Friday, 9th May 2008
I was hungry
I was hungry …. And you threw away the food.
I was thirsty … and you offered me biofuel
A study released in Great Britain shows that food wastage there amounts to around £600 per family annually! I heard this report during a news bulletin on Classic FM. Several other impressive statistics were given but this one stuck in my mind.
I don’t know of any such study conducting in Malta but I am sure that the level of wastage is high over here as well. Our dustbins the day after occasions such as Christmas would provide a feast for most of the people of the world who suffer hunger.
These examples of waste are part of the scandalous international scenario. On the one hand there is still enough food in the world to feed the global population. According to the FAO the world could feed up to 12 billion people in the future. On the other hand the food situation is worsening day after day.
The statistics of shame
Look at the following examples:
- Wheat prices increased by 130% in the period between March 2007- March 2008.
- Rice prices increased by almost 80% in the period up to 2008.
- Maize prices increased by 35% between March 2007 and March 2008.
- In many countries cereal prices have doubled or tripled over the last year.
- In Haiti the government fell because of this issue and protests have taken place in other countries such as Cameroun, Egypt, and the Philippines…
- In Guatemala, the price of tortillas, a staple food, has risen 30 percent in the past few months.
- Poor Mexicans, who eat nearly a pound of tortillas a day per person, have seen the price double in the past two years. Workers earning the minimum wage of about $4 a day now spend as much as one-third of their earnings on tortillas for the family.
- Inflation last year in Ethiopia was 20 percent, and church workers report more people, especially women, children and the elderly, living on the streets and knocking on church doors for help.
- In Burkina Faso, the prices of staple foods rose between 14 percent and 67 percent. Families now spend as much as 75 percent of their income on food. Unlike past years, this year these price increases are appearing at harvest time, when products are most abundant and prices should be low.
The basic question is: why is there so much starvation when Mother Earth has enough resources to feed all its children?
I will look at just two reasons mentioned while I propose this question for our discussion the question and the answers given.
Cleaner environment and empty stomachs
The emphasis in favour of biofiol has been a cause of food price rises. The US and the EU have been on the forfront of those advocating the use of biofuels as these feuls are environmental friendly and reduce our dependence of fossil feuls. One could easily see that there was a lot of money in this new line of business. Consequently land use was being changed from land for food to land for fuel. A substantial amount of US maize has suddenly “disappeared” as its use was diverted to ethanol production.
According to a news dispatch by Catholic World News‘ Siwa Msangi, a research fellow at the food policy institute, a recent study found that between 25 percent and 33 percent of the increase in food prices between 2000 and 2006 "seems to be driven by the biofuels effect."
The same agency quoted Fr Varghese Mattamana, executive director of Caritas India, the Catholic Church's aid organization, saying "any diversion of land from food or feed production to production of energy biomass will influence food prices, as both compete for the same input."
In a report released in December, the International Food Policy Research Institute warned that "world cereal and energy prices are becoming increasingly linked." Wheat and petroleum prices have tripled since 2000, while corn and rice prices have nearly doubled.
Many countries are suffering a lot. Egypt, for example, is one of the largest cereal importers. Less produce meant higher prices, In Egypt food prices, including subsidized bread, went up by nearly 30% last year. In the Philippines, the government is now looking at some 1.2 million hectares for jatropha production in the southern island of Mindanao operated by the Philippine National Oil Co.-Alternative Fuels Corporation, It is also identifying more than 400,000 hectares of land for private sector investments. (Jatropha curcas is a drought-tolerant non-edible shrub. It produces fruits the size of golf balls which contain oil that can be converted into agrofuels. These developments are expected to negatively impact food production, availability and prices.
On a positive note I add that biofeuls produced in Malta are produced from waste and so are not contributing to this crisis.
The policies of death
La Via Campesina, an international organisation of small farmers, say that neo-liberal policies have destroyed the capacities of countries to feed themselves.
They say that after 14 years of NAFTA (North America Free Trade Agreements) Mexico went through a major crisis often dubbed as the “tortilla crisis”. From an exporting country Mexico has become dependent on US maize imports and current imports 30 percent of its maize. Nowadays, while increased amounts of US maize have suddenly been diverted to agro-fuels production, quantities available for the Mexican markets have dropped, provoking price surges.
Another examples quoted by Via Campesina comes from Indonesia. In 1992, Indonesian farmers produced enough soya to supply the domestic market. Soya-based tofu and 'tempeh' are an important part of the daily diet throughout the archipelago. Following the neo-liberal doctrine, the country opened its borders to food imports, allowing cheap US soy to flood the market. This destroyed national production. Today, 60% of the soy consumed in Indonesia is imported. Record prices for US soy last January led to a national crisis when the price of 'tempeh' and tofu (the « meat of the poor ») doubled in a few weeks.
