|
 |
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Electronic Letters to:
|
|
eLetters: Electronic letters published:
-
![[Read eLetter]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Use of animals for food is not equivalent to maltreatment
- David L. Day (21 September 2007)
-
Multiple Reasons to Treat Animals Better
- Aysha Z. Akhtar, Hope Ferdowsian (13 September 2007)
-
Let's not eat anything
- Don Thompson (13 September 2007)
|
|
|||
|
David L. Day, Epidemiologist
Send letter to journal:
Wildcats{at}apex.net David L. Day
|
September 13, 2007 I question the basic premise of the editorial “The Chickens Come Home to Roost” (American Journal of Public Health, September 2007, Vol. 97, No. 9) by David Benatar, Ph.D. I take extreme issue with Benatar’s statement that, “Humanity’s consumption of animals is morally problematic.” There is nothing inherently immoral about the use of animals to produce food for human beings. The use of animals in food production is questionable only if inappropriate or inefficient techniques are employed in the production, transportation, or handling of animals and result in unnecessary stress or discomfort inflicted on the animals. Unnecessary suffering of animals due to human negligence is, of course, inexcusable, and it is incumbent upon all human beings involved in the use of animals for food production, research, or other capacities to minimize their suffering, ensure them a decent quality of life, and accept the responsibility for the appropriate husbandry of the species under our dominion. But it is inappropriate in a public health context for Benatar to treat the concepts of the maltreatment of animals, and the use of animals for the production of human food, as if they were in some way the same thing. From a nutritional and psychological standpoint, the use of animal proteins as part of the diet is not a “trivial human interest” as Benatar describes it, but is vital to maintaining the quality of human life. To deny this nutritional and psychological need on the basis of “philosophical literature” which consists of nothing more than highly questionable personal judgments is an exhibition of extremely misplaced priorities. Benatar states that, “It is unlikely that those who make use of animals in these ways will recognize their treatment of animals as maltreatment.” In most cases, the judgment of mainstream society would not condemn these practices as maltreatment. It is morally incumbent upon all of us to use gentleness and compassion in our treatment of animals, but that certainly can be done without denying the use of animals in food production, research, and other uses for the betterment of human life. The examples that Benatar cites of zoonotic diseases which may have arisen as a result of inappropriate animal husbandry practices (avian influenza, severe acute respiratory syndrome, bovine spongiform ecephalopathy/variant Creutzfeld-Jacob disease) are all valid, but it is important to remember that they are the result of questionable animal handling practices. The development of these diseases is an example of why it is important for us to educate as many people as possible regarding proper animal handling and transportation practices, and to promote the regulation of animal handling in countries around the world. The point is this: any human contributions to the development of zoonotic diseases are a result of correctable mishandling of animals that can be eliminated through appropriate education, and there is no justification for using these as an indictment of the concept of animals as human food. The use of animals as food is a vital human interest, and a personal agenda opposing it is not in the interest of human public health. David L. Day, DVM, MPH |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Aysha Z. Akhtar, Physician PCRM, Hope Ferdowsian
Send letter to journal:
aakhtar{at}pcrm.org Aysha Z. Akhtar, et al.
|
To the Editor: David Benatar, Ph.D., rightly notes that avian influenza and other zoonoses offer excellent reasons for reconsidering our meat-heavy diets—-but there is another price we pay for our use and maltreatment of animals raised for food [“The Chickens Come Home to Roost,” Sept.] Large- scale production of animals for meat, eggs, and dairy products can incubate and spread zoonotic diseases, but our consumption of these products has contributed to an even deadlier, more urgent problem: obesity and the chronic diseases that follow. Consumption of high-fat, cholesterol-laden meat and animal products sharply increases the risk of high blood pressure and cholesterol, obesity, type 2 diabetes, heart disease, and some forms of cancer. A recent report from the Trust for America’s Health showed that obesity rates have risen in 31 states since last year, and no state has shown a decline.(1) Many of us working in public health and preventive medicine are left wondering why more is not being done to promote plant-based diets for public safety and health. From the National Weight Control Registry to the China Health Study, research suggests that people who maintain a healthy weight over the long term tend to eat a low-fat, plant-based diet rich in fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. In fact, a new study in Obesity conducted by researchers affiliated with our organization found that a low-fat vegan diet helped women lose more weight and keep it off more effectively than a conventional low-fat diet that included meat and dairy products.(2) Our insatiable appetites for chicken wings and cheeseburgers support factory farms, where animals are overcrowded in poor sanitary conditions, often unable to turn around and deprived of sunlight, which in turn puts us at risk for zoonotic diseases. In the United States alone, approximately 27 billion animals are slaughtered for food per year. According to a 2006 report by the United Nations, the meat industry is also a major cause of land degradation, water shortage and pollution, air pollution, and climate change.(3) These environmental crises cause further human health hazards. A collective shift to a vegan diet would eliminate the farms that breed zoonotic diseases and eliminate the animal fat and cholesterol in our diets. This is the best way to stop the spread of zoonoses, reduce environmental hazards, lessen our risk for obesity and other diet-related illnesses, and decrease animal suffering. Sincerely, Aysha Akhtar, M.D., M.P.H. Senior Medical and Research Advisor Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine 5100 Wisconsin Ave. N.W., Suite 400 Washington D.C. 20016 (W) 202-686-2210, ext. 379 (H) 919-423-4618 aakhtar@pcrm.org Hope Ferdowsian, M.D., M.P.H. Director of Clinical Research The Washington Center 5100 Wisconsin Ave, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20016 hferdowsian@washingtonccr.org 1. Levi J, Gadola E, Segal L M. F as in fat: how obesity policies are failing in America 2007. Available at: http://healthyamericans.org/reports/obesity2007/Obesity2007Report.pdf. Accessed Sept. 7, 2007. 2. Turner-McGrievy GM, Barnard ND, Scialli AR. A two-year randomized weight loss trial comparing a vegan diet to a more moderate low-fat diet. Obesity 2007; 15-9:1-6. 3. Steinfeld H, Gerber P, Wassenaar T, Castel V, Rosales M, de Haan C. Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. Livestock, Environment and Development (2006). Available at: http: //www.virtualcentre.org. Accessed Sept. 13, 2007. |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Don Thompson, Consultant none
Send letter to journal:
don{at}lanthia.com Don Thompson
|
The editorial The Chickens Come Home to Roost skips from symptom to predetermined cure as cleverly as any drug company's promotion of its one-pill panacea ever has. "Moreover, BSE would not spread among cattle if humans did not process offal, including neural matter from BSE-infected cattle, to produce feed for other cattle, a practice prompted by the volume of cattle humans eat." This practice is prompted by greed and would have started if beef consumption on the planet was 100 head per year and an MBA was in charge of the herd. "Humanity's continued consumption of animals is not only morally problematic but also highly imprudent." The entire article attempts to justify dietary restrictions on the grounds that some food animals are mistreated. Cruelty and poor animal husbandry is not an automatic byproduct of animal consumption. For the most part, the better livestock is treated, the higher the quality of the meat not only in tenderness, flavour and appearance, but also in nutritional value. One could argue, and I will, the spread of racial hatred is a valid reason for banning printing and literacy because some racial hatred has been spread in writing. Besides, if meat eaters are so bad, what's the problem with letting us all get sick and die? That's what will happen to those with plant allergies when their main protein source is removed. |
|||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH |