"We have discovered that there is indeed one justification for eating meat. Dr.Carl Lumholtz, a Norwegian scientist, conducted extensive studies of anthropology, specifically, cannibalism. He indicated that some aboriginal tribes in Australia would not eat the flesh of meat eaters because it was salty and occasioned nausea. But vegetarians were considered good eatin’ because their food was chiefly of plant origin. So, if you are vacationing in cannibal territory, eating meat could serve as cannibal-repellant." (Thanks to veggie.ca for the above quote).

See, vegetarians do taste better—and you can take that however you like ;)

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | January 23, 2008 03:44 PM

What a great letter! Bruce Friedrich did the best to open the public eye on this important matter! And those who don't believe it - please go to google and search for 'Vegan and Vegetarian Elite of the World - an astonishing list with over 800 veg personalities of all times! amazing, indeed! Veg is ruling - making our brains smart, our body fit and our heart clean! Heureka!

Posted by: FREE BURMA | January 23, 2008 03:50 PM

Wonderful letter!! Also Thank-you Mike, and remember being salty= premature aging!!

Posted by: Carla | January 23, 2008 05:28 PM

Awesome-o. I hope they go through with it!! I bet that will be harsh punishment for alot of them that they don't get no more fried chicken or nothing. And that Christopher Lee is a SICK SICK MAN and shouldn't be allowed anything.

Posted by: Ashley | January 23, 2008 05:39 PM

Great letter!! I hope it persuades the prison officials!!

Posted by: K | January 23, 2008 06:40 PM

Mike Q, I think thats by and large the reason why people eat vegetarian animals. The flavour of the meat would be different(guessing stronger for carnivores). Probably why cat meat hasn't taken off in a big way.

Posted by: rojo | January 23, 2008 06:42 PM

I think your work is needed in more important issues than wasting your time on this.

Posted by: Ev | January 23, 2008 07:46 PM

Really nice letter, Bravo PETA

Posted by: liliana | January 23, 2008 08:23 PM

Thanks Free Burma. That's a great, and as far as I can tell, largely accurate list. If you want to view the complete list on a single page (you can then save as a single document), just select "1000" records per page from the drop-down menu at the top (it'll take a while to load).

http://al.godsdirectcontact.org.tw/vg-vip/query/index.php?RowsOfPage=50&Page=1&nation=All&category=All&keyword=

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | January 24, 2008 12:18 AM

I understand the positive intentions, but none of the evidence given in that letter actually supports the implementation of a mandatory vegetarian diet for inmates. All of the programs given as examples had inmates choosing to have vegetarian diets, rather than it being mandatory, and as such is more an indication of nonviolence in the kind of person who would willingly eat vegetarian than the effect of vegetarian cuisine on an inmate populous. There really is no scientific basis for those claims, though it certainly wouldn't hurt to test them out. If nothing else, it certainly would be cheaper to feed all of America's inmates with vegetables than meat.

Posted by: John Henry | January 24, 2008 10:35 AM

Oh, that letter kicks ass!

Posted by: Jaclyn | January 24, 2008 12:02 PM

Mike,
If I am flying over the Andes and we crash on top of a mountain, I truly hope that I am on a flight with a troupe of Peta members. If I have to eat someone, PETA members are at the top of the list.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | January 24, 2008 12:33 PM

Here's my concern about the Victor Valley test case: It sounds like inmates had to choose to participate, and violence dropped among those in the program. But if an inmate chooses to participate in a program, he is probably trying to earn good behavior points anyway. Inmates don't generally sign up for voluntary programs if they don't already have some desire or initiative to better themselves. So it's a cause and effect problem--did the diet actually reduce violence, or were these particular inmates already less prone to violence given that they had decided to participate in programs and act differently from others in the prison? The only way to really answer this question would be to place a whole facility on a diet and see if overall violence drops or to place known violent inmates on the diet and then see what happens. But as the jail administrator pointed out, jails and prisons can't put selected inmates on a diet without involuntarily.