According to the FAO the food deficit in West Africa increased by 81% between 1995 and 2004. During the same period cereal imports increased by 102%, sugar imports by 83%, dairy products by 152% and poultry by 500%. However, according to IFAD (2007) the region has the potential to produce sufficient amounts of food.
What do you think?
Many answers have been and are being given besides the two I have just referred to. Some blame corrupt governments in Third World Countries, others blame climate change, still others say that higher standards of living lead more people to eat meat and put more pressure on food production; others say that the poor have too many children.
What do you think?
RSS
Comments
What I meant to say was that while justice is one of the cornerstones of the kingdom of God, righteousness is another.
Steven
Here is a fairly large blog, and I have only just arrived and skimmed through quickly. Something that struck me is the claim by Alfred E Zammit that Jesus of Nazareth "enjoyed eating lamb with his disciples". From a historical point of view, this statement can have no foundation whatsoever. None of the four books, namely, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, upon which historians rely, ever point at Jesus eating meat sourced from warm blooded animals. Scrutiny of a high resolution image of Last Supper by da Vinci also shows no sign of any ungulate related bones left over on the table. The scientific truth is that an animal bred for meat consumption absorbs three times as much protein as its slaughter can possibly provide on the table. This should address directly the third issue that you have raised here, namely, that
"higher standards of living lead more people to eat meat and put more pressure on food production". We all want to have higher standards of living, but this should not necessarily lead us to consume more meat. The converse is in fact true. If we refrained from including meats in our diets, we can potentially triple food production, thus greatly lowering the price of the Maltese loaf, broad beans, apples, wines, and so on, which would make us all a lot more contented just as Jesus of Nazareth would have surely meant those around Him to be.
What is the point you are trying to put across exactly? I think that priests in Latin America do not make the distinction that you are making: pastoral/spirtual formation, nor priests worth their salt anywhere in the world. These two 'requirements' are not mutually exclusive. Are you implying that the priests I mentioned are more concerned with 'just' celebrating Mass and do not give a toss about the poor they live with? How wrong you are! It is very easy to pass judgement from the comfort of your home while clacking away on your computer with food in your belly. These priests and their collaborators must find food to put on the plates of their parishioners (many a time they go without themselves) for as Fr Joe said, their staple food, tortillas, has become the food of the rich and many are selling their possessions to be able to feed their families. So are you saying that by by not rocking the boat and therefore create more hardship for their people they are just confining themselves to the sacristy? It is always to read the signs of the times first before taking to the streets armed with a torches. it is always the poor who suffer. So to come to your conclusion, their Spirit is alive and well. I think you should adjust yours.
If you take another look, you will see that I quoted you word for word (copy and paste comes in handy sometimes). So I did quote you correctly. In fact, the important word "almost" that you find so important, was not only quoted, but was also supplemented by "about to come" in my next sentence.
It seems possible that some of these Latin American priests you mention, like their counterparts in other parts of the world, are being prepared well in the crucial area of pastoral formation, but less so in matters pertaining to the spiritual.
They really ought to be sticking to tried and tested formulas if they wish to succeed in building a lasting kingdom pleasing to God.
Whatever happened to "blessed are the poor in spirit" and the day of Pentecost?
Steven
Whilst I agree with Ms Grech that "for some Liberal theologians reformism is insufficient" and therefore they opt for revolutionary measures, I think that the latter option is always a second choice. I too agree that Miranda is definitely on the ‘revolutionary’ side of things especially after (recently) reading his book Marx and the Bible in which he concludes that Marxism alone is all that the Bible is looking for!
So coming back to my point, silencing someone like Miranda wouldn’t come as a big surprise (although he worked really hard for the poor) based on almost all of his works (5 or 6…not sure). But I mentioned others who were silenced, based on “possible” (as the highly ambiguous CDF notification says) doctrinal errors pertaining to Christological issues. This stance begs several questions such as the real reason behind this publication… Is this the first of several others? Can a Church that was often enough on the side of the oppressors (during colonial times and slavery) and which has now come a long way in redefining itself afford these positions?
Could this be another “policy of death”?
Please quote me correctly. You forgot the important word "almost", and that makes a difference.
Dear Mr Zammit, I would like to ask you to desist from making unfounded allegations about me. I never found myself about to come to Hitler's defence.
