Bravo to E Magazine for publishing the article that I've longed to see: the need for environmentalists to stop eating meat--for purely environmental reasons.  Informative article; great job.

Joyce Tischler
Animal Legal Defense Fund
Petaluma, CA

Thanks to Doug Moss, Jim Motavalli and others who brought to light the one area of environmental responsibility that so many environmentalists want to avoid! It is so important to let people know the impact of animal agriculture on our air, water, land and personal health. Bravo to E for being brave, honest, and compelling in your stories on this issue.

If you haven't done it already, I'll be happy to spring for the postage and cost of the magazines if you send one to every state's chapter of The Sierra Club and to their national offices. Let me know and my check will be in tomorrow's mail!

Keep up the great work! Best wishes.

Patti Breitman
Fairfax, CA

Hooray for you and your enlightened articles on becoming a vegetarian!  As a long-time vegan, environmentalist and animal rights activist, I commend you on your commitment to a more humane and cleaner world!

Paula Stanziani
Harvard student
Cambridge, MA

Thank you for your article, "The Case Against Meat." As an animal rights advocate, I have often been sad and disappointed at the indifference of environmentalists to animal cruelty issues. Mother Jones in particular has published several articles involving animals directly with no mention whatsoever of the animals' plight, only the consequences to the environment and humans.

Yours was the first article I can remember with a section on the hellish conditions which animals live through in factory farms. This section was so well-written and complete that I am using it in my own mailings and emailings, with a credit to your publication of course.

Thanks again and I hope this is not just a one time event. I believe that environmentalists and animal rights advocates are natural allies, and I wish more concerned people in both fields were aware of that.

Charles Zigmund

A million thank you’s for the research and wisdom of. Why Are You Still Eating Meat?" I hope you don't mind, but I photocopied it and it went with my husband Robert Muller to the UN University for Peace in Costa Rica. As co-founder he has hundreds of visitors and your article will be one of their topics of conversation. Thank you again.

For your possible interest and possible idea for a future E Magazine article I would like to introduce you to The Way to Grow, Survival Manual for a World in Crisis by Ervin Laszlo, founder of the Club of Budapest in 1993, an international association dedicated to developing a new way of thinking and a new ethics that will help tackle the social, ecological, and economic challenges of the 21st century...He is also author of Macroshift, Oct. 2001...Berrett-Koehler.

Keep up your fantastic work.  Our environment needs you (by the way did you know the word Environment was coined in my husbands UN office in a planning session for the First World Conference on the Environment that was held in Stolkhom in 1972? Now that's another story!) For more ideas on the Environment see robertmuller.org where he has the 9 volumes of his book 4000 Ideas for a Better World.

Barbara Gaughen-Muller

Robert Muller's website includes thousands of ideas for peace and Decide To poems plus how to order his books in English, Italian and many other languages and links to other websites for a better world: http://www.robertmuller.org/

Thanks for "The Case Against Meat." It is very persuasive to line up environmental, human rights, animal rights and health issues so convincingly.

Wendy Lochner
Sayville, NY

We were so happy with your article and discussion of the Vegetarian question.  Yes, it only makes sense for environmentalists to be vegetarian.  I have been one for 35 years and am so healthy and happy and hope that more people will sample the guilt-free life.

Kristal Forest
Santa Fe, NM

I wanted to let you know how happy I was to hear about your article on vegetarianism—I will go out and buy a copy right away.

An article written by Dr. Neal Barnard, the President of the Physician's Committee for Responsible Medicine years ago convinced me of the scientific evidence that we were not meant to eat meat.

Like other vegetarian animals we were born with very long intestines meant to digest grains.  All carnivores have short intestines.  Humans have an opposing thumb and forefingers to pick berries and nuts while carnivores have fangs and claws to tear flesh. We need to eat what our bodies were designed to eat!

I have been meat free for 7 years (at age 47) now and never felt better.  My best friend (who is extremely shy) never told her new doctor that she was a vegetarian but he knew right away because her "blood work came back so clean." My husband is gradually giving up meat because he notices a difference too and because I love him and want him to live long and be healthy.

Please do more articles on this subject.  Thanks!

Judy Dinnik
Southern,  MI

I've just heard about your article on meat eating and being and environmentalist. I am the latter and also Vegan because of it and also because of the tremendous suffering and pain animals go through to get to the dinner plate.

I would like to thank you for doing such an article. I would like to pick up a copy of this issue but as of yet, I have been unable to locate one locally. Maybe you can help. Do you happen to have a list of stores in the area that carry it? I live in Findlay, Ohio.

Thanks again for being noble enough to stand up and do what's right. I hope you don't get too many complaints. Some people want to call themselves an environmentalist simply for the fact of saying they are one but are too lazy or ignorant to admit to the truth and change their ways for the betterment of this world.

