Keeping in Touch with Old Friends

I was at the shopping mall last Saturday when I ran into my old friend Nancy coming out of the Home Décor Barn. It was great to see her again.

"How are you?" she asked me right away. "I haven't seen you in ages. Not since Ted's party last year!"

"I think you're right," I answered. "It's certainly been awhile, that's for sure. How's old Ted doing anyway? Is he still working hard in the vegetarian movement?"

A troubled look came over her face. "Not anymore."

"But he seemed so committed," I said. "What happened?"

"I think that vegetarian group he was working with finally broke up. You know, for years they had to deal with the friction between the snobby ethical vegans and the health-conscious crowd promoting Omega-3 supplements. That took its toll on everyone, but I think the final straw was when they couldn't agree on the background colors for their web site."

"Gee, that's too bad," I said. "But I suppose those things are important. Is Ted's wife still in the environmental movement?"

"No, her environmental group had a big falling out with his former vegetarian group over the animal testing issue. It was really ugly. I think both she and Ted are devoting all their time to their Amway franchise now. That's something they can both agree on."

"I see. Well, what about all those animal rights people you and Ted used to work with?"

"You mean the P.E.T.A.X group?

"Yes, that's it."

"Oh, they had troubles of their own. Nobody ever got along in that group. First the people advocating full legal rights for animals broke off to form B.A.R.K., then the animal welfare people left to form M.E.O.W. Finally the cat-and-dog crowd started their own group called P.E.T.S. …And I just heard that there was another rift in B.A.R.K. between the folks who believe in civil disobedience and those who don't, so that group split into Y.I.P. and Y.O.W.L." Nancy shook her head, as if it was all too much to keep track of.

"Well," I said, trying to look on the bright side, "at least there will be lots of local groups that can be represented at the big annual rally next month."

"Don't count on it," Nancy cautioned. "First there was a big fight over which group was going to sponsor the rally and get to put up its signs, then Y.O.W.L. accused Y.I.P. of being infiltrators from the Department of Homeland Security, and finally P.E.T.S. insisted on bringing food for their dogs from the company M.E.O.W. was boycotting. In the end they all decided it was too much trouble and canceled the rally."

"Gosh, that's too bad," I said. "It sounds like a lot of people are leaving the movement."

Nancy sighed. "It's hard working for causes that are ignored by most of society. It gets you down after awhile. Sometimes I feel we're just like those poor birds in the battery cages—we have no power against our real enemies, so we start pecking at each other."

I nodded sadly. "Well, at least you're still pushing ahead, Nancy."

She gave me a sheepish grin. "You know, I've kind of moved away from vegetarianism myself," she said. "The high-protein movement is where the action is now. The Atkins people are spending $10 million, and bringing 70,000 people to town for a convention next week. It should be very exciting. Heck, the vegetarians could never do anything like that. …And how about you? Are you still writing that silly column?"

"Yes," I answered, a little embarrassed. "I haven't had time for much else though. You know how busy life is, what with following the bombings in the Middle East and the last episode of Friends and all."

"Sure," she said. "Well, we should get together sometime. …Plan a march or something."

I told her that would be great, and we said our goodbyes. As I walked away I thought for a moment how much fun it might be to get the old gang together and do something to change the world. Then I remembered that I had a lot on my calendar the next few days—a dentist appointment, dinner plans, some yard work that I'd been putting off. Maybe in the fall, I thought. Yes, that was it. In the fall when everyone had more time we could pull it all back together. We'd save the world then.

The Interview

After all the years that On or Off the Mark has been in print, two questions keep coming back to me: "What do meat-eaters think of all this?" and "Why the heck can't someone else write this column?" Inquiring readers want to know.

We'll address both of these questions with today's interview. Here with me in the studio is Stephen Hess, an accomplished writer who is also a trial attorney and stage performer (not that these are necessarily different things). Stephen has the unique perspective of being both a meat-eater and (unlike most of the "people" who appear here) a real human being. Honest! Stephen is one of the funniest people I know, and he's even agreed to write the questions for his interview. Boy, this is easy. All I have to do is sit back and watch!

FLV (Flaming liberal vegetarian): Stephen, every once in a while our readers like to hear how you carnivores think.

PCM (Perfectly contented meat eater): Great!

FLV:    It's a refreshing reminder of the moral superiority of our diets.