Good point though you have to make the difference between 'revolutionary' and 'reformist'. Liberation theology is "revolutionary", rather than "reformist". Liberation theology is "revolutionary", rather than "reformist", in what it advocates for Latin America. For some Liberal theologians reformism is insufficient; the kind of changes needed [in Latin America] can come about only through revolution. Latin American theologians opt for a radical social science. Their primary concern is to understand the social structures they live under in order to change those structures. They are not interested in fine-tuning the working of existing society. This can be dangerous, in some respects. One of liberation theology's great heroes, the late great Archbishop Oscar Romero,argued that although faith and politics are connected they are not the same thing and that the distinction should be maintained. Romero insisted that particular political programmes should not replace the content of the faith, that the Church and its symbols should not be used on behalf of any political organisation.
I have friends, young priests, who live in South America, mostly in Mexico, and though they are ardent 'fighters' of social justice they tend to be wary of certain branches of Liberal theology that insists that Marx's thought has "gospel roots", and that it is a "conscious continuation of early Christianity". This is the view, for example of a Mexican ex-Jesuit Jose Porfirio Miranda. This said, however, I do understand that in the zeal of flushing out such elements in Liberal Theology, one tends to throw the baby with the bath water.
I was not going to make any further comments, but as you unjustly accuse me of putting up “a despicable defence of Hitler”?!, (at the risk of being accused of high-jacking Fr. Joe’s blog) I just would like to point out to you that I did exactly the opposite, which is why Kenneth Cassar almost found himself about to come to Hitler’s defence, but wisely decided he has “not even the slightest inclination to defend” that despicable tyrant. On this point at least I think Kenneth agrees with me.
I am no defender of Bush, and am actually one of the many people who believe that the sooner he leaves office, the better for the whole world. But notwithstanding this, I believe that it is the Myanmar junta that is not allowing US aid planes to fly in with supplies, and refusing visas to UN relief teams.
Of course, I got the above information from European and US sources.
Last week I watched Xarabank. Abuse. Rightly one spokesman said - abuse exists everywhere. I disagree with – I was hungry and you sent me bio-fuel.
I was hungry – you sent us Knowledge but Powerful people keep Power to themselves.
Basics are often the core of any problem. The Farming was once the chief way of life in nearly every country. As we approached the 19th century, countries one by one industrialized and farming no longer remained sexy and attractive. Major countries/political leaders know that the world has a serious problem with farming, not with people and/or land space. Farming was hard and the net profit per man-hour of labor put into it was low. This was so until Big came into it.
The more farming became less important as a way of living in many countries; it became even more important as a business for big business men. Big changed this around to their advantage. In countries like USA & Australia, Big invested heavily in Farming Science and scientific methods, laborsaving machinery, improved plant varieties; fertilizers etc. Scientific livestock care and breeding have helped increase the amount of meat.
This helped double and triple the yields. So lower costs and improved productivity decreased the cost of food over the past 50 years
1) All this expertise or KNOWLEDGE in food production is now just an entry-level requirement. The Big are now also proficient in accounting, finance and MARKETING.
Marketing is about Bigger Profits and a bigger share of the business or chunk of the market. Business plans address brands, property rights, packaging, exporting, distribution, advertising awareness and coverage, free promotion, customer satisfaction, etc. Businessmen know that profits can only be as good as their marketing management.
2) The marketing chains are making food expensive and reaping most of the profits.
The cost of food is much lower than we think it is.
3) KNOWLEDGE is Power. And this applies to farming, now food production.
4) MARKETING is about the biggest market share and profit possible. It is what is making food expensive.
5) BIG Countries are Free Countries. To some small or large degree Freedom is financed by the Big too. And neither of the two is going to make either one to pass on the knowledge or power to the poor that have abundant land and manpower. This is free business in free countries and very much like the Dallas we used to see in TV.
So there lies the core of the problem. The poor have nothing to do and land is available in abundance even for bio-fuels. But the Big Countries & Companies prefer to send them food to clear their conscience. They keep Power to themselves. Knowledge, Expertise, & Equipment is passed in little doses.
Nothing to do with bio-fuel or whatever – everything to do with Money and Power.
If that is not an abuse, what is?
Of course, I will immediately say that Pope Benedict is not a vegetarian, so I am not quoting him just to suit some agenda of mine. Surprisingly, neither is the Dalai Lama.
M. Brincat, regarding GMOs, yes, solutions could be found. I only wanted to mention some problems that could make your proposition difficult. But of course, I never meant to say that it is impossible ;)
Everyone knows about Card Ratzinger's tough stance against liberation theologians and "political" clerics who champion social justice. These people fight institutionalised corruption everyday. Ratzinger is hostile towards the political left in both theology and politics. In his visit to Brazil last year, he reiterated that the power of the Church and Christian democracy should be reinstated rather than the support of radical Christian action.
But are people going to be fed by the reinstatement of the power of the Church or Christian democracy (whatever that means!!)? We are talking about very concrete issues here.
