较真的素食者：写在2014年素食日 《何以为食？》和Vegucated在广州的六场分享非常成功，感恩乐活生命的组织，和青新空间、怡新素食、广美、华师、华工和广东食品药品职业学院朋友们的努力。 今日，离穗返京，恰逢国际素食日。宽敞明亮摩登的广州火车南站高铁候车大厅，林立的餐馆便利店，却没有一家提供纯素热食早餐。便利店里，排列整齐的包子全部都是腥食。快餐店毫无例外一概如此。不要告诉我说麦当劳传统上不提供素食。麦当劳传统上还不提供油条呢，可是广州南站麦当劳不照样开发出来了油条卷…… 出门在外，常常被人当作回民，因为每次无论在火车上还是火车站还是餐馆，本人都会很较真地要求素食，并且跟对方说明提供素食的意义。不较真没事，一较真就被当成了穆斯林。这说明了什么？？我以为有两种原因： 一方面，可能由于大乘佛教与我国文化骨肉相连的缘故，政府和社会没有政治方面的考量需要把素食传统像穆斯林习俗那样当作一种异质（少数民族）文化单独拎出来作为一种需要特别照顾的权利（中国几乎每个大学校园都有清真窗口乃至清真餐厅无疑就是这种民族宗教政策的结果。当然，这种政策之偏颇等问题不在此讨论）。 另一方面，主动要求素食被当作是穆斯林，这种现象还说明了一个重要的而且是很遗憾的现象，那就是，我们这个国家我们这个社会，只有穆斯林在饮食上较真、在毫不含糊地、大声地在主张自己的饮食权利，在要求社会重视并且尊重自己的饮食选择。所以，清真窗口、清真柜台遍布我们的市场和咱们大学的校园，尽管穆斯林的人数未必有吃素的人口（包括部分吃素的）多。而我们很多的素食者，却总是以一句随缘而放弃争取和呼吁，殊不知仅仅自己戒肉并不是一个真正的素食者，离开整体社会环境的改善，我们不可能能拥有素的生活。一句随缘（当然真正需要随缘的具体语境也是存在的）很多时候掩盖了我们的懒惰、怯懦或者无力，也让我们一次又一次失去了影响市场导向、影响政府决策的机会，这或许是我们的社会、我们的市场环境（广州南站就是例证）在2014年的今天对于素食者仍然如此的不友好的原因，也是我们社会素食基础设施改善和日益壮大的素食人群远远不成比例的原因。 因此，素食从私人层面来讲是一种内心的选择；从公共层面来讲，又是一种公民的权利、消费者的权利。作为公民和消费者的素食者，应当培养自己的权利意识。希望素食的朋友我们所有人一起，不要放弃，要明知暂时不可能，也要抓住一切机会去要求、去交涉、去呼吁，要求商户提供素食，要求社会尊重素食。市场是很势利的，当我们要求的多了，当要求的人多了，它们将再也无法忽视，它们一定会做出反应的。素食者要像穆斯林一样，去较真、去敢于明确地主张自己的饮食习惯，只有这样，我们才能够在这个国家，获得政府和市场的重视和尊重。 每一天、每一分钟，无数的农场动物正在饱受酷刑和杀戮，我们的健康，我们孩子的健康和我们地球的健康正在被工业化养殖系统持续地侵蚀。茹素并不能解决这个世界所有的问题，但是选择素食，是选择对世界更小伤害、非暴力的生活方式，它是一个负责任的、良善的生活的基础。然而它也仅仅是一个基础，不是一劳永逸的胜利，每一年每一天都需要爱护自己爱护环境的朋友们一起去较真、去努力、去争取。 成为素食者，并不是取得了一个被动的、静态的身份或者称号，而是走上了一个永不中断的心灵旅程，在这个旅程里，每一次饮食都是我们深入与自我对话的机会，在这些对话里，我们不断去思考和重新定义我们与食物之间的关系、我们和众生之间的关系、我们和万物之间的关系、从而促进我们对于生命根本价值和意义的了悟。 我们每一位素食者，在发心茹素的时候，其实都跟自己、跟众生、跟自然缔结了一个条约，一个不伤害、非暴力的和平条约。昨天晚上在分享当中，我运用了婚姻作为例子来说明这个问题——拿到结婚证，并不能保证你就能够和你的爱侣相濡以沫、白头偕老。婚姻是一段以爱和成长的名义所开展的旅程，一段好的婚姻旅程没有哪一天是不需要较真的，好的姻缘在于夫妻双方在每一个当下，都能够去觉知、去努力、去珍惜、去呵护，去包容、去相互扶持、共同成长。素食人生也是一样。没有哪一天是值得放弃的。在每一个当下，我们不能停止觉知和用心。没有一劳永逸的好和善，every day, every moment, we need to win it. 作者后记： 今天分享完《较真的素食者》后，朋友圈里马上就有一位朋友质问：植物也会疼，其DNA结构和人类区别不超过40％，我觉得只有完全淘汰农牧业生产方式，所有食物全部化学合成才好。言下之意：食素的论断站不住脚。吃植物同样在伤害。这样的问题，以前常常被问到。其实回答很简单，本人也多次耐心的回答过。不过这次，感觉似乎说了也白说，于是乎，这样回答了这位朋友： 本人：当做到不吃动物了再来探讨这个问题。否则，就只不过是逃避的借口 。 对方：哦？我怎么觉得你在逃避'这个问题啊？你既然做到了，你来探讨探讨，我洗耳恭听。 我的回答（大致）：哈，你和我一个表弟一样。在这个世界，我们都在说话。但是，同一句话每个人听到的都是不一样的。为什么有时候在苹果里面输入的文字在PC里面变成了乱码？原因是PC里面没有装这个字体。（我说的话，你心里面没有相应字体的话，那么所以只会显示成为乱码。）所以，当你探讨问题的真正动机是（出于）同理心、恻隐心、（悲悯心）的时候，咱们探讨才有基础。否则，就好像那些截访抓访民的乡干部一样，你跟他说公平讲正义，他跟你谈稳定、谈发展 。永远不可能谈出结果。
作者：陈可冀 刘 玥 素食指一种不食肉、家禽、海鲜等动物产品的饮食方式，包括严格素食、乳蛋素食、乳素食及蛋素食等不同饮食模式 。一些证据提示素食饮食模式与心血管健康相关，但是这种相关性尚不明确。众所周知高血压病是心脑血管疾病的独立危险因素，寻求降低动脉血压的非药物方法亦成为关注热点之一。为了评估素食饮食模式与血压水平的关系，来自日本国家心脑血管病中心预防医学与流行病学研究室的Yokoyama博士及其团队最近进行了一项相关临床试验的meta分析，该研究结果发表在2014年2月24日的 《美国医学会杂志 • 内科学》 （JAMA Internal Medicine ）上 。研究选取的临床试验来源于MEDLINE（1946年—2013年）和WEB OF SCIENCE （1900年—2013年）的检索结果。研究者系统浏览了检索到的258篇相关文献，最终有7项临床对照试验研究（表1）和32项观察性研究符合该meta分析的纳入标准（研究人群年龄20岁；素食饮食为暴露/干预方式；血压的平均差为结局指标；临床对照试验或观察性研究）。7项临床对照试验共涉及311名参与者，平均年龄44.5岁， 与杂食者比较，素食者的平均收缩压降低4.8mmHg（95% CI, − 6.6 ~ − 3.1 ； P 0.001 ），平均舒张压降低2.2mmHg（95% CI, − 3.5 ~ − 1.0 ； P 0.001 ）；32项观察性研究共涉及21604名参与者，平均年龄46.6岁，与杂食者比较，素食者的平均收缩压降低6.9mmHg（95% CI, − 9.1 ~ − 4.7 ； P 0 .001 ），平均舒张压降低4.7mmHg（95% CI, − 6.3 ~ − 3.1 ； P 0.001 ）。该meta分析结果显示素食者的血压较同等情况的杂食者明显降低，提示素食饮食方式或可作为降低血压的一种非药物治疗方式。 素食与心血管健康的关系一直备受关注，近20年来，全球学者对其进行较多的临床研究，为素食与心血管健康关系的阐明提供了许多循证医学依据。 1997 年《新英格兰医学杂志》（ N Engl J Med ）发表了著名的“DASH（ Dietary Approaches to Stop Hypertension ）研究 ”的结果，该研究也是全球第一个研究饮食模式与血压水平的随机对照临床研究。该研究结果表明，蔬菜、水果及低盐、低胆固醇饮食模式可使收缩压降低5mmHg，舒张压降低3.0mmHg。基于该项研究，美国国家卫生研究院国家心肺及血液研究中心（National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute ）于1997年提出一种控制高血压的“DASH饮食”，即以低脂、低饱和脂肪、低胆固醇为主，并强调以含高镁、高钾及高钙、蛋白质和纤维的食物组合而成。 2012 年6月中国学者发表在《临床实践营养学》（Nutr Clin Pract ）上的一项临床研究 比较了中国21~76岁之间的169名乳素食者和126名杂食者的体重指数（body mass index ，BMI）、血压水平、血脂水平、糖代谢水平及颈动脉内膜中层厚度，并计算了其中24~55岁人群5~10年心血管疾病的发生风险。结果表明，与杂食者比较，乳素者的血压、非高密度脂蛋白胆固醇水平、空腹血糖及IMT均显著降低，且其5~10年心血管疾病的发生风险亦明显降低。 2013 年1月发表在《美国临床营养学杂志》（ Am J Clin Nutr ）的一项前瞻性临床研究（EPIC-Oxford 队列研究） ，共涉及44561名参与者，平均随访11.6年。结果表明：与非素食者比较，素食者BMI、非高密度脂蛋白胆固醇水平及收缩压均显著降低，其患缺血性心脏病的风险降低32%左右。 2013 年6月发表在《美国医学会杂志 • 内科学》（ JAMA Internal Medicine ）上一项前瞻性队列研究 评估了素食饮食模式与死亡率的关系，共涉及73302名参与者，在基线通过定量食物频率调查问卷评估饮食，并分为5种饮食模式：非素食、半素食、鱼素、乳蛋素食和素食。从国家死亡索引中确定2009年前死亡数，评估素食饮食模式与全因和特定病因死亡率之间的关系。该研究结果表明：在平均随访5.79年期间，素食与全因死亡率降低有关，且在心血管、肾脏病和内分泌疾病死亡率降低显著相关，且这种关系在男性中比在女性中更显著。 2013 年10月发表在《环境微生物学报告》（ Environ Microbiol Rep ）上的一项临床研究 对肥胖的2型糖尿病或/和高血压患者进行严格素食1个月，发现其体重、甘油三酯、总胆固醇、血糖水平明显降低，肠道致病菌群明显降低而有益菌群显著增加，从而抑制了其代谢紊乱水平、降低了炎症反应。 以上临床研究的结果均提示，素食可以促进心血管系统健康，降低心血管疾病的发病风险，降低因心血管疾病的死亡率。 Yokoyama博士 认为素食饮食方式产生的降压效果相当于那些根据建议改善自己生活方式的参与者所达到的效果，如选择低钠饮食或减去5 kg 的体重等，也大致能达到那些使用诸如血管紧张素转化酶抑制剂等药物进行治疗的参与者一半的降压效果 。虽然目前的所有研究尚未能确定特定食物或营养成分与血压间的内在联系的具体机制,但Yokoyama博士综合现有的研究证据分析了“素食降压”的机制可能与以下几个方面相关。一是素食富含纤维素、少脂肪因此素食者体重普遍较杂食者轻（BMI也较低），肥胖风险亦明显降低，而后者正是高血压的危险因素之一；二是素食中富含钾离子，而研究显示富钾饮食可明显降低血压，其机制可能与增加钾摄入能够扩张血管、增加肾小球滤过率同时降低肾素水平等有关；三是素食者通常摄入钠和酒精的量也较杂食者低；四是素食中饱和脂肪酸含量低而不饱和脂肪酸含量丰富。五是有证据表明素食者血压粘稠度也较杂食者明显降低。 值得注意的是，这里提及的“素食”，可能更多的是“乳素食”或”乳蛋素食”的饮食方式，有证据表明严格素食或对心血管健康产生不良影响。我们曾对年龄63岁、素食史14年的北京各寺院中的僧尼的血压、血脂水平及动脉粥样硬化特点进行研究，设有同龄对照组。结果证明，长期过分严格素食和膳食之不平衡，可致内源性脂质代谢障碍，虽形体未必肥胖，但心血管疾病的发生率并不降低 。香港中文大学医学院2005年发表在《美国心脏病学会杂志》（ J Am Coll Cardiol ）的一项研究 曾对香港地区50名年龄在30~55岁、素食史10年的男女的血压、 颈动脉内膜中层厚度 、体内维生素水平进行观察，并设50名正常饮食者作为对照。结果发现：40%的素食者的 颈动脉内膜中层厚度 比正常饮食者增厚，血压较高且体内缺乏维生素B 12 。维生素B 12 主要来源于肉类、鸡蛋或牛奶，维生素B 12 的缺乏，使血液中同型高半胱氨酸水平偏高，引致动脉血管硬化，另一方面，素食者素菜烹调方式常以多油和多盐使味道浓郁，也极易导致血压增高 。后续研究 表明：对素食者长期补充维生素B 12 （500 μ g/ 天），可明显降低素食人群同型高半胱氨酸水平、颈动脉内膜中层厚度，改善肱动脉血流介导的血管舒张功能(Flow-mediated dilation ，FMD)，起到延缓动脉粥样硬化的目的。 根据《中国心血管病报告2012》 的统计数据，中国有2.9亿心血管疾病患者，其中2.66亿是高血压病患者，中国人日常饮食中脂肪摄入量增加，每天食盐摄入量平均大于12 g ，而水果和蔬菜摄入量明显不足，这种不健康的膳食方式是中国心脑血管疾病高发的主要原因之一。该项meta分析的研究结论为人们选择素食提供了更有力的循证依据，对大众健康或临床治疗都具有很大现实意义。从公众角度来说，素食饮食模式可以让你保持适中的动脉血压水平；从临床治疗角度来说，素食是一种可供选择的非药物降压方法。当然，该meta分析的结果亦有一定的局限性，其纳入的随机对照临床试验数量较少，样本量较小，且大部分是观察性研究结果，未来应该设计更加严谨的前瞻性、大样本的临床试验，为素食与心血管健康的关系提供更有力的循证依据，同时进一步研究特定食物或营养成分促进心血管健康的内在机制，可为非药物防治心血管疾病提供参考。 参 考 文 献 Gary E Fraser. Vegetarian diets: what do we know of their effects on common chronic diseases? .Am J Clin Nutr. 2009 ， 89(5):1607S – 1612S. Yokoyama Y, Nishimura K, Barnard ND, et al. Vegetarian diets and blood pressure. A meta-analysis . JAMA Intern Med, 2014, 174(4): 577-587. Appel LJ, Moore TJ, Obarzanek E, et al. A clinical trial of the effects of dietary patterns on blood pressure . N Engl J Med, 1997, 336 (16): 1117-1124. Yang SY, Li XJ, Zhang W, et al. Chinese lacto-vegetarian diet exerts favorable effects on metabolic parameters, intima-media thickness, and cardiovascular risks in healthy men . Nutr Clin Pract, 2012, 27(3): 392-398. Orlich MJ, Singh PN, SabatéJ, et al. Vegetarian dietary patterns and mortality in adventist health study 2 . JAMA Intern Med, 2013, 173(13): 1230-1238. Crowe FL, Appleby PN, Travis RC, et al. Risk of hospitalization or death from ischemic heart disease among British vegetarians and nonvegetarians: results from the EPIC-Oxford cohort study . Am J Clin Nutr, 2013, 97(3): 597-603. Kim MS, Hwang SS, Park EJ, et al. Strict vegetarian diet improves the risk factors associated with metabolic diseases by modulating gut microbiota and reducing intestinal inflammation . Environ Microbiol Rep, 2013, 5(5): 765-775. 陈可冀，郭士魁，张家鹏 . 长期素食人动脉粥样硬化及其中医证候特点的研 究 . 全国第二届心血管病会议论文汇编 .1964:309-310. Kwok T, Chook P, Tam L, et al. Vascular dysfunction in Chinese vegetarians: an apparent paradox . J Am Coll Cardiol, 2005, 46(10): 1957-1958. Kwok T, Chook P, Qiao M, et al. Vitamin B12 supplementation improves arterial function in vegetarians with subnormal vitamin B-12 status . J Nutr Health Aging, 2012, 16(6): 569-573. 卫生部心血管病防治研究中心. 中国心血管病报告2012 .北京: 中国大百科全书出版社, 2013 ：1-2 注：本文拟发表在《中国中西医结合杂志》2014年第6期上。