PCM:    Hmmm…

FLV:    You worked your way through college as a meat cutter. Did you ever have to do anything that was disgusting even to you?

PCM:    We had "bone barrels" for collecting bones, bone dust from the saws, fat, and anything else we couldn't package in a commercial form. A stubby little guy from the Philadelphia Leather Company came by and bought our cutting waste, and whoever had torqued the meat manager off the worst that week got stuck cleaning the bone barrels. It was understood that you shouldn't go on a date the night you had to clean the bone barrels.

FLV:    Anything else you remember from that experience?

PCM:    Well, every once in a while we would cut into a pork loin and find some unpleasant growth there.

FLV:    That's truly disgusting, Stephen. Yet with perfect equanimity you just went on eating meat?

PCM:    Why thank you Mark, I have always taken pride in my equanimity. But I don't buy this "too disgusting to eat" argument. After all, disgust isn't a meaningful criterion even in your diet, is it? I assume you eat mushrooms knowing full well how they are grown. You just don't think about it when you are eating. And tell me half of your dishes don't look like someone already ate them once.

FLV:     That mushroom never screamed before I harvested it, though.

PCM:     Neither did the cow. In fact, he (she?) literally didn't know what hit him (her?). It was certainly quicker and less painful than cramming braces on some poor little girl's teeth for four years just so her smile will be prettier. Besides, I don't think those cows that produce the milk you drink live "happier" lives—whatever that means to a cow—before they visit Mr. Stubby from Philadelphia.

FLV:    Don't look at me! I agree, and for that reason (and a bunch of others) I am a "Vegan"—I don't drink milk or use any animal products.

PCM:    No animal products? No wonder you and Spock and all the rest of you Vegans have green blood. You need iron from animals to keep your blood red.

FLV:    There are plenty of sources of iron besides red meat. Also, Spock was a Vulcan, not a Vegan, and Star Trek was science fiction. If you are going to insult us, at least have the courtesy to get your terms straight.

PCM:    Sorry, Mark. But seriously, it's your own fault—you guys have made vegetarianism impossible to talk about anyway. You see, if you haven't studied vegetarianism carefully (as I have), visiting a health food store is like walking onto the set of a martial arts movie. "You know, I have a black belt in Tofu. I studied under Master Tempeh in Seitan." It would be a lot easier to understand if you gave all those foods meaningful names so we didn't have to guess what we'd be eating.

FLV:    Let me guess, you were just about to tell me…

PCM:    As a matter of fact, I was. Why don't you just call tofu "that mushy soy stuff," and call tempeh "that other mushy stuff with chunks," and call seitan "that mushy wheat stuff," and call seppuku "that really yucky soy stuff."

FLV:    First, I personally believe that truth in advertising in the food business pretty much died with "head cheese," and "blood pudding," and "kidney pie." Second, seppuku isn't a vegetarian food. It's a form of ritualistic suicide practiced by the samurai. Come to think of it, eating meat regularly is a form of ritualistic suicide in its own way, except that it takes longer.

PCM:    Well, as they say, good health is merely the slowest form of death. What's your motto, anyway? "You are what you eat; I think I'll eat a vegetable."

FLV:    Very funny, "meathead." But let's leave the personal insults aside for just a minute. And let's forget disgust and animal abuse for a minute since you don't seem to care about them. But I assume that even you recognize moral obligations to your fellow man…

PCM:     C'mon, Mark, do you expect me to believe that if I give up a pound of meat this week we could tweak our food production to support thirty or forty billion people on this planet and even save enough land for an Afro-Disney? Anyway, we'd run out of potable water, waste disposal, shelter, and satellite dishes well before then. Give me a hamburger!

[At this point the interview ended abruptly. From the videotapes it wasn't clear whether the vegetarian or meat-eater threw the first punch.]

If Those Meat and Dairy Ads Were Written by Vegetarians

For years we vegetarians have had to put up with the public relations campaigns of the meat and dairy industries. We've been bombarded by advertisements that are often obnoxious, nonsensical, or just plain misleading. Sometimes all of the above!

Well, I think we vegetarians could do better. Heck, we could design ads for the meat and dairy industries that would still be clever and catchy, but would be lots more truthful than what they've been getting from Madison Avenue. I wonder why they haven't asked us already?!!

