I think projecting our personal views on the general public, is the equivalent of lobbying for special interest. If eating animals appals you, I have no problem respecting your beliefs. When you attack people,(even with scientific data,) because you don't like something, your not really being respectful of their beliefs. Think of it as, "The Separation of Church and State;" set all personal, religious, emotions aside; use your moral compass as your guide. (I don't wish to debate animal rights, AT ALL! I'm just asking you to look at the other side,"human side,") and think "fair." I will say,"yes, we need to eat less meat." A 1/2 pound patty on a hamburger with bacon, definitely turns my stomach.(Who buys this crap???)

  As for this article, I have to say, I'm a bit sceptical. There are some things that I think, have been over looked. Organic farming is great, I'm not against it at all, but I don't believe it is sustainable. There have been too many irreversible, detrimental changes in our ecosystem, for it to work in the long run. The entire U.S. is asking for smaller phones, better fuel mileage, bigger televisions, and all the other innovations that make life more accommodating. Now they're asking farmers to take a giant step backwards. Yes, it seems easy enough, but it really isn't.

There are years of pesticide, herbicide residual in the ground.(Even in organic ground.) This has made it possible for organic farmers to be successful, so far. It won't last. We have insects that have built up resistances, diseases that have mutated, and organisms in this country, that were never meant to be here,(thank you NAFTA.) Conventional farmers can't even control them with the strongest pesticides/fungicides. This makes the sustainability of organic, less and less likely. I'm sorry, but we can't turn back the clock.

"I think projecting our personal views on the general public, is the equivalent of lobbying for special interest."

Actually, sharing information that has value to ALL humans is more about lobbying for the GENERAL interest (which includes ALL individuals as special interests).

"...use your moral compass as your guide."

Anyone who has information that is critical to the health and wellbeing of others and does not share it with them when possible can hardly be considered a sane or socially responsible person.

I am very sorry that you inferred an attack.

There was only the attempt to share a gift; the understanding of our biological nature and what import this has upon sane agricultural practices (humans practicing their natural herbivore diet have considerably less agricultural requirements than meat-eaters in terms of land, water, fertilizers, etc.).

LMAO, this is ridiculous! Perhaps when I am not at work I can take the time to explain why, but I have a feeling you don't care to hear it.

Hahaha... oh man...

Cheryl M. this is great, thank you for posting it.  I don't believe that nonVegan Americans are Omnivores.  Our ancesters, who stumbled upon a dead animal or who were lucky enough to kill an animal without being injured or killed themselves were true omnivores.  Generally, the American diet consists of huge amounts of cholestrol and dead meat at every single meal as well as snacking (pork rinds etc).  Agribusiness (lack of intellect here) has created a killing machine and by enslaving animals we have enslaved ourselves by giving up our health choices and relying on pharmaceutical companies to correct a problem that starts with our forks!

OK, I have more time now, and shouldn't even be taking this bait, but shooting fish in a barrel is easy (forgive my carnivorous metaphors).

First of all, this list assumes uniformity across all carnivores, herbivores, and omnivores, respectively, when in fact, there is often more variation WITHIN those respective groups than between them. For example: bats. Different bats have different diets and different anatomy which do NOT, as you suggest, correspond to whether they are carnivores or herbivores. Most bats are insectivores, a type of carnivore, such as the Little Brown Bat. According to the man you quote, we can tell it's a carnivore because it's jaw joint is in line with the molar plane, it has long, sharp canine teeth, and sharp molars. But wait! carnivores supposedly don't chew their food! Here's a video of a Little Brown Bat... chewing its food! In fact, anyone with a cat or a dog knows they chew their friggin food. Almost all mammals of any diet chew their food (and it is quite obvious that this list is only talking about mammals, completely ignoring reptiles, birds, fish, etc). But back to bats. Not all bats are insectavores, of course. A Vampire Bat famously drinks blood, but wait! It's jaw joint is above it's molar plane! And what about Fruit Bats? These are herbivores (frugavores, specifically) and yet they have long, sharp canines and sharp molars, and a jaw joint in line with their molars. How can this be?! Clearly your Dr. Mills is full of it.