Posted by: Ashes | January 24, 2008 02:40 PM

Christopher,

They may eat you first, salty though you may be.

Rojo,

Perhaps, but we probably eat vegetarian animals more-so because they are much more docile than your average carnivore. We can dominate a herd of cattle. A pride of lions...?

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | January 24, 2008 04:10 PM

Fantastic letter. I hope they'll work w.Peta on getting veg meals to inmates and that other U.S. prisons will follow their example.

Posted by: tinkerbellslayer | January 24, 2008 05:31 PM

Dr. Cochran what is your problem??

Posted by: Jaclyn | January 24, 2008 05:41 PM

This is a great letter. How could you possibly eat or serve meat after reading that. Good job PETA.

Posted by: Kyle | January 24, 2008 10:12 PM

Imagine if an entire prison goes vegetarian how many animals will be saved.

Posted by: Kyle | January 24, 2008 10:16 PM

christopher cochran: in this case i hope that you don't survive!

Posted by: captain nemo | January 25, 2008 07:14 AM

chris, also lowers your chances of being eaten. I wonder if you can check from the passenger manifesto to see who gets the vegetarian meals. You never know.

Posted by: rojo | January 25, 2008 09:14 AM

mike Q, good point, they were probably easier and safer to domesticate. Still leaves the issue of why our domesticated cats are not usually table fare.

Posted by: rojo | January 25, 2008 06:57 PM

Christopher. If you are so against PETA's principles - why do you come to visit the web site? Could there be some criminal motive?

Posted by: jemma hamilton | January 25, 2008 08:03 PM

I like eating animals, they taste good with ketchup and mustard

Posted by: DoctorREMulaque | January 26, 2008 01:41 AM

Rojo,

Maybe they were more valuable as ratters. Or could be a hangover from the day when the Egyptians worshipped them. I love cats, but can one really trust them...?

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | January 26, 2008 03:38 PM

Jaclynn, My problem? Well, I suppose that I am not very good at crafting a joke. I am sure there are others, but enough about me.

Ms. Hamilton,
I originally started visiting because PETA campaigns to eliminate many of the things that I hold dear and I wanted to understand why. I prefer to learn about perceived threats first hand. I believe if I learned about PETA from the NRA or Ted Nugent, I might come away with a less than accurate perception, analogous to how PETA folks get their medical information about eating meat from the PCRM. I have no criminal intent, nor do I support those who might oppose PETA illegally. I will leave that distinction to PETA (read, ALF). After a few months of reading and learning, I have ascertained that PETA is essentially no threat whatsoever, therefore, I have visited much less frequently of late. I know this will not sadden anyone.

On a personal note, in general, I am fairly well liked and respected in my community and hospital. Everyone here absolutely hates me, which has been a valuable experience on some level. Thanks everyone!

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | January 26, 2008 08:20 PM

Hi jemma, you have me intrigued as to what sort of criminal masterplan could be accomplished by posting here. Do tell.

Isn't your first question rather self explanatory?

Posted by: rojo | January 27, 2008 06:31 AM

Christopher Cochran: me i would never eat meat - neither from animals nor from people! From the animals i don't eat it out of pity - from humans i would not eat it because i'm disgusted! Thinking at you i have to vomit already before i eat you - imagine afterwards! This would be a complete intestinal revolution!

Posted by: Anti-Cannibal | January 27, 2008 01:05 PM

Hey Chris!

Well, I think that's kind of unfair, LOL. I like you, and I was not mean, was I?

If you walk away from PETA I hope you at least see some of the good things they did, like in the PETSMART post below. If you watch the video, as a doctor (even if it is a bird) you can plainly see the extreme neglect that cockatoo suffered from.

I'm sure, being a good man, that you can safely say that someone should care about stopping that kind of abuse.

Peace, again.

