                                  T H E

                               Z E P H Y R

                      __     M A G A Z I N E
                     {__]++++++++++++++++++++++++++[]
                     Issue #47                9-20-87

                A weekly electronic magazine for users of
                            THE ZEPHYR II BBS
                        (Mesa, AZ - 602-894-6526)
                    owned and operated by T. H. Smith

                        Editor - Gene B. Williams

     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
     . You may share this magazine with your friends under the   .
     . condition that the magazine remain complete and intact,   .
     . with no editing, revisions or modifications of any kind,  .
     . and including this opening section and statement.         .
     . If you like the magazine, our Sysop and I would appreciate.
     . it if you would let your friends know where they can log  .
     . in to find the magazine (and incidentally one of the      .
     . finest BBSs in the country!).                             .
     . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
                                (c) 1987

    THIS ISSUE:

       Over on "Oh, Yeah!" there has been a semi-discussion on the
    value and dangers of meat, and the value of avoiding meat. The
    misconceptions, misinformation and distorted definitions were
    enough to cause this issue.
       The author is Chris Mitchell. I've used (and hopely have not
    misused) my "editorial privilege" in making some comments of my
    own on this subject.

       I'm not a vegetarian now. I was for several years prior to
    my marriage, and never felt better! That lifestyle drove my wife
    bonkers so I abandoned it. (Shows you where my priorities lie,
    doesn't it!)
       As a preface, there are various reasons for being vegetarian.
    One is for health. It's established fact that meat, and red meat
    in particular, is bad for you. Your body can handle it, but only
    to a certain degree. It cannot effectively deal with the poisons
    contained in meat.
       Then there are the philosophical reasons - the realization that
    taking a life for your own comfort and convenience is silly. That
    cow slaughtered so you can have a Big Mac was doing nothing to
    offend anyone. It was wandering around, chewing on the grass, then
    one day some guy comes along, guides it into a pen, and blows a
    glorified staple through its brain. (The method for getting pork
    and chicken is worse. Those are basically strung up by the back
    legs and swung down a conveyor while someone stands there and slits
    the necks. With fish it's even worse. They die by drowning in the
    air - a death that takes up to an hour, or more.)
       After that it comes down to a matter of degree. Killing a cow
    can feed meat to a family for months. Killing a chicken will feed
    maybe two people for one meal. A couple of fish might satisfy the
    hunger of one person for one meal. For dove hunters, a half-dozen
    makes a fair snack. A dozen oysters stripped out of their shells
    is something you gulp down in the New Orleans airport on the run.
       Then come those who take to more of an extreme. No eggs, since
    those could have become living animals and were purposely kept from
    becoming animals. (Kinda like planned abortion, but with chickens
    instead of people.)
       Some much smaller groups think of plants as important and viable
    lifeforms. These people won't eat anything that means that even a
    plant has to die. To harvest a potato or carrot, for example, the
    plant has to be ripped up. What we essentially is the root - kinda
    like eating the heart of a cow. The living thing still dies. This
    group will eat only from plants that have already died, or fruit of
    a plant once that fruit is no longer used by the plant for its
    health. (An orange, for example, can actually injure the tree if
    left on the tree.)
       The next step up are those who very carefully take precautions to
    preserve and replant those seeds. (Kinda tough with a tomoto or a
    cucumber!)
       A few VERY isolated groups take it all the way. The ultimate
    religious act in such cases is to allow oneself to let the bodily
    bacteria have free rein - to starve oneself to death so that the
    minimum damage is done while the body itself serves to provide
    nourishment for the other lifeforms.
       All of that is more to stave off some of the ridiculous
    objections that are bound to come up. If you want to talk about
    plants being alive as compared to animals, go right ahead. I have
    no desire or intention to squelch whatever comes up as a result
    of this week's issue.
       At the same time, I do request that you show some sense. The
    topic is eating meat.
       The simple, proved and verifiable fact is - meat is NOT good for
    anyone beyond puberty, is of questionable value to anyone beyond the
    age of 5 or 6 (when the brain and nervous system have reached optimum
    growth), and possibly of uncertain value at any time.
       Yes, we're omnivores. But that's by choice. That Big Mac tastes
    pretty darned good. So does turkey dinner at Thanksgiving. We *can*
    eat those things, and our bodies *can* handle it pretty well.
       But do we need it?
       What has come up on Zephyr has been a typical stream of
    misinformation and twisted concepts. (Like the "Catholic" idea
    that fish is not meat, for example. That fish was a living
    creature until someone killed it so someone else could eat it.
    The distinction between "meat" and "flesh" is absurd!)