Here's a blatant mistake: Cows' stomachs have a neutral pH (i.e. near 7, not 4 to 5). The digestive enzymes that break down cellulose need a near-neutral pH to work, so the cow's saliva is very basic (above 8) to balance out the stomach's acids and keep a neutral stomach. And humans? Our stomach pH is nowhere near 4 to 5, it is 2 to 3! VERY different from a cow. In fact, when cows are fed corn, this forces their stomach to a more acidic pH, closer to ours, and causes a big increase in food-borne illnesses because the bacteria evolve to survive in a more acidic stomach like ours and are thus able to infect us.

And yes, our acidic stomach is for aiding in meat digestion. It's what one would expect to see in an omnivore.

Lets look at our closest relatives, if you think these examples are too far off. Chimps share over 98% of our DNA, and they are omnivores. They frequently hunt monkeys and, famously, use spears to hunt bush babies. Their skulls show the same jaw joint location, the same incisors, the same molars as us. And they still have flat nails. But look at those long canines! you say. OK, let's look at a slightly more distant, completely herbivorous relative, the gorilla. Exact same dentition. Really, the great apes use their canines for intimidation, fighting, and keeping social order amongst themselves rather than for hunting, but I digress.

Plenty of herbivores have claws, plenty of carnivores don't, there's no such thing as detoxifying vitimin A... the list goes on and on. I focused on the skull examples in detail because he puts them first and because it's very easy to show you conclusively how he's wrong. A lot of his "comparisons" are completely made up. For example, well-developed facial muscles?? What does that even mean? The answer is he arbitrarily decided what is meant in order to support his beliefs.

Other examples he gives (all of them, really) are just blatant generalizations that simply cannot be applied to all carnivores or all omnivores. Omnivores in particularly are an EXTREMELY diverse group with infinitely varied eating habits resulting in infinitely varied dentition and digestive systems.

In conclusion, human definitely evolved to be omnivores. The fossil record shows with great frequency animal remains clearly killed by not just early human, but our pre-human ancestors as well. Hunter-gatherer is how we evolved. Perhaps the main reason humans have been so evolutionarily successful is because we are omnivores - we can literally eat almost anything, allowing us to live almost anywhere. The Maasai in Africa live almost entirely on milk, beef, and cow blood. The Inuit in Alaska have a diet of 90% meat. Clearly they haven't died yet. Dr. Mills is full of crap. You don't do yourself or vegetarianism any favors by promoting this kind on nonsense. Just because humans are omnivores doesn't mean you HAVE to eat meat. You can still choose to be vegetarian or vegan precisely BECAUSE you are an omnivore. That's the point; we can get by on almost any diet (although a varied diet based on plants but supplemented with meat - in other words what our ancestors ate - seems healthiest). For a more extensive discussion of the fact that humans are omnivores (from the vegetarian resource group), go here. I hope all of this has been helpful.

Also, a granivore is an animal that eats grains and seeds, not grass. FYI.

There are wild hogs in my area. Would it better suit you if people hunted them, rather than buying, "farmed hogs," to consume?

You are correct when you stated,"they do it to save space and money." The U.S. imports over 1 billion pounds of pork each year. Stop this practice and the slaughter house industry would be able to afford better accommodations for these animals. Your statement,"farmers are ignorant," is incorrect.They've managed to find a way to sustain their lively hoods. You should have said, "they are greedy, devoid of compassion for the animals lives, that line their wallets;" much closer to the truth. 

I would proceed with caution in the name calling department. Especially when you label an entire occupation ignorant, your biting the hand that feeds. Unless of coarse you would rather eat imported food. This way, you wouldn't know what pesticides/hormones/diseases it might contain. Just because we've outlawed a lot of these chemicals in the U.S. doesn't mean other countries have done the same. Blaming farmers will only get you so far. Why don't you look at the top, and point the finger at the import/export laws, that have forced these conditions to exist.

