Summary. A movement toward Paleolithic living has recently reached critical mass. Many books on paleo and primal diets are now flooding the market. One such book is The Vegetarian Myth by the Lierre Keith. Others include:

• The Paleo Diet: Lose Weight and Get Healthy by Eating the Food You Were Designed to Eat
• The Paleo Solution: The Original Human Diet
• Primal Body, Primal Mind: Beyond the Paleo Diet for Total Health and a Longer Life
• The Primal Blueprint: Reprogram your genes for effortless weight loss, vibrant health, and boundless energy

Paleo/Primal Diets. Paleo diets or primal diets are typically high in meat and advocate the consumption of foods similar to what would have been eaten 2.6 million years ago. The rationale is that humans have not evolved, but instead, “our physiology is fundamentally the same as that of people from the Paleolithic Era…” — approximately 2.6 million years ago. [Primal Body, Page 5] The claim is made that we are genetically 99% identical to our ancestors, so we should eat like them. Yet, paleo-advocates fail to acknowledge that just being genetically similar to our ancestors, or other primates, doesn’t mean we should eat their diet.

The Vegetarian Myth. Lierre Keith’s book provides a useful template and expresses the general principles and teachings brought forth in other similar books. In summary, Lierre Kieth argues that the human body is designed to eat the foods that we were eating 4 million years ago. She cites archeological evidence that shows humans were tall, strong, and had all their teeth for 4 million years up until the time of agriculture — and this is proof that vegetables are killing us (or at least a diet without enough meat). Further down this page is an interview with Lierre Keith who discusses her beliefs about vegetarianism as presented in her book The Vegetarian Myth. Rather than being pro-paleo, after 20 years as living as a vegan, Keith is waging an anti-vegetarianism crusade (as her book title implies). What Keith seems to overlook is that the advent of agriculture did not just impact our access to vegetables (those are easy to hunt), but it dramatically increased our access to meat. So, it’s more likely that we began eating more meat due to agriculture, and this has caused our modern-day illnesses. Because vegetarians compose a small part of western society, our illnesses are more likely due to eating meat than vegetarianism. Furthermore, wellness or illness are not simply determined from diet. There are many other factors that contribute to improved health (e.g. proper sleep, hydration, exercise, and reduced stress).

Dangers of Primal and Paleo Diets. There are some shortcomings of the romanticized primal and paleo diets. It’s difficult to know exactly what people ate 2 to 4 million years ago. We can assume that whatever they ate, it probably wasn’t prepared or cooked in a way agreeable to our tastes. It would have been fairly rudimentary. Don’t expect to see any Paleo or Primal cooking shows on late night TV anytime soon. It’s also difficult to get comprehensive and meaningful medical records of a sufficiently large population of people to make any conclusions. If we find one cave person frozen in ice who is several million years old, it’s tempting to start making some broad sweeping generalizations about all humans at that time. However, that’s simply not a scientific way to arrive at conclusions. What we know about human health today, based on scientific facts, is the following:

• According to the Mayo Clinic, “a well-planned vegetarian diet can meet the needs of people of all ages, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breast-feeding women.”
• According to the American Heart Association, “Most vegetarian diets are low in or devoid of animal products. They’re also usually lower than nonvegetarian diets in total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol. Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer. ”
• According to a statement by GNC, “Vegetarians and vegans are among the healthiest people in the world.”

Historic Record. While paleo / primal living advocates conjure up an image of humans being hunters, reliable sources indicate, “The earliest humans probably lived primarily on scavenging, not actual hunting. Early humans in the Lower Paleolithic lived in mixed habitats which allowed them to collect seafood, eggs, nuts, and fruits besides scavenging.” [source] Present-day scientific and medical data points to vegetarianism as a healthier way to live and this is supported by historic records. For example, an ancient document relates an exchange that took place around 600 BC between four vegetarians and a meat eater who had detained them.

Vegetarians: “Please let us eat a vegan diet.”

Meat Eater: “I am afraid… Why should [people] see you looking worse than the other young men your age?”