                           Staying Vegetarian
                           ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
         Lately the topic of vegetarianism and nutrition has popped
    up on this BBS. There has been lots of debate, but most of what's
    been said is based on misinformation, heresay and ignorance. I
    feel somewhat qualified to speak out on the subject because my
    wife and I have completely avoided meat of any kind for over 15
    years.
         Somewhat curiously, when we tell people that we're not meat
    eaters, they say, "Well! You must eat an awful lot of fish!" Or,
    "Don't you get tired of chicken all the time?"  Sometimes,
    depending on the mood I'm in, I have to bite my tongue. (Oops! No
    chewing flesh!)  I feel like saying, "Excuse me, but apparently
    you have the cognitive ability of a senile yak. I said NO MEAT!
    If it swims, flies, crawls or walks, I'm not gonna eat it!" Of
    course, like anything else that varies from the norm, there is a
    lot of ignorance about vegetarianism, and we've found that
    maintaining a good sense of humor is vital.
         The inconveniences are minor, but sometimes pretty funny.
    When invited over for dinner at a friend's house, I have to be
    careful to make my dietary preferences known. It would be
    insensitive of me not to. Can you imagine if someone spent all
    afternoon cooking up a storm, only to have their culinary delight
    rejected by the guest?  (I have known people who complain loud
    and long, in a superior manner, when served something they can't
    or won't eat. That's stupid. I find that a low-key approach works
    much better, and is much kinder. If someone is interested or
    curious, they'll ask for more information.)
         Company picnics and the annual Christmas parties at work are
    a challenge, too. You just have to smile and hope that there'll
    be an hors d'oeuvre plate handy. I've grown quite fond of little
    crackers with cheese, black olives, and those stupid chunks of
    broccoli and cauliflower. And you have to be VERY careful of the
    dip: it's usually either clam or loaded with bacon. (Over the
    years, I've probably passed up $7,500 worth of good caviar.)
         It took my parents a few years to get comfortable with the
    idea, but we were helped by the fact that my brother and his wife
    are also nutritionally aware. My inlaws took much longer. They'd
    laugh nervously and try to make jokes when we'd pass up even the
    most sacred food tradition in this country:  the Thanksgiving
    turkey dinner! Over the years they've gotten the idea that this
    isn't a passing fad, and now when we visit we're often delighted
    to find that they've actually stocked up on stuff that we feel
    comfortable eating. (Lentils, veggies, and all the "phony" stuff:
    meatless hamburgers, hot dogs, luncheon slices and so forth, made
    entirely from spun soybean protein! Check your Safeway sometime.)
         Restaurants are a different story. There are VERY few things
    that we can get to eat. Now, we're not extremely strict to the
    point of fanatacism or paranoia. We're ovo-lacto vegetarians,
    which means we eat eggs occasionally and dairy products, like
    cheese and milk. (More on that later.) In restaurants, you really
    don't know what you're getting, so you just ask questions and use
    your best judgement. Most meatless Italian food is okay; many
    Chinese dishes are just fine, and I could eat non-meat Mexican
    food 5 times a week!  In my heart of hearts, I know that there
    are probably some less than desirable ingredients here and there,
    but life is full of compromises and you just have to do your
    best. I've ordered cheese enchiladas and gotten chicken more than
    once. You can't flip out--you just get the mistake corrected and
    carry on.
         Lately, there have been some exotic restaurants opening up
    that are VERY good. Several east Indian places, and one that
    specializes in Moroccan food. It's kind of nice to tell the
    waiter that you're a vegetarian and have his or her face light up
    with joy instead looking at you like you're a bag of used kitty-
    litter.
         Once we went to a nice Chinese place, and explained about
    our needs. The waiter finally understood: "Ah! No meat! Yes! No
    meat!" Well, when dinner arrived, they had very carefully
    garnished everything with chopped pork and shrimp. They'd gone to
    so much trouble we almost hated to send it back. (But we did.)
         Believe it or not, we have better luck with airlines. If you
    are on a special diet, whether it's low-sodium, kosher, pareve,
    vegetarian or whatever, all you have to do is call a week or so
    in advance and tell 'em you need a "special meal." Then when it's
    food-time, the staff usually brings the exact right thing to you
    without your even having to ask. (Of course, their idea of
    vegetarian is simply a larger than usual salad, a couple of extra
    cherry tomatoes, and an extra slice of wheat bread. At least
    they're trying. Now if they just remember to get the flaps up...)
         So, basically, when you choose a different path, you're
    pretty much on your own to find your way!