Special report: 'In vitro' beef - it's the meat of the future Asked the cost of a regular beefburger, you might guess around 3... with fries. But, next week, a select group will be fed a 250,000 patty. What's the difference? This one was grown in a laboratory – from a cow's stem cells 1 / 2 Related articles The vegetarian: So, would you eat a test-tube burger? The carnivore: So, would you eat a test-tube burger? Baldness cure hopes sparked by hairless mice The Mooo-ton Rothschild for madame? Cows have a tipple to beef up flavour Ban on British meat product ban linked to horsemeat scandal Ads by Google A week tomorrow, at an exclusive west London venue, the most expensive beefburger in history will be nervously cooked and served before an invited audience. Costing somewhere in the region of 250,000, the 5oz burger will be composed of synthetic meat, grown in a laboratory from the stem cells of a slaughtered cow. The scientist behind the "in vitro" burger believes synthetic meat could help to save the world from the growing consumer demand for beef, lamb, pork and chicken. The future appetite for beef alone, for instance, could easily lead to the conversion of much of the world's remaining forests to barren, manicured pastures by the end of this century. The precious patty will be made of some 3,000 strips of artificial beef, each the size of a rice grain, grown from bovine stem cells cultured in the laboratory. Scientists believe the public demonstration will be "proof of principle", possibly leading to artificial meat being sold in supermarkets within five to 10 years. Stem cells taken from just one animal could, in theory, be used to make a million times more meat than could be butchered from a single beef carcass. The reduction in the need for land, water and feed, as well as the decrease in greenhouse gases and other environmental pollutants, would change the environmental footprint of meat eating. Artificial meat could make a carnivorous diet more acceptable to the green movement as well as to vegetarians opposed to livestock farming on animal-welfare grounds. Animal-rights organisations have already given their qualified approval to the idea, and some vegetarians have said they would be happy to eat it given its semi-detached status from the real thing. Next month's culinary demonstration is the culmination of years of work by Mark Post, a medical physiologist at Maastricht University in the Netherlands. His research into synthetic meat has been funded by a wealthy anonymous backer who, according to one source, may reveal his identify publicly by volunteering to be the first to taste the test-tube burger. The public relations firm overseeing next week's cooking experiment said that Professor Post was unavailable for comment. However, last year he described the rationale for the work when The Independent on Sunday interviewed him at the American Association for the Advancement of Science conference in Vancouver. "Eventually, my vision is that you have a limited herd of donor animals which you keep in stock in the world. You basically kill animals and take all the stem cells from them, so you would still need animals for this technology," Professor Post said. "Right now, we are using 70 per cent of all our agricultural capacity to grow meat through livestock. You are going to need alternatives. If we don't do anything, meat will become a luxury food and will become very expensive," he said. Carnivorism is a huge global industry, producing some 228 million tonnes of meat each year – the retail value of beef in the United States alone is $74bn (50bn). By 2050, according to the Food and Agriculture Organisation, the world will be eating twice as much meat as we eat now, primarily driven by the increased demand from a growing middle class in China and other developing nations. Each Briton, on average, eats about 85kg of meat a year, which roughly translates into 33 chickens, one pig, three-quarters of a sheep and a fifth of a cow. This kind of appetite accounts for why some 30 per cent of ice-free land in the world is used for growing food for animal livestock while just 4 per cent is used for crops destined for human consumption. The essential problem with meat is that it is a highly inefficient method of converting plant material into human food. Every kilo of meat requires between four and 10 kilos of plant-based feed, and the oil-based chemicals used to grow it, whereas cultured meat uses only about two kilos of feed, which Professor Post hopes will eventually be nutrients derived from fast-growing algae. "It comes down to the fact that animals are very inefficient at converting vegetable protein into animal protein. This helps drive up the cost of meat," he said. "Livestock also contributes a lot to greenhouse gas emissions, more so than our entire transport system. Livestock produces 39 per cent of global methane, 5 per cent of the CO2 and 40 per cent of the nitrous oxide. Eventually, we will have an 'eco-tax' on meat," he added. One assessment, published in 2011 by scientists from Oxford University, estimated that cultured meat uses far less energy than most other forms, apart from chicken, and some 45 per cent less energy than beef, the most environmentally destructive meat. They also found that synthetic meat needs 99 per cent less land than livestock, between 82 and 96 per cent less water, and produces between 78 and 95 per cent less greenhouse gas. In terms of relative environmental damage, there was no contest. Yet there are still formidable technical problems in turning artificial meat into a desirable, and affordable, consumer product. The first of these is that real meat is composed of a variety of different cells, not just the meaty fibres made by the myosatellite stem cells – which normally repair damaged muscles – used in Professor Post's process. Professor Post said that it is possible to add fatty tissue to the fibres to make them more palatable, as well as other nutrients to make the