achieving the correct protein combinations in their diets, our species would not have survived for these millions of years."

Dr. Denis Burkitt, the researcher who discovered the value of fiber in the diet, had two words to sum up the controversy: 'Forget protein."

Gerardus Johannes Mulder coined the term protein in 1838 (from the Greek meaning "in first place".) He obviously couldn't foresee the myths and misinformation that would follow over the next century and a half. But if he had, he might instead have chosen words from the Greek language meaning 'don't believe the hype."

For a free brochure on healthy eating, your readers are invited to call 1-800-US-LIVES.

German scientists report that anywhere from 30 to 60 drugs can be
measured in a typical water sample, if anyone takes the time to
do the proper analyses.[2]  The concentrations of some drugs in
water are comparable to the low parts-per-billion (ppb) levels at
which pesticides are typically found.[1]  To some people this is
reassuring, but others are asking, "What is the long-term effect
of drinking, day after day, a dilute cocktail of pesticides,
antibiotics, pain killers, tranquilizers and chemotherapy
agents?"  Of course no one knows the answer to such a question
--it is simply beyond the capabilities of science to sort out the
many chemical interactions that could occur in such a complex
chemical soup.  The only solution to such a problem would be
prevention.

The first study that detected drugs in sewage took place at the
Big Blue River sewage treatment plant in Kansas City in 1976.
The problem was duly recorded in scientific literature and then
ignored for 15 years.[3]  In 1992, researchers in Germany were
looking for herbicides in water when they kept noticing a
chemical they couldn't identify.[4] It turned out to be clofibric
acid (CA), a drug used by many people in large quantities (1 to 2
grams per day) to reduce cholesterol levels in the blood.[1]
Clofibric acid is 2-(4)-chlorophenoxy-2-methyl propionic acid, a
close chemical cousin of the popular weed killer 2,4-D.[1] Based
on that early discovery, the search for clofibric acid (CA) in
the environment was stepped up.

Since 1992, researchers in Germany, Denmark and Sweden have been
measuring CA and other drugs in rivers, lakes, and the North Sea.
To everyone's surprise, it turns out that the entire North Sea
contains measurable quantities of clofibric acid. Based on the
volume of the Sea, which is 12.7 quadrillion gallons (1.27 x
10E16 gallons), and the average concentration of CA, which is 1
to 2 parts per trillion (ppt), researchers estimate that the Sea
contains 48 to 96 tons of clofibric acid with 50 to 100 tons
entering the Sea anew each year.[1]  The Danube River in Germany
and the Po River in Italy also contain measurable quantities of
clofibric acid.[5,6]  Of more immediate concern to humans is the
finding that tap water in all parts of the city of Berlin
contains clofibric acid at concentrations between 10 and 165
ppt.[5]  The water supplies of other major cities remain to be
tested.

As a result of this European work, a few U.S. researchers are now
beginning to pay attention to drugs in the environment.
Individual scientists within the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) have been concerned about this problem for a
decade,[7] but so far FDA has taken the official position that
excreted drugs are not a problem because the concentrations found
in the environment are usually below one part per billion
(ppb).[2]

Drugs are designed to have particular characteristics.  For
example, 30% of the drugs manufactured between 1992 and 1995 are
lipophilic, meaning that they tend to dissolve in fat but not in
water.[8]  This gives them the ability to pass through cell
membranes and act inside cells.  Unfortunately, it also means
that, once they are excreted into the environment, they enter
food chains and concentrate as they move upward into larger
predators.  Many drugs are also designed to be persistent, so
that they can retain their chemical structure long enough to do
their therapeutic work.  Unfortunately, after they are excreted,
such drugs also tend to persist in the environment.  A landfill
used by the Jackson Naval Air Station in Florida contaminated
groundwater with a plume of chemicals that has been moving slowly
underground for more than 20 years.  The drugs pentobarbital (a
barbiturate), meprobamate (a tranquilizer sold as Equanil and
Miltown) and phensuximide (an anticonvulsant) are still
measurable in that groundwater plume.[8,pg.362]

