True that some vegans act self-righteous, but I honestly come across WAY more self-righteous meat-eaters… Why are the vegan ones isolated as acting so when there are so many more meat-eaters who consider their diets superior? I can’t get over society’s blatant bias in the dietary high horse debate…

lol, that’s the price we pay for expressing our opinions on such open platforms… I like it though, because we share a wealth of perceptions that expand our understandings… It’s easier to send & receive when we let go of our ego, too.

I disbelieve that ‘global’ vegans refuse to accept the consequences of diets… It is precisely because they are so concerned about consequences that they adopt the vegan diet…

I’ve never come across one ignorant to the subject the toll of farming takes on the environment… In fact, I’ve only come across quite the opposite: they are all too concerned about the environment and the respective deforestation that takes place as well as the agricultural resources necessary for the livestock industry…

I’ve never heard one ignorant on the topic of the human over-population of the Earth and how we will soon run out of resources to feed ourselves should we continue expanding at such a rapid rate and also how it will contribute to the expansion of deforestation for livestock farming and the increase in price of meat because it will be so expensive to procure… Habitat loss is increased by livestock farming, not the other way around… Not only do we require the space to grow the monumental amount of food needed for the animals, but we also require the space to raise them…

And I’ve never heard a vegan express that they wished animals to simply stopped dying… The ones I’ve known are quite spiritual and view death as a beautiful part in the circle of life… Though, that’s not to say that they endorse the unnecessary suffering of livestock for the short and painful durations of their lives… And I speak of factory farming, not necessarily small organic farming…

Forgive me, but I question how much you’ve actually spoken to the vegan community given your limited understanding of vegan values, so, it boggles me when you claim you have never seen the vegan community question the consequences of farming and “work withing that framework”… I guess it may be that because I’ve never come across a vegan who did force their own diets on others and not respect others’ free will that I have never heard of the authoritarian vegans you speak of? I’ve heard rumours of them by meat-eaters on the internet quite frequently, but have never actually spoken to one myself yet (and I frequent online vegan communities)…

Ok, I tried replying twice last night but my replies weren’t approved from moderation likely due to being too long in length, containing links or quotes. So, I’m chunking it down into smaller individual replies to see how that works… Here’s the first bit:

“One of the consequences you don’t address is where all these animals are supposed to go.”

As in livestock? I see you are still of the opinion that most vegans expect the whole world to follow their lifestyle? To entertain your question (though you are most wrong in your assumption), farmers would simply stop force breeding the livestock… Puzzle solved! Within a few years (maybe even only 1), the livestock population would be gone (perhaps the species even reintroduced to the wild to preserve them, if at all possible (though unlikely).

“I have dealt with many vegans who deplore and condemn hunting and would see it banned. This is a HUGE consequence. Taking the deer population by itself, how do we do this? If the deer population of the US and Canada were to be left untouched, we would have an ecological disaster within 5 years, in most regions. Overpopulation, overgrazing, disease, soil erosion, damage to watersheds due to said soil erosion, damage to other animal life that is dependent on these watersheds. These are not theories. This would happen and happen quickly.”

Again, I only entertain your question being that you are of the
belief that vegans like to dictate how others live… The deer
population is indeed already crowded, but this is a direct result of hunting and scaring off the larger game that are the deer’s natural predators… This has, of course, been done as a result of expanding development into rural areas which comes from drastic HUMAN overpopulation. The further we streach out, the more big game is scared away and hunted when found in proximity to ensure safety to our communities. So, on one hand we complain about curbing deer overpopulation yet fail to even attempt to limit our own exponential breeding… And our hasty habit of multiplying like so has far greater consequences than simple deer overpopulation, as I have no doubt you know…

That being said, even if we were to curb our human population
expansion today, the deer problem would still exist for some time as a result of our past mistake. I myself, in this given situation, see no problem with curbing the deer population so long as they are killed humanely (one bullet, quick death) and we do something about, and take responsibility for, our own grave contribution this ecological disaster (as well as hope that the hunted deer’s remains are used in full, leaving no waste).