Feed the hungry! Save the environment! Go Veg!

Sarah Rudy
Findlay, OH

I am so happy to see the cover story this month on your great magazine.  I've been involved in the Animal Rights Movement for 13 years and have been saying the same thing over and over about environmentalists  (My organization, WARM and my store, The WARM Store--Woodstock Animal Rights Movement--used to advertise with you in the past).

Your magazine is certainly the most aware mag out there on so many of these important issues and trends.  I can only give you the highest compliments and congratulations and hope you continue on the same path you are on.

Also...I have started a new national campaign called the MeatFreeZone.   You can check it out at: www.meatfreezone.org.

Well...thanks again for your work and magazine and great articles.  Look forward to hearing from you soon.

Andy Glick
WARM, Inc.
Woodstock, NY

Thank you very much for your article on vegetarianism & being an environmentalist.  It gets us to open our minds when we forget how conditioned we are by our society.

Andy Schulgasser
Scottsdale, AZ

Thanks for turning environmentalists onto being vegetarians. I'm not sure sure why the two do not automatically go hand-in-hand, but promoting it may help.

Deedee Dillingham
Lakewood, CA

I want to thank you for your story on "The Case Against Meat." It was accurate and appropriate.

I am an environmentalist who also cares very deeply about animals, and the plight of those animals suffering on factory farms today particularly horrifies me.

It is absolutely critical that environmentalists appreciate the strong link between protection of the environment and respect for animals. The two are inseparable.

Ultimately, it is both sound science and conscientious policy to regard and approach each area of concern with equal priority.

Again, thank you and keep up the great work!

Rev. Robyn Thunderchild

I was pleasantly stunned to get this issue.  I am always horrified by the lack of vegetarians/vegans within the leadership of the environmental movement.  I get tons of direct mail appeals from all of these environmental/wildlife groups, and I join none of them.

I always send them back a note in their postage paid envelopes stating that when they start encompassing and promoting vegetarianism, I will then join their group, and not until then.

Most of the groups only care about animals when they become threatened or endangered.  And they only care about a species so that we can all see this species in the wild, and so that we can enjoy them.  These groups need to focus on saving these species for the sake of each individual animal.

Sadly there are very few environmental groups worthy of financial support. Groups such as the Nature Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, World Wildlife Fund, National Audubon Society, Sierra Club, Environmental Defense and others support hunting, trapping, factory farming, and animal experimentation.

The one group that at least seems to try is the Earth Island Institute (http://www.earthisland.org), one of the few environmental groups we endorse as worthy of support.  Another environmental group that recently came to our

attention is the WaterKeeper Alliance, founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (http://www.waterkeeper.org).  In their fund raising letter, they actually mentioned many times the horrible suffering, cruelty and abuse to pigs on factory farms.  Impressive for an environmental group, and it's about time the other environmental groups wake up.

David Sickles, President
Ohio Animal Defense League
Eastlake OH

Would like to congratulate on your articles about vegetarianism.  Loved the cover!

Carla Cappalli
San Juan, Puerto Rico

Bravo for your article "The Case Against Meat"! Vegetarians often talk about how being an Environmentalist means being a Vegetarian. Vegetarianism is beneficial in every aspect and I appreciate you addressing the topic.  It was a well-researched and thorough article.  Keep up the great work.  We are a Vegetarian family of four living in Arizona.

Alyssa Hernandez
Chandler AZ

BRAVO!!!  Your article was superb!  Thank you so much for bringing the attention of environmentalists to the damage that factory farms are inflicting upon our earth and its resources!

Elaine Sherman
Jacksonville, FL

Thanks for the real eye-opening articles on the case against meat.  You've convinced me that it's impossible to be a "true" environmentalist, if we're still eating meat.  Here's to hoping others received the message as loud and clear as I did.

Bob Schwalb
Chicago, IL

I am the editor of a newsletter (New Mexico Vegetarian) published quarterly by the Vegetarian Society of New Mexico. Several society members have read and enthusiastically recommended your current edition of E Magazine to our readership. I was wondering if we could reprint excerpts from your articles as an item in our next edition along with subscription information about e magazine, etc. Ours is a small newsletter (~10 page, distribution <200), with most of the material focused on local issues, so the total excerpt could only be a few hundred words. Is this a possibility?

Rob Pierson
Editor, New Mexico Vegetarian

I thought you might be interested to know that we have recently profiled your article, "The Case Against Meat" in the "Best of the Rest" section of the online environmental magazine Grist -- .

Kaitlin Gregg
Intern, Grist Magazine

Wow! What a fantastic edition of E! I've been a vegan for several years, and am constantly amazed at environmentalists who ignore the connection between meat and pollution! Thanks for a wonderful package -- it was interesting, easy to read and very timely!