         It might be worth discussing how we came to this diet. In
    the early '70s, people were experimenting with many facets of
    life. Politics, open relationships, free love, recreational
    drugs, spiritualism--and diet. A friend of mine became totally
    sold on a very strict, radical vegetarian way of life. He became
    almost evangelical about it. In fact, come to think about it, he
    was a pain in the ass. But nonetheless, he turned me on to
    several books on the subject, and I played around with it for a
    while. Inevitably, though, I got a little bored and fell off the
    wagon.
         In my high school days, one of my weaknesses was eating ham
    & swiss sandwiches at Tony's Delicatessan in Reno. (Fantastic, to
    this day.)  Well, my wife and I got a couple of those suckers and
    devoured them. We got VERY ill. I'm not saying that we got sick
    just from eating the meat... I'm pretty sure that it was due to
    the fact that the ham had gone bad. It really doesn't matter:
    that was the turning point, way back in the summer of 1972. We
    bought some more books, and really started learning about it.
         There was one more incident. We were in Maine visiting my
    parents, and picked up a bunch of lobsters right off the boat one
    afternoon. Got home, boiled a huge pot of water, and tossed the
    critters in. The sound they made was pretty weird... and it sunk
    in that in the space of 2 seconds what was once a living sea
    creature had been reduced to a hunk of dead meat. Obviously
    that's one of the prices you have to pay, but I decided that the
    price was too high--at least for me. We fasted that night.

         There are many reasons for giving up meat. Some people are
    so into animal rights that that's reason enough. Others cite the
    substantial savings in your food bills. Most are into it for the
    health benefits. In my case, it's a little of all the above.
         I really do think that the way we treat animals in this
    country is abysmal. Have any of you seen the stories on "60
    Minutes" and elsewhere about how poultry is raised in this
    country? Or veal? Or beef cattle for that matter? Or how about
    the "puppy farms" that provide us with our pet dogs?  It's truly
    sickening, but people would prefer to not think about it.
         Before someone beats me to it, let me toss in that I'm not
    anti-hunting, if it's done responsibly. Hunting is indeed a valid
    way to manage some species of wildlife. I love to fish--and if I
    catch anything (rare) I either throw it back or give it to
    someone. And I love to shoot. Targets... not living beings.
         There is no doubt that our grocery bill has gone down
    dramatically simply by avoiding meat, which is very expensive.
         And, ah, yes... the health benefits.

         I'm now going to do some direct quoting from one of our
    favorite cook books, "The Oats, Peas, Beans & Barley Cookbook" by
    Edyth Young Cottrell, (c)1974, pub. Woodbridge Press Publishing
    Co. (ISBN 0-912800-07-0). This'll save time, and since it's not
    just me spouting my opinions, should cut through a lot of the
    crap.
         Page 10:
         "Why oats, peas, beans, and barley...and other such simple
    foods?
    1. Because they are direct food crops--not secondary foods of
    animal origin, or processed, "fractioned" foods.
    2. Because they are foods which, eaten together, give improved
    nutritive value.
    3. Because, as direct food crops, they best utilize the land,
    producing the highest yield per acre of high-quality proteins,
    minerals, vitamins, and essential calories.
    4. Because they are generally economical even though their
    nutritive value is high.
    5. because many of them can be grown in the home garden, or even
    a small area in the back yard or in a flower border.
    6. Because of the delicious goodness of these foods.
    7. Just because...!
         These direct products of nature offer much, much more for
    your money, not only in quantity and quality of foods but also in
    other values which are above price."