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | January 27, 2008 01:56 PM

Christopher,

You've criticized PCRM in the past, but if you check their site, their claims are fully referenced from all the respected medical journals. You can deny their conclusions if you wish, but in effect you're denying the work of your own peers.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | January 27, 2008 03:28 PM

mike Q, very true :)

I find their aloofness endearing. That love/hate relationship you just don't get from a dog who wants to lick you to death every time he see's you.

Posted by: rojo | January 28, 2008 07:27 AM

Mike, disagreement in medicine is normal and healthy. The research that the PCRM does and sponsors is extremely biased as they are so deeply involved with PETA. I do not agree with much they have to say, but that is ok, I am not alone. The PCRM is not a recognized physicians group, mostly because the majority of their membership are not physicians. It's a little bit like calling Pfizer a physicians group.

Maya,
You are absolutely correct when you say that PETA does many wonderful things, I do not contend that they do not, and I know they will continue. I have been accused of being bored as a reason for clogging up this blog with my dissidence. Ironically, I am not posting much anymore out of growing boredom. I checked out the "forum" thing, but I couldn't get past the people wanting feed their dog or cat a vegetarian diet. I was so confused I fed my cow a pork chop. Cheers

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | January 28, 2008 05:25 PM

LOL trust me Chris, I'm quite alarmed at the whole vegetarian cat thing. I hope people have a list 200 miles long of animal goals and I hope "make my cat vegetarian" is dead last, no pun intended.

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | January 28, 2008 06:17 PM

Christopher,

Medicine is a huge business. Lifestyle medicine and preventive medicine do not go over big with a lot of doctors because they haven't figured out how to make money with them. PCRM's advisory board includes a lot of well-known and progressive physicians—Caldwell B. Esselstyn, Jr., M.D., Henry J. Heimlich (inventor of the Heimlich maneuver), M.D., John McDougall, M.D. and William Roberts, M.D., among others.

Part of PCRM's focus is on healthy nutrition, an area that most doctors receive very minimal education on.
Matter of fact, in a test where patients competed head-to-head with their doctors regarding knowledge of nutrition, the patients won! (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 58(1997):319.)

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | January 28, 2008 07:03 PM

Mike, from my perspective, I must admit you are correct on many accounts. We are trained in nutrition, and we are trained extensively in physiology, but consider that it takes five minutes to give someone a Rx for Lipitor and it takes thirty minutes or more to counsel someone on nutrition and lifestyle modification and the reimbursement is the same. Also, anecdotally, patients are very resistant to lifestyle modification (they will light a cigarette in the parking lot and go through the drive through on the way home). In my practice, I do my best to blend the two. As I have always contended, a vegan diet is very healthy, in fact, much healthier than the average Western diet. I just believe that the diet our bodies evolved to eat is likely the healthiest. People will debate the notion that humans are not intended to eat meat from some sort of quasi-physiologic logic involving the teeth, or eyebrows or gut or big toe, but amongst scientist who are experts at such things (human evolution) the debate is essentially over. The people who will stand on the mountain and proclaim that humans are not designed to be meat eaters are doing so from an emotional bias, just like the PCRM does (as long as they are in bed with PETA, that bias is undeniable). What humans are not designed to thrive on are animals that are factory farmed and grain fattened and killed under prolonged stress. I believe the bane of the healthy American is corn. Be it the grain fed to cows, pigs and chickens, the environmental damage, or the unhealthy processed corn products we eat, corn is an greatly over utilized food product and limiting our corn and corn product (including corn fed animals) is a key to long term public health. Just an opinion, but I am not alone.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | January 29, 2008 02:47 PM

Christopher,

Tobacco is indeed a good example of a harm people willfully do to themselves. Whatever your definition of a health-fostering diet is, as you pointed out there will always be some who just can't be bothered until it's perhaps too late. I know you eat lots of fruit and veg, and these seem to be the foods most effective for prevention of cancer.