“First of all, you completely misinterpreted my remark concerning GMO, even though I added a (sarcasm) tag to it. Of course vegans are disgusted with GMO, as we all should be. And that was my point. Wild honeybees aren’t getting the job done. It’s been posted on this site and elsewhere that America is suffering a drastic shortage of honeybees. This needs to be rectified or GMO is going to be what we’re stuck with.”

Then you suggest that we need GMO as a replacement to honey? Why is it that you believe we are so heavily dependent on honey that we actually require it as a necessity in our diets and would therefore need to rely on a GMO alternative with its absence? I completely fail to see why honey is such a dire necessity to ANY diet considering its lack of health benefit and high sugar content… And are you really willing to continue the honey-keeping industry at the expense of bee endangerment (therefore gravely damaging wild pollination and all the consequences that come with THAT)?

“One of your above comments seems to have a tolerant view of hunting. OK, cool. You are an exception. Your overall views are also an exception to what most vegans think.”

Make no mistake – I do not agree with it, though that is not to say that I would force my own values on others and I honestly have never met a vegan that did… I’ve met plenty of tree-huggers (no offense to any), politically-enthralled individuals, religious or anti-religious zealots, and meat-eaters who incessantly try to force their own values or opinions down my/others’ throat(s), yet NEVER a vegan… It boggles me, therefore, why you are so adamant on claiming that all (or even some significant percentage of) vegans do and that I am an ‘exception’ to the general rule… In all irony, it very much seems as though it is YOU who is actually intimidating others to agree with YOUR values, opinions, or beliefs…

To further my reasoning behind thinking so, I’ll mention what I find perplexing is that you are so adamant on desperately trying to uncover unexisting consequence of proper vegan diet yet fail to even mention (or acknowledge) any of the consequences involved in livestock farming, human overpopulation, or even bee keeping… Such issues present FAR greater consequences than any of those you have tried to unsuccessfully validate…

“I disagree that the deer population is “already crowded”. It’s being kept in manageable numbers thanks to regulated hunting.”

Isn’t it? There are 60,000 (estimation made in 2008) Canadian deer-related collisions reported annually, while in the U.S., there are 750,000 annually (estimation made in 2003). Are those numbers not evidence enough of over-population?

“Deer-vehicle accidents resulted in more than $3.8 billion of insurance claims and driver costs in the year ended June 30, according to State Farm Insurance. Such collisions resulted in about 140 human deaths, according to statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Serious stuff.

“We’re not even including the financial and social cost of Lyme disease, the expense of hauling away deer carcasses, and the cost in money and time protecting vegetation and crops from voracious deer predation.

“State Farm estimates that in the 12 months ended June 30, there were 1.1 million deer-vehicle accidents nationwide that resulted in $3.8 billion of insurance payouts and driver costs. The total exceeds $4 billion when we throw in the cost of accidents in which no claims were made because drivers had no comprehensive insurance on their vehicles, or no insurance at all.

“The costs in the adjacent chart combine State Farm’s estimate of an average $3,103 per claim paid by insurers with the estimated deductible, $250, absorbed by drivers. We’re using a $3,353 cost per accident in all states, because State Farm doesn’t provide state-by-state data.”—[see Washington Post ‘Deer overpopulation taking economic toll’]

Also, see NPR’s ‘Growing Deer Population Hurts Survival Of Forests’:

“The white-tailed deer was a rare creature along the East Coast a hundred years ago. Now they seem to be everywhere. Across the country there are some 20 million white-tailed deer and many states are seeing record populations, populations that are expected to grow. That has had big implications for road safety and gardens. Now new warnings about the implications for bio-diversity and the long-term survival of forests.

“Sabri Ben-Achour has the story.

“SABRI BEN-ACHOUR: Back in 1990, scientists with the Smithsonians Conservation Biology Institute in Front Royal, Virginia closed off about 10 acres behind an eight-foot tall wire fence. Its called an exclosure. Its a world without deer and it doesnt really exist anymore anywhere else.