Vegetarians: “Please test your servants for ten days: Give us nothing but vegetables to eat and water to drink. Then compare our appearance with that of the young men who eat [meat], and treat your servants in accordance with what you see.”

At the end of the ten days they looked healthier and better nourished than any of the young men who ate [meat]. So the guard took away [the meat] and gave them vegetables instead.

These four young men [gained] knowledge and understanding of all kinds of literature and learning.

There is a scientific explanation for what transpired above. Because heavy foods require more of the body’s energy (and blood) to digest, by eating lighter foods and drinking plenty of water, these vegetarians were able to keep their brains functioning optimally. Presumably, the vegetables were less likely to be carriers of various diseases and toxins common in meats then (and now).

Historic Life Expectancy Rates. Those promoting Paleo / Primal diets are quick to point out the problems with modern-day western diet and medicine. Yet, life expectancy rates are higher now than ever before in history. So, the evolution and refinement of our food, diet, and lifestyle doesn’t seem to be harming us too much. Perhaps history teaches us that getting away from a Paleo diet has allowed people to live up to 4 times longer.

Diet and Ethics. There are many reasons for becoming a vegetarian. Health benefits are just one reason. Some people choose vegetarianism out of concern for the exploitation of animals and animal suffering. Such people choose ethics rather than personal health as the bottom line for their food choices. For these vegetarians, even if it were proven that their diet would result in living 5 years less, they would remain vegetarian. Even among meat eaters, if they were told that eating kittens would provide nutritional benefits allowing them to live a healthy long life, many would simply forgo kitten consumption.

Diet and Exploitation. As we increasingly recognize and feel our global connectedness, people are making choices based on compassion rather than their economic cost.

• As an advocate for women’s rights, Lierre Keith campaigns against the pornography industry, citing that women are typically demeaned and exploited by that industry.
  • The porn consumer would argue that they gain benefit, pleasure, and perhaps longevity and health through the consumption of porn. The porn consumer might express that they aren’t concerned about the welfare or possible exploitation of those involved in the creation of porn — their personal gain and benefit exceeds their concern.
• Human rights activists campaign against companies and factories that engage in labor practices that exploit workers.
  • Like the consumer of porn, the person who buys products manufactured by exploited workers would argue that they gain value, savings, and ultimately free time through the economic exploitation of someone else’s time/labor. Their gain means more to them than concern for others.
• Vegetarians and animal welfare advocates express concern about the suffering and exploitation of animals for human consumption.
  • The meat eater would argue that what they believe they are gaining in health benefits from meat is more important than any concern about animals being killed.

So, in all three examples above, people sometimes choose pleasure or personal gain even when their choice may result in someone else’s suffering. War is perhaps the greatest expression of this truth, and results in indiscriminate suffering and destruction on many levels, usually for personal gain (e.g. oil, security, land, resources, labor, etc.) So, it’s the same thinking process and values system that leads one to consume porn, exploit workers, eat meat, and wage war. In general, it’s selfishness and short sighted.

Holistic Compassion. What sometimes happens is that people become compartmentalized and insular with regard to their compassion. A person might be concerned about the exploitation of women, yet simultaneously exploit vulnerable and innocent animals by killing them and eating them. The contradiction and hypocrisy isn’t visible to the person who has become insulated by the self fabricated cocoon of self righteous indignation toward the suffering of a certain group (e.g. women, workers, or animals). Compassion that isn’t holistic is often contradictory and hypocritical — or at least it’s incomplete compassion. What’s needed to change the world is holistic compassion.

Video. The video below is an interview with Lierre Keith who discusses her beliefs about vegetarianism as presented in her book The Vegetarian Myth. This video is a helpful tool in identifying your own irrational thinking as well as that of others. Note: Lierre Keith seems to be a sincere and passionate person. The commentary below is not meant to be an attack of her, but simply a response to and commentary upon the teachings that she and millions of other profess.

Commentary. Below are quotes from the interview and responses to those statements.