         On page 13, we start seeing some hard scientific evidence,
    backed by sources attributed. "Improved quality of vegetable
    proteins: Use of combinations of foodstuffs of vegetable origin
    to prepare foods with protein values comparable to those found in
    animal proteins. 'Properly supplemented vegetable proteins cannot
    be distinguished nutritionally from those of animal origin.'"
    (This quote comes from R. Bressani and M. Behar, "Proceedings of
    the Sixthe International Congress on Nutrition" (Edinburgh: E.
    and S. Livingston, 1964.)
         "Ample mineral and vitamin content. Use of unrefined grains,
    nuts, fruits, and vegetables to supply an adequate store of
    minerals and vitamins in a balance provided by an all-wise
    Creator. Use of dark-green, leafy vegetables or fortified soy
    milk as sources of calcium, riboflavin, and vitamin A (fortified
    soy milk or brewers yeast for B-12) in case milk is restricted in
    the diet."
         "The use of direct food crops (grain crops, vegetables, and
    fruits) when whole-heartedly put to full use according to the
    knowledge of today, carries us further than we formerly supposed
    toward a food supply of optimal nutritional value." (This from
    Henry C. Sherman, "The Nutritional Improvement of Life," writing
    in the Journal of the American Dietetic Association 22:579. July,
    1946.

         It's clear that these are not crack-pot statements by a
    bunch of dissident Democratic homosexuals. Oh, wait... that's the
    OTHER discussion...

         Here's the one that strikes home the most with me. It has to
    do with the efficient use of the land. Kids, we're facing a
    world-wide food crisis. We're damn lucky in this country, but
    time is running out. (We all know that people are starving to
    death all over the world, including here at home. And why is it
    necessary for Willie Nelson to have to organize Farm Aid III?)
    We're in deep dung. So here're a couple of paragraphs from pages
    16 and 17 of Edyth Young Cottrell's book:
         "One acre of wheat will supply 27 times as many calories, 13
    times as much protein, and 17 times as many vitamins as beef
    produced on one acre. The ratio per acre of soybeans to beef is:
    calories, 34 to 1; protein, 49 to 1; vitamins, 33 to 1. The ratio
    per acre of peanuts to beef is: calories, 28 to 1; protein, 16.6
    to 1; vitamins, 11 to 1." (This information comes from the U.S.
    Army Medical Service Graduate School, 'Notes: Medical Basic
    Sciences Course.' U.S. Govt. Printing Office.)
         "Combinations of cereals and legumes have prevented or cured
    protein deficiency diseases in children. Dark-green, leafy
    vegetables contain a protein of growth-promoting value as well as
    an abundant supply of minerals and vitamins. Since these foods
    can be produced in greater abundance and in much less time than
    meat proteins, a reduction of one-third in the consumption of
    meat would increase the world food supply very materially.
         The number of additional people that could be fed if the
    whole population of the United States were willing to exchange a
    third of their protein from meat and milk for that from soybeans
    would run from ten to thirty millions." (C.M. McCay, "Increasing
    the Use of Plant Proteins," Federation Proceedings 4:128. June,
    1944.)  [Note: just think what the numbers would be 43 years after
    that was written!]
         "As the world supply of complete animal proteins becomes
    increasingly short, the economic significance of this concept is
    evident. In developing countries, where protein deficiencies are
    endemic,...a well-planned vegetarian diet based on the concept of
    mutual supplementation would appear to be one logical solution to
    the protein problem." (Michael G. Wohl, 'Modern Nutrition in
    Health and Disease - Dietotherapy', Philadelphia: Lea and
    Febiger, 1968.)

         Now, as I said, these are not opinions of a bunch of flaked-
    out weirdos. Scientific facts. One thing that has come up in the
    above quotes more than once is the principle of "mutual
    supplementation." It's also called food combination.
         It's very simple. Many foods contain proteins that are
    limited in one or more of the essential amino acids. All ya gotta
    do is combine one or more foods correctly, and BINGO! complete
    proteins, often of a higher quality (Essential Amino Acid Index
    value) than any meat. For a very quick example, one slice of
    whole wheat bread with just one-half cup cooked pinto beans has a
    protein rating of 78. A "passing grade" for a growing child is
    70; adult maintenance requires a value of 60 or more. Beans and
    bread = complete protein!  Amazing, no?  Quoting again: "The same
    supplementary principle holds true for the proteins of a wide
    variety of cereal grains which may be supplemented (or improved)
    by combining with peas, soybeans, beans, lentils, garbanzos or
    any of a variety of legumes, nuts, dark-green leafy vegetables,
    or milk."
         But little Johnny or Suzie needs meat to grow big and
    strong! Hah. "It is now known that suitable mixtures of vegetable
    proteins can replace satisfactorily the animal protein in the
    diet of the young child."  (Stanley Davidson, et al., 'Human
    Nutrition and Dietetics', Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1959.)
         Remember what was mentioned above about the Index value?
    (Also called the biological value.)  Kids need 70+, adults
    somewhat less. Well, how 'bout good ol' buckwheat coming in at a
    whopping 77?  Or cashews at 72?  Potato: 73. Cow's milk, (which I
    pretty much avoid) at 85!  Chicken eggs are the grand-prize
    winner at 94, and if you're into fungi, strap on a mushroom pizza
    sometime. Mushrooms hit the scale at 80, the cheese a respectable
    72, and of course the crust is made out of bread (at least 40.)
         And don't forget about supplemental combinations: put those
    mushrooms and cheeses together and slap 'em on a piece of bread,
    eat it all in combination (that's the key), and you've got a very
    complete protein!  Now all you need is a Nautilus machine to work
    off the excess... but actually pizza isn't all that fattening.
    It's the pitcher of beer! (And beer is very nutritious, too!)