synthetic meat as nutritious as real meat, and possibly even healthier by reducing the saturated fats. Minced meat or filling for sausages should be easier to make than a steak, but the use of biodegradable "scaffolding" and some kind of artificial blood vessels to deliver oxygen to a culture medium could overcome this physical limitation on the overall size of the finished product. The Food Standards Agency said that before going on sale, artificial meat would need regulatory approval. The manufacturers would have to prove that all the necessary safety tests had been carried out, a spokeswoman said. "In vitro or cultured meat is not yet commercially viable, but the technology used to produce cultured meat could be advanced enough for trials to take place. Any novel food, or food produced using a novel production process, must undergo a stringent and independent safety assessment before it is placed on the market," she said. "Anyone seeking approval of an in vitro meat product would have to provide a dossier of evidence to show that the product is safe, nutritionally equivalent to existing meat products, and will not mislead the consumer. This would be evaluated under the EU regulation for novel foods, prior to a decision on authorisation. There have been no such applications to date," she said. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (Peta), which runs a scheme offering a prize of $1m (660,000) for the first person or organisation to produce artificial chicken meat, said that cultured meat would be ethically acceptable if it meant less slaughtering. "We do support lab-grown meat if it means fewer animals are eaten. Anything that reduces the suffering of animals would be welcome," said Ben Williamson, a Peta spokesman. However, apart from the technical, regulatory and commercial problems of bringing artificial meat to market, the big question is whether the public will stomach eating something that started out as a pulsating pap of pink tissue in a factory fermenter. Then there is the issue of taste. Could a burger made from artificial meat fibres and synthetic fat ever match up to a patty made from prime beef? In just over a week's time, whoever gets to eat the world's most expensive burger may be closer to knowing the answer. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/special-report-in-vitro-beef--its-the-meat-of-the-future-8735104.html 感谢徐磊老师告知。
Society New York’s PS 244 Introduces Nation’s First All-Vegetarian School Cafeteria Menu May 1, 2013 by Brett Wilkins in Education , Featured , Food Agriculture , The Moral High Ground with 0 Comments Tweet An elementary school in New York City has eliminated all meat from its cafeteria menu, becoming what may be the first public school in the nation to go completely vegetarian. PS 244 in Flushing, Queens, the Active Learning Elementary School, has been gradually transitioning to an all-vegetarian menu since opening in 2008. Partnering with the New York Coalition for Healthy School Food , PS 244 chefs replaced traditional cafeteria mainstays like burgers and chicken nuggets with innovative and healthy veggie dishes like black bean and cheese quesadillas, falafel, vegetarian chili with brown rice, and tofu in sesame sauce. Pizza Fridays survived the change– sans pepperoni. Apparently, the kids aren’t missing the ‘mystery meat’ at all. “This is so good!” 9-year-old Marian Satti told a reporter from the New York Daily News as she scarfed down her black bean quesadilla during a recent lunch period. “I’m enjoying that it didn’t have a lot of salt in it,” she added. “It’s been a really great response from the kids, but they also understand it’s about what is the healthiest option for them,” PS 244 Principal Bob Groff told ABC News. “Because we teach them throughout our curriculum to make healthy choices, they understand what is happening and believe in what we’re doing too.” “I don’t eat fried foods. I don’t drink soda. I try not to have sweets too often,” NYC Schools Chancellor Dennis Walcott told the Daily News . “And that’s what we want for our students… to make sure they eat healthy both at home and at school.” The transition to a vegetarian menu was made easier by the fact that around 70 percent of PS 244 students are Asian, including many traditionally vegetarian Indians. “Our head cook is also a vegetarian herself and a parent in the school,” Groff told NBC News. In addition to lunch, PS 244 also serves up vegetarian breakfasts each day, with menu items including bagels and cream cheese, whole-grain banana bread and egg and cheese roll-ups. It’s an important kick-start to students’ school days. “We know that when students eat a healthy diet, they’re able to focus better,” Amie Hamlin, executive director of the New York Coalition for Healthy School Food, told NBC News. “Their immune systems are stronger, so they’re less sick, and then they’re in school more and they’re able… to learn better.” Students who don’t wish to eat vegetarian meals have the option of bringing their own lunches to school. The Daily News reports that PS 244′s move is part of a wider trend toward healthier school meals that has been a hallmark of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s tenure. Salad bars have now been installed in 1,000 city schools; they’ll be in every school by the end of the next academic year. “We’ve been watching how the mayor has been responding to something like sugary beverages or the smoking ban , and that was an opportunity for us, because we could see the direction the city is moving,” Goff told NBC News. “We could move along with it to create the healthiest options for our kids.” *** PS 244 SAMPLE MENUS: BREAKFAST MENU Whole-grain sunrise carrot bread with hot cereal choice Fluffy egg omelet with melted cheese in a New York-style bagel Waffles with warm syrup and mozzarella string cheese LUNCH MENU Black bean and cheddar quesadilla served with salsa, red roasted potatoes and broccoli Roasted organic tofu with cacciatore sauce, whole-grain pasta and roasted zucchini “Superhero” spinach wrap with cucumber salad Chickpea falafel in a soft wheat wrap with chopped romaine, fresh diced tomatoes and cucumber salad (Source: City Department of Education) —— 蔣科學按：擔心孩子素食不夠營養的同學現在可以放心。逼著孩子吃肉的父母可以罷手了。 http://morallowground.com/2013/05/01/new-yorks-ps-244-introduces-nations-first-all-vegetarian-cafeteria-menu/ 原链接有视频，可惜本博文中无法显现。