As for the supposed emotional bias of veg proponents, the American Dietetic Association and Dietitians of Canada position paper on vegetarianism and veganism (of which I think we're all aware) cites more than 250 studies. It could hardly be considered to contain "emotional bias".

Though I'm not giving approval of meat-eating, the meat you yourself consume would have to be considered vastly superior to the pap the bulk of North Americans eat. For them a vegan diet (if done correctly, of course) would probably be of benefit.

Since there are now humans that have been raised vegan from birth, the definitive answer will probably come long after the worms are done with us.

I'm sure though, that a lot of vegetarians would be satisfied with a longevity just equivalent to the average meat-eater, as long as they can remain true to their own inner ideals regarding animals and the environment.

Posted by: Mike Quinoa | January 29, 2008 04:11 PM

The real question is not whether we have the ability to eat meat, but rather do we have the need? We don't, as is evidenced by plenty of people living on a vegan diet. I cannot tell you how many women ask me for help in diet/working out because of my fitness, which I attribute largely to my diet. So--in light of the benefits to humans, not to mention animals and the environment, from a vegan diet, why would anyone (especially a doctor) not promote it?? (I do understand, of course, that doctors get percs for prescribing meds, which is a very big incentive in not encouraging a healthier lifestyle for their patients.)I, personally, am not very happy at our country's current status of being the home of the fattest and unhealthiest people on the planet. I would hope that we could do better.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | January 29, 2008 08:00 PM

Antigone,
Your definition of the question is right on. I contend that meat is a necessary part of a healthy diet. I contend that processed grains are much more unhealthy than certain meat, and contend that wheat and corn are worse than meat in many ways. Now, big fat over bred and over fed cows and pigs do NOT have healthy meat and I do not advocate eating them. I do advocated shifting our meat supply to involve less meat eaten, and what meat that is eaten is unfettered by human intervention, (grass fed lean beef, bison, wild game, wild fish) more plants, less or no processed grain products, little or no dairy. That, to me is the perfect diet. Now, realistically for you city dwellers the vegan diet is going to be much more attainable, so, enjoy, however, the question that I keep trying to answer is what is the healthiest diet. It isn't vegan, but vegan diets are a close second best.

For the record despite what you may have seen on dateline, we do not get kickbacks for Rx'ing drugs. We do get paid better, though; here's how. Like I said, hyperlipidemia, for instance, it takes five minutes to wright an Rx for Lipitor and thirty minutes, at least, to extensively counsel someone on dietary modifications. I get paid around forty bucks for each visit. So I, and all the other practitioners out there have to decide if they want 80 dollars in an hour or 250 or more dollars in an hour (minus overhead). Like I said, we do the best we can to try to blend preventive medicine but to spend extensive time with patients is very expensive. You are talking about diet to motivated people, don't forget. I am talking to people who really don't want to be in my office (no one LIKES to go to the doctor). Until physicians do not have to practice preventive medicine for free, it will always be challenging to implement as no one likes to work for free.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | January 30, 2008 11:12 AM

Christopher Cochran: The issue you seem to ignore completely is that I have successfully lived as a vegan for 15+ years. FACT. Therefore, I DO NOT need meat/dairy in order to live. FACT. Whatever your opinion to the contrary, it does not change the FACT that I am living proof that you do not need to eat meat. It is also a FACT that no doctor makes money off a healthy patient. I should know--as a healthy person, NO doctor makes any money off me. So--unless you can show me proof of someone dying from lack of meat/dairy, your entire post is irrelevant to my comment.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 1, 2008 05:16 PM

Oh but Antigone, don't you know that your experience just doesn't count in CC's eyes? Because you are just one person, and one "case" does not prove that veganism is healthy (never mind that you are amongst a not-so-tiny group of people on this earth who are also living a very healthy life as a veg*n).