When a human or an animal is given a drug, anywhere from 50% to
90% of it is excreted unchanged.  The remainder is excreted in
the form of metabolites --chemicals produced as byproducts of the
body's interaction with the drug.  Researchers report that some
of the metabolites are more lipophilic and more persistent than
the original drugs from which they were derived.  Because of the
complexity of the chemistry involved in drug metabolism, and the
interactions of the metabolites with the natural environment,
Danish researchers say is it "practically impossible to estimate
predicted environmental concentrations (PEC) of any medical
substances with available knowledge."[8,pg.385]

Yet U.S. regulatory policy for new drugs depends entirely upon
estimating concentrations that might result from excretion.  When
a new drug is proposed for market, FDA requires the manufacturer
to conduct a risk assessment that estimates the concentrations
that will be found in the environment.  If the risk assessment
concludes that the concentration will be less than one part per
billion, the drug is assumed to pose acceptable risks.[2]  FDA
has never turned down a proposed new drug based on estimated
environmental concentrations, and no actual testing is conducted
after a drug is marketed to see if the environmental
concentration was estimated correctly.

German chemists have found that many drugs can be measured at
environmental concentrations that exceed one ppb.  And of course
several drugs measured together can exceed one ppb.  Furthermore,
there is ample evidence from research conducted during the past
decade showing that some chemicals have potent effects on
wildlife at concentrations far below one ppb.  For example
estradiol, the female sex hormone (and a common water pollutant),
can alter the sex characteristics of certain fish at
concentrations of 20 ppt, which is 1/50 of one ppb.[2]

Another problem resulting from drugs in the environment is
bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics.  The general
problem of antibiotic-resistant bacteria has been recognized for
more than a decade.  (See REHW #402.)  Antibiotics are only
useful to humans so long as bacteria do not become resistant to
their effects.  Hospital sewage systems discharge substantial
quantities of antibiotics into the environment.[9]  Bacteria
exposed to antibiotics in sewage sludge, or water, have an
opportunity to develop resistance.  Janet Raloff of SCIENCE NEWS
quotes Stuart Levy, who directs the Center for Adaptation
Genetics and Drug Resistance at Tufts University in Boston,
saying, "[T]hese antibiotics may be present at levels of
consequence to bacteria --levels that could not only alter the
ecology of the environment but also give rise to antibiotic
resistance."[2]

What can we learn from the emergence of this new problem?

1) Hospitals and the health care industry are the major sources
of these problems, especially antibiotics and chemotherapy
chemicals.[10] The large national coalition of environmental and
health groups, Health Care Without Harm,[11] might consider
tackling this difficult but important problem.

2) Sewage sludge provides a major pathway by which drugs enter
the environment.  Until the drug problem is understood and
controlled, it provides a solid scientific rationale for labeling
sewage sludge a dangerous soil amendment, the use of which should
be forbidden.

3) For a long time, people have worried that the world was going
to run out of natural resources.  It is now apparent that we have
run out places to throw things away.  There is no place left
where we can throw away exotic substances without affecting
people or wildlife (upon whose well being we ultimately depend).

>From the viewpoint of disposal, not many decades ago the world
still looked pretty empty.  Today there can be no doubt that the
world is full --full of people armed with double-edged
technologies.  To survive in a full world will require quite
different attitudes.  We need to curb our numbers.  We need to
curb our technologies.  We need to curb our appetites.  And we
need to operate from a position of humility.  We should assume
that anything we do will have negative consequences on the rest
of the planet.  We must limit our technological interventions
into nature long before we have definitive scientific proof of
harm. This is the principle of precautionary action, and if we
don't adopt it, nature will get along just fine without us.

                                                --Peter Montague
                (National Writers Union, UAW Local 1981/AFL-CIO)

===============
[1] Hans-Rudolf Buser and Markus D. Muller, "Occurrence of the
Pharmaceutical Drug Clofibric Acid and the Herbicide Mecoprop in
Various Swiss Lakes and in the North Sea," ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY Vol. 32, No. 1 (1998), pgs. 188-192.

[2] Janet Raloff, "Drugged Waters," SCIENCE NEWS Vol. 153, No. 12
(March 21, 1998), pgs. 187-189.