In the late 1960s and early 1970s many countercultural activists became vegetarians in the context of the Vietnam War protests, choosing a peaceful diet as a complement to their public stance of nonviolence. In response to posters that showed the devastation of people and property in Vietnam, one man asked himself, What am I doing eating meat? I'm just adding to the violence, and became a vegetarian. Another nonviolent Civil Rights activist described the connection to vegetarianism in these words: Under the leadership of Dr. King I became totally committed to nonviolence, and I was convinced that nonviolence meant opposition to killing in any form. I felt the commandment Thou shalt not kill applied to human beings not only in their dealings with each other—war, lynching, assassination, murder and the like—but in their practice of killing animals for food or sport. Animals and humans suffer and die alike. Violence causes the same pain, the same spilling of blood, the same stench of death, the same arrogant, cruel and brutal taking of life. Vegetarian Ecofeminism A Review Essay Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 23.3 (2002) 117-146 Greta Gaard
宣傳素食主義最引起許多朋友反彈的地方就在於：貌似對於人們個人事務進行干涉，而現代社會中以開明進步自居的朋友，在嚴守個人與公共領域分界線的地方往往都是斬釘截鐵不留情面的。但是，女性主義的一個重大貢獻就是，發現個人與公共領域的分界線可能並非是不可跨越的鴻溝，在傳統認為專屬個人的領域中存在非常重大的政治問題，必須要接受理性的批判和審查。 Greta Gaard 在 Vegetarian Ecofeminism A Review Essay Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 23.3 (2002) 117-146 中寫道： As Lynda Birke explains, One of the strengths of feminist thought is that it is never 'just' about women: it is a critical discourse that tends to ask uncomfortable questions about everything. Vegetarian ecofeminism puts into action the feminist insight that the personal is political and examines the political contexts of dietary choices as well as strategic and operational choices in science and economics. 對素食主義干涉個人自由感到不爽的朋友，也許有必要讀一下這篇文章哦！ 23.3gaard.pdf
以下是一篇关于Neu5Gc的文章。我不是这专业的，能猜个大概。基本意思是：人跟其它哺乳动物不同；其它哺乳动物有产生Neu5Gc的基因，而人没有。人有的是产生Neu5Ac的基因。Neu5Ac 与Neu5Gc就差一个氧原子。如果Neu5Gc通过哺乳动物的肉食（如猪肉牛肉）进入人体，就会产生自免疫反应，从而导致身体的低度炎症。很多心脏病、癌症都从此而来。 ************************************ N-Glycolylneuraminic acid ( Neu5Gc ) is a sialic acid molecule found in most mammals. SIALIC ACID = from silicates and aluminium minerals. Humans cannot synthesize (use, consume, get nutrient out of, or more importantly to eliminate) Neu5Gc because the human gene CMAH is irreversibly mutated, though it is found in apes. It is absent in human tissues because of the inactivation of gene encoding CMP-N-acetylneuraminic acid hydroxylase. Neu5Gc can be found in mammals (most of them vegan animals) , but trace amounts can be found in humans, even though the gene to encode for production of Neu5Gc was eliminated long ago. These trace amounts of Neu5Gc come from the consumption of mammals in the human diet. Even though Neu5Gc cannot be produced by humans, it is still reported to be found in human cancers and fetal samples . This suggests that these Neu5Gc molecules must enter the human pathways through external sources, like through diets. As found in the observation of cultured human cells, the cells expressed Neu5Gc due to their uptake of animal products in the medium. By macropinocytosis, (absorbed through cell walls) the sialic acid can be transferred to the cytosol (fluid inside a skin cell) by a sialin (protein) transporter. Due to the fact that Neu5 Gc (from mammals) differs from the human Neu5 Ac by only one oxygen atom, cells will uptake the molecule as if it were native to the cell. Although the biochemical pathways don’t recognize this molecule (human Neu5Ac) as foreign the human immune system does, which can bring about many problems. Epidemiological studies have shown a correlation between mammal meat consumption and increased risks of many diseases. These diseases include carcinomas, atherosclerosis, and type-2 diabetes. The uptake of Neu5Gc from this diet aggravates these diseases. Because of the anti-Neu5Gc antibodies that the human body carries, ingestion of Neu5Gc causes chronic inflammation. In recent findings, it has been discovered that all humans have Neu5Gc-specific antibodies, often at high levels (antibodies are fighting the Neu5Gc meat consumption) . Sialic acids are negatively charged and hydrophillic, so they don’t readily cross the lipid, hydrophobic membranes of cells. It is because of this that the uptake of Neu5Gc must occur through an endocytic pathway. (absorbed directly through cell walls including skin) More specifically, exogenous Neu5Gc molecules enter cells through clathrin-independent endocytic pathways with help from pinocytosis. After the Neu5Gc has entered the cell via pinocytosis, the molecule is released by lysosomal sialidase. The molecule is then transferred into the cytosol by the lysosomal sialic acid transporter. From here, Neu5Gc are available for activation and addition to glycoconjugates. Because Neu5Gc appears to be enhanced in naturally occurring tumors and fetal tumors , it is suggested that this uptake mechanism is enhanced by growth factors. (growth hormones) THE MUTILATED HUMAN GENE CMAH = Cytidine monophospho-N-acetylneuraminic acid hydroxylase, pseudogene Identifiers Symbols CMAHP; CMAH; CSAH Putative cytidine monophosphate-N-acetylneuraminic acid hydroxylase-like protein is an enzyme that in humans is encoded by the CMAH gene. Sialic acids are terminal components of the carbohydrate chains of glycoconjugates involved in ligand–receptor, cell–cell, and cell–pathogen interactions. The two most common forms of sialic acid found in mammalian cells are N-acetylneuraminic acid (Neu5Ac) and its hydroxylated derivative, N-glycolylneuraminic acid ( Neu5Gc-found in mammals except humans ). Studies of sialic acid distribution show that Neu5Gc is not detectable in normal human tissues although it was an abundant sialic acid in other mammals. Neu5Gc is, in actuality, immunogenic ( produces a immune response ) in humans. The absence of Neu5Gc in humans is due to a deletion within the human gene CMAH encoding cytidine monophosphate-N-acetylneuraminic acid hydroxylase, an enzyme responsible for Neu5Gc biosynthesis. Sequences encoding the mouse, pig, and chimpanzee hydroxylase enzymes were obtained by cDNA cloning and found to be highly homologous. However, the homologous human cDNA differs from these cDNAs by a 92-bp deletion in the 5' region. This deletion, corresponding to exon 5 of the mouse hydroxylase gene, causes a frameshift mutation and premature termination of the polypeptide chain in human. It seems unlikely that the truncated human hydroxylase mRNA encodes for an active enzyme explaining why Neu5Gc is undetectable in normal human tissues. The deletion that deactivated this gene occurred approximately 3.2 mya, after the divergence of humans from the African great apes, and quickly swept to fixation in the human population. The lineage of this pseudogene in humans indicates another deep split in Africa dating to 2.9 Mya, with a complex subsequent history.