“Bill McShea is a wildlife ecologist with the Smithsonian. And after passing through a rickety wire door…

“(Soundbite of a metal door)

“BEN-ACHOUR: …he is standing in that world.

“Mr. BILL MCSHEA (Wildlife Ecologist, Conservation Biology Institute, Smithsonian Institution): So here were inside this deer exclosure, right at the fence line here. And this fence has been up now for 21 years. So we’re comparing inside the fence to outside the fence. And there’s two things to notice. One is, its green on both sides of the fence. But in here, its a lot more diverse than out there.

“BEN-ACHOUR: That is an understatement. The deer side of the fence has a carpet of grass, a shrubby looking thing, and some large trees – things that are either too big for deer to eat, or are among the very few plants they dont like to eat. Inside it is practically a jungle. Dozens of different almost exotic looking plants are tumbling over one another. Many of them are young trees.

“Mr. MCSHEA: In here, I can see white ash and hickory and red maples and service berry. Were looking at 20, 30 species. If you look out there, its a much simpler world.

“BEN-ACHOUR: And that simpler world is an aging world. Really, its a dying world, as far as forests go.

“Mr. MCSHEA: The future is not good. Theres no teenagers here. There’s no young adults. Everybody is a mature individual. Whereas inside this fence, you have the complete profile of ages. You have youngsters. You have teenagers you have middle-aged adults. You have the old trees. And when the old trees go, there is something here to take its place. Out there, I dont see anything out there thats a small tree.

“BEN-ACHOUR: One of the surprising things theyve found with this experiment is that deer allow invasive species to flourish. And with fewer native plants, there are fewer birds who depend on them for nests and food. There are fewer mice and fewer chipmunks here when they have to compete with deer. It wasnt always this way.

“A hundred years ago deer were nearly extinct in Maryland and extremely rare in Virginia. Newly minted state game departments rushed to the rescue, banning or regulating hunting and setting up parks.

“Mr. MCSHEA: They went and got deer from Arkansas and brought them here to repopulate that area. So growing the deer population was intentional. Its a conservation story and it went just like they planned. And now the flipside has happened.

“BEN-ACHOUR: Deer arent evil, McShea is quick to emphasize, but they dont have any natural predators anymore and they need to be managed. States rely on hunters and even hired sharpshooters. But McShea says in order to protect the long-term health of forests, a wider, more aggressive approach is necessary.

“Mr. MCSHEA: We have time in that we dont have to make a decision this year.

BEN-ACHOUR: But he says, we dont have decades – trees dont live forever.”

And, like you said before: “If the deer population of the US and Canada were to be left untouched, we would have an ecological disaster within 5 years, in most regions. Overpopulation, overgrazing, disease, soil erosion, damage to watersheds due to said soil erosion, damage to other animal life that is dependent on these watersheds. These are not theories. This would happen and happen quickly.” Though, it is already here & happening.

“If it was overcrowded, that fact would refute that predator species are having a tough time living off them.”

You are very disillusioned to even suggest that the deer population is not overpopulated by implying that the severe decline in predatory population is a result of a lack of deer… It is the result of HUMAN overpopulation with suburban sprawl that drives predators away into whatever remains of the wild forests & prairies in North America, declining in population as they live solitarily or in packs that require significant territorial distance from others of their specie else there is challenge that results in death or banishment (spawning further challenge elsewhere for territory that results again in either outcome)…

“If domestic livestock were set free and factory farms were eliminated, this would not stop these individual species from breeding. Quite the opposite. Their breeding would be unchecked by man-made factors. I am talking (unfortunately) of systematic castration of the males to improve meat quality (as a male, I don’t like to spend too much time dwelling on it). Again, take this away, breeding increases with all the attendant problems that I outined in my previous post.”