As just a teeny-tiny example of the improvements that could be made, Mr./Ms. Meat and Dairy Industry Executive, here are some of the ad campaigns I'd like to see:

"Beef: What Can We Say?"

What can we say about a cow who died? That she was beautiful and brilliant? That she loved Mozart and Bach, the Beatles, and me?

Unfortunately, as they continue to lose customers and market share, there's very little that America's "beef" producers can say about their product. No, it's not healthy, it's not trendy, and it's not attractive. So instead of attempting anything substantive, the industry has come up with such nonsensical fare as "Real food for real people" or "It's what's for dinner," sung to the tune of western-sounding music. Poor Aaron Copland is turning over in his grave.

The "Beef: What Can We Say?" ad campaign will continue this confusing tradition, but with the addition of an all-important play for sympathy from the meat-buying public. No, no one will understand these new beef ads, but at least they'll tell folks that this stuff is still hanging around out there. It can be bought for a price, and eaten for a higher price.

"Pork: It's What Those Hog Farms Are All About."

Pity the poor, pathetic "pork" industry. For years they've been trying to make the flesh of pigs seem more like the flesh of chickens by saying it's "white" meat. But how can they expect America's burgeoning minorities to relate to that? Instead, all the "pork" folks are getting is tons of bad publicity as hog waste saturates the Midwest and floats around hurricane-stricken North Carolina.

The "Pork: It's What Those Hog Farms Are All About" campaign will remind the public that those hideous hog farms do indeed have a purpose. Maybe not a good purpose, but hey—when you're on a sinking ship you take whatever you can get.

"Chicken: When You Don't Have Time to Think About Dinner."

In contrast to the hog folks, things are groovy in the world of chickens. Jeez, these guys hardly ever have to advertise. People just think, "Hmm, chicken. …Doesn't taste like much, somebody once said it's healthy, and what the heck, it's cheap." Actually, people may not think at all. They just toss the package into the grocery cart or eat what's put in front of them at a billion "rubber chicken" dinners.

Let's face it, most people don't want to think about what they eat, and the "Chicken: When You Don't Have Time to Think About Dinner" ad campaign will remind them that that's okay. Chickens can be the official food of choice of the non-thinking crowd. Kind of "anti-brain" food.

"Eggs: Everything's In the Packaging."

Just like "beef", there's precious little anyone can say that's good about chickens' eggs. (Yeah, they produce chickens, but that's another subject entirely.) Remember, we're talking about a product loaded with fat, cholesterol, and dangerous bacteria. And eggs look gross to boot. How can people be expected to want to put these things in their mouths???

The "Eggs: Everything's In the Packaging" campaign will emphasize the only good thing about eggs—that they come in easy-opening individual containers. Why risk it by saying anything else?

"Milk: The Best Thing You Can Get From the Back End of a Cow."

With its massive marketing budget, everyone follows the dairy industry's advertising. The old "Health Kick" ads didn't go over so well (health promotions—even phony ones—rarely do), and the milk mustache thing has been beaten to death. But the "Got Milk?" promotion has been a real winner. Sure, detractors have countered with "Got Cholesterol?" and "Got Heart Disease?" but we can't argue that these cutesy ads haven't sold lots of gloppy white stuff. When "Got Milk?" finally gets old, I propose following it right up with "Milk: The Best Thing You Can Get From the Back End of a Cow." This is a slogan that not only tells it like it is, but is sure to appeal to the most banal and prurient interests of the American public. Really now, what more can advertising be expected to do?

 

More Slogans We'd Like to See (You've heard these before—I just added the stuff in italics):

• "Come alive! You're in the Veggie generation."
  
• "A-1 makes hamburgers taste like dead cows with sugar on top."
  
• "Plop, plop, fizz, fiz, oh what a relief it is …to be a vegetarian!"
  
• "Promise her anything, but give her tofu."
  
• "Vegetarians… the ultimate eating machines."
  
• "Heart disease… Have it your way."
  
• "I'd walk a mile for a Boca Burger."
  
• "Does she or doesn't she …eat meat?"
  
• "Things go better with organic apple juice."
  
• "Be all that you can be (and you know it starts with a 'V'!)."
  
• "Almonds are forever."
  
• "Aren't you glad you're a vegetarian? Don't you wish everybody was?"
  
• "Be a Pepper (preferably, an organic green one)!"
  
• "Vegetarians keep going, and going, and going...."
  