• Claim. [0:00-0:13, 2:19-2:33] For millions of years, humans have been, “… tall, and strong, and they keep all their teeth and their bones are disease free until you hit agriculture, and then suddenly everybody shrinks six inches and they loose their teeth and their bones are riddled with disease.”
  • Response. One form of irrational thinking is to assume a cause and effect where there is none. Advocates of Paleolithic living claim that agriculture has resulted in a decline of health among humans. However, they tend to overemphasize the role of agriculture – since health and wellness involves a holistic array of many factors, not just diet. Of course, the onset of agriculture did not usher in vegetarianism. So, any decline in human health was probably due to something other than vegetarianism. The opposite is more likely. Hunting and gathering produced a small amount of meat, but raising animals for meat consumption has allowed us to eat more meat than any other time in history. So, in fact, the onset of agriculture has resulted in an increase of meat eating and that has caused us to shrink, and caused our teeth to fall out, and caused or bones to be riddled with disease. Today we have people who predominantly eat meat, yet they get sick just like anyone else. Some of the illnesses we see today are a result of people living longer.
• Claim. [1:43-1:51] “There’s a human template that needs certain nutritional elements and they are not provided by a vegetarian diet.”
  • Response. This is simply a fable that is easily disproven by scientific and medical facts. Were this true, then billions of people in primarily vegetarian countries would all be malnourished.
    • According to the Mayo Clinic, “a well-planned vegetarian diet can meet the needs of people of all ages, including children, teenagers, and pregnant or breast-feeding women.”
    • According to the American Heart Association, “Most vegetarian diets are low in or devoid of animal products. They’re also usually lower than nonvegetarian diets in total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol. Many studies have shown that vegetarians seem to have a lower risk of obesity, coronary heart disease (which causes heart attack), high blood pressure, diabetes mellitus and some forms of cancer. ”
• Claim. [1:52-2:02] “You can go back 4 million years to the very beginning of the human race and there is no question that we were hunters. This is what we ate for literally 4 million years, and it’s the reason we have really big brains.”
  • Response. This is another good example of assigning a causal relationship where none exists (e.g. hunting = big brains).  First of all, the size of a brain doesn’t determine the level of intelligence. Women’s brains are generally smaller than men’s brains, yet women’s brains are more dense and computationally greater.
    • “…studies suggest larger animals may need bigger brains simply because there is more to control — for example they need to move bigger muscles and therefore need more and bigger nerves to move them…” [source]
• Claim. [2:02-2:20] We have the largest brain of any primate and the smallest digestive tract. Which is to say, ‘How are you going to feed that brain?’ Our brains use 25% of our energy needs, and you’re not going to get that out of plants. It’s quite clear that we must have been eating meat to get brains that are this large.”
  • Response. The assumption that we have large brains and so we must have been meat eaters is another good example of assigning a causal relationship where none exists. Other animals with big brains are vegetarians, and some animals with small brains are meat eaters. The other question is that of how one measures the brain. Is it only based on the size of the brain, or is the measurement and comparison based on size of brain with respect to the size of the body.
• Claim. [3:08-3:42] “saving the planet, and all these political concerns about oppression… It all comes together when you learn about veganism because you can stop oppressing animals and you can stop polluting the earth and you can feed hungry people. It makes a total picture. You get this complete plan, if you just eat this way. … except none of it is true, and that’s the problem.”
  • Response. Other than the assertion that the benefits of veganism are false, no facts are presented that could be refuted.
    • “Vegans are frequently misunderstood as fringe eaters with an unnatural passion for animal rights. While many vegans do feel passionately about animals, its time for others to see that a vegan diet and lifestyle go way beyond animal rights. Following a healthy, balanced vegan diet ensures a host of health benefits as well as prevention of some of the major diseases striking people in North America. Read these blogs to find out about the health benefits or going vegan or just provide better information to your patients.” ~ 57 Health Benefits of Going Vegan
• Claim. [4:29-4:36] “There’s a whole generation of us now who have been through this. We tried it. It didn’t work. Our health collapsed, and we had to try something new.”
  • Response. One of the mistakes people often make when embracing a new way of thinking or living is that our old was didn’t work for us and so it can’t work for anyone else. In our zeal, we can sometimes believe that the way we think and live is the way that everyone else must think and live. This seems to be the mistake made by meat eaters who try to push their way of life on others.
• Claim. [4:49-5:02] “The problem with protein that comes from plant sources is that its wrapped in cellulose. We have no way to digest cellulose. We’ve got that one stomach. So, we can’t eat grass.”
  • Response. Anyone who claims we can’t eat grass has probably been smoking it. Not only can we eat grass, the benefits of consuming grasses such as wheatgrass are well documented. The benefits are so obvious that even carnivorous cats will instinctively eat grass for the many benefits.
• Claim. [5:15-5:29] “There are fat soluble nutrients you cannot get from plants. Vitamin A, Vitamin D, Vitamin K2, Vitamin E. You cannot get these from plants. They don’t exist in plant foods. They are essential. You will die without them.”
  • Response. That’s a persuasive argument for eating animal products. However, it doesn’t explain why or how billions of vegetarians have lived long lives for many generations in countries such as India, where meat eating is not common. It also doesn’t explain why vegetarian athletes and vegan athletes perform so well. For example, Dave Scott is a six-time winner of the Iron Man Triathlon competition. He holds the world record for the most victories ever. If meat eating produces superior results, then why do vegetarians and vegans commonly out perform meat eaters? Why don’t they die?
• Claim. [26:52-]26:58 “A nuclear disaster is better for the planet than civilization.”
  • Response. This is an example of misplaced aggression and blame. The claim being made is that civilization does more harm to the planet than a nuclear disaster, and the evidence of this is that at the Chernobyl location, there are animals living together in harmony, but no people, except women. So, presumably, according to this logic what we need is a world devoid of men, and then there won’t be any problems. There’s a lot wrong with that line of thinking, but for starters, the overconsumption, war, crime, and destruction caused by today’s civilization is really just a problem of over population. A smaller civilization based on sustainable principles and better ethics would not create the same problems we have today.