Yes, I think it would be much better if people hunted pigs who were able to run freely, turn around and lay down comfortably before they were killed. I think that is much better than paying "farmers" to confine intelligent and social animals to a space barely bigger than their own bodies for their whole lives and driving them to madness. Or better yet, why eat pigs at all? It isn't exactly healthy.

The "slaughterhouse" industry does not provide any accommodations for animals except for temporary holding stalls where the animals wait to be killed after they are offloaded from trucks. Perhaps you meant to say the pork "farming" industry might be able to provide better accommodations for pigs if we didn’t import so much pork? I don’t really think that is true. Most of the imported pork is still produced by Smithfields and other multi-national corporations. The industry exploits cheap labor in Mexico and other poverty stricken areas which allows for cheaper pork. If people bought only domestic pork the industry would still rely on immigrant labor (as it does now) and would seek to cut costs in order to maximize profits. The cost cutting is almost always done at the expense of the animals and the labor force. The cost cuts don’t translate to the customer, they just line the pockets of industry executives and shareholders.

My statement that farmers are ignorant may be an over-generalization. I admit there are a few farmers who may know a thing or two. But in my experience, the vast majority of so called farmers either have no formal education and simply do as they have been taught or they have Ag degrees and simply do as they have been taught. If they have been taught that gestation crates keep mother pigs from rolling over on or eating their piglets then they accept that as a fact and don’t’ question it. They then perpetuate the lie to defend their obscene practices (to themselves and others). If they were not so ignorant, they would realize that the reason mother pigs sometimes eat their piglets is because they are driven insane in horrendous and unnatural conditions on industrial farms.

Modern farmers seem to have forgotten how to farm. They don't seem to know a thing about the animals they raise or the land that they cultivate. They’ve bought the lie that has been sold to them by the very people who have pushed most small scale family farmers out of business. One hundred years ago nearly fifty percent of Americans lived and worked on farms. Now only 2 percent of Americans work on farms. Unsustainable, profit-driven practices have made a lot of money for a few corporate executives and their shareholders and have driven the actual farmers and laborers out of business. The animals are treated as mere production units instead of living beings with natural needs and behaviors. The ever more depleted environment upon which we all depend has become a waste disposal pit. Farmers are now wholly dependant on Big Ag corporations and loans to even stay afloat. What, if not ignorance, has allowed so many farmers to be used like such powerless pawns? What, if not ignorance, has prompted so called farmers to defend such indefensible practices as factory farming? Greed perhaps? Well, yes, they are greedy. But their ignorance has made it so that only a very few actually profit.

Don’t get me wrong. I think American consumers are just as ignorant about the realities behind modern farming as are the “farmers.” And they are just as greedy too. American consumers tend to look at unit price as the sole determinate in choosing which items to purchase. If its cheap, they want it. It doesn’t matter how it was produced and the externalized costs and damage to the environment, to animals, to our health and to humanity as a whole are ignored. All that matters is that we can get those 99 cent bacon double cheeseburgers. Forget deforestation, dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico, and skyrocketing health care costs. Just let the farmers keep doing what they are doing. They must know what they are doing, right? They are farmers. Don't farmers know the right way to farm by mere instinct? Well, no. They don't. And I don't think it is unreasonable for so called "agri-intellectuals" who have actually done independent research to correct farmers who are doing it wrong.

You mention import/export laws and of course there are a lot of factors that come into play in this equation. But when so called “farmers” answer the industry’s call to defend the status quo against the onslaught of sustainable farming advocates who are actually working to level the playing field for responsible and intelligent farmers… well, I say it is these people who are biting the hand that feeds. Intelligent farmers come out in favor of industrial farming reform. Intelligent farmers realize that you can't continue to feed a growing population by using unsustainable practices. In fact, using unustainable practices to feed a growing population just means more people will starve when we finally do run out of resources (or pollute and destroy the resources we have).