Andy Summa
Dummerston, VT

While I commend you for the excellent coverage on the implications of meat, egg and dairy consumption in the Jan/Feb 2002 issue, I found your discussion of the rates of lactose intolerance misleading.

Sally Deneen wrote in "Body Of Evidence" that "three out of ten adults are lactose intolerant". While this is true if the focus is only North America, since our continent represents a small percentage of the humans on this planet we need to look at the bigger picture.

In fact, the majority of us, approximately seven out of ten, are unable to digest the sugar in cow's milk. A recent study published in the journal Nature Genetics explained that "though lactose intolerance may sound like a disorder, it is in fact natural. In most people the gene for lactase, the enzyme that digests lactose, is switched on at birth and switched off at the age of weaning." (Dallas Morning News, "Lactose intolerance linked to genetics", http://www.dallasnews.com/science/health/lactose_21liv.ART.60256.html)

It is inappropriate to discuss lactose intolerance based on a western, predominently caucasian standard because it imposes on Asians, Africans and Aboriginals a diet that contributes to disease that these groups have been protected from most of their existence. When they immigrate to North America and adopt our lifestyle, they then begin to suffer from the rates of heart disease, cancer and stroke that have become our norm.

Of course, we would benefit from omitting dairy products even though most North Americans can consume them.

Michael Manchester
Aylmer, Ontario, Canada 

I just picked up your magazine for the first time the other day... and now I'm hooked!  I loved it... I especially enjoyed the article on Amtrack traveling and hiring e-conscious builders to construct a home.  That is something I have always wondered about and had never heard of any such companies until I read your magazine!  Thanks for putting out such an informative and interesting publication.

Oh and I forgot to add that since reading your extensive article on how animals in the meat business are treated, I am proud to say I have become a bona fide vegetarian!

Brooke Fiechter

Your January issue is terrific. "So you're an environmentalist.  Why are you still eating meat?" was well thought out. I am a vegetarian trying to become vegan and it was great to see this in your magazine (which is always informative!) Thanks!

I want to thank you for giving voice to what I consider to be the long-unaddressed inconsistency of the environmental movement: the fact that so many self-proclaimed advocates for the earth continue to eat animals and animal products (January/February 2002). Truthfully, many vegans I know have become disheartened and downright cynical about environmental organizations because of their refusal to acknowledge this glaring contradiction. As the people who should know better remain unwilling to address the connection between the consumption of animal products and the destruction of our planet, the gulf between vegans and environmentalists widens.

While it disappoints me that people - especially people who are progressive and evolved in other ways - don't avoid animal products because of the suffering inherent in them, I understand that it's been ingrained in humans to rationalize this oppression for thousands of years, and we all have to come to our own ethical conclusions. At the same time, environmentalists are examples for others, and as such we must always challenge ourselves to do better.

One way environmentalists justify this consumption is by purchasing organic and the often misleadingly labeled "free-range" items. Organic meat and animal products are not a realistic answer for an environmentally-minded individual: the amount of space necessary for expanded cage and roaming space, given current consumption habits, simply wouldn't work without immense, improbable and wasteful land and water use. The answer is obvious to anyone looking at the situation from an honest, humane and environmental perspective: it's time for us to go vegan.

Marla Rose , Co-founder
Vegan Street
Chicago, IL

I am a volunteer for Green Mountain Animal Defenders, a Vermont based Animal Rights organization.  We loved your January/February 2002 issue on vegetarianism. 

Aside from helping animals, we are also dedicated to protecting the environment. As such, we would like to distribute copies of this amazing issue of your magazine to our members.  Is it possible to get a bulk price (or even better, a donation) of this issue?

On a personal note, I thought the magazine was excellent and as I am getting involved with a local Earth First! Group and attending the Instate for Social Ecology this summer I am definitely subscribing.

Jeremy
Volunteer, Green Mountain Animal Defenders
Burlington, VT

This is a cautionary tale from a medicinal omnivore who was a vegetarian for 25 years. I think we have to be very careful about pushing vegetarianism as the only politically correct way to eat. Your article, like so many anti-flesh food articles, overstates “facts” and stresses the planetary stresses & factory farm horrors without offering any options.  As a former hard-ass political eater, I understand your convictions. If you want to know why more environmentalists are not vegetarians, it may be because the diet doesn’t work for them. Perhaps it DOES have to do with anatomy. I propose that we have a lot of rethinking to do.

In 1970 my husband, George Elfie Ballis, and I were following the advice in Eat Right for Better Health by Adele Davis. WE were ready to become vegetarians the next year after reading Diet for a Small Planet by Francis Moore Lappe. We were never heavy meat eaters, and the transition was a cooking adventure for me. We became vegan purists, and advocates. It was harder to be tolerated by omnivores, or eat out in those days. Our organizational work included exposing people to vegetarian meals that included edible flowers, herbs and wild plants. I studied herbology and I even wrote a cookbook incorporating my floral & herbal dishes.