The fact of the matter is that he always conveniently ignores anything that does not support his personal views, and if he cannot ignore it, he will make insulting, arrogant comments about the source of anything that has an opposite position to his own. For example, the PCRM is not credible in his mind, because only 5% of its "membership" consists of physicians - well of course they are not all physicians, but they are interested in knowing more - the people who do the research ARE physicians, nutrition experts or other scientists. In his not-humble opinion, PETA is "in bed with" PCRM so that is supposed to make people think that PCRM does not provide unbiased information. Whenever somebody tries to discredit research or a specific agency, one must always look at whether or not there is motivation to present biased information or to use questionable research to "prove" a particular hypothesis. The dairy, egg, beef and pork industries have a HUGE motivation to present research that "proves" their products are healthy. The pharmaceutical and animal testing industries have a MASSIVE vested interest in continuing to insist that animal research is necessary. The animal rights "industry"? Well, last I checked, PETA, PCRM, the various humane societies and all other animal advocacy groups do not profit whenever someone becomes vegetarian or when someone buys products that are cruelty free. Any money that these organizations get, from donations, merchandise or membership fees is not "profit" - it goes to further research, education and programs, and only a very small amount goes to fundraising and admin costs like salaries.

So, the bottom line is that all of CC's posts are irrelevant to anyone truly interested in helping animals. He will always find a way to justify his hunting (oooo, he is preserving habitats - so that is supposed to give him a pass to kill the animals on the land that he has preserved? So his conservation efforts are self-serving!) and omnivorous diet, and no doubt he also has no problem with leather or wool. He believes that he is smarter than anyone, that no one else works as hard as he does, and I believe he is a misogynist, because his most insulting comments are always directed at the women posting on the PETAfiles.

Posted by: Michele | February 2, 2008 01:59 PM

Antigone, A study of one person is not a study it's an anecdote. I am very happy you are healthy.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | February 4, 2008 09:59 AM

Michele,
I said the PCRM could not be counted as a viable physician's group because there aren't many physicians in the group. I never said the beef, pork, or dairy industry wasn't biased or a physician's group. I love women, by the way, I never said I didn't.
So, by your logic if a vegan get's cancer, (and they do get cancer sometimes) veganism must cause cancer. If a vegan gets ran over by a bus, veganism must cause death by bus. Veganism causes baldness, blue eyes, runny nose, ingrown toenails, on and on and on. As much as you might not understand science, one man claiming that veganism is the healthiest way to live doesn't make it so, just like my claiming omnivorous diets are best doesn't make it so. That is why people argue points and refute arguments they don't agree with. I don't ignore anything, but when I don't agree with something I do my best to refute it, I thought that's what you city-folk called civilized discussion. I can't help it that you walk around with your heart on your sleeve.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | February 4, 2008 12:20 PM

Christopher: Do you have either a study OR anecdote about a person dying from lack of meat/dairy?

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 4, 2008 09:41 PM

Michele: Great, he likes women. (We NEVER get the good ones!) Anyway--in your post, you forget to mention that physicians provide biased information based on the percs they get from pharma companies. You also forget to mention that physicians DO NOT profit from vegans/vegetarians who tend to be healthier than meat-eaters. So--when it comes to biased interests, I would say that most doctors have them.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 4, 2008 09:47 PM

Antigone, if you think that my desire is that Americans be more ill so that I may be more profitable then I pity your poor cynical heart. First of all, my next new patient office visit is four months away, so I really don't need people to be any sicker!! I wonder about these "perks" you keep talking about though, because the only "perk" I ever get is some annoying salesperson invading my office telling me their "me too" blood pressure med is the latest greatest thing.
Yes, there are numerous cases of ultra-strict vegans becoming quite ill due to lack of animal products. I know this won't happen to you, however; thanks to all those evil scientists we are able to ARTIFICIALLY manufacture whats missing from your diet and you are able to survive on a vegan diet. One hundred years ago (or less) you would have withered away in a pale, numb lump. Evil rotten scientists!!! Now you may artificially support your life with dietary supplements. I don't need to take supplements because my diet is complete with lots of fresh vegetables and healthy choices of animal products. I know your diet is VERY HEALTHY, but I also know mine is healthier. However, let me concede that my diet is somewhat elitist and I wouldn't expect all persons to be able to eat it. If I could wave a wand and all my patients become health conscious vegetarians, I would probably do it because it would be a far better option than what they are doing now. Cheers!

