vegetarian...?

Question

my parents r devoted meat eaters and laugh in teh face of my vegetarianism...i don't want to convert them, just help tehm to understand the benafits. i have tried to explain them my reasoning, but it doesn't work, have any tips on how to get tehm to accept me and my pro-animal beliefs? also, HI FELLOW VEGETARIANS!!!!!

also, biker personal ads are NOT APPRECIATED

also, i;ve been a vegetarian for 8 years, since kindergarten and they still don't accept me so...

Thanks guys! u rock....they still rn't really listening, but i think i made my point known so at least they aren't grumbling when i write tofu on the grocery list, or shoving meat in my face and on my plate.

Answer 1

Why be a vegetarian?
6 Reasons to go vegetarian

1.It is safer and healthier to be a vegetarian
“It is the position of the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada that appropriately planned vegetarian diets are healthful, nutritionally adequate and provide health benefits in the prevention and treatment of certain diseases.Well-planned vegan and other types of vegetarian diets are appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including during pregnancy, lactation, infancy, childhood and adolescence. Vegetarian diets offer a number of nutritional benefits, including lower levels of saturated fat, cholesterol, and animal protein as well as higher levels of carbohydrates, fiber, magnesium, potassium, folate, and antioxidants such as vitamins C and E and phytochemicals. Vegetarians have been reported to have lower body mass indices than nonvegetarians, as well as lower rates of death from ischemic heart disease; vegetarians also show lower blood cholesterol levels; lower blood pressure; and lower rates of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and prostate and colon cancer.”They may also have a lower risk for some other diseases such as constipation, diverticular disease, gallstones and appendicitis. Women who eat little or no meat are four times less likely to develop breast cancer than women who eat meat reguraly.An English study that compared the diets of 6,115 vegetarians and 5,015 meat eaters for 12 years found that the meatless diet yielded a 40 percent lower risk of cancer and a 20 percent lower risk of dying from any cause. According to William Castelli, M.D., director of the famed Framingham Heart Study, vegetarians outlive meat eaters by 3 to 6 years.After reviewing 4,500 scientific studies and papers on the relationship between cancer and lifestyle, a team of 15 scientists sponsored by two leading cancer research institutions advised that those interested in reducing their risk of many types of cancer consume a diet that is mostly fruits, vegetables, cereals and legumes. They declared that up to 40 percent of cancers are preventable, with diet, physical activity and body weight appearing to have a measurable bearing on risk. In 1996 the American Cancer Society released similar guidelines, including the recommendation that red meat be excluded entirely from the diet.Heart disease does not have to be a death sentence or mean a life of cholesterol-lowering drugs and bypass surgery. By prescribing a vegetarian diet, regular exercise and spiritual nourishment for his heart patients, Dean Ornish, M.D., proved that the progression of this number-one killer can be halted and even reversed.In 1995, 683,000 people died prematurely as a result of atherosclerosis-related diseases. In other words, they died largely as a result of their meat-eating ways. This figure represents 29 percent of all deaths for that year.

Meat contains 14 times the amount of pesticides as plant foods, since pesticides get concentrated as they move up through the food chain, and since they're more easily stored in fatty tissues.The EPA discovered that the breast milk of vegetarian women contained far lower levels of pesticides than that of average Americans. A study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine found that "The highest levels of contamination in the breast milk of the vegetarians was lower than the lowest level of contamination…(in) non-vegetarian women… The mean vegetarian levels were only 1-2% as high as the average levels in the U.S."In the fall of 1996, a study showed that prenatal exposure to PCBs, even relatively small amounts, can impair intellectual development in children. Aside from fish, PCBs can be found in other high-fat foods such as cheese, butter, beef and pork. Women who plan to become pregnant were also advised by the study to avoid foods containing PCBs because the chemicals can remain in their bodies for years.An early '90s EPA report found that 95 percent of human exposure to dioxin, a known carcinogen, comes from consuming red meat, fish and dairy products. Later, chicken and eggs were added to the list. Dioxin builds cumulatively in fatty tissue. The only way to flush it out is through rigorous fasting or via lactation. When a batch of dioxin-contaminated soybean feed entered the food chain in 1997, the FDA set limits on concentration at one part per trillion. If all animal foods were held to this standard, it is likely that many would not be cleared for human consumption.