         I could go on and on, but I think the basic information here
    makes the point. Human beings don't HAVE to eat meat. You can be
    just as healthy, or healthier, without it. It takes a certain
    amount of effort, but to me it's well worth it for the reasons
    I discussed above. But that's just for me and my family. What you
    do is up to you, as long as you do it CONSCIOUSLY. Why do you eat
    the way you do?  Because Mom and Dad do?  And their Moms and
    Dads?  When was the last time you actually THOUGHT about what you
    stuff into your face (and body)?
         You won't get a lecture from me if we go out to dinner
    sometime. 99% of my friends and acquaintances are meat eaters. I
    don't preach, but if they ask I'm more than happy to be as
    helpful as possible. And check this out: my doctor, a regular old
    family doctor, is actively exploring our way of eating, and has
    pretty much knocked off all red meat. And he certainly has more
    access to the latest scientific knowledge than I do! Every time I
    see him he's closer and closer...
         It's not for everyone, but I'm convinced that it could be.
    And it certainly wouldn't hurt anyone to give it a try, or at
    least CUT DOWN on the meat you consume. I know you'll save money,
    and I think you'll feel better in the long run.
         In closing, just let me mention one other thing that's a
    related subject:  what goes INTO our food. You can guess how I
    feel about it, and all I suggest is that the next time you go to
    the store, take a minute to READ the ingredients on EVERY item
    you purchase. In case you weren't aware, ingredients are listed
    in order of quantity. I've got an 8 oz. can on Contadina tomato
    sauce here: tomatoes, salt, dextrose, spices, onion powder, and
    garlic powder. Serving size: 4 fl. oz.; sodium per serving: 600
    milligrams. (I'm not sure, but that sounds like an awfully large
    amount of salt!  And, of course, 'dextrose' is another way of
    saying 'sugar'. So, if you want a quick education, start reading
    your labels.
         Above all, eat a balanced diet, no matter what it is. Live
    long, and prosper!

    Until Next Time

       That article touches on most of it.
       My wife and I eat meat. We've gone out to dinner with Chris and
    his wife, and have had them here, on a number of occasions. He's
    dead serious when he says that he doesn't make a big deal of it.
    You can believe me - he's NOT a fanatic!!! He has just found a way
    of life he prefers, and has done the research to do it right.
       As I've said elsewhere, the misconceptions and misinformation on
    this are astounding.
       What kicked it off this time was a statement by one user (Tom
    Emerson) that his digestive system doesn't seem to handle meat as
    well as it used to, followed by the finding that meats in particular
    tend to leave undigested blockages. Another user (Hans Utz) claimed
    that this was just a matter of education - that the several pounds
    of goop left behind doesn't exist except in the mind.
       Fish and chicken are a little better. They contain fewer poisons
    than beef or pork. But, despite the contrived definitions so many
    people use, they are still meat. Flesh of living animals. Such a
    twisted definition of "meat" becomes a matter of convenience for a
    society that is based around the taking of animal life for comfort.

       Feel perfectly free to make your comments. My one request is that
    you do a bit of research first. ("I like a steak now and then," is
    just fine. Chris won't argue that point, and I rather enjoy steak
    myself. It's just not the point Chris is making.)
       I just request that we avoid opinion and uneducated (or miseducated)
    statements as much as possible. And for those who make them, be
    forewarned that your opinions will be blasted in return with
    established fact.

Zephyr Magazine is © Gene Williams. All rights reserved.