在19世纪的头10年，考赫德（William Cowherd ,1763-1816）在英国曼彻斯特创立了圣经基督教会（Bible Christian Church）,以素食为其主要教条之一。芮德指此为“有组织的现代素食主义运动之发端”，这似乎是个公正的说法。如阿玛托和帕特里奇（Paul R. Amato and Sonia A.Patridge）所指出的那样，“【考赫德】团体的成员后来在1847年于英国成立了素食主义社（Vegetarianism Society）——西方第一个俗世的素食主义组织”。它是和阿尔卡特联盟（Alcott House Concordium）共同创设的，该社名称来自阿尔卡特（Amos Bronson Alcott ,1799-1888）,即作家路易莎·阿尔卡特（Luisa May Alcott,译按：《小妇人》一书作者）的父亲，他于1842年造访该联盟，之后便取了这名字。 随后不久，在1850年，考赫德的一个信徒，麦特考夫（William Metcalfe,1788-1862）创立了美国素食协会（American Vegetarianism Society）。其他具有强大素食潮流的西方宗教与精神运动，包括神智学会（Theosophists）、教友派（Society of Friends）、基督降临安息日会（the Seventh-Day Adventists）在内，亦有推波助澜之功。在1870年代，素食主义紧紧地和动物福利运动及反活体解剖主义联系在一起，所持的理念是：健康的饮食应该使得修复性医疗无用武之地。 深层素食主义，Michael Allen Fox, 新星出版社，北京，2005年，第19页。 蔣科學按： 1，其實，西方現代素食運動至今也不過兩百年，卻已經遠遠超過了具有悠久素食傳統的中國。中國素食人群在總人口眾的比例，遠遠低於英美。素食不僅是一種食譜的選擇，更是對自然對動物的一種態度，是對暴力對弱者的一種態度。我們有可能做得更好一點嗎？ 2，雖然今天基督宗教的主流是不支持素食的，但是基督宗教的許多分支是堅持素食的，歷史許多基督徒是支持素食的，我認為基督徒們可以重新思考素食的問題，也加入到素食的行列中來，將動物保護做得更加徹底。
許多人以希特勒是素食者來對素食主義進行抹黑，這種邏輯不值一駁。 因為希特勒、納粹暴行與素食之間毫無必然聯繫，即使希特勒是素食者，也不能為納粹暴行辯護，也不能以此來攻擊素食者。 但是，事實上，希特勒是素食者的說法，也不過是訛傳，有證據表明：希特勒並不是素食者。 相關說法應該糾正了。 ================================================== http://bbs.gogodutch.com/thread-546152-2-1.html 紐約時報刊登更正啟示說明 希特勒 不是素食者 紐約時報在3月15日的報紙上刊登一項更正啟示，打破以往認為希特勒是素食者的迷思。 該更正啟示上，紐約時報註明：「一篇關於電影《Downfall(希特勒的最後12夜，又名帝國的毀滅)》的評論對於希特勒的飲食描述是不正確的。雖然該電影將希特勒描述為一位素食者，事實上他是吃肉的。」 該更正啟示雖然只有短短的66個字，但長久以來將希特勒認定為素食者的迷思，經常被拿來敗壞素食者的形象，該更正讓素食者不再與希特勒過去所做過的兇殘惡行劃上關聯。 紐約時報是根據北美猶太人素食協會(Jewish Vegetarians of North America)所提供的許多一手史實資料做如上的更正啟示。這些資料顯示希特勒後來雖然因為健康因素而避免吃肉，但在他的正餐中，依然包括有肉類食品，最常見的是巴伐利亞香腸、火腿與鴿肉。 這些文件包括來自希特勒廚師Dione Lucas在一本書中所寫的資料，當中Dione Lucas說希特勒在他晚年有時候表現出是一位素食者的樣態，但他不是一位真正的素食者，而且經常或偶而吃肉與其他動物產品包括魚子醬。這位希特勒的女廚師甚至表示，希特勒最喜歡的一道菜是乳鴿肉。 詳細內容請參閱： http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/3/prweb219804.htm http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C02EEDA123CF936A25750C0A9639C8B6 ========================================================================================== 根據所提供的鏈接，看來是2005年的事。 ============================================================================================== http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/3/prweb219804.htm New York Times Corrects Article on Hitler: Refutes Longstanding Myth that Hitler was a Vegetarian The New York Times issues a correction that smashes the long held belief that Hitler was a vegetarian. Sources for Hyler eating meat are given. (PRWEB) March 20, 2005 The March 15 New York Times "Corrections" box included the following important item on page 2: "A film review about 'Downfall,' which looks at Hitler's final days, referred incorrectly to his diet. Although the movie portrays him as vegetarian, he did eat at least some meat." While small in size, the correction represents a major victory for truth, since the myth of Hitler’s alleged vegetarianism has long been used to try to discredit vegetarians. If this inaccuracy is repeated in the future, as it likely will be, one can now refer to the nation’s "Newspaper of Record" to set the record straight. As documented below, numerous published accounts and first hand sources have confirmed that Hitler's diet included meat. At times Hitler evidently refrained from eating meat (and using alcohol and tobacco), as a response to his many health problems, but his normal diet, and the food served at his retreats and residences, included poultry and meat, most often Bavarian sausages, ham, liver, and pigeons. Indeed, the Nazis banned vegetarian organizations in Germany and the lands they invaded and occupied. The JVNA thanks the Times, especially its public editor Daniel Okrent and his associate Arthur Bovino, for their great public service of helping to put to rest this pernicious myth. This effort involved many hours of research, copying, and sending information to the Times, primarily by Atlanta writer Lewis Regenstein, president of The Interfaith Council for the Protection of Animals and Nature, with help from JVNA president Richard Schwartz, Micah Books publisher Roberta Kalechofsky, and author Rynn Berry. The JVNA also expresses the hope that other writers who have recently circulated the myth of Hitler’s vegetarianism, including columnist David Shaw of the Los Angeles Times, and writer/commentator Ben Stein, will also issue corrections. Material sent to the NY times to influence their decision included the following: Robert Payne's authoritative "The Life and Death of Adolph Hitler" (Prager, 1973) states on page 346: "Hitler's asceticism played an important role in the image he projected over Germany. According to the widely believed legend, he neither smoked not drank, nor did he eat meat...Only the first was true. He drank beer and diluted wine frequently, had a special fondness for Bavarian sausages... His asceticism was a fiction, invented by Goebbels to emphasize his total dedication, his self control...He could claim that he was dedicated to the service of his people. In fact, he was remarkably self indulgent... Although Hitler had no fondness for meat except in the form of sausages and never ate fish, he enjoyed caviar..." Armaments Minister Albert Speer's autobiography, "Inside the Third Reich," (Macmillan, 1970) indicates that meat was served, in substantial amounts, at Hitler's meals. Page 89, in the chapter "Obersalzberg," describing Speer's move to the mountain, states that "Hitler usually appeared in the lower rooms late in the morning...The day actually began with prolonged afternoon dinner. The Food was simple and substantial: soup, a meat course, dessert..." Page 119 of the chapter "A day in the Chancellery" states, "Such was the 'Merry Chancellor's Restaurant', as Hitler often called it...The food was emphatically simple. A soup, no appetizer, meat with vegetables and potatoes, a sweet.....Hitler was served his vegetarian food...and those of his guests who wished could imitate him. But few did... It was Hitler himself who insisted on this simplicity. He could count on its being talked about in Germany," p. 128 describes how Hitler enjoyed gorging on caviar, eating it by the spoonful: "For a few weeks, Hitler actually ate caviar by the spoonful with gusto, and praised the taste, which was new to him. But then he asked Kannenberg about the price, was horrified, and gave strict orders against having that again. Thereupon, the cheaper red caviar was served him. But that too was rejected as an extravagance....the idea of a caviar-eating Leader was incompatible with Hitler's conception of himself." No real vegetarian would eat caviar, given the wasteful cruel way in which it is produced -- by ripping or cutting open the belly of a female sturgeon full of eggs (roe), thus killing a mother sturgeon and thousands of potential offspring. (As a result of over-harvesting, the source of the world's best caviar, the sturgeon in the Caspian Sea, are now considered threatened with extinction.) The references above, plus writings by Dione Lucas, Hitler's chef, clearly document that while Hitler in his later years sometimes posed as a non-meat eater, he was not a real vegetarian, and did frequently or at least occasionally eat meat, fowl, and other animals products (eggs, caviar) always served them to his guests. Rynn Berry points out in his recent book, "Hitler: Neither Vegetarian nor Animal Lover," that the woman chef who was his personal cook in Hamburg during the late 1930s was Dione Lucas. In her "Gourmet Cooking School Cookbook," she records that his favorite dish - the one that he customarily requested - was stuffed squab (pigeon). "I do not mean to spoil your appetite for stuffed squab, but you might be interested to know that it was a great favorite with Mr. Hitler, who dined in the hotel often." Contact: Lewis Regenstein Author of "Replenish the Earth" regenstein@mindspring.com Phone: (404) 814-1371 Richard H. Schwartz President of the Jewish Vegetarians of North America (JVNA) rschw12345@aol.com Phone: (718) 761-5876 ###