Why silence people like Boff, Sobrino and others who's life is a monument of trying to solve this issue of poverty, hunger and injustice? Just because they write something which "contains errors" (which take years of reading by the CDF to be found!!). An extremely compelling argument for the poor to ponder....
Let’s get the poor down from the cross instead of making new crosses on which to nail them!
However, solutions surely exist. Like for example, defining a zone purely for the growing of GMOs solely for the biofuel industry - fully detatched from the possibility of contaminating other fields and so on. Where there's a will ....
I agree with most of what you said, except (among some other minor things) where you said that vegetarianism is irrelevant to the discussion. You might wish to note that Fr Joe himself indirectly broached on the topic of vegetarianism where he wrote: "still others say that higher standards of living lead more people to eat meat and put more pressure on food production".
Of course, I would have limited my reference to vegetarianism - which is on-topic - to a few lines, were it not for the fact that this blog permits people to go extremely off-topic and make unfounded allegations, which unfortunately leave me no choice but to waste time refuting them.
I am an avid reader of your blog but I cannot say the same for some of the comments.
You write an excellent article about child sexual abuse and, incredibly, this provokes an irrelevant and discordant criticism of the Pope's pilgrimage of atonement to the USA to apologize for the sexual misbehaviour of a minority of his clergy and an outrageous accusation that HH was giving a boost to Bush and the death of children during anti-terrosist operations.
You highlight the madness of diverting agricultural produce for bio-fuel when this could be better utilised to feed the starving poor. This gives rise to a hackneyed, communist style diatribe against capitalist society ignoring totally the fact that the explosion in demand for more sources of energy is mainly due to the rapidly improving standard of living in China and India. There follows a totally irrelevant discussion of vegeterianism, hunting, fishing and the eating habits of Adolf Hitler.
Instead of reasoned discussion one finds invective, whole phrases angrily typed in bad English, unnecessarily in upper case and a profusion of exclamation marks from a commentator who claims that he has some unique (sorry! UNIQUE) relation with the Almighty that is different from (and presumably superior to) anyone else's and that confers on him the right to demand repentance for the heinious sin of criticising him.
Some commentators have the annoyong habit of dragging in local politics hardly relevent to the main drift of your article. They ignore the fact that among your readers there are still many surviving veterans who still bear the scars of the violence and injustices of our recent past and who are immune to their flagrant distortions of history. On the other hand, the younger generation is blessed with a very high standard of education that has sharpened their critical faculties and enables them to distinguish beteen fact and fiction. They are not likely to be seduced by crude attempts to re-write our recent history or to be cowed by any intemperate verbal assault from any politician, survivor from an administration that very nearly brought about the collapse of our democratic institutions, the administration of justice, higher education, free trade unionism and a free press.
I admire your infinite forebearance of this behaviour but someone should point out that this modus operandi is self-defeating in our day and age as proven by the results of general elections.
Dr Francis Saliba.
The Common Agriculture Policy (CAP), while laudable in its original aims to safeguard Europe's rural traditions and self-sufficiency, has now morphed into a monster that encourages European (let's not mince words here, French) farmers to overproduce and keep food prices artificially high.
See Monsanto Canada Inc. v. Schmeiser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto_Canada_Inc._v._Schmeiser)
This is apart from the fact that with the spread of more GMOs and therefore the higher risk of contamination, you never know whether the food you are eating is actually GM food or not.
Now - since cereal supply is lesser than demand, and a substantial part of this supply is being used in the fuel industry, would it be possible to rethink GMOs, and employ them in the biofuel industry? I believe this would solve 2 problems - low supply and prices!
Here's a better one: http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html
But I hope you will forgive my mistaken suspicion that your claim implied more, considering that we are discussing a topic that can be correctly labelled moral.
As for your question: “Some blame corrupt governments in Third World Countries, others blame climate change, still others say that higher standards of living lead more people to eat meat and put more pressure on food production; others say that the poor have too many children. What do you think?":
I think that the problem stems from all the points you mention, which makes it highly complex and seemingly unresolvable. The best we can do is to learn the facts and do our own part, and not wait for others to solve the world's problems.
Some ways to go about this are the following: Buying, as far as possible, fair-traded products, even if these cost a little more; apart from re-cycling and re-using, we can also reduce waste both by buying local (thereby reducing packaging and transportation pollution); buying least-polluting and least-wasteful food, which in effect means making an effort to go vegan (according to the UN, the meat and dairy industry is a major pollutant - see http://newstandardnews.net/content/index.cfm/items/3956); reducing waste of fossil fuel by reducing car or air travel; helping the poor by giving out money both for direct use and for development of technology to help them help themselves; lobbying governments to put pressure on dictators to see to the needs of their people (instead of wasting money on weapons); lobbying governments to adequately regulate industry to reduce pollution and to trade fairly; etc, etc.