After the first ten years, I became weaker and sought medical help. I knew my chronic fatigue was partially due to overwork, but never suspected my diet because my belief system was so strong. After several healers (from herbalists to M.D.s) yelled at me to get more protein, I became an ovo-lacto vegetarian, and ate chicken and fish once or twice a month. I still felt lousy despite an extensive herbal program. My husband remained a purist, but he had always had exceptional energy.

After about 24 years, Elfie had a couple of scary heart arrhythmia incidents, and he got on the Dean Ornish very low fat, high fiber vegetarian diet. But there was no improvement. Meanwhile, in addition o my fatigue, I was having severe hypoglycemia, digestive problems, severe bloat/gas after meals, chronic congestion, arthritis, hay fever, and had my own heart incident.  I had a hard time realizing that my righteous diet was making me diabetic and giving me congestive heart failure.

My new nutritional chiropractor told me I had made a mistake avoiding meat, and that he had a hard time healing his vegetarian patients. He advised me to eat more protein and go on a food rotation diet for my allergies.  Despite philosophical torture, I increased my protein intake from poultry, fish, & soy.  I thought about the fact that animals eat each other, and reviewed my reasons for my diet.

Then I found a lump developing in my breast. Realizing that soy was estrogenic, and estrogen is about growth, I stopped soy and other estrogenic foods. After 2 years of treatments and supplements, I was doing better.

That is when I found The Zone by Barry Sears. I tried eating his low fat and balanced protein-carbo relationship diet, with very good results. Elfie joined me in short order. Our protein comes from free range poultry, fish, and protein powder isolates of whey and rice. We both felt better. Neither of us has had a heart incident since then.

The next refinement came from Eat Right for Your (Blood) Type by Peter D’Adamo helped me refine the foods I eat to suit my B blood type. To simplify, D’Adamo’s research indicates that people with different blood types evolved adapted to different diets. They need to eat according to their blood type for sustained optimal health. Type O “hunter-gatherer” is by far the most common blood type, and requires high protein (meat). My B blood type does better with a wide range of vegetables, some dairy, lamb, fish and poultry, and only 4 types of beans. The “adaptive vegetarian” blood type A that originated in western Europe does best with no meat! They flourish on soy, whole grains and vegetables.

Think about this the next time you compile a body of evidence. WE ARE ALL DIFFERENT! For example, eating wheat causes an alkaline reaction in blood type O but an acidic reaction in type A. Now I often wonder if the vegetarian movement is predominantly blood type A people who can handle the diet, and cannot understand why more people don’t “do the right thing.”  The tyranny of vegetarianism as the only PC way to eat must stop.

Let us use our buying power to support sustainable, natural flesh food protein sources for those of us who need them.  Let us focus on reducing world population to reduce the planetary food load. Let us look at how indigenous people like the American Indians of the Plains culture and the Lappi interrelate with their food sources. Maybe we can find a way to access semi wild sources of meat with less environmental stress than factory farming practices.  We can think creatively, but first we need a reality check.  I would love to be a vegan, but I would be comatose by noon.

Maia Ballis

It takes a tremendous amount of courage for a publication to address the pink elephant steak sitting in the boardroom of so many environmental organizations. I think many such groups fear mentioning the "V" word for fear of losing the two "M" words--members and money. Questioning the role our diet plays in the devastation of our Earth may hit too close to home for some who call themselves environmentalists. Again let me thank you for boldly bringing up this critical issue up for debate.

Michael Greger, MD
Jamaica Plain, MA

It seems as if you have painted a totally black and white picture here - leaving out the information of the organic pasture raised beef in Vermont, free range chickens, small family farm raised diversified livestock - chickens who graze all summer, who are slaughtered on farm.  The majority of Vermont dairy and beef are raised on grass, on hillsides where grains don't grow - it is not an issue of grain being raised for cows instead of people eating lower on the food chain.

The issue of world starvation is predominantly an issue of food distribution due to political powers.  McDonalds and other fast food restaurants certainly play a role in purchasing cheap beef, I am not defending McDonalds, but you can not blame starvation on McDonalds.

Why not counter your article with a discussion of the health benefits of grass fed beef (high in conjugated linoleic acids (CLA)), or the growth in the organic milk market?  You paint a doom and gloom factory farming picture and then counter that with vegetarianism.  I, also, am working to stop factory farming - that is certainly where the animals are inhumanely treated, and where food borne illnesses start, but there are alternatives that your readers deserve to know about.