In the United States, farm animals receive 30 times the antibiotics that people do--not so much to treat infection, but to make the animals grow faster on less feed. Though perfectly legal, the practice is, in effect, promoting the selection of antibiotic-resistant bacteria. Some of these bacteria can cause human diseases that physicians are finding difficult to treat. The practice is adding to the general worldwide crisis of drug-resistant disease. Each year, 60,000 Americans die because their medications were ineffective in combating bacterial strains.Every year, on average, each American becomes sick and 9,000 people die from something they ate. That something was probably of animal origin.Except in rare instances, neither the USDA nor the FDA has any regulatory powers on farms where pathogens originate. With the exception of E. coli O157:H7, dangerous bacteria are legally considered "inherent" to raw meat. It's up to consumers to neutralize pathogens with cooking. Two of the "legal" ones--campylobacter and salmonella--account for 80 percent of illnesses and 75 percent of deaths from meat and poultry. One hamburger can contain the meat of 100 different cows from four different countries. One infected animal can contaminate 16 tons of beef.The Centers for Disease Control estimates that campylobacter infects 70 to 90 percent of all chickens. Campylobacter infections give their human victims cramps, bloody diarrhea and fever and lead to death for up to 800 people in the United States each year. For 1,000 to 2,000 people per year, infection will lead to Guillain-Barré syndrome, a disease that requires intensive care for several weeks. A September 1997 sampling of supermarket chicken in Minnesota found 16 percent infected with an antibiotic-resistant strain of campylobacter.A USDA microbiologist declared in a Time magazine story on processed poultry that "the final product is no different than if you stuck it in the toilet and ate it." No wonder: A 1978 USDA rule allows poultry processors to wash contaminated birds rather than discard them or cut away affected parts. "Wash," as interpreted by the poultry industry, means "communal dunk" in what amounts to a virtual fecal soup that ensures salmonella cross-contamination.

Vegetarians have also been shown to have more endurance.At Yale, Professor Irving Fisher designed a series of tests to compare the stamina and strength of meat-eaters against that of vegetarians. He selected men from three groups: meat-eating athletes, vegetarian athletes, and vegetarian sedentary subjects. Fisher reported the results of his study in the Yale Medical Journal. His findings do not seem to lend a great deal of credibility to the popular prejudices that hold meat to be a builder of strength.
"Of the three groups compared, the... flesh-eaters showed far less endurance than the abstainers (vegetarians), even when the latter were leading a sedentary life."
Overall, the average score of the vegetarians was over double the average score of the meat-eaters, even though half of the vegetarians were sedentary people, while all of the meat-eaters tested were athletes.
A comparable study was done by Dr. J. Ioteyko of the Academie de Medicine of Paris. Dr. Ioteyko compared the endurance of vegetarians and meat-eaters from all walks of life in a variety of tests. The vegetarians averaged two to three times more stamina than the meat-eaters. Even more remarkably, they took only one-fifth the time to recover from exhaustion compared to their meat-eating rivals.
Wherever and whenever tests of this nature have been done, the results have been similar. Doctors in Belgium systematically compared the number of times vegetarians and meat-eaters could squeeze a grip-meter. The vegetarians won handily with an average of 69, whilst the meat-eaters averaged only 38. As in all other studies which have measured muscle recovery time, here, too the vegetarians bounced back from fatigue far more rapidly than did the meat-eaters.