It is probable that many people will not be able to do all of the above (and I am no exception). However, every little helps. Instead of looking at the whole problem of poverty and environmental degradation, and thinking (perhaps correctly) that it is too huge a problem to be ever completely eliminated, we should actively seek to make changes in our lifestyle to make the world a better place. If most of us tried to do just this, the world would be a far better place.
I suggest he makes a google search of "factory farming" for a clear example.
After all, Stalin, Pol Pot and Charles Manson were meat-eaters, but of course this says nothing about any other meat eater's character and respect towards other humans. Moreover, it is historically an acknowledged fact that some Catholic popes killed thousands of innocent people through the inquisition. But again, this says nothing about the present pope, nor Fr Joe Borg. I hope that intelligent people will get my point (and will not now say that I am attacking the church).
Mr Zammit now says that he did not say vegetarianism is wrong. However, let me remind him that he wrote that "Hitler was also convinced that the future world would be vegetarian, which is perhaps one good reason why Fr Borg says that he does not augur that we all become vegetarians". If that does not wrongly and illogically imply that vegetarianism is wrong, I don't know what does. But let me concede him this point. Maybe he changed his mind.
As for vegans' moral high-ground, yes, a person who lives a life that guarantees minimal harm to any sentient individual, and who respects all life and seeks to defend the lives and liberty of all sentient animals (including all humans), has a right to claim a moral high-ground. Of course, people who profit (financially or otherwise) from the exploitation of others will obviously say otherwise. But the point of veganism is not to be morally pure. The point is to avoid inflicting unnecessary suffering and death to others. The point is not us...it's others. If this is something to be condemned, I stand guilty as charged and will not waste time pleading innocence.
As regards the philosophy of non-harm going contrary to the teachings of Jesus Christ, since it is Mr Zammit who makes the claim, it is up to him to prove it. As for me, I can't envision Jesus Christ condemning someone who seeks to live a life where one seeks to harm no-one.
Mr Zammit would perhaps also be interested in reading http://animalrightsmalta.blogspot.com/2008/05/what-if-myth-that-hitler-was-vegetarian.html
I hope he appreciates the sense of humour, particularly in the picture I chose. The picture itself is perhaps sufficient to make Mr Zammit see that his involving Hitler in the debate was a silly thing to do.
What do you think?
1. “Nazis are humans; X is a human; therefore X is a Nazi.!” Doesn't follow does it. Let me put forward a "nicer" one. "Jesus is a human. I am a human. Therefore I am Jesus.!!!" so please cut the crap about vegetarians being Nazis.
2. Why don't I augur that everyone becomes a vegetarian? Simple my dear Watson. I love meat, fish and cheese. If everyone becomes a vegetarian then even I would become a vegetarian as I am part of "everyone". So, since I don't want to become a vegetarian I don't augur that everyone becomes one.
At Mr. Cassar’s suggestion I have looked at the michaelbluejay website that is supposed to prove Hitler wasn’t a vegetarian. The introduction starts with “Welcome to the crazy world of Michael Bluejay”! Unfortunately for Mr. Cassar’s credibility, it just quotes a discredited study of Hitler by Robert Payne. The three most highly acclaimed Hitler biographers are indisputably the historians Alan Bullock, Ian Kershaw, and John Toland whose extensive Hitler biographies were written AFTER Payne’s publication, and none of them gave any credence to Payne's unfounded theory. On the contrary, all three concluded that Hitler became a vegetarian. Apart from that, Hitler himself said: “The only thing of which I shall be incapable is to share the sheiks' mutton with them. I'm a vegetarian, and they must spare me from their meat." (January 12, 1942. Section 105: Hitler’s Table Talk). So Mr. Cassar should be man enough to retract.
A 1933 press release issued by the National Socialist German Workers' Party [ NSDAP ] stated inter alia: “The New Germany not only frees man from the curse of materialism, sadism, and cultural Bolshevism, but gives the cruelly persecuted, tortured, and until now, wholly defenceless animals their RIGHTS (Rechte)”. It is not my intention to fully equate contemporary animal "rights" activists with Nazis. Although there are clear parallels (e.g. vivisection), there are distinctions as well (e.g. right to freedom). However, when some animal “rights” activist tries to argue that giving rights to animals will produce a kinder, gentler, more peaceful society, I would point out that the only civilization to officially declare an animal “rights” policy turned out to be more violent against human beings than any before it.