I agree the main issue is overpopulation and lack of access to locally grown sustainable food. The solution is not industrial agriculture, which will only make the problem worse in the long run, but instead combined sustainable agriculture and population reduction efforts.

What I am pointing out is that too many so called farmers don't know what they are talking about and yet still profess some expertise. To make matters worse, these idiots then try to counter the arguments made by sustainable agriculture advocates with nonesense about how we "just don't understand how things work."

I'm saying that we should dismiss "farmers" like Mr. Hurst who believe that turkeys would drown in the rain if they aren't crammed by the tens of thousands into filthy dark warehouses (which is absurdely false) or that clear cutting forests and dumping toxic chemicals on our food and environment is ever appropriate.

Cheryl, thanks for your comment. I mostly agree with you. However, overpopulation is not a myth. 6 billion people on the planet is about 5 billion too many. But you are right to say that we could feed about 10 billion people on the planet if all food resources were distributed fairly, if sustainable agriculture practices were used and if people in western countries reduced their meat and dairy intake by about 90% or more.

Mr. Sneed, I'm having trouble understanding your concept of, "sustainable agriculture/sustainable practices."

I suppose my concept of sustainable agriculture is agriculture that can be sustained indefinitely. Using petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides cannot be sustained and is therefore unsustainable. Wasting edible food crops on farm animals cannot sustain a growing human population, and is therefore unsustainable. Sorry, I'm not sure what you don't understand about my use of the term.

Thank you, I wasn't sure if you were responding to the entire article. You've mostly pointed out, eating less/no meat would benefit the population and environment.(Ms. Maietta has as well.) I don't disagree with either of you, but I was responding to the, "crop/produce side," of sustainability. I didn't wish to debate the animals activists stand- point, because personal convictions/emotions, usually run high, and I don't think it would be fair,(on my part,) to shove carnivorous beliefs down your throat.

 Growing food for farmed animals does take up valuable farmland; otherwise, could be growing food to feed humans. There is more to it than the human desire to consume meat though. Farmers are going to grow crops, that produce a decent yield, "financially." Animals don't care what their food looks like, what chemicals have been applied, or where it came from. These points make them the perfect consumer. My point is, make our market fair for the U.S. farmer, and they wouldn't be using our farmland to feed animals. Buy local, buy U.S. and refuse to buy imports. If we can change the consumer base, farmers will be forced to accommodate, and import/export laws, would be the first place to start.

"Animals don't care what their food looks like, what chemicals have been applied, or where it came from. These points make them the perfect consumer."

Hmm... that is an amazing statement! Have you informed the animals of this? Please get a chicken for a pet... let her forage... offer her apples... and other stuff... preferences are quite apparent... and even the manner/spirit in which the food is offered is important for animals, not just human animals.

BTW, I tried to get a link to share for the first chapter of "The Waste of the West" after discovering the one I had, had been disabled... Please try to find this book online.

It will clarify many misconceptions about the impacts of animal husbandry on natural terrain in North America.

L.S. Hope, I don't think having a discussion about any topic, including vegetarianism vs. omnivorism, is the same as "shoving" beliefs down people's throats. People can have polite and civil discussions, even when they disagree. If some people don't want to participate in such a discussion or debate, they are free not to.

Ms. Maietta, I had a pet rooster for two years while I was growing up. He did forage around our house for insects and seeds, but he also ate lizards and dog poop. The truth; my rooster tended to favor meat.(I'm not lying, I really did have a rooster, his name was Bird. He was a Rhode Island Red.)

 I said, "these points make them the perfect consumer," not, "animals shouldn't be able to forage." It cost more for U.S. farmers to raise animals, this is why so much of our meat is imported,(keeping it cheap, so we can consume more.) Change the laws and Americans would be forced to pay U.S. meat prices,(sky high prices.) If people can't afford it, they won't buy it.

  I'm not sure if my previous comment offended you, or you just wanted me to understand that animals have preferences. To make myself clear,  "I didn't write it with malice in mind, and I didn't intend for it to ruffle your feathers. I do understand that animals have preferences."