2.It is better for the environment
Half of the water used in the U.S. is used for animal agriculture.Our topsoil is damaged by raising animals for food,we only have about 6 inches of topsoil left,It takes 500 years for 1 inch of topsoil to be created.Every year in the US an area the size of Connecticut is lost to topsoil erosion--85% of this erosion is associated with livestock production.
Waste from livestock in the United States amounts to 130 times the waste produced by people.The number of farm animals on earth has risen fivefold since 1950: humans are now outnumbered three to one.Every kilogram of beef we consume, according to research by the agronomists David Pimental and Robert Goodland, requires around 100,000 litres of water. Aquifers are beginning the run dry all over the world, largely because of abstraction by farmers.Approximately 1.3 billion cattle populate the earth at any one time. They exist artificially in these vast numbers to satisfy the excessive human demand for the meat and by-products they provide. Their combined weight exceeds that of the entire human population. By sheer numbers, their consequent appetite for the world's resources, have made them a primary cause for the destruction of the environment. (Within the 12-year period preceding 1992, the number of chickens worldwide increased 132% to 17.2 billion.)It takes an average of 2,500 gallons of water to produce a single pound of meat. According to Newsweek, "The water that goes into a 1,000 pound steer could float a destroyer." In contrast, it takes only 25 gallons of water to produce one pound of wheat.Feeding the average meat-eating American requires 3-1/4 acres of land per year. Feeding a person who eats no food derived from animals requires only 1/6 acre per year. Recent marginal growth in animal protein consumption in increasingly affluent developing countries has led to huge increases in the need for feed grains. In 1995, quite suddenly, China went from being an exporter to an importer of grain. World shortages are predicted as both populations and meat consumption rise together--an unsustainable combination. Early in 1996, the world was down to a 48-day supply of grain. According to Lester Brown of the Worldwatch Institute, the world "may have crossed a threshold where even the best efforts of governments to build stocks may not be enough."The passage of local laws favoring massive corporate pork operations in North Carolina recently propelled the state into the number two spot in national hog production, practically overnight. In terms of manure, the state might as well have grafted the human population of New York City onto its coastal plain, times two! Studies by North Carolina State University estimate that half of the some 2,500 open hog manure cesspools (euphemistically termed "lagoons"), now needed as part of hog productions there, are leaking contaminants such as nitrate--a chemical linked to blue-baby syndrome--into the ground water. In the summer of 1995, at least five lagoons actually broke open, letting loose tens of millions of gallons of hog waste into rivers and on to neighboring farm lands. No mechanical method of retrieval exists that cleans contaminants from groundwater. Only nature is able to purify things again; and that could take several generations.Worldwide demand for fish, along with advances in fishing methods--sonar, driftnets, floating refrigerated fish packing factories--is bringing ocean species, one after another, to the brink of extinction. In the Nov., '95 edition of Scientific American, Carl Safina writes, "For the past two decades, the fishing industry has had increasingly to face the result of extracting [fish] faster than fish populations [can] reproduce." Research reveals that the intended cure--aquaculture (fish farming)--actually hastens the trend toward fish extinction, while disrupting delicate coastal ecosystems at the same time.A scientist, reporting in the industry publication Confinement, calculated in 1976 that the planet's entire petroleum reserves would be exhausted in 13 years if the whole world were to take on the diet and technological methods of farming used in the US. Trees are being cut down at an alarming rate in the US, as well as around the world, for meat production. If tomorrow people in the US made a radical change away from their meat-centered diets, an area of land the size of all of Texas and most of Oklahoma could be returned to forest.It is estimated that livestock production accounts for twice the amount of pollution in the US as that produced by industrial sources. Livestock in the US produce 20 times the excrement of the entire US population. Since farm animals today spend much or all of their lives in factory sheds or feedlots, their waste no longer serves to fertilize pastures a little at a time. One poultry researcher, according to United Poultry Concerns literature, explains: "A one-million-hen complex will produce 125 tons of wet manure a day." To responsibly store, disperse, or degrade this amount of animal waste is simply not possible. Much of the waste inevitably is flushed into rivers and streams. Becoming a vegetarian does more to clean up our nation's water than any other single action.Methane is one of the four greenhouse gasses that contributes to the environmental trend known as global warming. The 1.3 billion cattle in the world produce one fifth of all the methane emitted into the atmosphere.Meat contains no essential nutrients that cannot be obtained directly from plant sources. Agricultural engineers have compared the energy costs of producing poultry, pork and other meats with the energy costs of producing a number of plant foods. Since so much fossil fuel is needed to produce it, beef could be considered a petroleum product. With factory housing, irrigation, trucking, and refrigeration, as well as petrochemical fertilizer production requiring vast amounts of energy, approximately one gallon of gasoline goes into every pound of grain-fed beef.The direct and hidden costs of soil erosion and runoff in the US, mostly attributable to cattle and feed crop production, is estimated at $44 billion a year. Each pound of feedlot beef can be equated with 35 pounds of eroded topsoil.A nationwide switch to a pure vegetarian diet would allow us to cut our oil imports by 60%.Compared to a vegan diet, three days of a typical American diet requires as much water as you use for showering all year (assuming you shower every day).An acre of land can produce 20,000 pounds of potatoes, but only 165 pounds of beef. In the U.S., 260 million acres of forest have been destroyed for use as agricultural land to support our meat diet (over 1 acre per person). Since 1967, the rate of deforestation has been one acre every five seconds. For every acre cleared for urban development, seven acres are cleared to graze animals or grow feed for them.