#老蒋动保每日谈#20120602：素食的历史（英文） History of Vegetarianism From Encyclopedia of World Environmental History Vol. 3, ed. Shepard Krech III, J.R. McNeill and Carolyn Merchant (New York: Routledge, 2004) p. 1273-1278 . Vegetarianism Vegetarianism, the term used to describe a diet that excludes the flesh of animals, has a long, complex and often tumultuous history. Many of the world's religions and philosophies have praised it as the ideal diet, but vegetarians have also been condemned and killed for their refusal to eat meat. The choice to eat or not eat flesh foods has typically reflected deeply ingrained philosophical and religious beliefs. Foremost among these has been the idea of human kinship with the nonhuman world. While the underlying motives for vegetarianism differ widely throughout different cultures and historical periods, certain themes predominate. These include: the idea of transmigration of souls, com-passion for nonhuman animals, asceticism, purification of the body and soul, health benefits, the dehumanizing effects of meat-eating, environmental considerations, and the unnaturalness of eating flesh foods. Some of the additional underlying themes include the association of meat with class, caste, and gender. Definition Most of the world's populations have usually eaten a predominantly plant-based diet. The word vegetarian, however, is generally reserved for the self-conscious decision to abstain from flesh foods, based upon philo-sophical, ethical, metaphysical, scientific, or nutritional beliefs. The term first appeared in the 1840s and was derived from the root word vegetus, signifying the idea of "whole and vital." Although the word refers to those who abstain from eating flesh, there is disagreement about what constitutes flesh, and some people who call themselves vegetarian consume chicken and fish. Most vegetarians, however, believe that the term should be retained for those who avoid all forms of animal flesh. The most common types of vegetarian are: lacto-ovo vegetarians, who include eggs and dairy products in their diet; lacto-vegetarians, who include milk; ovo-vegetarians, who include eggs; vegans, who exclude all animal products; natural hygienists, who eat a non-processed, plant-based diet; raw fooders, who eat only raw foods; and fruitarians, who eat only fruit. Origins in the East Vegetarianism has two major philosophical roots in the ancient world, Jainism in the East and Pythagoreanism in the West. Both schools of thought arose in the sixth century BCE at approximately the same time, and scholars continue to speculate on the cross-fertilization of ideas between the East and West. The Jains' notion of ahimsa refers to the desire not to cause injury to other living beings and the concomitant idea of compassion for all living beings. Jains argue that all life goes through a series of incarnations, with the highest incarnation belonging to humans who have attained enlightenment or nirvana. By eating flesh foods humans attract negative karma to their soul (jiva), and impede their chances of attaining enlightenment. They also risk dining on their next of kin from a previous life. Jains believe that one can only contact the god within by conquering the "animal passions" that lead one to acts of violence and self-indulgence, including the eating of flesh foods. Jains also con-demned the practice of animal sacrifice, intimately connected to meat-eating in the ancient world. Buddhism also contains the ideas of ahimsa, trans-migration of souls and compassion for animals. Buddhism helped to spread vegetarianism throughout Asia, and influenced the development of a strong vegetarian tradition in Hinduism. Origins in the West Pythagoras is regarded as the greatest influence on vegetarian thought in the Western world. The Pythagorean sect was founded at the end of the sixth century BCE in Croton, Italy, in Magna Grecia. The basic precepts of Pythagoras's school included a refusal to eat meat or to offer blood sacrifice. Pythagoras believed that the human soul could transmigrate to humans or other animals after death but the ultimate goal was to free the soul from the earthly rounds of existence to reunite with its divine origins. This was accomplished through a series of strict, ascetic rules for purifying the body. Most of the modern arguments against meat eating can be found among Ancient Greek as well as Roman philosophers. Plutarch (c. 350-433 BCE) believed that this "barbaric vice" was unnatural for humans and engendered violence. Other ancient philosophers who advocated vegetarianism include Theophrastus (360-287 BCE), Empedocles (c. 495-c. 435 BCE), and Porphyry, who made one of the first ecological defenses of vegetarianism. According to Porphyry it was not necessary to kill animals to curb the problem of animal overpopulation, since nature would find a balance by itself. Early Jewish and Christian Vegetarians There were several early Jewish Christian sects that are believed to have adhered to a strict vegetarian diet. Among these were the Essenes, the Ebionites, and the Nazoreans, considered by many to be the first Christians. The early ascetic Jewish Christian sects were a minority tradition in the first-century ancient world. Nonetheless, scholars have argued that Jesus counted among their numbers and was himself a vegetarian. The early Church fathers believed that meat was a powerful sexual stimulant, so it was appropriate for those in holy orders to refrain from eating it in order to curb their sexual desires. However, abstaining from meat was acceptable only as part of a practical exercise in subduing the "animal passions." From the third to the thirteenth century the Church engaged in a vigorous campaign against a number of heretical Gnostic sects. Ranging from the Balkans in the Byzantine Empire to Southern France, they included the Manicheans, Cathars, Paulicians, Montanists, Masslians, Apostolics, and Bogomils. The refusal to eat meat was viewed by Church authorities as evidence of heresy. Middle Ages to Renaissance Support for vegetarianism went into a long dormancy during the Middle Ages. In the early Renaissance, due to late-thirteenth century food shortages, the vast majority of the population, particularly the poor, ate primarily vegetarian food. It was at this time that the emphasis on meat-eating as desirable and necessary for one's health became an article of faith, particularly for men. A small number of dissidents protested against cruelty to animals and meat-eating, including Sir Thomas More (1478-1535) who blended concern over animal suffering with the first environmental critique of the large amounts of land used to produce meat. Other dissidents included Erasmus (1467-1536), Montaigne (1533-1592), and Leonardo Da Vinci (1452-1519), although Da Vinci was the only one of the three to become vegetarian. Seventeenth Century: Cartesian Thought In the seventeenth century, Rene Descartes (1596-1650) developed the Christian belief that animals lacked souls or spirit with devastating consequences for nonhuman animals. He contended that since animals lacked spirit, and hence the capacity to understand, they could not feel pain. Their anguished cries were in all probability merely mechanical responses. Cartesian philosophy sanctioned the widespread practice of vivisection in the seventeenth century as well as the confinement of animals on factory farms. Despite this setback to the status of nonhuman animals, the seventeenth century simultaneously witnessed the growth of a greater sensitivity to nonhuman animals. Ironically, this was due in part to animal studies, which showed the structural similarities of their nervous systems to those of humans, suggesting the commonality in their experience of pain. In addition, as the threat from nature receded, people began to have greater empathy for nonhuman animals. Most advocates for vegetarianism, including Thomas Tryon (1634-1703), one of the foremost advocates for vegetarianism of his age, still framed their calls for compassion in religious terms. Other roponents of vegetarianism during the seventeenth century include John Ray, John Evelyn, and Margaret Cavendish, duchess of Newcastle. Eighteenth to Nineteenth Century The eighteenth century gave rise to humanist philosophy and to the notion of natural rights, based on the belief in the inherent dignity of humans. Due in part to Evangelical religion's emphasis on concern for the oppressed, and the Lockean idea of human beings' innate capacity for benevolence, there was an increasing sensitivity to animal suffering. As the century progressed, public attention began to focus upon a wide range of social issues, including prison reform, child welfare, care for the poor, sick, and elderly as well as opposition to slavery. A growing number of people viewed concern for nonhuman animals as a logical extension of these social movements. While compassion for nonhuman animals was the foremost concern of these animal advocates, they also pointed to the harmful effects of meat-eating on human moral character. Joseph Ritson (1752-1803), John Oswald (1730-1793), Percy Bysshe Shelley (1792-1822), and Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) all linked meat-eating with interhuman violence, including war. The emphasis on the harmful effects of meat-eating on human moral and spiritual character continued into the nineteenth century. There was an increased focus, however, on the wrongfulness of animal suffering in and of itself. Acknowledging the moral significance of animal suffering was an integral part of Jeremy Bentham's (1748-1832) utilitarian theory. According to Bentham, "the question is not, can they reason?, Nor can they talk? But, can they suffer?"