Enid Wonnacott, Executive Director
Northeast Organic Farming Association of Vermont (NOFA-VT)

E has truly established itself as a leader in environmental thought with the publication of the Jan/Feb issue, "So You're an Environmentalist...Why Are You Still Eating Meat?"  Thank you for your wonderful article, "The Case Against Meat," which provides an excellent explanation of the serious environmental consequences of daily food choices.

I would like to help you get the word out by sharing the Jan./Feb. issue with friends, family, and coworkers.  Is there any way I can save money by buying the magazine in larger quantities?

Susan Prolman

I applaud your campaign for vegetarianism. Thank you for a well-composed presentation of facts . . .it is crucial that we educate people about the impact they can have simply by choosing their meals consciously. It is encouraging to read articles that urge vegetarianism while remaining positive--and indispensably informative. Great work. Great magazine.

Sarahmarie Sisler

Your recent article, "The Case Against Meat," makes the following statements:

“In his book The Food Revolution, author John Robbins estimates that "you'd save more water by not eating a pound of California beef than you would by not showering for an entire year."

“Authors Paul and Anne Ehrlich note that a pound of wheat can be grown with 60 pounds of water, whereas a pound of meat requires 2,500 to 6,000 pounds.”

If we use the upper limit of 6000 pounds and use 10gal/shower (http://www.ficus.usf.edu/docs/water_conserve/resident.htm ) and 8.33 pounds/gal we get the answer that we shower at most 72 times a year.

Similarly in an article "Chinese Water Table Torture" by Lester R. Brown,

( http://www.gristmagazine.com/grist/maindish/brown102601.asp) he writes: "... it takes 1,000 tons of water to produce one ton of grain..."

This is orders of magnitude different form the figures given by the Ehrlich's above.

How do we reconcile these statistics?

Hans
New Zealand

Re: "So You're an Environmentalist; Why Are You Still Eating Meat?" by Jim Motavalli...

As much as I agree that eating less meat will help the environment greatly, some people simply can't go 100% vegetarian.  I know because I tried once-- I ate a variety of foods, made sure I got all my amino acids, vitamins, etc., and I ate well.  Damn well, in fact.  However, I got horrible migranes that went away as soon as I re-introduced meat.  My diet is now mostly vegetarian, but meat is a part of it.

I also take some issue with the headline, " So You're an Environmentalist; Why Are You Still Eating Meat?"  I ride my bike to work instead of driving.  I buy organic foods  and try to buy in bulk so I don't throw away individual wrappers.  I turn my thermostat off when I leave and keep it below 65 when I'm home.  I donate money to Surfrider and Greenpeace.  I look for earth-friendly products like soap, washing detergent, and recycled paper products.  Heck, I even bit the bullet and voted for Gore over Nader because it was a close race in Washington State.  To suggest that all this counts for nothing because of the occasional hamburger is, well, a little offensive.

I also think that making environmentalism a holier-than-thou, all-or-nothing crusade does a great disservice to all the small steps people could take to make a big difference.  I agree the U.S. as a country eats way, way, WAAAY too much meat, but softening the language and offering alternatives might be better for the cause than preaching from a bully pulpit.

Eli Harrison
Seattle, WA

I have been vegetarian for over a decade, and vegan for the most recent half of that time; I wear no animal products, walk or bike to work, and generally limit my life's capacity to inflict suffering as much as I can.  That said, I think there is great danger in preaching that only a vegetarian lifestyle can save the planet.

In the first place, too much of the case rests on the supposition that factory farming is limited to the production of animal foods, and is indeed the only way to get them.  Factory farming of vegetable goods is as ubiquitous as that of animal products; and while the devastation wrought by chemically saturated square miles of genetically altered corn does indeed pale beside the horror of fowl and pig farms, it ain't ecological chicken feed.  Too, organic livestocking, though still more land and resource intensive than vegetable farming, can greatly reduce the environmental impact of beast-based eating.  Preaching organic, rather than vegetarian, seems the more effective message.

Secondly, and potentially more seriously, it is deadly dangerous in 2002 to risk halving, quartering, decimating the appeal of environmental activism by insisting that only the meatless can join the green club.  Many more Americans have been, and can be, convinced to reduce and reuse, to buy recycled, to walk or bike (or at least to drive something smaller than a dump truck), than will ever give up cheese.  Americans, of all people, cannot be guilt-tripped into long-term sacrifice.

I support both the green and the vegan lifestyles, and model them for the students I teach, the wrestlers I coach and the family and friends I love; and in doing so I demonstrate that, in 2002, green and even vegan living is cheap, practical and even better than carnage.  But to insist that the causes cannot exist except simultaneously damages both.

