Just to prove I'm specifically picking on Canada... Here's a link to a story about the annual Japanese Dolphin Hunt. The dolphin hunt runs from September through April and results in the slaughter of thousands of dolphins annually. Thirteen fishing boats force the dolphins into a shallow cove in Taiji, where a number of them are selected to be sold into "swim with the dolphin" programs or to aquariums. The others are slaughtered and sold as food. However, most (if not all) dolphin meat has toxic levels of mercury, and is therefore inedible.

Here are some facts which might just relieve you of your sushi cravings permanently. They cured us:

• 70% of the human race relies on seafood as a major source of protein.
• Pollution of our seafood is now the greatest public health threat that humanity has ever faced.
• Mercury bio-accumulates in the food chain. Top ocean predators like sea mammals and tuna have high levels of mercury in their meat. These range from 5 to 3500 times the amount of mercury allowed by Japanese law. 0.3 parts per million (ppm) is the published safe limit. The highest concentrations of mercury are found in the animals’ organs.
• Mercury is a neurotoxin and is particularly damaging to fetuses and small children.
• All tuna, including canned is potentially harmful.
• High-grade sushi is the worst source of mercury and other pollutants. Since the best cuts of the meat are from the bigger, fattier fish, more pollutants have bio-accumulated in the meat.

source: Oceanic Preservation Society

In order to bring all of the above information to the attention of the public, the Oceanic Preservation Society has clandestinely filmed the Taiji Dolphin Hunt and created a documentary, entitled The Rising. This film is slated to be released this summer.

As I continue to read more about how we are poisoning ourselves and our planet, and as I read more about how badly we treat our fellow inhabitants of the planet, I am very happy to proclaim I am a vegan.

– If you haven’t signed our petition to Oprah asking her to do a piece on factory farming, please consider doing so. We can all work together to make a difference.

Savia contacted us this morning and suggested a modification to our petition.

Oprah’s not the kind of person who is going to ask her viewers to be vegan. However, it is possible she would do a show about the horrors of the way animals that are raised and slaughtered for our food are treated. I wish you had focused on that instead. Because if you highlighted the abuses and encouraged her to do a show on that, then the natural implication is that people watching that show will come to their own conclusions on becoming vegetarian or seeking out more humaine food options.

I think this strategy would have reached more people and would have had a better chance of success (i.e. Oprah doing a show on livestock abuse/conditions).

And we agree. Since we've only had a few signatories so far, we went ahead with it. We changed the end request from asking Oprah to suggest that her audience consider becoming vegan to specifically asking her to do a story on what goes on in the factory farming industries. We feel that while the wording was changed here, we do not believe we have significantly altered the intent of this petition to Oprah.

Please note -- in the interest of fairness to those who have signed this petition we will not be making any further changes.

A few weeks ago I wrote about drawing a line in the sand, and how we define what we're willing to eat. It's easy for us to say that we'll eschew animal products as food. The choice between eating a sentient creature that has almost assuredly been brutalized, or eating a vegetable-based diet is now a non-issue; we do not need to consume animal products to live. We have reached a point where we cannot not knowingly participate in the torture of animals. As Gary at AnimalWritings.com stated:

I am also compelled to weigh my inessential desires against others’ most profound interests, such as fear of suffering and the will to live. In nearly all commercial animal agriculture operations in the Western world, we violate those interests to satisfy human greed or habits. I cannot, in good conscience, trample others’ free will in the most violent ways because I like the taste of their flesh or secretions.

We wholeheartedly agree. But what about medical issues?

I read today that pig cell transplants can help people with insulin-dependent diabetes. I haven't done much reading on the topic (and don't plan to). The research appears to be in the early stages of human testing. However, one man had the procedure done ten years ago and is still seeing positive effects, although how much is not clear.

The cells being used in this procedure are pancreatic cells from new-born pigs. They are treated with some kind of algae which makes them "invisible" to the individual's immune system. This is an especially remarkable procedure because the patients do not need to take immuno-suppressant drugs. The cells do wear out over time, so it looks like "booster" injections might be warranted. And then there are the trans-species issues to be concerned about (porcine endogenous retroviruses, in this case)...