[3] C. Hignite and D.L. Azarnoff, "Drugs and drug metabolites as
environmental contaminants: chlorophenoxyisobutyrate and
salicyclic acid in sewage water effluent," LIFE SCIENCES Vol. 20,
No. 2 (January 15, 1977), pgs. 337-341.

[4] H.J. Stan and Thomas Heberer, "Pharmaceuticals in the Aquatic
Environment," ANALUSIS MAGAZINE Vol. 25, No. 7 (1997), pgs.
M20-M23.

[5] Thomas Heberer and H.-J. Stan, "Determination of Clofibric
Acid and N-(phenylsulfonyl)-Sarcosine in Sewage, River, and
Drinking Water," INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL
ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY Vol. 67 (1997), pgs. 113-124.  And see:
Thomas Heberer and others, "Detection of Drugs and Drug
Metabolites in Ground Water Samples of a Drinking Water Treatment
Plant," FRESENIUS ENVIRONMENTAL BULLETIN Vol. 6 (1997), pgs.
438-443.

[6] "Pille im Brunnen [Pills in the Fountain]," DER SPIEGEL No.
26 (June 24, 1996), pgs. 154-155, translated for us by Thea
Lindauer, Annapolis, Maryland.

[7] Personal communication from Maurice Zeeman, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, March, 1998.

[8] B. Halling-Sorensen and others, "Occurrence, Fate and Effects
of Pharmaceutical Substances in the Environment --A Review,"
CHEMOSPHERE Vol. 36, No. 2 (1998), pgs. 357-393.

[9] Andreas Hartmann and others, "Identification of Fluoroquinone
Antibiotics as the Main Source of umuC Genotoxicity in Native
Hospital Wastewater," ENVIRONMENTAL TOXICOLOGY AND CHEMISTRY Vol.
17, No. 3 (1998), pgs. 377-382.

[10] T. Steger-Hartmann and others, "Biological Degradation of
Cyclophosphamide and Its Occurrence in Sewage Water,"
ECOTOXICOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY Vol. 36 (1997), pgs.
174-179.

[11] Contact: Charlotte Brody, Health Care Without Harm, c/o CCHW
Center for Health, Environment and Justice, P.O. Box 6806, Falls
Church, Virginia 22040.  Phone (703) 237-2249.  See
www.noharm.org.

Descriptor terms:  drugs; pharmaceuticals; water pollution;
sewage sludge; precautionary principle; fda; north sea; germany;

################################################################
                             NOTICE
Environmental Research Foundation provides this electronic
version of RACHEL'S ENVIRONMENT & HEALTH WEEKLY free of charge
even though it costs our organization considerable time and money
to produce it. We would like to continue to provide this service
free. You could help by making a tax-deductible contribution
(anything you can afford, whether $5.00 or $500.00). Please send
your tax-deductible contribution to: Environmental Research
Foundation, P.O. Box 5036, Annapolis, MD 21403-7036. Please do
not send credit card information via E-mail. For further
information about making tax-deductible contributions to E.R.F.
by credit card please phone us toll free at 1-888-2RACHEL, or at
(410) 263-1584, or fax us at (410) 263-8944.
                                        --Peter Montague, Editor
################################################################

NOTE: most of the veterinary drugs mentioned in the article are used in
factory farming.

A Brief History of Vegetarianism

by Anne Dozell

The following is a short summary of some of the highlights of "The Heretic's Feast, a History of Vegetarianism" by Colin Spencer. (The information and views are those of Mr. Spencer.) This book is now available from bookstores or TVA's Resource Centre.

Colin Spencer is a British vegetarian who once wrote a regular food column in the Guardian and has published a dozen cook books.

We often hear the phrase, "vegetarian- ism's time has come at last." But vegetaranism is not a new idea. It has a long and fascinating history stretching back to the early evolution of human beings.

Our Earliest Ancestors

Our hominid ancestors evolved over a period of 24 million years and, according to Spencer, for all but one-and-a-half million of these years lived on an almost completely vegetarian diet, except for occasional insects and grubs.

Spencer suggests that lack of a varied plant & fruit diet may have been the reason Neanderthal man died out, while Cro-Magnon man, our direct ancestor, survived. The Cro-Magnons lived in a more temperate climate and had ready access to plentiful supplies of plants and fruit, while the Neanderthals, who lived in the icy wastes of northern Europe, were forced to subsist mainly on flesh food.