No, Mr. Cassar, I did not say vegetarianism is wrong. What’s wrong is the moral-high-ground claim of some vegetarians who characterize all meat-eaters, and hunters in particular, as "bird-killers," "murderers," and so on, and clearly regard themselves as ethically superior to us meat consumers. Your animal "rights" movement evidently claims ethical superiority, as evidenced by its constant use of the term "cruelty" with regard to hunting. As I said, this morality goes against the teachings of Jesus Christ, and I’m still waiting for you to prove otherwise.
Fr. Joe, would you please tell Victoria Grech whether you detect any “twisted logic” in my comments? If she agrees that according to the Church’s teaching “eating meat is not a sin”, what is she protesting about? Could she describe the “inhumane methods” by which man “is overstepping the boundaries imposed by God”? I expect valid argumentation, not disjointed garbage. Thank you.
Never mind, there's still the little matter of the Champion's League final. Go Chelski!
As for Stalin, it may well have been him who said that whilst one death is a tragedy the death of a million is but a statistic. Says a lot about his disregard for life and the rights of individuals.
Of course, I won't be so naive to say that because Stalin was a meat-eater, all meat eaters disregard the rights of humans. It has to take an Alfred E. Zammit to say something similar, like that vegetarianism is wrong because Hitler was supposedly (he was not) a vegetarian.
See previous blog for details ;-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
"That Hitler felt some affection to a dog while he felt nothing for millions of Jews only goes to show how mentally unstable and hypocritical he was."
Was it not Stalin who said that whilst one death is a tragedy the death of a million is but a statistic? One might also observe that it is an axion of the internet that introducing Hitler in the discussion kills it stone dead.
With regards to the Church's position Care for Creation is one of the tenets in its Social Teaching. Man shows his respect for the Creator by his stewardship of creation. Care for the earth is not just an Earth Day slogan, it is a requirement of faith. Man is called to protect people and the planet, living faith in relationship with all of God’s creation. This environmental challenge has fundamental moral and ethical dimensions that cannot be ignored.This teaching is rooted in the creation narrative in Genesis. When God put Adam in the garden of Eden, he put him there to tend the garden and its animals, as a steward and not as master, to care for them and not to overpower them. God's command regarding man's moral behaviour, the limits of man's autonomy and freedom are laid down. Man always had a free choice. He can determine his own behaviour and own ends by choosing between good and evil. Here though, I am not slotting the vegetarians and the meat-eaters in 'good' and 'evil' categories. Per carita'! All I am saying is that according to the Church's teaching (and I am mentioning the Church since someone brought it up) eating meat is not a sin - it's the manner of man's method of procuring this food - through inhumane methods - that is wrong for he is over-stepping the boundaries imposed by God.
First of all, Hitler was not a vegetarian. See http://michaelbluejay.com/veg/hitler.html
But even if he was, what would it matter. Hitler was an actively anti-smoking. Is smoking to be encouraged just because Hitler opposed it?
Regarding supposedly Nazi animal rights law, any laws in Nazi Germany were NOT animal rights laws. They were animal "welfare" laws that only gave limited protection to a small minority of animals. Non-human animals were still eaten in Nazi Germany. Non-human animals were still forced to work for humans in Nazi Germany. Non-humans were bombed along with humans by Nazi planes. And since humans are animals too (despite protestations from those who still insist - against all scientific evidence - that humans are not animals), Nazis tortured and murdered millions of human animals. How about that for an animal rights policy!
Mr Zammit says that "some animal lovers are so extremely sensitive to the cruelty that humans continuously inflict on animals that they develop an extreme hatred towards humans". Mr Zammit should perhaps note that this type of "animal lovers" are usually animal exploiters themselves, and have no idea on what animal rights really means. Mr Zammit's confusion in this regard is evident when he strangely believes that Hitler could, in someone's wildest imagination, be considered as an "animal rights" person.
Mr Zammit says that Nazi atrocities and hypocritical propaganda is the reason why Fr Borg would say that he does not augur that we all become vegetarians. I am sure that Fr Borg is above such silly reasoning. And may I remind Mr Zammit (or perhaps surprise him with the fact) that St Martin De Porres was a vegetarian? Would Mr Zammit say that St Martin De Porres was a Nazi?
That Hitler felt some affection to a dog while he felt nothing for millions of Jews only goes to show how mentally unstable and hypocritical he was. It says nothing about vegerarianism, even if he really was a vegetarian (something he wasn't). Stalin was a meat eater. So was Charles Manson and Pol Pot. Does this say anything about other meat-eaters? Of course not. Only fools make (il)logical connections where there are none.
Albeit he expresses himself against vegetarianism because it gives him pleasure to eat animals.
I will refrain to comment on his other selective and prejudicial comments so as not to digress into other areas.