You assume when I said “farmers would simply stop force breeding the livestock… Puzzle solved! Within a few years (maybe even only 1), the livestock population would be gone (perhaps the species even reintroduced to the wild to preserve them, if at all possible (though unlikely)” that such would entail integrating all current livestock to the wild? Are you nuts?… We would simply not BREED them and use their by-products or flesh as before and within a few years, there would be none left (save that former 2% which would hypothetically be reintroduced into the wild and, contrary to your assumption, would not breed like crazy there (those that even survive the transition), but be exposed to the aforementioned predators (given that WE would indeed curtail our own overpopulation and rapid expansion) and extreme challenges of living in the wild…

Further, I fail to see how the castration of certain livestock negates the force breeding involved in livestock farming… Sure, many are castrated, though just as many more are inseminated… And, it’s funny that the topic of castration would make you queasy when the nature of a factory farm animal’s life at any given time is just as especially painful… Just sayin’

“Let me be clear: I don’t like factory farms. I hope for a better way. But there are millions of people that need to be fed, their numbers are only going to increase, and it’s an imperfect world.”

Because it is an imperfect world, I suppose you feel we should just continue with our ways and watch it get worse? Sounds pretty counter-evolutionary… You seem to also be of the opinion that the millions of hungry mouths are incapable of being fed and kept healthy on plant-based diets (which, as I had already established, takes up 70% less land area to farm than livestock and is eminently cheaper than meat or by-products). In truth, MORE mouths could be fed should
there ever be a shift towards limiting livestock farming…

“I stand by my original comments. Most vegans/vegetarians don’t accept that there are consequences to their beliefs.”

I really wish you would provide a valid example of any such consequence(s) as I have negated every one of your arguments thus far…

“What to do with animals left unchecked and un-intervened with is a big one.”

Which I have just pointed out the logical fallacy of…

“You are trying to refute that point where, in YOUR original post you said, “True that some vegans act self-righteous,”. In effect, you are arguing with me for agreeing with you.”

Yes, vegans can act self-righteous just as any other person, but you can’t by any means pretend they are any MORE prone to doing so than meat-eaters or persons with any other type of diet (which you have time & time again suggested). I am arguing where I see you misinterpret my words & comments or otherwise lack insight or introspection into the aforementioned issues…

“Your well-thought and well-presented points indicate to me that you are an exception to what I was saying. And in fairness to me, I did point out that there were exceptions. Again, your views on hunting are proof-positive to me that you are not one of the people that I was referring to, when I said, “Global vegan”. I’m glad that you see the world with clear eyes.”

Again, am I really an exception to the rule when so few of these Nazi vegans exist that I have yet to even come into contact with one? I won’t pretend that there may not be any vegans of such descriptions, but can you honestly pretend that the majority or even a significant number of us are? If so, please provide me some the evidence as I don’t really have the time to go fishing for it (I shouldn’t even be taking the time to write these responses :s)…

I use the term ‘Nazi’ to jest at your idea that any significant number
of vegans feel themselves so superior to force their own values unto
others in the authoritarian fashion so famous by Nazis… I’m sorry
PokerRay, but I missed where it is you were in agreement other than with
‘ethical’ hunting… Care to point out what I missed? Is there more
terminology I’ve used you feel I let get out of hand besides the term
‘Nazi’?

And I hope you don’t get the wrong idea that I mean to
personally attack you or anything… I aim only to expand each of our
understandings and point out logical or factual inaccuracies within this
debate (and I, personally, have no problems with disagreements (note
distinction between disagreements & disrespect – which, if I have
been guilty of, I’m truly sorry) as they broaden our perspectives when
we talk about them). One of my favourite quotes for this very reason
is: “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”–Martin Luther King, Jr.

Fair
enough: I’ll do some digging in the next few days and report back with
what I find (just hoping it doesn’t take 3 or 4 years, ;p jk…).