Pythagoras

The first prominent modern vegetarian was the Greek philosopher Pythagoras who lived towards the end of the 6th century BC. The Pythagorean diet came to mean an avoidance of the flesh of slaughtered animals. Pythagorean ethics first became a philosophical morality between 490-430 BC with a desire to create a universal and absolute law including injunctions not to kill "living creatures," to abstain from "harsh-sounding bloodshed," in particular animal sacrifice, and "never to eat meat."

The Vegetarian Heretics

Another big surge in vegetarianism came from the Manicheans in the early centuries AD. The Manicheans were a sect of "heretics" with vegetarianism as the centre of their beliefs, and were much reviled by the Christians. [It is for this reason that the book is called the Heretic's Feast] Manicheanism survived in the Near East as late as the seventh century AD and kept a foothold in China as late as the 16th century, the Manicheans being known as "vegetarian demon worshippers."

The Renaissance

By Renaissance times in Europe, meat eating had became surrounded by an aura of wealth and power. Only the Christian monks abstained, hoping to bring a closer affinity to God.

From the 17th century, a time of radical ideas, vegetarianism began to grow steadily in England. Religious sects that abstain from animal food began to proliferate. Moral objections began to appear as people discovered a distaste for exploiting animals: "as the threat from wild beasts receded, so man's right to eliminate wild creatures from whom he had nothing to fear was increasingly disputed" (Keith Thomas: Man and the Natural World).

Thomas Tryon was a prominent vegetarian of the early 17th century. His writings and teachings recommended a vegetable diet and a complete refusal to "gorge on the flesh of fellow animals." Tryon strongly influenced the Quakers, and much later the young Benjamin Franklin was greatly impressed by one of Tryon's books, The Way to Health.

The dilemma of whether humans should kill and eat animals was now being debated and written about by scores of people, some, like John Evelyn, advocating the wholesomeness of a "Herby-diet" and others, such as Henry More, advocating that cattle and sheep were only given life in the first place so that their meat could be kept fresh "till we shall have need to eat them."

Moving into the 18th century, we find the writer and dietitian Dr. William Lambe recommending a vegetarian diet to his patients as a cure for cancer. By the end of the 18th century, there was an upsurge in humanitarian feelings, and the concept of animal welfare began to strengthen. The vegetarian movement now had real reason to hope for expansion due to the fact that vegetables and grains were becoming more abundant and available to everyone. All the arguments that sustain modern vegetarianism were now in circulation, including the view that meat eating was bad for health, was cruel and unnatural, and fostered a wasteful form of agriculture compared with arable farming which produced far more food per acre.

Blandness and Purity

The Pythagorean diet officially changed its title to vegetarianism in 1847 at a meeting in Ramsgate, an English seaside town. From this meeting came the Vegetarian Society, branches of which were subsequently established in Manchester and London. One of the first members was George Dornbusch who ate all his food quite cold and without salt and condiments. Many members of the Society believed that salt and condiments were stimulants and as bad as alcohol. This led to vegetarian food being enormously bland. At this time, too, vegetarianism became equated with moral earnestness, do-gooding and the higher grounds of purity and moral rectitude. Meat was considered a generator of lust. Vegetarianism even went hand in hand with abstention from alcohol. Because British beef was regarded as one of the positive forces behind the growth of the British Empire, vegetarianism was very quickly relegated to the level of a joke by the rich and powerful.

In 1847, the Manchester branch of the Vegetarian Society held their first annual meeting and a banquet. At this banquet they ate macaroni omelette, onion and sage fritters, savoury pie, plum pudding, moulded rice, flummery [fruit pudding], and several other dishes.

In the early 1880's, membership in the Vegetarian Society rose until it reached over 2,000. In 1889 there were estimated to be 52 vegetarian restaurants in England, 34 of them in London. In 1889, Gandhi became a member of the London Vegetarian Society.

The 20th Century

At the outbreak of the First World War, pacifism and vegetarianism became intertwined and vegetarianism suffered a bitter backlash from a society which saw refusal to fight as treason. Seventy vegetarian conscientious objectors died in prison because of harsh treatment, including their inability to survive on prison meals. A food strike eventually produced a vegetarian diet for prisoners.