Conclusion. For the remainder of the interview, Lierre Keith seems fairly coherent and rational, which is a demonstration of how people can have one area of their life be based on irrational and unscientific beliefs while other areas of their life are founded on rational and scientifically based facts. It’s fairly evident that Keith believes her 20 years of vegetarianism caused her to develop a degenerative spinal disease, and so her book and campaign against vegetarianism seems to be partly retaliation and misdirected projection of anger toward vegetarianism.

Lierre Keith’s campaign and crusade takes conclusions and choices from a personal experience and projects that to all those around her. Rather than saying, “This is the path I’m choosing,” she speaks in broad-reaching proclamations, denouncing her old way of life and declaring that her new way of life is the way everyone should live. This is common among people who go from one religion to another. They denounce the old religion and point out all its flaws, and then portray the new religion as the only truth. It’s most pronounced in cult-like sectarian insular groups of adherents to religious, philosophical, intellectual, or social-based practices and beliefs.

Commentary. Below is a commentary from Greg Johnson about thoughts on meat eating and vegetarianism.

“My grandmother was a two-pack-a-day smoker. She drank alcohol and she was overweight. She regularly ate meat and foods high in cholesterol and animal fat. She lived a full life, and lived into her 90s. Yet, I don’t think one anecdotal story should be the basis for people’s life choices.

Those who eat meat, and think they are making a better choice for their health and the planet will likely be let down. It’s like someone becoming a Christian with the voodoo-like belief that Jesus will ward off all of life’s problems. Either belief is based on irrational thinking.

No religion is going to be perfect and cure all of life’s ills. Similarly, no diet is going to be an elixir that saves you from all health problems. In fact, wellness and health is much broader than just a matter of what we eat.

I’m saddened when I see people peddling philosophies, religions, practices, or lifestyles with a promise of it being a cure-all. So many people are hurting, and want to believe, and they are sucked in by such sincere presentations, only to be disappointed, and ultimately lose faith, loose hope, and become jaded.