• "Compassion is Job 1 (and it's our most important product too)."
  
• "Come to where the flavor (and fiber!) is. Come to Vegan Country."
  
  • "Two all-seitan patties, special sauce, lettuce, soy cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun."
    
• "Nothin' says lovin' like vegan from the oven."
  
• "Head for the Border (the rice and beans are great down there!)."
  
• "You can trust your lunch to the man who won't meat munch."
  
• "Broccoli is a terrible thing to waste."
  
• "Vegetarian food—It's everywhere you want to be."
  
• "Where's the beef? Thank goodness it's not here!"
  
• "If all the world were vegan, and Tofutti filled the sea, then the only spoon from here to the moon would have to belong to me."

What’s Wrong with Health Studies?

Like many vegetarians, I enjoy reading news reports about new health studies that come out. Most of these studies, of course, directly or indirectly support the vegetarian cause by showing that some aspect of eating plants is good for us, and/or some aspect of eating animal products isn't so good for us. I've come to count on these scientific findings as continuing confirmation of my good judgment to be a vegetarian.

But what about those other studies—the ones that you occasionally see that find eating meat or dairy products may be healthy? What do we do about those?

I used to think that any studies that found meat-eating to be healthy were aberrations that should be relegated to mere footnote status in the great tide of favorable literature. They must be written by people with loose scientific morals and a vested interest somewhere, I thought. Lately though, I've read some pretty troubling findings from some pretty credible sources. I've had to delve a little deeper and rethink my position.

What I've learned is that the whole system of scientific inquiry into the relationship between diet and health is hugely unfavorable to vegetarianism. More importantly, though, I've learned not to take any study results as gospel. Here's why:

• People really do have loose scientific morals and vested interests. The meat, dairy, and egg industries have the money and organization to fund a lot of research. Cantaloupe and lettuce growers don't. No matter how honest scientists try to be, their results are going to favor the people paying the bill. If you need an example, just look at our court system. "Experts" can be hired to support any position.
  
• Cause and effect relationships are difficult to establish. Whether you're doing research in the lab or conducting an epidemiological study, it's incredibly difficult to isolate the effect of just one dietary factor and study its health consequences. There are simply too many environmental and genetic variables, and too many interactions between variables to get in the way. Results from even the best-designed studies can vary widely.
  
• Animals may be lousy models for people. When you take animals in the lab and pretend they are people, you've introduced a potential for serious error right off the bat. Just last week I happened to be reading the literature on a new drug. Testing found it caused cancer in mice, but not in hamsters. Okay… so what can we do with that useful information? It should be obvious that any results based on animal testing are suspect, and should be subject to additional scrutiny.
  
• Test subjects lie. Maybe they don't intent don't intend to, but it's human nature. In any study that requires people to report on their own diets there's going to be an impetus to report things just a little healthier than they really were. (I mean, who's really going to own up to eating a whole box of Ding Dongs for dinner?) The errors are magnified when, as in many studies, people have to report on their dietary patterns in the past. Of course, this exaggeration is always going to make the results of "healthy" food choices seem a little less healthy.
  
• There aren't enough "vegetarians." It's especially difficult to do studies of vegetarians, because there often aren't enough of us to be a good sample. More importantly, we all know that people lie about their vegetarianism. (A recent Time Magazine poll found that 37% of the people calling themselves "vegetarian" had eaten red meat in the last 24 hours!) Finally, there are huge variations in vegetarian diets, and studies may not compensate for that. They may lump the raw foods folks in with the people who live on Ding Dongs. Again, the result of this is going to make "vegetarians" seem a lot more like everyone else, and a "vegetarian" diet seem a lot less healthy.
  
• There aren't any vegans. Vegans are so few in number and so misunderstood, that it is going to be a rare study indeed that will properly analyze and/or give meaningful results that apply to this group. Because of the problems cited above, results for "vegetarians" may be totally inapplicable.
  
• Since practically everyone eats meat, dietary studies often suffer from the "lesser of the evils" syndrome. For example, we've all seen lots of studies that cite the benefits of eating fishes. But if the "control" group is made up of folks who eat other kinds of flesh foods, it's hard to draw absolute conclusions. Sure, fish-eaters may be healthier than hamburger-eaters, but if fish-eaters were compared to vegetarians, the results might look entirely different.
  