For the remainder of this century, vegetarians have continued the struggle to put forward their message. In Canada, the Toronto Vegetarian Association was founded in 1945 and has flourished for 50 years. As history shows, vegetarianism has had its ups and downs. Surely, by the year 2000, we will be able to say with absolute certainty, "Now our time has surely come." 

Michael Fox gives a general overview of the nutritional requirements for the aspiring vegetarian sports person.

Just as there is no single food that will make you lose weight, likewise, there is no one particular item you can eat that will suddenly make you healthier and fitter. What should he considered from the very start is that your diet is almost like a fingertprint - unique to you. Sure, there are certain rules that should be followed but these are not set in stone. Any advice that you read or hear should be thought of as guidelines only with the final adaptation of a training diet being entirely your decision.

Certainly in recent years it has become increasingly obvious that diet plays a major part in the success of a sports person. Motor racing drivers, cyclists, runners, boxers - almost any physical sport that you can think of has been taken to a new level of intensity. This has come about by the introduction of combined training and dietary regimes, designed to optimise an individual human body for success in a certain sport.

Training is tailored to suit the sport. There is no point in extensive weight training and muscle gain if you intend to run 26 mile marathons. Similarly, a diet as tailored to suit the sport. To customise a diet to suit your specific training needs the best approach is to consider how the body reacts to training and to the food that is provided. This is the common element that can be applied to any sport.

A certain degree of scepticism has crept in during the past few years. Scientists constantly seem to come up with foods that one day are very good for you and, sometime later, must be avoided at all costs. To answer this there are a few hints that should be followed as a first step to a healthy diet.

Avoid excessive amounts of processed food Avoid excessive amounts of food and drink that are high in fat, sugar or alcohol Try and maintain a dietary balance that covers carbohydrates, protein and fat

Basically, remember the phrase everything in moderation.

Food is fuel for the body. How is this fuel used in training? That is dependant upon the type of training that you do. There are two basic types of physical activity, aerobic and anaerobic. We have all heard of aerobic exercise and the term conjures up images of people in brightly coloured leotards, standing together in a large room, working up a sweat by following the moves of the instructor. But aerobic exercise can take many forms, distance running, cycling and swimming for example and can easily be remembered as exercise that may make you breathless. After all, the term aerobic indicates exercise with oxygen.

Anaerobic exercise is not such a common term. This is the sort of physical activity that you repeat until your muscles give up on you. Weight training is the best example although sprinting, jumping and kicking are also considered to be anaerobic. It may leave you breathless but will certainly make the muscles that you have been exercising feel weak.

There are few physical activities that are entirely aerobic or anaerobic. Instead one or other type will predominate.

The body burns fuel to create energy which, in turn, allows you to perform various physically demanding activities. This fuel is called glycogen. The main stores for glycogen are the muscles as this is where fuel is needed. As you exercise, the glycogen stores are depleted. If you are performing aerobic exercise then, once the body has warmed up, it will start using fat deposits for its energy source. Anaerobic exercise will, when the body has warmed up, only use glycogen. Once the stores have been depleted, your muscles will tire and you will have to stop.

What fuel should be used? For general meals you should consider foods that take time to be absorbed by the body. If a food is absorbed too quickly then, if you are not training, fat may be a by-product. Slow absorption allows the body to process all the incoming food in good time to avoid fat build up. Such foods would include various pulses, certain fruits (apples, dates, peaches) and yoghurt. If you have just finished training then you can select foods that can be quickly absorbed. This is because the body can refuel at a much faster rate for anything up to two hours after intense physical activity. Such foods could include wholegrain bread, brown rice, muesli, raisins, bananas, sweetcorn, pasta and potatoes. As mentioned previously, avoid eating any one of these foods exclusively. Mix between low and high absorption groups but ensure that the appropriate food type predominates.

It is quite possible that you do not feel hungry after exercise. If this is the case then you may consider eating a power bar or an energy drink. Some of these are better than others. Check the label of contents and apply the food hints given previously.