We need to think, speak, and live holistically. We need to respect and understand ‘the other’ while holding to our own identity and beliefs. In seeking to understand ‘the other’ we’ll see ourself in them, and realize how much we all have in common.” ~ Greg Johnson

Alternative Possibilities. Below are a few possible reasons why Lierre Keith is on her crusade against vegetarianism.

• Cult Psychology. Certainly not all vegans or vegetarians have a cult-like identity to the movement. However, some people, regardless of what group they join, develop an unhealthy obsessive cult-like adherence and commitment to the cause. This happens in other areas of society such as politics or multi-level marketing. When someone is an obsessive passionate vegan, and then switches to become an obsessive passionate meat eater, it’s fairly clear that the person has the kind of personality that results in them wanting to belong to some group or cause. When most people change their diet, they don’t feel compelled to write a book discrediting their previous diet.
• Hoax. One possibility is that the Lierre Keith campaign against vegetarianism is a hoax in the Steven Colbert tradition, to make meat eaters seem stupid.
• Human Annihilation. Keith stated clearly her sentiments about civilization causing harm to the planet when she said a nuclear disaster would be better for the planet than civilization. Her crusade to get humans to eat meat may, possibly, be a high level strategy that ironically allows animals to kill off all the people through our consumption of them. Given the health problems associated with ingesting large quantities of meat and animal byproducts, it’s possible Keith is attempting to crash the system by promoting meat eating.
• Troll. It’s possible that she’s an anarchist “troll” without any particular agenda other than agitation and creating dissidence.
• Mind Control. She may be the target of a mind control experiment, who has somehow been brainwashed to channel the words programmed by her controllers. This possibility is less plausible.
• Retaliation. In the interview above, Keith shares that she became a vegan at a time in her life when she was very impressionable (16 years old). Presumably one or more people influenced her decision to become vegan. She further shares that eating vegan (she believes) caused her to develop a degenerative disease. So, it’s likely that she has some resentment and bitterness toward the people who (she believes) injured her health, or at least some ill feelings toward the movement.
• Sensationalism. It may be that she’s drawn to the sensationalism of being a 20-year vegan and animal rights advocate who is now promoting meat consumption.

Transcendent Activism
and the
Sholom Rubashkin Sentencing
by Gregory Johnson

On 8 April 2010, I posted an article about the Agriprocessors slaughterhouse in Postville and the Sholom Rubashkin Sentencing. Since I am a vegetarian animal welfare advocate and the article was not critical of Rubashkin or Agriprocessors, it was considered as offering an interesting perspective.

Within hours, the article was copied and posted to a half-dozen websites around the world. A flurry of discussion, debate, and speculation ensued. I was interviewed by producer and talk radio host Zev Brenner about the article.

Eventually my story came to the attention of the attorneys and federal judge involved in the Rubashkin sentencing that took place on April 28 and 29. The final ruling in the most recent Rubashkin case will be May 27. [source]

As you will read below, the points made in my article about Sholom Rubashkin were eventually echoed and supported by six former U.S. attorneys general (last week), 17 Justice Department veterans (last week), the U.S. Supreme Court (this week), the Iowa Secretary of Agriculture, top specialists of the Orthodox Union, and over 38,000 signers of a petition requesting fair treatment of Sholom Rubashkin [source]. Though Rubashkin was at one time accused of about 100,000 labor violations, and tried for about 100 labor violations, on 7 June 2010 a court found him not guilty on all charges.

My apparent defense of Rubashkin and Agriprocessors (or my lack of hatred toward them) perplexed people who know of my long-time passionate advocacy for animal welfare, environmental justice, gun control, worker’s rights, food safety, fairness in politics, reductions in illegal drug use, ethics in business, and my support of Latino culture and community all dating back to the early 1980s.

According to various allegations (and some hearsay), Agriprocessors and Rubashkin (through his association with Agriprocessors) have possibly been in violation of laws impacting every single issue and cause that I’m most passionate about and have worked so hard to defend.

The allegations and charges against Rubashkin and Agriprocessors are severe and include 86 federal financial fraud charges [source], 83 misdemeanor state child-labor charges [source], illegal dumping of contaminated waste [source], over 9,300 counts of labor violations [source], and more than 90,000 additional labor violations [source]. In July 2007, the Food Safety and Inspection Service of the USDA demanded a recall of over 35,000 pounds of meat [source]. According to Stephen Bloom, “There was gun trafficking on the slaughterhouse floor. There was drug trafficking on the slaughterhouse floor. … there was an allegation that there was a methamphetamine lab in the plant.” [source] Total fines and penalties for all violations may exceed 10 million dollars and the federal prosecutors were originally asking for a lifetime sentence for Rubashkin.

Based on the mountain of charges against Rubashkin, why speak out in his defense?

Below are the reasons I’ve spoken out regarding Sholom Rubashkin. They are listed in alphabetical order.

• Animal Rights, Vegetarianism, and the Environment. I first became outspoken about the Agriprocessors plant after visiting the plant with a small group in March 2006. I felt that the PETA covert video campaign against the plant was excessive, counter productive, and a misrepresentation, so I wrote an article about it at that time: http://www.resourcesforlife.com/docs/item46. I was not the only person to tour the plant and conclude that it was similar to other slaughterhouses. The Iowa Secretary of Agriculture, Patty Judge, also toured the plant and stated, “What I saw today was humane.” [source] Numerous other specialists and professionals arrived at the same conclusion including an international veterinary expert on Kosher slaughter [source] and the Orthodox Union specialists on Kosher slaughter [source]. According to the Orthodox Union, “Rabbi Menachem Genack, Rabbinic Administrator of the OU Kashrut Division, and Rabbi Yisroel Belsky, one of its distinguished poskim (rabbinic decisors), traveled to Postville, Iowa, to review the procedures at the AgriProcessors plant. They found that these procedures meet all OU standards to the highest degree, and that the shochtim (rabbinic slaughterers) are all highly proficient, skilled and knowledgeable.” [source] The real problem with the meat industry is that there is no entirely kind way to kill and eat animals. Even the USDA guidelines stipulate that it’s reasonable for 5% of animals to suffer during slaughter from not being killed in the first attempt. [source] Of the 10 billion animals killed every year in America alone [source], it’s expected that 500 million of them per year are suffering at the time of slaughter. A video created at any slaughterhouse in America could easily show 50 animals out of every 1000 suffering at the time of slaughter. All a person needs to do, is get video footage of several thousand kills (the daily average for one of the 5,700 slaughterhouses in America) and you could put together a relatively long video showing suffering animals. Anyone can do this in any slaughterhouse. Representing that a strategically edited 3-minute video depicts normal events in any given slaughterhouse is slanderous and a diversion from the real issue. The case for animal rights and vegetarianism or veganism does not need the assistance of quasi-terrorist groups or edited videos. Furthermore, the excessive graphic presentation of animal suffering in the news, movies, and in activist “shock and awe” videos has the reverse effect in society. It eventually numbs people to the pain of animal suffering. Many of the campaigns conducted by groups like PETA and the Animal Liberation Front do more harm than good for the advancement of animal rights. Similar groups, like Earth First, advocate action such as SUV arson [source]. It only takes a few violent extremists to turn our society against animal welfare advocates and those working for environmental protection. Years of progress can be lost and reversed in a day. The benefits of using non-animal foods and products are obvious: better land usage, lower negative environmental impact, more nutritious food, and no animal suffering. One doesn’t need to resort to extremist acts to make a case for vegetarianism and compassion toward animals. For a balanced and rational presentation about the benefits of vegetarianism and better environmental stewardship, watch the video Diet for a New America.
• Civic Duty. When a person witnesses an automobile accident, it is customary to stay at the scene of the accident and provide an eye witness report to the police who write up an accident report. This is part of our civic duty. As a witness we don’t take sides, but simply relate objectively what we saw. In the case of the Agriprocessors slaughterhouse, considering the claims that others were making, I felt it was my duty to speak up about what I’d seen there.
• Dubious Claims. I personally find it difficult to believe that Sholom Rubashkin (or Agriprocessors) could be guilty of the almost 100,000 violations some are claiming. Was Rubashkin personally responsible for all the violations he’s accused of? For example, Stephen Bloom states, “There was gun trafficking on the slaughterhouse floor. There was drug trafficking on the slaughterhouse floor. … there was an allegation that there was a methamphetamine lab in the plant.” [source] Were these claims to be true, one would think that the federal agents who raided the facility would have mentioned finding guns or drugs to help justify the extreme measures taken in the raid. However, in the same way that weapons of mass destruction never materialized in Iraq, the guns, drugs, and methamphetamine lab in the slaughterhouse never materialized. At the time of this writing, it seems that about 99,800 of the various charges and accusations were dropped and less than 200 remain.
