Harm with meat?
From his column "Earth's pals dish out guilt with veggies" (April 25 and TribLIVE.com), I can't tell if Jack Markowitz is one of those people who doesn't believe in global warming or that raising millions of head of cattle are affecting it.
If the former, I suggest a trip to see how the polar ice is melting; if the latter, let me emphasize that I am talking about cattle in the millions to feed our expanding population. Land is being cleared at a horrific rate to feed cattle both grass and grain. Less forests, more global warming. And yes, all the methane gas passed by that cattle leads to more global warming than all cars and planes together.
It takes a lot less grain and water to feed me than it takes to feed a cow from birth to slaughter to produce just one pound of meat to feed me. Also, when I eat grain mixed with soy, it's as high-quality a protein as any meat, but without cholesterol or much saturated fat and a great deal of fiber.
Do I mind giving up eggs, salmon and steak? When I first became a vegan and thought of those foods, I didn't think of the Earth as much as I did of all the lovely fat piling up in my arteries. It actually scared me. As for vegans looking gaunt, President Clinton, Ellen DeGeneres and Pamela Anderson look great. They should -- vegans have lower cholesterol and less chance of heart attacks, colon cancer, high blood pressure, etc.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Rushing to judge
- Foley & Obama II
- Foley & Obama I
- LED sign: Negative ad
- Bring back ‘eagle cam’
- Self-serving & corrupt
- Missing WJAS
- Life Care Center a jewel
- Monopoly’s markup
- Oberdorf firing incomprehensible
- Holder no help President Obama …