One last issue. Many people imagine that eating a high protein diet will ensure super athlete status. This is not true. Excess protein could easily end up as fat on your body. What do you need protein for? The body always needs a certain amount of protein to build cells, enzymes and some hormones. But if you participate in a sport that requires strength then you will need some extra protein in order to allow for the growth of new tissue. If you are a body builder then your protein needs will be even greater. Good sources of protein include skimmed milk, cottage cheese, certain pulses and some nuts.

As well as being low in sugar, fat and salt, vegetarian diets are generally high in carbohydrates and fibre. A good supply of catbohydrates is essential for successful training and sports participation. Without sufficient fuel your body will be unable to maintain the energy levels required to succeed. 

Recently there have been some interesting tidbits in the news on the eating habits of pro athletes in Toronto and around the world, including the following indication that some of the Toronto Maple Leafs might be vegetarian.

After Wendel Clark's return to the Toronto Maple Leafs, the Toronto Sun on March 17, 1996 described Clark as "a meat-eater on offence coming to a team where vegetarians have taken over."

Veteran Toronto Raptor John Salley upon seeing rookie teammate Damon Stoudamire eating a ham sandwich on a return charter flight from Chicago, stated: "I got on him to stop it.... You learn that you don't eat meat, it just sits in your stomach" (Hamilton Spectator, Nov. 9, 1995.)

Local jocks aren't the only ones kicking the meat habit. An article that appeared in the Hamilton Spectator, July 7, 1995, on Tour de France cyclists, shows a similar trend. Every year the Tour de France organizes a three week trek complete with gourmet cuisine, but the cyclists have to avoid all the fine food. Team chefs prepare carbohydrates, not cassoulet or coq au vin.

As one team chef explained, "They are like high powered engines. You put some funny motor oil in and it all explodes". Instead (of meat and high fat foods), the riders got low fat foodstuffs for the road and a seemingly endless supply of pasta, rice and muesli.

"They used to say, eat meat, eat meat. Meat in the morning and meat at night," said Bernard Hinault, who won five tours between 1978 and 1985 on a more refined diet after it was found that steaks did more harm than good.

Even the Toronto Blue Jays are putting a greater emphasis on nutrition. This past season a TV reporter interviewed the Blue Jays food service provider who noted that the players were eating less meat and fatty foods and more carbohydrates. The meals consisted of more whole grains, breads, pastas, etc., than in previous years.

From my own experience at the 1992 World Triathlon Championships in Huntsville, Ontario, the meatless trend was quite evident. Of the two pre-race meals I attended for the athletes from around the world, there wasn't a single meat dish served. This was not unusual for endurance sports. Out of nearly 35 triathlons, duathlons and road races I have done, I recall seeing meat served at a pre-race or post-race meal about half-a-dozen times.

Vegetarian Watch Dogs needed. If you come across any articles on sports, athletics and vegetarianism, please forward them to TVA in care of Bernie Thimian. Bernie Thimian is past-president of the Mississauga Vegetarian Association and owner of "One Step Closer," a venture providing vegetarian merchandise from clothing and accessories to placemats and fridge magnets. Bernie is an accomplished athlete and a frequent spokesperson for TVA. 

AntiDairy Coalition Faults FDA and USDA for Misinterpreting Scientific Study
New York, July 14, 1998 -- The AntiDairy Coalition has denounced a claim,
based on a recent U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) study, that normal
pasteurization practiced by dairy producers nationwide inactivates a dangerous
bacterium routinely found in raw milk.

In his weekly AntiDairy Coalition Newsletter column on the Internet, Coalition
Executive Director Robert Cohen says the USDA study, which was reported in the
May 10, 1998 issue of Hoard's Dairyman, a trade publication, has been
completely misrepresented by the agency and by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) in claiming that normal pasteurization (72C for 15
seconds) destroys mycobacterium paratuberculosis, the bacterium linked to
Johne's disease in cows and Crohn's disease in humans that produces persistent
and severe diarrhea.

Cohen, author of "Milk-the Deadly Poison," says that the USDA study actually
revealed that the dangerous bacteria were not totally inactivated until after
15 minutes of pasteurization at 72 degrees centigrade.

That's "very bad news for all milk drinkers," says Cohen. "Normal
pasteurization at this temperature calls for only a 15-second treatment, not
15 minutes. We believe the government and Hoard's Dairyman are misleading the
public into thinking pasteurized milk is safe from mycobacterium
paratuberculosis when the USDA's own scientist is saying that pasteurization
inactivates the bacterium only when the process maintains at least 72 degrees
centigrade for at least 15 minutes. That's 14 minutes and 45 seconds longer
than the normal commercial pasteurization of milk in the United States."

The USDA study is entitled "Heat Inactivation of Mycobacterium
paratuberculosis in Raw Milk: Are Current Pasteurization Conditions
Effective?" Based on this study, Hoard's Dairyman told its 100,000-plus milk
producer subscribers, "Heat treatment (pasteurization) destroys this dangerous
disease."

Cohen says the FDA supports the same conclusion. He refers to a letter
addressed to government officials from Joseph Smucker, team leader of the Milk
and Safety Team at the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, a branch
of the FDA. The letters says: "After a review of the available literature on
the subject, it is the position of FDA that the latest research shows
conclusively that commercial pasteurization does indeed eliminate this
hazard."

Cohen says every assertion about pasteurization's effectiveness is refuted in
the abstract of the USDA study, which states: "Currently, it is not known
whether commercial pasteurization effectively kills mycobacterium
paratuberculosis in contaminated raw milk."

"This sentence," Cohen says, "contradicts every conclusion made from this very
same paper!"

The senior author of the abstract is Judy Stabel, Ph. D. On the second page of
Dr. Stabel's paper (published in the December 1997 issue of Applied and
Environmental Microbiology), she reveals: "Bacteria were not totally
inactivated until after 15 minutes of incubation (pasteurization) at 72
degrees centigrade."

In her paper, Dr. Stabel also writes: "There is no definitive evidence to date
that viable M. paratuberculosis is present in retail pasteurized dairy
products."

When she was asked why there was no evidence and if milk samples had ever been
tested at retail sites, Cohen says her response was "No." When asked "Why
not?" she replied, "I don't know."

However, Cohen contends that British scientists have taken milk samples at the
point of retail purchase and have cultured live tuberculosis bacteria from
these samples.

Cohen concludes that the FDA and USDA have misinterpreted Dr. Stabel's paper,
and scientific evidence suggests that this dangerous bacterium survives
pasteurization. "This is just another example of how Americans are being
betrayed by regulatory agencies like FDA and USDA," Cohen warns.

Formed in June 1998, the AntiDairy Coalition includes some of the country's
top physicians and health educators: Dr. Julian Whitaker, author and editor of
the monthly newsletter, Health & Healing; Dr. Charles Attwood, often called
heir apparent to Dr. Benjamin Spock; Dr. Vicki Griffin; Dr. Daniel Twogood;
Dr. Richard DeAndrea and Dr. Richard Schwartz.

Dr. Susan M. Potter, of the Department of Nutritional Sciences at Protein
Technologies International in St. Louis, conducted the review and published a
special article on her findings in the August issue of the publication
Nutrition Reviews.

She found that recent research also provides evidence that soy protein and
isoflavones, the naturally-occurring nutrients in soybeans, can improve
functioning of blood vessels and help prevent formation of blood clots.

Dr. Potter, formerly an associate professor of nutrition at the University of
Illinois where she conducted research on soy and heart disease, reported on
the "potential mechanisms by which soy protein lowers cholesterol
concentration."

Her review focused on the effects of soy protein research which, among other
findings, has demonstrated that soy can reduce low-density lipoprotein, or
LDL, cholesterol, while high-density lipo protein or HDL cholesterol either
remains unchanged or is increased.  LDL is so-called "bad cholesterol," and
HDL is known as "good cholesterol."

Studying what component of soy protein is responsible for fighting fat in
blood, she wrote that one isoflavone, genistein, can enhance vascular activity
and also can inhibit blood vessel damage as well as formation of blood clots,
or thrombus.

"These inhibitory effects may be either independent effects of genistein,
perhaps acting as an estrogen, or responses related to suppression or
inflammation,"  Dr. Potter wrote.

(Foods for the Future provides factual information to the media concerning
food products, health and nutrition.  It is a project of the T. Dean Reed
Company and is supported by U.S. agribusiness.)

SOURCE  Foods for the Future