  Another recent example was a study that found that, among overweight and obese adults, those who ate massive amounts of dairy products were less likely to develop insulin resistance syndrome. The conclusion, widely reported in the media, was that 5 servings a day of dairy products protects us. But how did the people who ate less dairy make up those calories? Almost certainly by eating more meat. (I doubt that any vegetarians were in their sample group.) Could the conclusion of the study just as easily have been "avoid meat at all costs—even if you have to eat lots of dairy?"
  

• Since practically everyone eats meat, results of dietary studies may not apply to vegetarians. Results from dietary studies may only apply to people with diets similar to the test group, and that rarely includes vegetarians. For example, I recently read a report raving about the benefits of fish oil (omega-3 fatty acids). The primary benefit noted was fish oil's ability to thin blood and thus prevent heart attacks and strokes. But thinner blood is only of benefit to people already sick with cardiovascular disease (i.e., most people on the Standard American Diet). For many vegetarians and vegans, and others with healthy cardiovascular systems, this blood thinning could be a health detriment rather than a benefit.
  
• There is scientific evidence out there to support everything. A librarian friend of mine once told me "doctors like to write." It's true. You can find a study out there to support almost anything you can imagine. If it isn't there yet, it's on the way. No individual study, nor the credence that someone gives to it, should be taken as definitive.
  
• People give more authority to later studies than earlier ones. While the conclusions expressed in the scientific literature may vary wildly, people tend to believe the latest news they hear. They mistakenly believe that new scientific studies override the results of those that came before. This is unfortunate indeed when poorly designed or aberrant studies conflict with what has been established in numerous previous studies.
  
• People like good news. How much press has "red wine is good for you" received? How many millions of books has Dr. Atkins sold by telling people it's healthy to eat lobsters and butter? People want to believe, and they tend to cite, studies that favor their own positions. We vegetarians are guilty of this all the time. On the other hand, since the vast majority of people in our society are addicted to animal products, any study at all hinting that meat and dairy products might somehow be good for us will receive considerably more notoriety than a study finding the opposite.
  
• The press exaggerates. (And that's an understatement!) Combine this with the fact that people like good news, and the potential for the public to be misled in favor of meat and dairy products is enormous. For example, a report on the fish oil study mentioned above, written by a registered dietician, starts off proclaiming the "good news," and ends with the pronouncement that "Including rich fish as a regular eating habit is one of the most positive steps anyone can take to protect against the development of heart disease. Best of all, it is good nutrition at its tastiest." Objective medical reporting? Hardly.
  
• Doctors still believe in what they grew up hearing and doing. Old ways die hard for most of us, and that's true for doctors and medical researchers as well. Anything that goes against what their mothers told them as children is going to be looked upon with additional skepticism. That doesn't bode well for vegetarianism. Just consider how Dr. Spock was almost drummed out of the medical community when he had the audacity to suggest that cow's milk isn't good for growing children. Consider how many doctors are happy to heed medical evidence and recommend eating more vegetables and less meat (Mom would have liked this). Consider how few are willing to heed that same medical evidence and recommend vegetarianism (Mom definitely wouldn't approve).
  

  
   

  Given all of the problems inherent in medical studies of diet and disease, it's amazing that we can learn anything at all. Yet, the fact that some results (saturated fat is bad; fiber is good, etc.) keep coming up over and over again, means that we can probably trust them and rely upon them. The best advice may be to use our common sense (if it sounds too simple or too good, ignore it) and take a big picture/long term approach. (I'm starting to sound like my stockbroker!)
  

  Considering how the odds are stacked against vegetarianism, it's equally amazing that we get any good news at all from the medical community. And yet, there they are, week after week—new scientific studies lending support to the vegetarian way of eating. No, they may not be the only things we read, but that's good enough for me. They are more than enough to make me feel confident that my decision to be a vegetarian was a good one.
  

Zoos (from the ancient Greek word: “Zeus”)

Vegetarians have mixed feelings about zoos. Sure, we like the chance to spend some time with animals we'd never get to see otherwise, and zoos do an admirable job of repopulating threatened species and advocating wildlife causes. Just maybe (we hope) those kids who get to spend the day eating popcorn and ogling the elephants and giraffes come away with a little more appreciation for the diversity of life, and a little more respect for creatures of species other than their own. These are all good things.