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | February 5, 2008 11:30 AM

Christopher Cochran: I don't take ANY supplements. So--that argument fails, as well. And, yeh, I KNOW doctors get percs for prescribing drugs. Can you point me to the study about the vegans becoming ill and is there any proof that their illness is due to a lack of ANIMAL products as opposed to a lack of the correct nutrients?

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 5, 2008 08:54 PM

Antigone, If you do not supplement with B12, and you are a strict vegan, you will develop anemia and nerve damage (B12 def.). We don't need to do a study. Just like we don't need to do a study that falling off a building hurts.
I must be missing the boat on the perks deal. Since you know so much maybe you could hook me up. How do you know this? What are the perks? I don't want to miss out on this anymore. By the way, it is illegal for me to get any benefit from the drugs I Rx. There are a whole set of laws designed to keep bad doctors from milking the system called Stark Laws. Are you accusing me of breaking the law? That is very presumptious.

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | February 6, 2008 11:43 AM

Chris,

Just for the record I have the highest regard for you as a doctor and from the limited amount I know about medicine, I think your patients are lucky.

I have no way of knowing whether certain commenters are male or female, but it's worth pointing out that men are one hell of a lot less likely to get anemia and to develop heart damage from it, so it really disgusted when some guy tries to tell me how I should switch from vegetarianism to veganism and I would be healthier.

Just ignore the folks who have a whacked out sense of logic, they'll never get it.

Posted by: Maya, C.V.T. | February 6, 2008 02:23 PM

Christopher: If there is no study, then it is just your say-so, which counts as 0 proof. I KNOW that I am healthy, work out at the gym 3-4 days/week EVERY week, and am almost never sick. I NEVER have to diet to lose any weight, which every single meat-eater I know must do from time to time. I have never seen an obesely fat vegan or vegetarian, but have seen plenty of meat-eaters that are excessively fat. When I occasionally do get sick, I take NO MEDS and get over it naturally with the help of my fully-functioning immune system. Now--with this kind of health, I cannot take seriously anyone who states that humans need to eat animal products.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 6, 2008 06:32 PM

Antigone, keep up the good work. Being conscious of healthy eating, regular exercise, avoiding tobacco, and moderating Etoh intake are cornerstones to good health. I am not an evangelical omnivore. I frankly couldn't care less what you eat. I enjoy debating the science of nutrition. Your angle is fairly scientifically limited and leans more toward ethical considerations and that is fine by me. I would still love to hear all about those perks you mentioned, though.

Maya, I've warned you before about kind comments toward me. You will be exposing yourself to an extreme ionosphere of vitriol and hatred. I think you might enjoy antagonizing them a bit, hmmm?

Posted by: Christopher Cochran MD | February 7, 2008 11:39 AM

Chrstopher Cochran: So, the short answer to my question, then is "No, I cannot point to any studies showing that vegetarianism or veganism is bad for you and I also cannot show you any studies indicating that a meat/dairy based diet is better than a vegetarian/vegan diet." Thanks--that's what I thought.

Posted by: Antigone1000 | February 8, 2008 05:01 PM

Dr., you mentioned the healthy diet, which is intriguing... but no mention of chicken or poultry... is this because they eat grain?

Posted by: Kathleen | February 9, 2008 03:09 PM

so your saying "lets give rapiest murders and robbers a vegan diet to keep them healthy!" oh my god okay tell your vice president to stop using insulin because its made of dog sperm and stop killing animals your selves and take a look at what your saying!!!

Posted by: d | April 21, 2008 08:51 PM