Skip Saunders
Rome, GA

Thank for your excellent cover story extolling the virtues of a vegetarian diet. I especially appreciated your analysis of how vegetarian advocates can't quite get on the same page with their messages. The organization I founded, the Center for Informed Food Choices, educates people about plant-based foods. We have made a conscious decision not to promote a vegan diet per se. While all of our cooking classes are vegan, I am absolutely convinced that emphasizing healthy eating, not veganism, is the key to our success so far. To those who disagree with this more gentle, more inclusive approach because they think ethics demands that everyone adopt a strict vegan diet, I say simply, do the math. Getting 100 people to stop eating meat three days a week will save many more animals than getting 10 people to give it up entirely. (100 people x 9 meals = 900 meals v. 10 x 21 = 210.) Also, most people don t want to be labeled and are more willing to change their eating habits if they don t feel pressured into having to make a complete shift or join a club they don t feel comfortable with. If only more animal rights advocates would get this, we could go a long way toward saving the planet.

Michele Simon, JD, MPH
Founder and Director, Center for Informed Food Choices

I eagerly read your latest issue (Jan/Feb 02) focusing on "The Case Against Meat"; while informative, I was disappointed that your articles dropped the ball on the related discussion of organic meat.

It's clear that meat-based diets are problematic for global hunger, brutalize animals and endanger our health.  Although I have tried going vegetarian, I confess that I periodically crave a burger or fajitas, and molded soy just doesn't fit the bill.

My compromise?  I consume only organic meats and dairy products. In doing so, I bypass concerns of antibiotics, hormones and other chemicals, find comfort knowing the animals are raised "free-range" without overcrowding and the stress and illness that result, and often support my local farmers and the organic movement as a whole.  Am I naïve to think that free-range 'organic' farmers would slaughter humanely as well?  Further, by eliminating non-organic beef and most other non-organic meats from my diet, I've removed my financial support of the majority of junk food that pervades the market and contributes to overall bad health.

I'm an animal lover and, no, the hypocrisy of being a meat-eater doesn't escape me.  Apart from that personal ethical dilemma, what are the environmental repercussions of choosing organic meat as a compromise to this issue?  I would encourage your editors to consider this for a follow-up article in a subsequent issue.

I very much enjoy your magazine.  It has helped me grow in my knowledge and awareness of the issues that are important to me.  Keep up the great work.

Christine Brock
Moreland Hills, OH

It was refreshing to read Jim Motavalli's article, "The Case Against Meat," in which the author addressed often ignored suppositions about why meat is harmful to one's (and one's fellow animals') world at-large. All too often, the "go vegetarian" debate relies more on an attempt to rally the general public to be humane (i.e., If you love this cow, stop ordering

Big Macs) and less about the more well-rounded——and very problematic——issues with meat eating in general, such as the most obvious: Feeding cattle for slaughter is more expensive and time-consuming than converting to a meatless diet. It's hopeful that the environmental issues outlined in the cover story will provoke readers, who are less likely to be swayed by the image of fuzzy faces in cages, to reconsider the economic and environmental impact of meat eating. Congratulations on the well-researched and daring feature.

Natalie Hope McDonald
Philadelphia, PA

I was pleased to see your detailed articles about vegetarianism and the environment (cover story, Jan/Feb '02).  You make a strong case for plant-based diets on ethical, environmental and health grounds.  As someone who works in the environmental movement, I've seen firsthand how failing to address food choices gives ammunition to those who accuse environmentalists of hypocrisy.

If we suggest that people consider the environmental impact of products like toilet bowl cleaner and dishwashing soap, shouldn't we apply the same criteria to food choices?  Eating meat and animal products is fundamentally inconsistent with environmental protection, is inefficient and wasteful, and causes tremendous suffering to animals on factory farms and in slaughterhouses.  When it comes to what's on our plates, we need to walk our talk.

Bernie Fischlowitz-Roberts
Staff Researcher, Earth Policy Institute
Washington, DC

Your coverage of the environmental impact of meat highlighted some important points about mass-production farming, however, it seems odd that you did not highlight solutions---one of which is practiced by one of your advertisers.

At North Hollow Farm in Rochester, Vt., cows eat some grain, but they are mainly grass-fed, which means they go out into fields--including some residents' front yards--and eat grass that is naturally irrigated with rainwater. No extra water is needed for this and no petroleum-fueled vehicles are used to harvest the feed. The farm is family-owned and is one of a few still hanging on in a region that is rapidly abandoning agriculture because it can't compete with larger producers in the South and West. The Holistic Management practices advocated by Allan Savory show methods to growing meat that is only grass-fed--no harvested grain required.

Raising meat is also a matter of scale. In Burlington, Vt., the Intervale Community Farm raises chickens in chicken tractors--movable pens that allow them to roam a bit and fertilize crop land. The chickens live decent lives, are butchered humanely and in small numbers, and are only raised during the warm-weather months.