The problem with zoos, of course, is that the animals are in prison. Putting them behind bars is not a nice thing to do to our fellow creatures, and you don't have to spend long at a zoo to sense the pain and unhappiness of many of the animals who are there.

Sadly, zoos may one day soon be the only thing that keeps us from being a planet populated only by humans, cattle, chickens, dogs and cats, mosquitoes, catfish, and the occasional pigeon. It's a pity. If we must build them, let's at least make them nice.

 

30-Second Quiz About Zoos

It's the year 2163, and the world is infested with Finsters, which are huge, highly intelligent mutant cockroaches that got their start way back in the twentieth century in a bio-engineering lab just off the Santa Monica Freeway. They all worship old Jerry Lewis movies.

You are one of only a dozen or so humans left on earth. It seems that humans just don't survive well in the Finsters' new high-tech world, and they are no longer able to reproduce naturally. You're given the choice of: (1) being put in prison for the rest of your life as part of an attempted artificial breeding program, or (2) dying out naturally in your own home.

Is relative freedom or perpetuating your species more important to you? What would you choose? What do you think a tiger or a water buffalo would choose?

Hardwired

Politics can be frustrating. Indeed, it was during the last Presidential election that I heard a number of my friends complain, "How can anyone vote for that guy?!" Now, while I won't disclose exactly which candidate "that guy" was, I am pretty sure that a lot of people on the other side of the fence were saying, "How can anyone vote for that other guy?!"

The fact of the matter is that in American politics some people are going to vote for the conservative candidate every time, and some other people are going to vote for the liberals, and there's nothing that anyone is going to be able to do to change either of their minds. Using computer terminology, you might say that people are "hardwired" to favor one position or the other.

I've found that the same principle applies to the age-old debate between meat-eaters and vegetarians. Some people think it's right and good to eat the flesh of other animals, and there's nothing we vegetarians are going to do to change their minds. Pleas for the rights of the animals eaten, or even for mercy to save them from pain, will go unheeded. Arguments about the effect of diet on the global environment will be ignored. And even attempts to address their self-centered interest in their own health will be scoffed at by these meat-eaters. They're "hardwired" to eat meat, and no amount of "software" programming can change that.

I must say that this frustrates me and my vegetarian friends to no end. "How can they be this way?" we ask. "How can they 'not get it'?" "Don't they care at all???"

It's certainly tempting for us vegetarians to make value judgments about "hardwired" meat-eaters. It's easy for us to see them as unfeeling, selfish and anthropocentric. But, of course, all of this totally ignores their viewpoint.

From a hardwired meat-eater's perspective vegetarianism makes no sense at all. They think it's ridiculous to deny oneself the pleasure of eating meat. Moreover, it's antisocial, impolite, and generally makes a big fuss over something trivial. As much as we vegetarians think meat eating is wrong, hardwired meat-eaters think vegetarianism is just plain stupid.

Where does "hardwiring" to one point of view or the other begin? Well, while there may well be a genetic component, I have to think that most of the process happens after birth. What you end up believing will in all likelihood be greatly influenced by what your parents teach you.

Recently, I participated in an animal rights rally that required me to hold up a sign depicting an animal in some human-induced distress. (To be more specific, it was a calf taking part in a rodeo. Let's just say this poor guy's neck—with a rope around it—was headed in a different direction than his body!) It was interesting to see the reaction of children to this sign. I saw uniform expressions of shock and disapproval on their faces, while at the same time their parents had the equally uniform reaction of hurrying them away from my presence. Will most of these kids grow up hardwired against vegetarianism? You can bet on it.

So, which side is right—the hardwired vegetarians, or the hardwired meat-eaters? Of course we all like to think we're right. And certainly from a vegetarian perspective there are some compelling scientific and ethical arguments to support our point of view. But, to tell you the truth, I'm not certain. Meat-eaters certainly believe that the human pleasure that comes from eating meat outweighs the cruelty to animals, destruction of the environment and human health consequences that meat-eating necessarily causes. I can't say they're wrong, because I simply can't understand their viewpoint, any more than they can understand mine. We're hardwired in opposite polarities.

Of course, in vegetarianism, just like politics, there's a big middle ground of people who aren't necessarily hardwired in one direction or the other. Like most vegetarians, I've had plenty of experience with meat-eaters who were more than happy to espouse vegetarian principles and eat a vegetarian diet in my presence, while going back to their omnivorous ways among others. Actually, I think most people are probably this way. Our battles, just like their political counterparts, will be won or lost by who commands this vast undecided group.