(Bentham, 1780). Arguments for vegetarianism were also increasingly being linked to land use practices. As a result of the enclosures, the common land was being seized by rich land owners who were using it to grow fodder crops to feed their cattle. The philosopher and priest, William Paley (1743-1805), Shelley, and Dr. William Alcott (1798-1859) all inveighed against the inefficiency of feeding fodder to animals instead of directly to human beings. Food Reform Movement The food reform movement began in Germany in the 1820s and 1830s as a reaction to the growing ties between the food industry and science and technology. In the 1830s, vegetarians became a vocal minority within the radical wing of the food reform movement. Many of the food reformers, including Sylvester Graham (1794-1851), Bircher-Benner (1867-1939), and John Harvey Kellogg (1852-1943), combined health and ethical arguments, focusing on the purifying effect, both spiritual and physical, of a vegetarian diet. Meat-eating was typically condemned for its overstimulating effect. Indeed for Graham, stimulation was the root of all disease. Meat-eating was also linked to overindulgence in sex. Kellogg maintained that meat-eating caused undue pressure on the male organ and that vegetarianism was the cure. The success of the food reform movement and the vegetarian cause is largely attributable to the support of women. Some of these women included Catherine Harriet Beecher Stowe (1800-1878) and Harriet Beecher Stowe (1811-1896) in the U.S., and Luise Otto-Peters (1819-1895) and Lina Morgenstern (1830-1909) in Germany. A number of feminists promoted vegetarianism, often connecting it with the themes of peace and nonviolence. The contemporary author Carol Adams sees in their writings the beginnings of a feminist, vegetarian, pacifist tradition. Some of these women include Charlotte Despard (1844-1939), Charlotte Perkins Gilman (1860-1935) and Agnes Ryan (1878-1954), and Susan B. Anthony (1820-1906) as well as the theosophists Annie Besant (1847-1933) and Anna Kingsford (1846-1888). Kingsford maintained, "universal peace is not possible to a carnivorous race" (Adams 1991, 124). The Social Movement for Vegetarianism In the middle of the nineteenth century, in Germany, the Netherlands, England and the U.S., the vegetarian cause began to coalesce as a social movement. The first secular vegetarian society in England was formed in 1847 at Ramsgate, at which time the term vegetarian replaced the more common Pythagorean as the official word for someone who abstained from flesh foods. In 1850, William Metcalfe founded a similar organization in New York, The American Vegetarian. Support for vegetarianism in the mid-nineteenth century was fueled, in part, by the findings of evolutionary science, which had begun to demonstrate the similarities between human and nonhuman animals. With the publication of Charles Darwin's (1809-1882) Descent of Man in 1871, the privileged position of humans was further eroded. The humane movement developed from the belief that if human beings were, in fact, superior it behooved them to act civilized by controlling their "animal passions" and practicing benevolence to animals. Although most members of the humane movement were not vegetarian, some of the most vocal activists were, including Bernard Shaw (1856-1950), the philanthropist Lewis Gompertz, Anna Kingsford and the author and social reformer Henry S. Salt (1851-1939). Salt's writings had a wide-ranging impact, including on Mohandas Gandhi (1869-1948). Gandhi was inspired by the connections Salt made between animal rights and social justice, to move beyond his previous traditional Hindu vegetarianism to see vegetarianism as a movement for the moral and spiritual progress of the human race. Gandhi's conversion to ethical vegetarianism illustrates the cross-fertilization of ideas between East and West that characterizes much of the modern vegetarian movement.Gandhi went on to influence millions of Hindus to adopt vegetarianism. Eastern thought, in turn, has had a profound influence on vegetarianism in the West. The influence of Hinduism and Buddhism on theosophy was an important factor in theosophy's endorsement of vegetarianism. The influx of Eastern ideas that began in the 1960s also had a large influence on the adoption of vegetarianism. The Krishna cult, in particular, had a profound impact in the west through their dispensing of free vegetarian food. The Modern Vegetarian Movement Vegetarianism was largely eclipsed by the two world wars. A number of factors contributed to its increased acceptance in the postwar years. Beginning in the 1920s, there had been a growing appreciation for the benefits of vegetables and fruits due to the discovery of vitamins. Additional studies in the 1950s, including research on the Seventh Day Adventists, confirmed the health benefits of a vegetarian diet. In the 1970s, many people also became concerned over the purity of food, and in particular meat. Concerns focused on the effects of pesticides, chemicals, and bacterial contamination, all of which are found in greater concentrations in meat. People became additionally worried about the purity of meat as a result of the outbreak of BSE (mad cow disease) and foot-and-mouth disease in England and Europe. The publicity surrounding these outbreaks served to educate people about the contents of the food fed to farm animals, including sludge, carcasses, and the excrement of other animals, thereby providing people with additional incentive to adopt a vegetarian diet. A number of health studies in the 1980s and 1990s also helped to fuel interest in vegetarianism, including the China Health Project directed by the Cornell professor of nutrition, Colin Campbell. Campbell's cross-cultural research involving over 10,000 people in the U.S. and China concluded that human beings are not anatomically designed to eat meat, and that there is an inverse correlation between the amount of animal products that one eats and the benefits that accrue to one's health. The physician Dean Ornish's research, first published in 1983 in Stress, Diet and Your Heart, also demonstrated that arterial sclerosis could be reversed through a vegetarian diet. The growth of the animal advocacy movement in the U.S. and England in the 1970s also helped to advance the vegetarian cause. In previous centuries, vegetarians tended to focus on the cruelty inherent in the slaughter of innocent beings. The modern animal advocacy movement, in addition, has called attention to the conditions in which animals live throughout their lives, promoting vegetarianism as a means of protesting this treatment. Significant influences on the development of vegetarianism in the animal advocacy movement include Peter Singer's utilitarian arguments for the equal consideration of the interests of both humans and nonhumans, Tom Regan's case for the "inherent worth" of animals, and the writings of Carol Adams as well as the literature of Feminists for Animal Rights, which underline the commonalities in meat dominance and male dominance. Veganism also developed increasing support in the 1980s and 1990s. Rejection of dairy products had begun in the nineteenth century, but it was not until 1944 that the first Vegan Society was formed in Leicester, England. Vegetarianism and the Environment Beginning in the 1970s ecological arguments also became an important motive for many people to adopt a vegetarian diet. In Diet for a Small Planet, published in 1971, Frances Moore Lappe criticized the inefficiency of a meat-based diet, arguing that only a small proportion of the nutrients that are fed to nonhuman animals return to humans as nutrients. Moore contended that in 1968 the amount of edible protein that was wasted by America's animal based diet was equiv-alent to the world protein shortage. Diet for a Small Planet provided a major impetus for people to either cut back on or eliminate meat from their diets. In the following two decades, numerous articles and books advanced similar environmental critiques of a meat-based diet, including Jeremy Rifkin's Beyond Beef, Howard Lyman's Mad Cowboy, and John Robins's Diet for a New America and The Food Revolution. These authors highlighted the link between animal agriculture and a host of environmental problems: soil and water depletion, desertification, air and water pol-lution, global warming, the waste of valuable grain resources, and the destruction of the tropical rain forests. Current estimates are that 90 percent of all agricultural land, more than one half the total land area of the U.S., is devoted to the production of animal products. Cattle now occupy 70 percent of rangeland in the American west and are a major contributor to both agricultural runoff and desertification. Beef production is also a major factor in the destruction of half the tropical rain forest of southern Mexico and Central America. Animal agriculture has also been blamed as a major contributor to global warming. Greenhouse gases are produced from grain fertilizers and from the methane released from animals. American waterways are equally threatened. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, animal waste poses a greater threat to American waterways than all other industrial sources combined. In a 1999 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists, meat-eating is cited, along with driving automobiles, as one of the two most damaging lifestyle factors contributing to environmental destruction. Not all environmentalists believe that meat-eating and animal agriculture are inherently harmful to the environment. Advocates for mixed farming and biodynamic farming argue that some use of animals on small-scale farms is necessary, due to the usefulness of their manure for fertilizing the soil. A number of environmentalists also support meat-eating as long as the meat is "organic" and the animals are raised "hu-manely." While studies show that the number of people adopting vegetarianism has been slowly increasing throughout most of the Western world, vegetarianism has not followed a steadily uphill course. Meat-eating has actually increased throughout the world. Consumption of chicken has also sharply risen, in part because of concerns over the purity of beef. In the West, the rise in meat consumption has been attributed to the proliferation of fast food restaurants, and in the East and developing world to the desire to imitate Western society's affluent lifestyle, symbolized by meat. Studies vary around the world as to the number Vegetarianism of people who are currently vegetarian, ranging from a low of 0.2 percent in Poland to a high of 4.4 percent in the Netherlands. In the U.S. estimates range from a low of 0.3 percent to a high of 7 percent of the population. The higher numbers generally represent people who claim to be vegetarian but who sometimes eat meat, including fish. Most studies suggest that women have been, cross-culturally and throughout history, about 70 percent of vegetarians. In his book Meat: A Natural Symbol Nicke Fiddes suggests that meat has functioned throughout history as a means of asserting human dominance over the natural world. By eating nonhuman animals, humans show their superiority over the "lower" animals. Both religious vegetarians as well as those motivated by health have at times demonstrated the reverse side of this phenomenon. Rather than dominating the external environment, some vegetarians (and perhaps mostly men) have sought to tame the "beast within" as a means of attaining a physical or spiritual purity. The modern vegetarian movement is part of a long continuous history. Although compassion for nonhuman animals and environmental concerns are parts of this history, they have moved to the fore in recent years. The modern vegetarian movement deviates from the past, however, in focusing less on self-denial and ritual purity and more on the idea of embracing vegetarianism as a positive ethical choice. Marti Kheel Further Reading Adams, C. J. (1991). The sexual politics of meat: A feminist-vegetarian critical theory. New York: Continuum. Akers, K. (1993). A vegetarian sourcebook: The nutrition, ecology, and ethics of a natural food diet. Denver: Vegetarian Press. Barkas, J. (1975). The vegetable passion: A history of the vegetarian state of mind. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons. Bentham, J. (1988). Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books. (Original work published 1780) Berry, R. (1998). Food for the gods: Vegetarianism and the world's religions: Essays, conversations, recipes. New York: Pythagorean. Dombrowski, D. (1984). The philosophy of vegetarianism. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press. Fiddes, N. (1991). Meat: A natural symbol. New York: Rout-ledge. Fox, M. A. (1999). Deep vegetarianism. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Gandhi, M. (1999). Diet and morality. In K. Walters L. Portmess (Eds.), Ethical vegetarianism: From Pythagoras to Peter Singer (pp. 139-144). New York: State University of New York Press. Gregerson, J. (1994). Vegetarianism: A history. Fremont, CA: Jain Pub. Co. Leneman, L. (1997). The awakened instinct: Vegetarianism and the women's suffrage movement in Britain. Women's History Review, 6(2), 271-286. Marcus, E. (1998). Vegan: The new ethics of eating. Ithaca, NY: McBooks. Maurer, D. (2002). Vegetarianism: Movement or moment? Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Meyer-Renschlausen, E., Wirz, A. (1999). Dietetics, health reform and social order: Vegetarianism as a moral physiology: The example of Maximilian Bircher-Benner. Medical History, 43, 323-341. Ornish, D. (1983). Stress, diet and your heart. New York: Henry Holt Co. Paley, W. (1999). The dubious right to eat flesh. In K. Walters L. Portmess (Eds.), Ethical vegetarianism: From Pythagoras to Peter Singer (pp. 65-67). New York: State University of New York Press. Pythagoras (1999). The kinship of all life. In K. Walters L. Portmess (Eds.), Ethical vegetarianism: From Pythagoras to Peter Singer (pp. 113-125). New York: State University of New York Press. Rifkin, J. (1992). Beyond beef: The rise and fall of the cattle culture. New York: Dutton. Robbins, J. (1987). Diet for a new America. Walpole, NH: Still point. Robbins, J. (2001). The food revolution: How your diet can help save your life. Berkeley, CA.: Conari Press. Rosen, S. (1997). Diet for transcendence: Vegetarianism and the world religions. Badger, CA.: Torchlight. Shelley, P. B. (1999). A vindication of natural diet. In K. Walters L. Portmess (Eds.), Ethical vegetarianism: From Pythagoras to Peter Singer (pp. 69-74). New York: State University of New York Press. Spencer, C. (1995). The heretic's feast: A history of vegetarian-ism. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.
#老蒋动保每日谈#20120503：为了动物保护而素食者不要害怕别人把你当做怪人 要是真有人认为你怪，请记住，你绝不孤单。世上所有最优秀的改革家，那些首举义旗反对贩卖奴隶，反对民族主义战争，反对工业革命时期逼迫童工每天工作十四小时的残酷剥削的人们，一开始都被那些从上述恶行中获取利益的人嘲笑为怪人，改革家们反对的就是他们的恶行。 Peter Singer, Animal Liberation:A New Ethics for Our Treatment of Animals,The New York Review,1975,199
Marvin P 发表于 2010-01-22 10:20 几天前旅居英国的某姑娘发群组信，说有环保主义团体正试图在她的大学推行饭堂不提供荤菜的无肉星期一，作为无肉不欢的亚非拉劳动人民，姑娘急切地向我们冰天雪地裸体跪求吃肉的好处以便提出异议（依我看这个跪求方式就足够自证了）。 大伙看了看附件中人家提出的素食比荤食好的理由，比如能消耗较少的水资源，减少畜牧业的土地占用以及二氧化碳排放量，降低人体对反式脂肪酸的摄入等等，还真找不到可以入手的反驳点，最后只好让那姑娘届时以个人自由为名义，螳臂挡车地坐在饭堂门口去啃红烧猪蹄，只求荤香飘四邻，佛闻跳墙来。 但科技的进展有时候就是那么体贴：09年11月《食品科学技术趋势》上的一篇综述来见识新肉（Meet the new meat, Langelaan et al.）全面总结了在实验室中通过组织工程学制造人工肉类的技术。文中所指的新肉不是素鸡鸭那种油炸大豆渣或者火腿肠那种死不要脸的染色淀粉块，而是实实在在由肌肉纤维组成的肉。该综述指出，研究者使用家畜的肌卫星细胞作为分裂增殖的种子，目前已经在实验室里培育出了1.50.5厘米大小的小肉片儿这个面积足以在大学饭堂里将素炒青椒提升到十人份青椒炒肉丝的层次，不容小觑。这种技术若成熟后应用于食品业，制造肉食将不再需要牧场；能大量减排温室气体（你知道专家说全球气候变化有很大部分是因为牛放屁造成的吗？）；消除了家畜同类相食的环节，因此将疯牛病的传播降到最低；还能想要什么肉就造出什么肉，只需通过调整数据改变脂肪和肌肉的比例分布和质地，一块安格斯里脊可以渐变成大理石花纹的神户牛，而且反式脂肪酸都被置换成保护心血管的 Omega 3这些特点正好让那些素食的理由不再舍我其谁地占有制高点，因此也让肉食爱好者们不必为了爱护地球而只能吃生菜沙拉，到下午三四点就心理饥饿得恨不得反刍一下。 其实组织工程学并不是为广大吃货谋口福的技术，它的概念最初是在1987年被提出来的，根据领域大牛罗伯特兰杰等人的定义，此学科的目的是融合工程学和生命科学的技术，开发具有生物活性的替代性材料，用于修复、维持或改善组织或器官功能，因此也被称为再生医学，经过二十多年的发展，目前已经能在体外再造骨骼、骨髓、软骨、皮肤、肌肉和角膜等组织和器官。跟自体移植相比，它不需要剜肉补疮；和外来器官移植相比，它又少有免疫排斥的问题。因此有人乐观地估计，要不了几十年人类就可以像汽车换零件一样，心梗了换个心，肾衰了换个肾，脑残了那还是会被自然选择淘汰掉。 将这项技术从医用转到食品业的幕后推手之一是NASA，考虑到太空旅行时食品舱的寸土寸金，他们比肯德基还更渴望6个翅膀的肯德鸡，所以可以理解NASA对这项技术进行支持的热情何来这人造肉多适合长成牙膏状啊。但离开特殊环境后，人造肉能不能被大众接受？目前的回答是，难说。转基因食物出现这么多年尚未有报道说谁吃成了半人半鸟的雷震子，但不明真相的围观群众依然在纷纷表示对其安全性的犹豫；又或者像去年美国食品与药物管理局(FDA)批准了在市场上出售克隆动物及其后代生产的肉与奶制品，FDA在长达678页的风险评估研究报告中表明没有发现克隆动物食品存在任何风险和害处，但调查显示还是有64％的美国人对于克隆动物感到不舒服，43％的人认为来自克隆动物的食物制品不安全。这种对食物的谨慎让人类这个物种延续至今，但也让人类险些错失品味螃蟹美味的机会。这种由组织工程学制作出的人造肉食品，就算做得脂肪混杂率、颜色、质地细腻度都可乱真，先天就已经输在纯不天然这点上。既然每一步都要人工干预，倘若进行干预的人不能使群众信任，那么也不能怪群众去选择不会自身合成三聚氰胺和苏丹红的牛羊。而这些社会问题的解决和群众观念的转变，则不是在实验室里种瓜得豆的科学家们可以凭一已之力操控的了。同时，爱吃肉的也得把握好时光，今年早些时候已经有可以全面模拟五感的虚拟现实原型机面世，这样下去汉堡店卖的该是Matrix里那种描述牛排的字节了吧？ 图片出处： 百度图片
标签: 素食