• Fairness. My call for judicial restraint and fairness to be extended to Sholom Rubashkin was misunderstood by some and was met with harsh criticism. However, on 26 April 2010, a few days before the final sentencing was to take place, six former U.S. attorneys general and 17 other Justice Department veterans signed a lengthy appeal letter that made similar requests for fairness as those in my article. [source] Their letter is now publicly available. [source PDF]
• Judaism. Tel Aviv University recently conducted a study on anti-Semitism and discovered a 100 percent increase in worldwide anti-Semitic violence from 2008 to 2009 [source PDF]. Nobody is suggesting that Sholom Rubashkin is on trial because of his religion. However, Stephen Bloom’s book on Postville (first published in 2000) describes a backdrop of anti-semitism in the community of Postville as far back as 10 years ago. Given the world climate and local sentiments, it would be completely naive to assume that anti-Semitism played no role at all in the numerous unsubstantiated accusations about Rubashkin. Indeed, some of the most vocal opponents to my article were predisposed to being antagonistic toward Rubashkin simply because he is a member of Chabad-Lubavitcher Judaism. As a minority within a minority, adherents to Lubavitcher Judaism are sometimes fighting battles from without and within the larger Jewish community. Although I’m not Jewish, having been raised in the Unitarian Universalist tradition, I appreciate and draw from various religious traditions including Judaism. To the extent that anti-Semitism was a factor in the Rubashkin case, I felt it was necessary to defend the Jewish community against false accusations by speaking the truth about my first-hand eye-witness experiences.
• Justice Reform. In May of 2009, I wrote an article reflecting on the federal raid of Agriprocessors in which I suggested that the federal raid and treatment of employees was too harsh: http://www.resourcesforlife.com/docs/item1839. On 15 May 2009 the article was published by a local newspaper and posted to their website. [source] I received immense criticism. However, two days ago, on 4 May 2010, now approximately two years after the raid, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that errors were made during the raid, and confirmed much of what I said in my article. [source]
• National Security. We are currently facing unprecedented threats to our local and national security. In my town alone, tornados and floods have caused millions of dollars in damage in recent years. We’ve not fully recovered nor have we fully prepared ourselves for the next wave of natural disasters. Until we do, lives are at stake. Yet, funding is limited. Cybercrime and cyber attacks are a real threat to Iowa and the nation. Last week, Leon Panetta, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, stated that the next “Pearl Harbor” is likely to be an attack on United States’ power, financial, military, and other Internet systems [source]. This week we learned that two generals who were former chairs of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are now stating that obesity is a threat to national security [source]. Given the significant threats to national security, and our substantial shortage of funding, it doesn’t seem prudent to invest so much time, energy, and money in prosecuting and incarcerating someone who, according to six former U.S. attorneys general and 17 other Justice Department veterans is not a serious threat to society. [news source | source PDF]
• Transcendent Activism. I’ve written at length of the topic of effective activism. There is an aspect of effective activism I call transcendent activism which I can explain with a story. I was once attending an environmentalist meeting in Iowa. Excited to be with like minded people, I began talking to the people at my table. I soon discovered they were all hunters! For a brief moment, I struggled thinking to myself, “as an animal welfare advocate, how could I sit and chat with these people?!” Yet, I soon realized that despite our differences regarding compassion toward wildlife, we were all passionate about the importance of wilderness preservation and environmental protection. They wanted wilderness as a place to kill animals. I wanted wilderness as a place for animals to live. Yet, we both wanted to preserve our Iowa wilderness. That was a transcendent moment for me as an activist. There are numerous social issues, causes, and challenges we face. Despite our differing views on some issues, we must come together and work together to solve the common problems we face as a society. Transcendence in activism involves being honest, fair, and compassionate even if it means reaching out to someone we may disagree with. In the case of Sholom Rubashkin, it is my belief that he and his business were wrongly and excessively slandered and misrepresented by an animal rights campaign gone bad. The campaign did as much harm to him as it did to the cause of animal rights. Someone from the animal rights community needed to stand up and say something about it. I didn’t see anyone else volunteering, so I spoke out. In the future, as animal rights activists, we may need to work collaboratively on an issue with people who are in the business of animal slaughtering. It’s short sighted to burn bridges and alienate people unnecessarily. Someone who read my article wrote me this response, “Greg thanks for your article on the meat packing plant. I have family in Iowa and friends in Indiana that are employed in the meat packing. I hate it when they are protrayed as animal absuers, when all they are trying to do is make their living.” Rather than alienating the industry we are trying to reform, it’s better to befriend them and work toward a better future.