So, if in the future, one of us develops a medical condition that could be dramatically improved, or even cured by a transplant from a donor animal, how would we proceed? Does it matter if the animal is killed or if the cells are harvested and the animal kept alive? Over time, I can imagine "factory-harvested" animal cells/organs/secretions with the animals being treated as a product, and therefore handled in the most economically efficient (less humane) manner. I don't want to participate in that, but I assume I'm already benefiting from medical testing on animals... I take aspirin when I have a headache. I've been prescribed vicodin when I had my knees "scoped." I take Nyquil when I have a cold and cannot sleep. Some, if not all, of these medicines have surely been tested on animals. Does that make me a hypocritical vegan?

I know that if Jane's life were on the line, I wouldn't hesitate. I'd be slightly more conflicted if it were my health that was at stake, but overall, I think health trumps compassion.

Jane and I are trying to be good vegans. We carefully read labels at the grocery store and avoid all known animal products. We surf the net, read other vegan blogs, and often visit the sites we've chosen to link to as our Vegan Resources. Occasionally, we find something is vegan that we didn't know about previously. And, there are a few issues that are gray in the vegan community, which always merit further reading.

One of these issues is the use of sweeteners. Some eschew refined sugar as most refined sugars are processed using bone char. We choose to follow Vegan Outreach on this topic and allow refined sugar in our diet. However, refined sugar is generally considered unhealthy, and not an environmentally friendly product, so we try to consume alternative sweeteners as well. Jane hates the taste of maple syrup, so that's out. Honey is also often debated as to whether or not it is vegan. We allow honey in our diet, and use Vegan Action to define our approach on this topic. There's also brown rice syrup (which we have in the cupboard, but haven't tried yet), and agave nectar, which we enjoy, but is a little pricey.

Today, as I was surfing, I stumbled across this article in the Chicago Tribune which suggests that agave nectar may not be all that healthy after all. One doctor likes it and says that it doesn't impact blood sugar as much as other sugars, which makes it an ideal sweetener for diabetics. This doctor also says agave nectar contains a bacteria which helps fight colon cancer. Another doctor states that agave nectar is almost all fructose which impacts blood fructose, and that is worse than impacting blood sugar. This doctor claims that fructose interferes with healthy metabolism.

The most alarming information I gleaned from this article, is that the Food and Drug Administration notes that "in the past, agave products may have been 'economically adulterated or misbranded by adding corn syrup or high-fructose corn syrup [HFCS].' Chronic shortages of the plant make this a real concern."

The article ends with this warning:

If you use agave:

• Botulism spores can be found in bottled sweeteners originally derived from natural products. Treat it like honey; don't give it to children under age 1.

• Avoid it if you're pregnant; some believe it can cause miscarriages.

• Seek out an agave product that is organic and carries the official USDA seal.

• The FDA says there is no current need for regulatory action but would like to know if there is any literature or other information that shows agave causes adverse effects.

Oi! It seems like in the world of sweeteners, there is no ideal product.

Another reason to go vegan: Non-fat/lo-fat milk consumption has been linked to an increased risk of prostate cancer. Two separate studies showed a correlation between non-fat or low-fat milk consumption and the risk of prostate malignancies.

The most recent study, conducted by Dr. Yikyung Park, of the National Cancer Institute, found no link between dietary calcium and the number of early-stage prostate cancer. However, non-fat milk consumption of two or more glasses per day was positively linked with an increased risk of advanced prostate cancer. This study population was made up of over 290,000 adult males.

An earlier study, conducted by Dr. Song-Yi Park of the University of Hawaii, indicated no link between calcium or vitamin D from any source and an increased risk of prostate cancer across all ethnic groups. However, the study did suggest an increased risk of localized, non-aggressive tumors. (Whole milk was linked to a decreased risk, but there are a whole host of other negative health effects associated with full fat dairy products.) The study population was made up of over 82,000 adult male residents of California and Hawaii.

For further reading:

• Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine
• American Journal of Epidemiology - NCI Study
• American Journal of Epidemiology - U. Hawaii Study
• Reuters