3.It can fight and help end world hunger
There is more than enough food in the world to feed the entire human population. So why are more than 840 million people still going hungry?Livestock already consume 70% the world's grain, and their numbers are still growing almost exponentially.This is why biotechnology - whose promoters claim that it will feed the world - has been deployed to produce not food but feed: it allows farmers to switch from grains which keep people alive to the production of more lucrative crops for livestock. Within as little as 10 years, the world will be faced with a choice: arable farming either continues to feed the world's animals or it continues to feed the world's people. It cannot do both. The impending crisis will be accelerated by the depletion of both phosphate fertiliser and the water used to grow crops.For every sixteen pounds of dood we put into cattle,we only get one pound in return.By cycling grain through livestock, we lose 90% of the protein, 96% of the calories, all of its carbohydrates, and all of its nutritional fiber.It was found that even the least efficient plant food was nearly 10 times as efficient in returning food energy as the most energy efficient animal food.Out of the 40 poorest countries in the world,we buy grain from 38 of them to feed U.S. livestock for our meat supply.Eighty percent of starving children live in countries that actually have food surpluses; the children remain hungry because farmers use the surplus grain to feed animals instead of people.The Guardian explains that there's only one solution: "It now seems plain that [a vegan diet] is the only ethical response to what is arguably the world's most urgent social justice issue."
According to Dr. Waldo Bello, executive director of the Institute for Food and Development Policy, "[t]here is enough food in the world for everyone. But tragically, much of the world's food and land resources are tied up in producing beef and other livestock—food for the well-off—while millions of children and adults suffer from malnutrition and starvation. In Central America, staple crop production has been replaced by cattle ranching, which now occupies two-thirds of the arable land."

Answer 2

Don't worry, if your family is much like mine, because of poor health plus so-called age related infirmities that pile up as they become older -- they might later switch to a diet consisting of much less meat if they don't completely kick the meat habit.

I often wonder if I had started out a vegetarian, would my health have been better?

Carry-on and I know there will be continuing good health for you as a side benefit of your concern for animals.

Answer 3

You can start by telling them you just want them to respect your decision. You can also give them reasons to better appreciate your decision. You can base this on issues of environmental concern, animal welfare or health.

I've included resources below. At the 2nd link you can download the documentary film "Meet Your Meat" and burn it onto a DVD or video CD.

WARNING: Meet Your Meat is pretty harsh. It's real footage, but it's tough to view.

Answer 4

Since you've been a veggie for eight years and they still refuse to respect your point of view, it really sounds like they are not going to anytime soon. (unfortunately).
My parents are not really receptive of me being a veggie either. I've learned to live and let live. If they want to die at an early age, that's their business. I cannot try to educate them about the atrocities of meat if they don't want to hear it.
Good luck!

Answer 5

You have to take baby steps in doing this. Eventually, one day they will aceept that you don't like eating meat and want to be a vegetarian. If they accept who you are, then tell them that if they don't accept you for what you eat, then they don't accept you for who you are as a human being. I don't enjoy eating meat myself, but I need the vitamins and nutrients that can be found in meat. If you want (and I believe this), it is okay to eat a max of 2 ounces of meat per day, but don't push it. Your parents should understand what you eat and what you do.