If
you are in agreement that we need more honey bees, how in good
conscience can you support the bee-keeping industry when it is rapidly
endangering the species (domestic & wild alike)? “If they are the
same breed as your wild bees, then I don’t see the problem.” I’m sorry,
but did you even read those quotes I included about bee-keepers
preferring to let entire colonies die to save money instead of feeding
them over winter, the spread of disease through the Varroa mite, or
Colony Collapse Disorder?

“You mention human overpopulation. OK.
How do we address that? I’ve done my part. I’m 47 and have no kids.
What next? What is your plan to end overpopulation?”.

Well,
PokerRay, considering I am a 23yr old student with no formal education
or training on national or international laws, policies or planning, I
can only throw out a wild idea like child-restriction policy which would
cause an influx of both children in orphanages and abortions (where
permitted) (therefore necessitating more laws and policies regarding the
states of orphanages, qualifications for abortions, and enticement for
adoption (also therefore necessitating closer monitoring of child
welfare). Honestly, I don’t have a good answer but ignoring the problem
won’t make it go away (and will only make it worse a hell of a lot
faster)… And the problems that the livestock industry poses for the
entire planet (environmentally and in terms of food costs (think back to
those hungry mouths you brought up earlier that could actually be
satiated if livestock farming were replaced by agriculture) are only
going to get worse with continued overpopulation when things are already
in the danger zone…

The thing that I still find funny is that I
can’t see any consequences proper vegan diets pose (with the exception
of business for the livestock industry) though you seem convinced that
there are several… I’d love to hear about those if there are truly
any valid consequences.

Pot calling kettle ‘black’ I hope you are not ill like I was…

Part #3

“And speaking of crop farming, there’s a thread
somewhere in here where the vegan posters overwhelmingly deplored the
“exploitation” of honey bees and refuse to use their products. So OK,
lets not support the honey industry, lets not incentivize the honey
industry, lets not support more hives and more bees. It’s OK because we
have GMO to fall back on (sarcasm). Another consequence.”

Are you kidding me? DO you have any idea what honey-keeping does to wild bee populations? ERADICATES THEM…

“Sometimes whole colonies are killed off
to save feeding them over the winter.
When they are kept through the
winter, the honey is often removed and
replaced with sugar candy or syrup,
which are cheaper, though less healthy
for the bees.

“Beekeepers often transport their
colonies to areas of flowering crops
where the bees pollinate the flowers,
increasing crop yields and earning fat
fees for the beekeepers. However, this
is to the detriment of local wild bees
and other pollinating insects, which are
swamped by the temporary visitors.

“As with all intensively farmed animals,
commercial bee colonies are prone to
the rapid spread of disease. The Varroa
mite is rife among both commercial
and “hobby” bee colonies and is
threatening the few remaining wild
honey bee colonies.”–[google 'vegan society honey' (it should be the first link and in pdf format)]

‘CITIZEN SCIENCE UPDATE: Feed the Bees, Harm the Bees?’

“As
a continuing part of the partnership between the Insect News Network,
YourGardenShow [dot com] and their support of Citizen Science and the Great
Sunflower Project, we will bring you a series of posts about the
breaking news regarding Colony Collapse Disorder.

“In an ironic
twist, the poisoning of the bees could come as a result of farmers and
beekeepers trying to feed them. The industrial usage of the bees on an
annual basis requires farmers to feed them substitutes to the nectar
they gather in the fields. When the bees arrive at a monocultured
pasture, there are few abundant sources of the nectar. The commercial
beekeepers often feed them high fructose corn syrup, which, as a recent
study suggests, could contain trace amounts of pesticides, especially
the neonicotinoid class pesticides.

“As posted in a Wired online article, the study by a Harvard
researcher
examined a dietary exposure to imidacloprid, a commonly used neonic
made by Bayer. Even though the amounts were higher than what might be
found in the wild, the study showed a dramatic increase in the CCD in
the colonies exposed to the chemical.

“The topic has
international implications. The debate of the use of certain toxic
pesticides – in particular the neonics – have caused a massive division
between Europe and the United States. In fact, the very chemicals
indicated in study are outlawed in a number of European countries.