Mr. Sneed, I didn't come to the sustainable food cause to discuss why people think it is wrong/right to eat meat. I read Mr. Plotkin's article, and noticed a couple things, I felt, had been over looked. When you fail to acknowledge any point I've made, and you keep deferring back to animals rights, maybe it isn't me, that is choosing not to have a, "reasonable discussion."

L.S. Hope, I don't understand what you are talking about. I haven't said anything at all regarding the rightness or wrongness of eating or not eating meat other than a passing reference about the unsustainable amounts of meat eaten in this country. I also haven't said anything regarding animal rights. I said that most industrial farmers don't seem to know anything about farming anymore. As an example, I pointed out how this Mr. Hurst guy doesn't know anything about pigs or turkeys yet claims to be an expert on the topic. If I haven't acknowledged any of your points, perhaps it is because I don't understand what your point is.

From reading your comments, you seem to be saying that organic agriculture won't work because we've been using chemical fertilizers and pesticides for so long that we can't afford to not use them now. That may be true, but when the oil runs out we are going to have to find another way to farm, so why not start now? At least, why not support farmers who are making an effort to be more sustainable? Mr. Hurst, and other industrial farmers, seem to prefer to attack the sustainable agriculture movement by saying those who oppose industrial agriculture are naive or stupid. I was simply pointing out that Mr. Hurst and other industrial farmers are the ones who seem to be naive or stupid.

You also seem to be saying that the main problem with the human food supply is import/export laws. As I mentioned before, I agree that import/export laws are part of the problem.

I'm with you on not breeding more humans when we alreayd have more than we can feed. My wife and I do not have kids and plan to adopt instead of breed if we ever do decide to have kids. Check out the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement. You might find more ammo for your position there.

http://www.vhemt.org/

Thanks, Allen for the link! Very interesting movement to say the least. It is one that I was not aware of, but enjoyed reading- along with the other links on the site that led me to articles and books. I appreciate the info!

I don't know much about eating invasive species, but by definition they have to be hunted, so it's pretty much up to the hunters. I know several places have programs in place to encourage hunters to take care of invasive pig populations, as they can be very, very descructive to native habitats.

Humans- being the most invasive to this planet would have to be the first to go...but we wouldn't dare to think about eating each other.

Who would get to decide who is the most "invasive"? Humans? As long as they are still the most superior?

It's an interesting question Trent, but until we can control our own destructive ways, I honestly don't think we should still be controlling the other species.

We are only superior in our own minds.

WE are the most invasive, as humans. Time to stop justifying and acting superior.

Michele, invasive species are only there because humans put them there, like wild boar or Japanese honeysuckle in North America or rats and feral cats in Australia. Often times, particularly in previously isolated places like Australia, wreak havoc on the native wildlife, threatening native species with extinction. Are we supposed to just allow that to happen?

Or are you suggesting that it's okay as long as we shoot invasive humans as well? In which case you go right ahead and let me know how that works out for you.

Yes, humans are horribly destructive. But just sitting there and judging isn't a solution. What do you suggest we do to actually start solving some of these problems (keeping in mind that just telling people what to do never works)?

Yes, it's Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, the same thing as mad cow, and you get it from eating central nervous tissue infected with prions, which are essentially faulty, denatured proteins that cause healthy proteins to themselves denature, or unfold. The only human-to-human cases were found in tribes where it was part of their funeral rites to eat the brains of their deceased relatives. Similarly, cows got the disease by eating the ground up meat of other cows which included central nervous tissue (brain and/or spinal cord). So I think you could most likely eat just the meat and be safe, however the general issue is the same: a disease that might be in human flesh is already perfectly adapted to surviving in humans, and thus you probably wouldn't be able to defend against it, whereas if the disease is adapted to a different animal, in most cases it won't do so well in your system. This is why in general it is a very bad idea to feed animals to themselves, especially food animals.

Honestly though, I don't think many people would be up for eating other people even if it was totally safe, hahaha... besides, old people probably wouldn't taste very good. :p