By not emphasizing solutions, environmentalists do everyone a great disservice. The vegetarian who eats rice noodles imported from Asia and vegetables and legumes grown across the country may be more environmentally high-impact than the person who buys and eats produce and meat from local, family-owned small farms.

Perhaps a better approach is to know your food sources and buy from local farms that grow food wisely. Be part of the solution.

Carol Steinfeld
Center for Ecological Pollution Prevention
Concord, MA

Unlike any other issue, the arguments surrounding vegetarianism bring into focus the basic motivation for an environmentalist. Is our primary drive enlightened self-interest, wanting clean air and water for ourselves and kin? Are we innervated by a certain set of desires, for natural spaces and charismatic macrofauna? Or are we environmentalists for reasons larger than our personal well-being and desires? Can we think beyond ourselves and the norms of society? Do we recognize and oppose the suffering of others, regardless of race, class, or species?

The best an environmentalist can do is to help lead forward the evolution of our ethics. As pointed out by The Economist (8/19/95), "Historically, man has expanded the reach of his ethical calculations, as ignorance and want have receded, first beyond family and tribe, later beyond religion, race, and nation. To bring other species more fully into the range of these decisions may seem unthinkable to moderate opinion now. One day, decades or centuries hence, it may seem no more than 'civilized' behavior requires."

Matt Ball
Executive Director, Vegan Outreach

In your entire magazine section against meat, I found these "issues that need focus."

1) To look at humans and say that because we don't hunt using our bare hands means we are not designed to eat meat is a bit like saying that because we wear coats when we go outside in the winter that we should not be living north of Florida. As time progressed, our intelligence negated the need for claws, fangs, and so forth.

2) Did you know that there are people who are allergic to Strawberries, Citrus, and Peanuts? I think PeTV (People for the Ethical Treatment of Vegetables) should start a campaign saying humans simply were not meant to eat ANY of these! Allergies happen.

3) We're classified as mammals because we're able to consume dairy products.

4) That "animal waste" goes to fertilizer for your vegetables.

5) Meat is something humans have acquired a taste for. Whether at one time humans (more specifically, their ancestors) were herbivores, we are not as such now.

6) I seriously doubt anything on McDonald's menu actually has beef in it. ;-)

John Lyran
Chicago, IL

There is no argument against the fact that meat production and consumption take a heavy toll on our personal and planetary health. Still, individuals who strive to be more environmentally minded do have an meat alternative while on the way to becoming vegetarians.

Jim Motavalli made no mention of "free range" chickens, turkeys, pigs, and cows raised for meat. These animals live a quality life before providing food to omnivorous humans, and many are raised on organic feeds without growth hormones or antibiotics.

I imagine PETA would not approve, but a growing number of individuals could make a difference in the way animals are raised for meat by using their consumer influence and buying only meat from animals raised with a higher quality of life than factory farmed animals.

Alaina Lammer Knight
Bozeman, MT

I wanted to thank you so much for the Jan/Feb 02 "why are you still eating meat?" issue.  as if I needed another reason to love your magazine!  It's wonderful to see a progressive magazine address the issue of animal welfare/animal rights. It was also great to see ads from so many animal protection groups.

I think most people (including progressives and environmentalists)have no idea how brutally animals used for food are treated.  Thank you for helping to get that message out there.

Unfortunately, critics slander animal rights folks with a variety of unflattering names (the latest seems to be "freaks").  We just don't want sentient creatures to suffer.  Is that so wrong?

Robin Jacobson
New York, NY

Great meat issue. You guys continue to outdo yourselves. In fact, you've inspired me -- an almost vegetarian -- to go veggie. I hope the same happens to many, many others.

Obviously, we'd love to post the stories on AlterNet; I think the whole package could sell, including the Gradual Vegetarian part (is it all on your site?)

Tate Hausman
Managing Editor, AlterNet

Bravo on your excellent  cover story, "So You’re an Environmentalist?  Why Are You Still Eating Meat?" (January/February 2002 issue) It is hard to understand how environmentalists can continue to eat meat after your thorough, well-argued review of the many ways that animal-based diets and agriculture hurt the environment, contribute substantially to heart disease cancer, and other degenerative diseases, mistreat nearly 10 billion animals in the U.S. alone, wastefully use water, fuel, grain, and other agricultural

resources, and worsen world hunger. Since about 80 percent of Americans express concern about the environment, but only about 2 percent abstain from eating  meat, your wonderful article should have a major impact. You deserve much credit for your pioneering, but long overdo article. I hope that it will

be widely read and that other publications and media outlets will follow your lead in pointing out the many problems caused by the mass production and widespread consumption of animal products. Many thanks.