“Stranger yet, the suggestion the corn syrup might carry trace
amounts
of the pesticides after the processing beckons the question of whether
humans could be exposed in some capacity.”–[google 'citizen science
update feed the bees harm the bees']

Further, how can you ever
even claim to speak with vegans when you insinuate that they actually
endorse GMO? I’ve NEVER heard from ANY vegan that they felt anything
other than disgust about GMO and are instead one of the groups MOST
concerned about shopping organic… Where do you get these proposterous
ideas from?

Ok, as I said before, my reply last night was not accepted by moderation for containing links and I had just tried chunking it down into smaller bits to see if it would help in getting them published but am unhappy with the fragmented lines so I hope that this one makes it through and is easier to read (it is the original whole reply (aside from a few spelling corrections)- no chunking ) And I really hope those fragmented lines will be gone…

“One of the consequences you don’t address is where all these animals are supposed to go.”

As in livestock? I see you are still of the opinion that most vegans expect the whole world to follow their lifestyle? To entertain your question (though you are most wrong in your assumption), farmers would simply stop force breeding the livestock… Puzzle solved! Within a few years (maybe even only 1), the livestock population would be gone (perhaps the species even reintroduced to the wild to preserve them, if
at all possible (though unlikely).

“I have dealt with many vegans who deplore and condemn hunting and would see it banned. This is a HUGE consequence. Taking the deer population by itself, how do we do this? If the deer population of the US and Canada were to be left untouched, we would have an ecological disaster within 5 years, in most regions. Overpopulation, overgrazing, disease, soil erosion, damage to watersheds due to said soil erosion, damage to other animal life that is dependent on these watersheds. These are not theories. This would happen and happen quickly.”

Again, I only entertain your question being that you are of the
belief that vegans like to dictate how others live… The deer population is indeed already crowded, but this is a direct result of hunting and scaring off the larger game that are the deer’s natural predators… This has, of course, been done as a result of expanding development into rural areas which comes from drastic HUMAN overpopulation. The further we stretch out, the more big game is scared away and hunted when found in proximity to ensure safety to our communities. So, on one hand we complain about curbing deer overpopulation yet fail to even attempt to limit our own exponential breeding… And our hasty habit of multiplying like so has far greater consequences than simple deer overpopulation, as I have no doubt you
know…

That being said, even if we were to curb our human population expansion today, the deer problem would still exist for some time as a result of our past mistake. I myself, in this given situation, see no problem with curbing the deer population so long as they are killed humanely (one bullet, quick death) and we do something about, and take responsibility for, our own grave contribution this ecological disaster (as well as hope that the hunted deer’s remains are used in full, leaving no waste).

“Habitat loss happens due to ALL farming, so let’s stop kidding ourselves.”

Of course it is – only a fool would insinuate otherwise – I had pointed out that you are equally kidding yourself to say that factory farming creates less deforestation than agriculture when agriculture takes up nearly HALF the land area necessary to farm compared to factory farming… Way to misconstrue words or otherwise gloss over the argument… I’ve even fetched a pretty quote for you:

‘Livestock issues’
“A senior UN official and co-author of a UN report detailing this problem, Henning Steinfeld, said “Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today’s most serious environmental problems”.[104]
Livestock production occupies 70% of all land used for agriculture, or 30% of the land surface of the planet. It is one of the largest sources of greenhouse gases, responsible for 18% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalents. By comparison, all transportation emits 13.5% of the CO2. It produces 65% of human-related nitrous oxide (which has 296 times the global warming potential of CO2,) and 37% of all human-induced methane (which is 23 times as warming as CO2. It also generates 64% of the ammonia emission. Livestock expansion is cited as a key factor driving deforestation, in the Amazon basin 70% of previously forested area is now occupied by pastures and the remainder used for feedcrops.[105] Through deforestation and land degradation, livestock is also driving reductions in biodiversity.” –[link posting seems to be preventing the reply, so wiki 'Agriculture']

“And speaking of crop farming, there’s a thread somewhere in here where the vegan posters overwhelmingly deplored the “exploitation” of honey bees and refuse to use their products. So OK, lets not support the honey industry, lets not incentivize the honey industry, lets not support more hives and more bees. It’s OK because we have GMO to fall back on (sarcasm). Another consequence.”