Kenneth Cassar insists that eating meat is not necessary for our health, and that hunting birds to eat their meat would be unnecessary. He then goes on to quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church that "it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly". Apart from the fact that a person’s life is not made up only of acts that are necessary, eating meat is pleasurable and acknowledged as one of the good things in life. What the Church means is that one should not be cruel to animals and kill them without a reason. Mr. Cassar, as a vegetarian, is implying that hunting goes against Church doctrine because, according to him, hunting means killing animals unnecessarily. That is his opinion.
There are millions who disagree with him because they are not vegetarians, and I am one of them. If Mr. Cassar were not such a prejudiced anti-hunter, he would agree with Bernard E. Rollin, a staunch defender of animal “rights” and an unlikely supporter of my cause. In “Animal Rights and Human Morality” (p. 51) Rollin writes: “Few cultures have understood animals better or have had more respect for them as ends in themselves than hunting cultures”. In his thesis on hunting ethics, Justin Alexander, a non-hunter, says: “Of all human practices that involve the death of animals, hunting is the most harmonious with nature”. As a dedicated Christian I find hunting morally acceptable and I choose to practise it. If Mr. Cassar cannot see anything positive in hunting and eating meat, that is his prerogative.
I should like to add something that is not so well known. The first country to enact “animal rights” legislation was Nazi Germany. Hitler himself was a vegetarian and a fanatical animal lover who disliked hunting and “poachers” (meaning hunters). “Personally, I cannot see what possible pleasure can be derived from shooting. … I have never fired at a hare in my life. I am neither poacher nor sportsman. … [But] if I excluded poachers from the Party, we should lose the support of entire districts." Source: Hitler’s Table Talk: section 308. 2nd September, 1942.
He felt depressed whenever his dog (an Alsatian named Blondi) was ill, but he did not bat an eyelid when signing the death warrant of some German officer on the front. We should ask why an animal lover could bring himself to plan and sanction the killing of so many millions of fellow humans. The answer is that some animal lovers are so extremely sensitive to the cruelty that humans continuously inflict on animals that they develop an extreme hatred towards humans. The Jewish practice of “kosher” slaughter was declared illegal in Nazi Germany in 1934, and in order to justify his persecution of the Jews, Hitler used graphic films of how Jews slaughtered lambs. Hitler was also convinced that the future world would be vegetarian, which is perhaps one good reason why Fr Borg says that he does not augur that we all become vegetarians.
But ultimately what all this anti-hunting, anti-meat-eating boils down to is a total rejection of the teachings of Christ for whom the human being was the be-all and end-all of His incarnation, who loved all mankind including the Jews, and who enjoyed eating lamb with his disciples, apart from giving them a helping hand at catching fish from the Lake of Galilee. I think the Church, Fr Joe, should pay a little bit more attention to the insidiousness of all the new-fangled ideas creeping into this fair isle of ours.
To say these same conglomerates exert pressure on governments would be a gross understatement – just imagine how electoral campaigns are financed.
So it is a vicious circle, unless consumers consciously evaluate their consumption levels and patterns, and change them to support independent (preferably local) produce, even by paying extra to support such produce and suppliers.
If God had intended us to be vegetarian
She would have made cabbage taste like fillet of steak.
Is pointing out that persistantly posting off-topic comments in other people's blogs is trolling, arrogance? I leave it to other readers to judge for themselves. As for the other unsubstantiated remarks about me, I will not comment, since this would be off-topic. If you have a personal grudge against me, you are free to comment on my blog. I won't censor you.
Now back on topic...
Hunting, like Fr Borg says, can be about eating meat, provided that the hunters eat the birds they kill. I would still insist that eating meat is not necessary for our health, so hunting birds, in this case, would still be unnecessary. Perhaps, here, it is opportune to point out that according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (paragraph 2418), it is stated that "it is contrary to human dignity to cause animals to suffer or die needlessly".
Fr Borg says that he does not augur that we all become vegetarians. Why so? What harm could possibly come to the world if we all became vegetarians? And please don't say that we would be overpopulated with all the animals we would not kill, since the animals most humans eat are not wild animals, but animals whom we specifically overbreed ourselves (which is part of the environmental and waste of resources problem).
It is up to the Editor to invite people he would like to contribute. My position is that the more the merrier. But even if there is no pro-hunting blog I think that hunters are more than amply served. If you look at the top ten of items commented on you will notice that three directly relate to hunting and at least one touches on the subject.