Richard H. Schwartz
Professor Emeritus, Mathematics, College of Staten Island
Staten Island, NY

I can't tell you how profoundly thrilled I am that E has come out encouraging, no....urging, environmentalists to give up meat eating and become vegetarian.  It brought me to tears, for I have encountered quite a few environmentalists from Sierra, Audubon, outdoor groups, etc., and it is rare to find a veggie among them.  I have been dumbfounded, wondering how committed environmentalists could be knowledgeable about the plight of farm animals and the impact of their resulting wastes, and yet they do not forswear contributing to these horrible problems by giving up being carnivorous.  I can attest to the deep senses of gratification and morality that I feel everyday, because I am not eating a dead chicken, cow, pig or fish, nor contributing to the planet's environmental degradation.  I wish publishers and editors of other similar magazines could recommend to their readership the values of vegetarianism.

Len Frenkel
Seaville, N.J.

When we moved from Traverse City, MI in September we allowed our subscription to lapse as we are primarily animal rights people and secondarily environmentalists.  We worked tirelessly in our MI community on both but noticed that our animal rights friends were also environmentalists but few of our environmental friends cared about animal issues.  And, except for human overpopulation, we felt your magazine was missing issues we felt were of critical importance.

When we saw your courageous Jan-Feb issue promoting a plant based diet to save both the animals and the planet we decided to come back on board.  Our subscription is in the mail.

Robert Anderlik
Liberty Lake, WA

I certainly feel the topic of vegetarianism to be a worthy one for your magazine, but I felt your piece was quite one-sided. Each argument you present for vegetarianism has a valid counterpoint:

1)     Land usage. If we do not use land for animals, it will simply go to serve human needs. You argue that the land could serve more humans if used for agriculture. This is quite an anthropocentric view - only human needs matter. It sounds as if vegetarians prefer that no land be used to support animals to the current state of mistreatment of animals.

2)     Ethics. How is it more ethical to kill living plants food than to kill living animals for food? Does one form of life have a higher worth than another form? (And why does the same issue support alcohol consumption [pg 42-43], which is also a destructive diet?)

3)     Factory farming. Why not support more ethical standards of farming, such as organic, free-range farming?

4)     The amount of chemicals used in factory farming. And chemical usage is not an issue in agriculture?

5)     Health concerns. One can eat a healthy diet including meat or an unhealthy vegan diet. Vegan diets may be on the average healthier but it's silly to claim one is invariably healthy and the other invariably unhealthy.

Keep up the usual fine reporting,

Mischa Gelman
Pittsburgh, PA

I just read your articles about vegetarianism and environmentalism, and all I can say is: It's about time. I was wondering when E was going to take a stand on this no-brainer. Of course environmentalists should go vegan. Okay, okay, or vegetarian.

Ben Grossblatt
Seattle WA

Your issue on vegetarianism was full of compelling facts about how the meat industry wreaks havoc on the environment and on human health. And the information you provided about the cruelties inflicted on animals raised in factory farms surely will change the dietary habits of at least some of your readers. However, please realize, that even if the meat industry was cleaner, or more healthful, or more humane, true abolitionists of animal slavery would be against it for moral reasons.

It is the use of animals as the means to human ends which concerns the abolitionist. It isn't how we raise our meat; it's the fact that we raise animals for food at all, which disrespects their rights to their own lives. It isn't how much cage space a "farm" animal has; it's the fact that we feel entitled to take the life of that sentient animal just because the animal isn't a human being. It's not that eating meat can just make us sick; it's the fact that meat-eaters believe a non-human animal's life is a fair trade for a moment of dining pleasure.

Megan Metzelaar
Outreach Coordinator
Friends of Animals

Congratulations.  In a lifetime of doing this work, I am well aware that there are two taboos which are too dangerous to touch:  population and diet.  Last issue you addressed the former, and this issue you clutched the third rail of the latter.  My admiration knows no bounds.  Thank you for modeling courage for us all.

Beth Hollenbeck
The ECO-Store
Orlando, Florida

E presented evidence of the damage caused by intensive-confinement meat but pretended it was evidence against eating any meat. I can relate--I made the same illogical leap for almost ten years--but I’m still disappointed.

Yes, the conventional U.S. animal food industry is enormously wasteful and pollutive (as are the conventional plant food industries), but the damage is caused by our agricultural system, not meat-eating. We can--and some do--raise animals free-range or pastured rather than in concentration camps. Some benefits: Manure and urine nourish the soil instead of posing "disposal problems." Lands ill-suited to grain production can become biodiverse ecosystems again. Animals are much less susceptible to disease, so there’s no reason for routine use of antibiotics and other drugs. The meat is higher in polyunsaturated--and lower in saturated--fats.

Wild animals can be eaten, too, of course.

Meat needn't be an ecological "problem," and I’m convinced vegetarianism is no solution.

John Kurmann
Kansas City, MO