Are you kidding me? DO you have any idea what honey-keeping does to wild bee populations? ERADICATES THEM…

“Sometimes whole colonies are killed off to save feeding them over the winter. When they are kept through the winter, the honey is often removed and replaced with sugar candy or syrup, which are cheaper, though less healthy for the bees.

“Beekeepers often transport their colonies to areas of flowering crops where the bees pollinate the flowers, increasing crop yields and earning fat fees for the beekeepers. However, this is to the detriment of local wild bees and other pollinating insects, which are swamped by the temporary visitors.

“As with all intensively farmed animals, commercial bee colonies are prone to the rapid spread of disease. The Varroa mite is rife among both commercial and “hobby” bee colonies and is threatening the few remaining wild honey bee colonies.”–[google 'vegan society honey' (it should be the first link and in pdf format)]

‘CITIZEN SCIENCE UPDATE: Feed the Bees, Harm the Bees?’

“As a continuing part of the partnership between the Insect News Network, YourGardenShow [dot com] and their support of Citizen Science and the Great Sunflower Project, we will bring you a series of posts about the breaking news regarding Colony Collapse Disorder.

“In an ironic twist, the poisoning of the bees could come as a result of farmers and beekeepers trying to feed them. The industrial usage of the bees on an annual basis requires farmers to feed them substitutes to the nectar they gather in the fields. When the bees arrive at a monocultured pasture, there are few abundant sources of the nectar. The commercial beekeepers often feed them high fructose corn syrup, which, as a recent study suggests, could contain trace amounts of pesticides, especially the neonicotinoid class pesticides.

“As posted in a Wired online article, the study by a Harvard researcher examined a dietary exposure to imidacloprid, a commonly used neonic made by Bayer. Even though the amounts were higher than what might be found in the wild, the study showed a dramatic increase in the CCD in the colonies exposed to the chemical.

“The topic has international implications. The debate of the use of certain toxic pesticides – in particular the neonics – have caused a massive division between Europe and the United States. In fact, the very chemicals indicated in study are outlawed in a number of European countries.

“Stranger yet, the suggestion the corn syrup might carry trace amounts of the pesticides after the processing beckons the question of whether humans could be exposed in some capacity.”–[google 'citizen science update feed the bees harm the bees']

Further, how can you ever even claim to speak with vegans when you insinuate that they actually endorse GMO? I’ve NEVER heard from ANY vegan that they felt anything other than disgust about GMO and are instead one of the groups MOST concerned about shopping organic…

Where do you get these preposterous ideas from?

“You’ve never heard of “authoritarian” vegans like I spoke of? OK. I guess you’re a little late to the party around here. We used to have a particularly hysterical example of just what I speak of named Herwin. I don’t know what happened to him but assume that he lost his one remaining shred of sanity and ran into the ocean. His rants well and truly crossed the border into the embarrasing and even his fellow vegs
didn’t touch him with a 10-foot pole. And take a look at some of the threads concerning celebrities who are or aren’t vegans, or were and stopped, and look at some of the responses. I think you choose to see what you want to see.”

Lol, this Herwin sounds like quite the charming fellow jk ;p I
hope that you are not basing your judgments of all vegans off of one individual… If I based my judgement of Australians based off of one I met and didn’t like, wouldn’t that make it a narrow-minded judgement? Even if I judged all Aussies by a small group I met, it would still be a prejudice stereotype… True that I haven’t been to this site before I first responded to the comments in this article and I’ve yet to come back but to respond to your arguments, so I’ll have to browse sometime this mysterious community where there Nazi vegans have been hiding…

Don’t you worry, PokerRay I’ve been swamped and sick but I’ll have a response by tonight