Mr Mifsud Bonnici's off topic comment (he derailed another discussion last week) is symptomatic of certain sections of society who are so blinkered obsessing about their issues, or dare I say, non-issues, that they are totally blind to the plight of others. This is indifference which is worse than having a wrong perception of things. And no, Mr Mifsud Bonnici, I will not reply to your answer if it has anything to do with hunting. Read Fr Joe's blog (for I doubt it very much that you have) and see whether you can contribute to this very valid discussion. If you have anything to say connected to this topic you are most welcome to put in your two euro cents' worth. Other than this, take your cavallo di battaglia elsewhere.
Like Fr Joe I listen to Classic FM as background music
But in bed or when I am particularly interested I listen to Radio 4.
This morning there was the usual farming programme and iot dealt with waste and choice.
Supermarkets have been blamed for only presenting perfect specimens of fruit and vegetables whilst a market in Leicester reported as how misshapen or blemished items were not sold. Organic specialists however could get away with spotted items just as you would accept home-grown far from perfect items.
It is eventually the customers who decide and perfect specimens mean pesticides in quantity. At all markets people wait for the end of the day
To pick up leftovers that are perfectly edible.
Large supermarkets in the UK donate surplus goods to charity.
Feast or famine on a world-wide scale is beyond my comprehension but in passing I might observe that Malta being on such a small scale might well concentrate on growing crops of the highest quality for local and tourist sale. Let the islands be noted for good local produce and this would be more effective than the somewhat indifferent publicity campaign for Malta that I see in the UK
@ Dion Borg: Good comment, and on-topic. It makes sense to reduce, if not completely eliminate, meat and dairy products for environmental and health reasons, and for efficient food production, if not for the animals themselves.
The meat industry has gobbled vast areas to grow fodder for animals artificially bred and destined to the slaughterhouses. Notwithstanding that a specific area of land renders more food supply if cultivated for crops intended for human consumption rather than diluted into the meat industry.
Peculiarly the Church seems to have failed to appreciate vegetarianism, however positive steps towards ecology have been noted.
" Some comments by those that oppose it, have shown the general public the form of irrational criticism hunters have to put up with"
And that was just from the birds.
Your last blog "how disgusting, I am a catholic" caused quite a stir due to your comparison to hunting.
I hope my contributions and those of other hunters have not caused you any inconvenience. Personally I was only trying to clear the numerous misconceptions people have about hunting. Some comments by those that oppose it, have shown the general public the form of irrational criticism hunters have to put up with.
As you might have realized the hunting issue is quite a hot topic at the moment. Considering the numerous comments and letters appearing in the Times and the reputation of its bias against hunting I believe the Editor should consider allocating a blog to hunters. Would you support such a request and could you be of any assistance in securing such a request.
Best Regards
Mark
An impassioned plea was issued by Senegal's president to the U.N. to dismantle its Food and Agriculture Organization, calling it an ineffective money-eater that failed to help avert the global food crisis. Ironically, the Rome-based organization known as FAO (a massive building on the outskirts of the city that is the personification of burocracy) is led by a fellow Senegalese national, Jacques Diouf, whom the Senegal President Abdoulaye Wade said he had helped in his selection.
In a statement, President Wade laid the current food crisis squarely at the FAO’s door saying that it "is largely its failure," adding that the FAO is "a money pit largely spent functioning with very few effective operations on the ground."
Wade continued - the FAO's work was "duplicated by others apparently more efficient" and less bogged down by red tape. "I have long called for it (the FAO) to be transferred to Africa, near the 'sick ones' it pretends to care for, because nothing justifies its presence in the developed world," Wade said. "This time, I'm going further: it must be eliminated and its useful assets transferred to FIDA, (the U.N. World Food Program, and the U.N. International Fund for Agricultural Development — known as IFAD, or FIDA in French)
which should become the U.N.'s World Fund for Agricultural Assistance with an obligatory headquarters in Africa, at the heart of the problem."
But an expert at the UN agency who pleaded anonymity told AFP: "At a time of troubles in several countries because of the food crisis, it is easy for governments to scapegoat the FAO." The organisation is "far from perfect, but as the report on governance said, it is indispensable, and if it didn't exist it would have to be invented," he said.
Well, this paraphrasing of the famous Voltaire bon mot is the modern equivalent of Marie Antoinette’s ‘Let them eat cake.’ If my education serves me right (from movies!), Marie Antoinette was shortly led up the guillotine.
While the bigwigs play insult tennis, the world poor are sinking into more abject poverty. World Bank President Robert Zoellick said two billion people across the world are grappling with high food prices, and 100 million people in poor countries may be pushed deeper into poverty by the crisis.
The problem with decision makers, be they in government, in NGO’s, or church-run agencies, is that sometimes precious time is wasted on finding the right way not to step on important toes. In the mean time the time is ticking for people who need help.
If nothing will make the bile rise in your throat, this news item will:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=564934&in_page_id=1879