Right now we're losing. Actually, we're losing horribly. But we shouldn't give up the fight. If we concentrate on the undecided voter—or rather, eater—we have a chance to eventually win over the majority. But there's no sense in trying to appeal to those who are hardwired against us. Sadly, they simply can't, and will never be able to, understand our position. We may as well agree to disagree—at least until we can find a brain surgeon with a very large pair of wire cutters.

Potential Dangers of Genetic Engineering—A Case Study

To see an example of disastrous consequences arising out of genetic manipulation on animals, one need look no further than the recent experience of noted medical researcher Dr. Peter Gallanis. Gallanis, a Max Plank Research Fellow and Professor of Genetics at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, NC, has since the 1970s conducted extensive research on telomeres, tiny strands of DNA-protein attached to linear chromosomes in the body that allow replication without loss. Since telomeres shorten each time a cell divides, and continuously erode as an animal ages, many scientists believe they hold the key to aging.

By the mid-1980s Gallanis' research had isolated the genetic factors controlling cell division and telomere length, and he began the process of creating telomerase gene sequences that could maintain telomere length despite cell division—thus indirectly interrupting the aging process. Gallanis' initial work with fruit flies was encouraging, and he quickly began full-scale experimentation implanting his genetically altered material into mice. Again, the results were remarkable. In 1992 Gallanis published a landmark paper in the British research journal Nature chronicling his team's success in predictably extending the normal 2-year life span of mice to 5 years and more.

Anxious to apply his research to longer-lived organisms, Gallanis in 1990 began his highly-publicized experiments with porpoises. Using a grant from the National Institutes of Health, he retrofitted an old student swimming pool on the Duke campus and solicited donations of older animals from public aquariums up and down the East Coast. After some initial setbacks, Gallanis soon found that his subjects benefited greatly from the organ transplant drug cyclosporin. His staff would administer the drug to the porpoises in a paste made from the meat of a seagull native to the North Carolina coast. Soon, the combination of weekly injections of genetically altered DNA and daily cyclosporin treatment created a group of animals that displayed the genetic characteristics of a much younger population, with no measurable shortening of telomere length upon cell division. As early as 1997 word was circulating in scientific circles that Dr. Gallanis and his team had succeeded in creating a genetically-modified race of porpoises with potentially indefinite life spans. By all known scientific tests, their aging process had stopped completely.

It should go without saying that throughout the 1990s the pressures on Dr. Gallanis and his team to maintain their experiments on porpoises and proceed to a publishable result were enormous. With the commercialization of his work potentially worth billions of dollars, Gallanis found it increasingly necessary to avoid contact with colleagues and the press. He adopted a routine of taking his Land Rover to the Carolina coast almost weekly. An avid hunter, he would personally shoot the seagulls to be used in his cyclosporin treatments.

It was during one such hunting trip in September 1999 that disaster struck. Floyd, a massive Category 4 hurricane was making its way up the eastern seaboard and forcing the evacuation of barrier islands from Florida to New England. On the evening of September 15, 1999 Dr. Gallanis loaded three ice chests filled with seagulls into the back of his Land Rover and headed inland. The winds were already peaking at 50 miles per hour, and rain was lashing the roads.

Hurricane Floyd was to have another victim that day. A truck from a statuary business in Beaufort, South Carolina was passing through eastern North Carolina, bound for Washington, DC. Strapped to its flat bed were two small lions, carved in slate, that had been commissioned for the entrance of a new Senate office building annex that was under construction near the US Capitol. The truck was driving into a particularly bad curve on the Highway 1 Bypass near Wilmington when a combination of wind and treacherous road conditions forced its driver to swerve wildly. In the process the two sculptures were thrown from the truck, directly into the oncoming lane of traffic.

It was at that precise moment that Dr. Gallanis rounded the curve in the other direction. He saw the sculptures in the road, but there was no time to stop. Fortunately, thanks to quick reflexes and the high ground clearance of his Land Rover, he was able to successfully straddle the sculptures with no harm to his vehicle.

Dr. Gallanis was just breathing a sigh of relief at his good fortune when he saw the lights of a police car behind him. He pulled off the road and was immediately arrested for transporting gulls across slate lions for immortal porpoises.