This document is currently posted for review. If you are not reading this on the ResourcesForLife.com website, you are probably reading a reprint of this document posted to another website or via a newsfeed reader. If so, the original and most current version is here: http://www.resourcesforlife.com/docs/item2915

Thanks for taking time to read this report. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions for improving this document.

Regards,

Gregory Johnson

* * *

About the Photo. The photo above was taken in 2008 during a trip I took to India. In the picture, I am feeding prasad (blessed food) to one of the local cows that roam freely in neighborhood streets. I chose that particular photo to include with this article because it conveys my sentiments regarding kindness toward and reverence of all beings.

Summary. Food Inc., available on DVD or Blu-ray, is a documentary about the production of food in the United States.

Overview. The movie shares startling facts about the corporate ownership of genetically modified soybeans that represent 80% of the soybeans in the nation. Those who grow these soybeans without authorization, will be prosecuted. Those who speak out against the potential dangers of meat consumption, are also prosecuted. The film also details the political leaders who are regulating the companies they previously worked for.

Commentary. Gregory Johnson describes it as, “Muckraking that’s breathtaking. The visuals, graphics. and authenticity are amazing. Not for the faint of heart. An excellent example of documentary that offers discouraging truths, yet hopeful and practical action points people can take to make a difference. What’s most startling is that a company like Monsanto can own the patent to a genetically modified soybean plant, and then prevent anyone from growing it. Presumably this could happen with animals and other life forms. What’s even more disconcerting is that our government is helping defend Monsanto. The agricultural industry also receives substantial government funding. This tax payer funded support of the agriculture industry ends up being a hidden cost we don’t see in the grocery store. This results in nutritious foods being costly while fast food and processed foods are inexpensive. We’re essentially creating a socialist state where we all help fund the meat industry and Mc Donald’s is the one to benefit.”

Official Website. More information is available at FoodIncMovie.com. Below are some excerpts from the website.

Food, Inc. exposes America’s industrialized food system and its effect on our environment, health, economy and workers’ rights. … High calorie, sugar laden processed foods coupled with our sedentary lifestyles is growing our waistlines and contributing to serious health issues like diabetes, heart ailments and cancers. One-third of children and adolescents are overweight or obese. Tell Congress that kids should be served healthy meals, not soda and junk food. … Approximately 10 billion animals (chickens, cattle, hogs, ducks, turkeys, lambs and sheep) are raised and killed in the US annually. Nearly all of them are raised on factory farms under inhumane conditions. These industrial farms are also dangerous for their workers, pollute surrounding communities, are unsafe to our food system and contribute significantly to global warming.